Agency in Earth System Governance 1108484050, 9781108484053

Table of contents :
Contents
List of Contributors
Acknowledgments
Part I Introduction and Overview
1 Introduction: Agency in Earth System Governance
2 Conceptualizing Agency and Agents in Earth System Governance
3 Theories and Methods of Agency Research in Earth System Governance
4 How Geographies and Issues Matter in ESG–Agency Research
Part II Agency and the Dynamics of Earth System Governance
5 Power(ful) and Power(less): A Review of Power in the ESG–Agency Scholarship
6 The Performance of Agency in Earth System Governance
7 Agency and Knowledge in Environmental Governance: A Thematic Review
8 Agency and Architecture: Producing Stability and Change
9 Agency in a Multiscalar World
10 Agency and Norms: Who Defines What Ought to Be?
11 Agency in the Allocation of and Access to Natural Resources
12 Agency and Adaptiveness: Navigating Change and Transformation
13 Accountability in the Governance of Global Change
14 How to Evaluate Agents and Agency
Part III Policy Implications and the Future of Agency in Earth System Governance Research
15 Conclusion: Policy Implications of ESG–Agency Research and Reflections on the Road Ahead
Appendix: ESG–Agency Harvesting Database
References
Index

Citation preview

A G E N C Y I N E A RT H SY S T E M G O V E R N A N C E

The modern era is facing unprecedented governance challenges in striving to achieve long-term sustainability goals and to limit human impacts on the earth system. This volume synthesizes a decade of multidisciplinary research into how diverse actors exercise authority in environmental decision-making, and their capacity to deliver effective, legitimate, and equitable earth system governance. Actors from the global to the local level are considered, including governments, international organizations, and corporations. Chapters cover how state and nonstate actors engage with decision-making processes, the relationship between agency and structure, and the variations in governance and agency across different spheres and tiers of society. Providing an overview of the major questions, issues, and debates, as well as the theories and methods used in studies of agency in earth system governance, this book provides a valuable resource for graduate students and researchers, as well as practitioners and policymakers working in environmental governance. michele m. betsill is a professor of political science at Colorado State University. She has more than twenty years’ experience in researching nonstate and subnational actors in global environmental governance. Her books include Transnational Climate Change Governance (coauthored with members of the Leverhulme Network on Transnational Climate Change Governance, Cambridge University Press, 2014), NGO Diplomacy: The Influence of Nongovernmental Organizations in International Environmental Negotiations (coedited with Elisabeth Corell, 2008), and Cities and Climate Change: Urban Sustainability and Global Environmental Governance (with Harriet Bulkeley, 2003). She was one of the founding leaders of the Earth System Governance Research Network and served on the scientific steering committee from 2008 to 2018. tabitha m. benney is an assistant professor in the University of Utah’s Department of Political Science and affiliated faculty in the Environmental and Sustainability Studies Program and the Center on Global Change and Sustainability. Her research focuses on mapping interactions within complex coupled systems. She is also a research fellow for the Earth System Governance Network and an affiliated researcher with the Evolving Securities Initiative (ESI) at the University of Cape Town, South Africa. Her books include Making Environmental Markets Work: The Varieties of Capitalism in Emerging

Economies (2014/2017) and Toward a New Energy Future with Jan Froestad, Cameron Holley and Clifford Shearling (forthcoming). andrea k. gerlak is an associate professor at the School of Geography and Development and research professor with the Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy at the University of Arizona. Her research examines the causes of – and innovative solutions to – some of our world’s most pressing water problems. Her work focuses on how we can better design institutions to promote adaptive, flexible policies to improve human and ecosystem well-being and produce fair and equitable decisions. She is the author of Mapping the New World Order (coauthored with Thomas J. Volgy, Zlatko Šabič, and Petra Roter, 2009). She is a research fellow with the Earth System Governance Project and a lead author of the Earth System Governance Science and Implementation Plan (2018).

The Earth System Governance Project was established in 2009 as a core project of the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change. Since then, the Project has evolved into the largest social science research network in the area of sustainability and governance. The Earth System Governance Project explores political solutions and novel, more effective governance mechanisms to cope with the current transitions in the socio-ecological systems of our planet. The normative context of this research is sustainable development; earth system governance is not only a question of institutional effectiveness, but also of political legitimacy and social justice. The Earth System Governance series with Cambridge University Press publishes the main research findings and synthesis volumes from the Project’s first ten years of operation. Series Editor Frank Biermann, Utrecht University, the Netherlands Titles in print in this series Biermann and Lövbrand (eds.), Anthropocene Encounters: New Directions in Green Political Thinking van der Heijden, Bulkeley and Certomà (eds.), Urban Climate Politics: Agency and Empowerment Linnér and Wibeck, Sustainability Transformations: Agents and Drivers across Societies Betsill, Benney and Gerlak (eds.), Agency in Earth System Governance

AGENCY IN EARTH SYSTEM GOVERNANCE Edited by

MICHELE M. BETSILL Colorado State University

TABITHA M. BENNEY University of Utah

ANDREA K. GERLAK University of Arizona

University Printing House, Cambridge CB2 8BS, United Kingdom One Liberty Plaza, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10006, USA 477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia 314–321, 3rd Floor, Plot 3, Splendor Forum, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi – 110025, India 79 Anson Road, #06–04/06, Singapore 079906 Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge. It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence. www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781108484053 DOI: 10.1017/9781108688277 ©Cambridge University Press 2020 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2020 Printed in the United Kingdom by TJ International Ltd, Padstow Cornwall A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Betsill, Michele Merrill, 1967– editor. | Benney, Tabitha M., 1973– editor. | Gerlak, Andrea Kristen, editor. Title: Agency in Earth system governance / edited by Michele M. Betsill, Colorado State University; Tabitha M. Benney, University of Utah; Andrea K. Gerlak, University of Arizona Description: Cambridge, United Kingdom ; New York, NY, USA : Cambridge University Press, 2019 | Series: Earth System Governance series | Includes index. Identifiers: LCCN 2019027819 | ISBN 9781108484053 (hardback) | ISBN 9781108688277 (epub) Subjects: LCSH: Environmental law, International. | International organization. | BISAC: LAW / Environmental Classification: LCC K3585 .A329 2019 | DDC 344.04/6–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019027819 ISBN 978-1-108-48405-3 Hardback ISBN 978-1-108-70587-5 Paperback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

Contents

List of Contributors Acknowledgments Part I

page ix xi

Introduction and Overview

1 Introduction: Agency in Earth System Governance

1 3

michele m. betsill, tabitha m. benney, andrea k. gerlak, calum brown, sander chan, okechukwu enechi, ronald b. mitchell, ina mo¨ ller, james j. patterson, michelle scobie, sandra van der hel, and oscar e. widerberg

2 Conceptualizing Agency and Agents in Earth System Governance

25

michelle scobie, tabitha m. benney, calum brown, and oscar e. widerberg

3 Theories and Methods of Agency Research in Earth System Governance

38

tabitha m. benney, amandine orsini, devon cantwell, and laura iozelli

4 How Geographies and Issues Matter in ESG–Agency Research

52

andrea k. gerlak, megan mills-novoa, alison elder, okechukwu enechi, pritee sharma, and kanak singh

Part II

Agency and the Dynamics of Earth System Governance

5 Power(ful) and Power(less): A Review of Power in the ESG–Agency Scholarship

63

65

andrea k. gerlak, thomas r. eimer, marie-claire brisbois, megan mills-novoa, luuk schmitz, jorrit luimers, and paivi abernethy

vii

viii

Contents

6 The Performance of Agency in Earth System Governance

73

michele m. betsill and manjana milkoreit

7 Agency and Knowledge in Environmental Governance: A Thematic Review

86

manjana milkoreit, jennifer s. bansard, and sandra van der hel

8 Agency and Architecture: Producing Stability and Change

97

james j. patterson

9 Agency in a Multiscalar World

108

michelle scobie, michele m. betsill, and hyeyoon park

10 Agency and Norms: Who Defines What Ought to Be?

120

michael angstadt and ina mo¨ ller

11 Agency in the Allocation of and Access to Natural Resources

131

pritee sharma, okechukwu enechi, and salla nithyanth kumar

12 Agency and Adaptiveness: Navigating Change and Transformation

143

james j. patterson

13 Accountability in the Governance of Global Change

155

calum brown and michelle scobie

14 How to Evaluate Agents and Agency

168

sander chan and ronald b. mitchell

Part III

Policy Implications and the Future of Agency in Earth System Governance Research

15 Conclusion: Policy Implications of ESG–Agency Research and Reflections on the Road Ahead

181

183

andrea k. gerlak, michele m. betsill, james j. patterson, sander chan, tabitha m. benney, marie-claire brisbois, thomas r. eimer, and michelle scobie

Appendix: ESG–Agency Harvesting Database References Index

198 227 259

Contributors

Paivi Abernethy School of Environment, Resources, and Sustainability, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada and The Center for Global Studies, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada Michael Angstadt Environmental Studies Program, Colorado College, Colorado Spring, CO, USA Jennifer S. Bansard Department of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany Tabitha M. Benney Department of Political Science, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA Michele M. Betsill Department of Political Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA Marie-Claire Brisbois Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK Calum Brown Institute of Meteorology and Climate Research – Atmospheric Environmental Research, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, GarmischPartenkirchen, Germany Devon Cantwell Department of Political Science, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA Sander Chan German Development Institute, Bonn, Germany Thomas R. Eimer Department of Political Science, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands Alison Elder School of Geography and Development, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA ix

x

List of Contributors

Okechukwu Enechi Department of Environmental Policy Analysis, Institute for Environmental Studies, Amsterdam, the Netherlands Andrea K. Gerlak School of Geography and Development, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA Laura Iozelli The Institute for European Studies, Brussels, Belgium Jorrit Luimers Department of Political Science, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands Manjana Milkoreit Department of Political Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA Megan Mills-Novoa School of Geography and Development, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA Ronald B. Mitchell Department of Political Science, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA Ina Möller Department of Political Science, Lund University, Lund, Sweden Salla Nithyanth Kumar School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India Amandine Orsini Research Center in Political Science, Université Sant Louis Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium Hyeyoon Park Department of Political Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA James J. Patterson Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands Luuk Schmitz Department of Political Science, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands Michelle Scobie Institute of International Relations, University of the West Indies, St Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago Pritee Sharma School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India Kanak Singh School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India Sandra van der Hel Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands Oscar E. Widerberg Department of Environmental Policy Analysis, Institute for Environmental Studies, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Acknowledgments

This book would not have been possible without the support of a variety of colleagues and friends. From the start, we benefitted from a real collaborative spirit and enthusiasm from a team of colleagues who participated in the coding of the articles that form the basis of this project. Many thanks to our exceptional coders, including Mike Angstadt, Tabitha Benney, Michele Betsill, Sander Chan, Hamish Clarke, Desirée Fiske, Andrea K. Gerlak, Kat Hodgson, Cristina Inoue, Julie Liebenguth, Manjana Milkoreit, Ron Mitchell, Ina Möller, Hyeyoon Park, Sandra van der Hel, Michelle Scobie, James Patterson, Calum Brown, Melanie Boeckmann, Kathryn Brown, and Okechukwu Enechi. Special thanks to Oscar Widerberg for setting up the infrastructure for the collaborative coding exercise. Professors Diana Liverman and Oran Young offered valuable feedback on an earlier version of the manuscript, for which we are grateful. Many thanks also to Julie Liebenguth, Anne Peterson, and Sam Baty for their constant support and input on the book project. At the Earth System Governance (ESG) Project, Ruben Zondervan and Frank Biermann provided encouragement and linkages to parallel ESG landscape efforts. Finally, we would like to thank Sarah Lambert, Emma Kiddle, the anonymous reviewers, and other helpful staff at Cambridge University Press who made this process so easy for us.

xi

Part One Introduction and Overview

1 Introduction: Agency in Earth System Governance MICH ELE M . BETSIL L , TA BI THA M . B E N N E Y, AN DREA K . GE RL AK , C A L U M B R O W N , SANDE R C HAN , OKE CH UKWU E NECHI , RONA LD B . MIT CH ELL , IN A M Ö LLER , J AM ES J . PATTE RS ON , M I C H E L L E SC O B I E , SAND RA VAN DER HE L , AN D O SCAR E . W I D E R B E RG

Chapter Highlights • Agency is one of five core analytical problems in the Earth System Governance (ESG) Project’s research framework, which offers a unique approach to the study of environmental governance. • Agency in Earth System Governance draws lessons from ESG–Agency research through a systematic review of 322 peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2008 and 2016 and contained in the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database. • ESG–Agency research draws on diverse disciplinary perspectives with distinct clusters of scholars rooted in the fields of global environmental politics, policy studies, and socio-ecological systems. • Collectively, the chapters in Agency in Earth System Governance provide an accessible synthesis of some of the field’s major questions and debates and a state-of-the-art understanding of how diverse actors engage with and exercise authority in environmental decision-making.

1.1 Introduction The advent of the Anthropocene, with humans now driving earth system transformation, has created unprecedented governance challenges (Biermann, 2007; Galaz et al., 2012a). Decision makers from the global to the local level must find ways to limit human impacts on biochemical and geophysical cycles that sustain life on Earth and advance long-term sustainability goals by changing political, economic, social, and legal systems at multiple scales. Governance in the face of the challenges posed by earth system transformation today includes a broad range of actors including national and subnational governments, international 3

4

M. M. Betsill, T. M. Benney, A. K. Gerlak, et al.

organizations, environmental and development non-governmental organizations (NGOs), expert networks, corporations, and communities. Agency in Earth System Governance presents current understandings of how these diverse actors exercise authority in steering society towards a more sustainable future as well as their capacity to deliver effective, legitimate, and equitable environmental governance. This volume synthesizes research findings from the past decade of multidisciplinary scholarship on these questions of agency within the context of the Earth System Governance (ESG) Project, the world’s largest network of social scientists conducting research at the intersection of governance and global environmental change (earthsystemgovernance.org). In looking at how researchers in the ESG Project community have taken up this agenda, we seek to make sense of what this body of work has to say about the role of agency in environmental governance more broadly. Drawing on more than 300 peer-reviewed scientific publications on agency, each chapter in this volume identifies notable patterns and trends over the past decade and highlights key findings and debates. This volume brings together social science research from diverse disciplinary perspectives and draws on a broad range of theoretical and methodological approaches to provide a rich understanding of agency as it operates in earth system governance across multiple scales, issues areas, and geographies. In addition to taking stock of what we have learned, Agency in Earth System Governance can inform the future trajectory of research as the ESG network continues to develop, and as more scholars engage with questions of agency in environmental governance. In examining how understanding of agency has evolved and changed, we have uncovered critical trends and themes as well as gaps in knowledge, theoretical approaches, and methodologies. These insights clarify critical questions that remain about the role of agency in environmental governance – among others, how shifting agency dynamics impact institutions and governance architectures; the implications of these shifts in authority and power in governance processes and outcomes; and how global networks operate and influence governance (Earth System Governance Project, 2018a). This chapter begins by situating the ESG Project in the broader context of environmental governance scholarship. It then elaborates on the specific issue of agency in earth system governance and details the process by which we compiled the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database, a set of 322 articles published between 2008 and 2016 that form the basis for the volume’s systematic review of ESG– Agency research. We conclude by reviewing the volume’s structure and the contributions of individual chapters.

Introduction: Agency in Earth System Governance

5

1.2 Earth System Governance The ESG Project adopts a unique perspective on environmental governance. Lemos and Agrawal (2006, p. 298) define environmental governance as ‘a set of regulatory processes, mechanisms, and organizations through which political actors influence environment actions and outcomes’. It involves the purposeful steering of society toward common targets and goals related to the environment, raising questions about the processes by which those targets are established and the instruments actors use to move social systems in desired directions (Evans, 2012; Young, 2016b). Environmental governance scholars often begin by observing that the problems confronting humanity, such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and deforestation, coupled with the forces of globalization, pose challenges to the capacities and existing strategies of national governments to improve human– nature relations. In focusing on governance, scholars emphasize the role of multiple actors, including governments as well as businesses, communities, civil society, scientists, individuals, and networks (Armitage et al., 2012; Evans, 2012; Lemos and Agrawal, 2006; Plummer et al., 2013). Steering may be achieved through diverse instruments ranging from formal laws and policies to market mechanisms and self-regulation, all of which can be implemented at and across different levels of social and political organization. Given this, environmental governance constitutes a multidisciplinary effort by scholars of political science, international relations, legal studies, public administration, anthropology, sociology, geography, and ecology, among others (Evans, 2012). A number of recurring concepts and themes characterize the diverse disciplines involved in environmental governance scholarship (see Armitage et al., 2012; Durant et al., 2016; Evans, 2012; and Plummer et al., 2013 for excellent summaries). Fit and scale call attention to the spatial, temporal, and political boundaries (and their interconnections) in which environmental problems are experienced and addressed (Bulkeley, 2005; Cash et al., 2006; Lemos and Agrawal, 2006; Sternlieb et al., 2013; Young et al., 2008). Notions of adaptiveness and learning draw on complex systems thinking and highlight the unique challenges of governing in the face of high levels of uncertainty and non-linear dynamics (Folke et al., 2004; Gupta et al., 2010). Effective environmental governance requires multiple forms of knowledge including, but not limited to, science and the processes that generate knowledge (Cash et al., 2003; Lemos and Agrawal, 2006) and diverse actors drawing on multiple sources of authority while carrying out a range of governance roles and responsibilities (Betsill, 2014; Bulkeley et al., 2014; Lemos and Agrawal, 2006). The use of new modes of governance raises important questions about their accountability and legitimacy (Bäckstrand, 2006; Cashore, 2002) and their ability to deliver equitable and just environmental governance (Schlosberg, 2009).

6

M. M. Betsill, T. M. Benney, A. K. Gerlak, et al.

The ESG Project is firmly situated in this broader landscape, especially in its interdisciplinarity, but offers a unique approach to the study of environmental governance in at least two respects.1 First, in using the term ‘earth system governance’, the ESG Project signals its roots in, and continued relationship to, the global change research community and earth system science, emphasizing an explicitly planetary perspective (Biermann, 2007). This vantage point foregrounds challenges such as the global food crisis, ocean acidification, dying coral reefs, climate migration, water shortages, land degradation, and Arctic melting that were overlooked by previous generations of environmental governance scholars. The second way the ESG approach differs from much of the environmental governance literature (see the Lemos and Agrawal definition given earlier) is in its normative commitment to sustainable development. The ESG Project defines earth system governance as “the interrelated and increasingly integrated system of formal and informal rules, rule-making systems, and actor-networks at all levels of human society (from local to global) that are set up to steer societies towards preventing, mitigating, and adapting to global and local environmental change and, in particular, earth system transformation, within the normative context of sustainable development” (Biermann et al., 2010a, p. 279). This volume grows out of and links to the broader ESG Project, which introduced a research framework organized around five core analytical problems and four cross-cutting themes (Biermann et al., 2009). As discussed in greater detail in the text that follows, Agency research focuses on the diverse actors engaged in earth system governance. The analytical problem of Architecture focuses on the broad array of public, private, and hybrid institutions and rule systems for earth system governance as well as the extent to which they are integrated across socio-political levels and political and economic sectors. Research on the analytical problem of Adaptiveness seeks to understand the types of institutions and governance mechanisms that allow for flexibility and learning given the uncertainty inherent in earth system transformation. Accountability is about the democratic quality of earth system governance while Allocation & Access highlights issues of equity and justice by considering how the benefits and burdens of earth system governance are distributed in society. The four cross-cutting themes are integral to each of the analytical problems and essential to a more comprehensive understanding of earth system governance. While Knowledge and Scale are widely addressed throughout the environmental governance literature, the ESG Project is unique in its more focused attention to questions of Power as well as Norms, which brings ideational elements to the centre of earth system governance scholarship.

1

Thanks to Frank Biermann, founding chair of the ESG Project, for helping us articulate these points.

Introduction: Agency in Earth System Governance

7

1.3 Agency in ESG Research Agency in Earth System Governance reviews how scholars in the ESG research community have engaged the analytical problem of Agency, which evolved from the idea that governing changes in the Earth’s system effectively requires the consent and involvement of a broad range of actors. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, many scholars in political science, geography, and international relations challenged the predominant focus on the nation-state as the primary actor in environmental governance. They argued that because of the transboundary and complex nature of many contemporary environmental problems, these issues could not be solved by the state alone (Falkner, 2003; Okereke et al., 2009; Wapner, 1995). Non–nation-state actors, such as cities, regions, companies, and civil society organizations, already were engaged in earth system governance, either on their own or through participation in broader institutions. They were involved in setting standards for, monitoring, and shaping interactions between human beings and their natural environment, exhibiting a form of agency that had not yet received much scholarly attention. An oft-cited figure illustrating the increasing complexity of earth system governance is that states have negotiated more than 1,300 multilateral environmental agreements (Mitchell, 2018). Starting somewhere in the 1970s and accelerating in the 1990s, states negotiated on various environmental issues, ranging from specific treaties addressing oil pollution, nuclear emergencies, and specific fish stocks to mega-treaties on desertification, biodiversity, and climate change. After 2000, however, states began to sign fewer new multilateral environmental agreements. New types of actors claimed authority, illustrating Rosenau and Czempiel’s (1992) notion that there is often ‘governance without government’. The ‘privatization’ of environmental governance became a hot topic as researchers documented the growing influence of various nonstate actors (Clapp, 1998; Levy and Newell, 2005; Pattberg, 2005). Pattberg (2005, p. 591), for instance, analysed the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies (CERES), concluding that there was an ongoing ‘institutionalization of private governance’ and that ‘the locus of authoritative problem solving does not rest with governments and their international organizations alone’. These actors included companies and private businesses (Levy and Newell, 2005), NGOs and civil society (Betsill and Corell, 2008), bureaucracies (Biermann and Siebenhüner, 2009b), and science networks (Gupta et al., 2012), among others. As new actors took on more pronounced roles in earth system governance, new types of collaborations emerged between private actors and between public and private actors. Networked agency via multi-stakeholder partnerships and public–private partnerships embodied the increasingly blurred border

8

M. M. Betsill, T. M. Benney, A. K. Gerlak, et al.

between public and private (Okereke et al., 2009; Pattberg and Stripple, 2008). States soon embraced partnerships as central mechanisms of earth system governance. In particular, the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) gave nonstate and subnational actors central roles in implementing the sustainable development goals set by governments (Andonova and Levy, 2003). A key outcome of the WSSD was the establishment of more than 330 ‘Type II Partnerships’ (Hale and Mauzerall, 2004), collaborations between governments and private actors in which all parties were to contribute resources and benefit from cooperation. While the effectiveness of these partnerships has been questioned (see, e.g., Pattberg et al., 2012), it marked a shift in the discourse of who should be responsible for sustainable development. More recently, Sustainable Development Goal number 17 aims to ‘Revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development’, highlighting the role of private sector and civil society for implementing the 2030 agenda. At the start of the twenty-first century, making sense of how new and old actors exercise authority and the causes and consequences of these actions became a central research concern (Dellas et al., 2011). The slowdown in the number of multilateral environmental agreements being signed and the rise of private and hybrid governance initiatives meant a shift in research focus away from the international level to the transnational level, opening up a range of new questions regarding effectiveness, legitimacy, and accountability. The ESG Science Plan (Biermann et al., 2009) identified questions around agency such as ‘To what extent is the state (at all levels) an agent of earth system governance?’, suggesting that there had been a demise or at least shift in state authority. Also, questions regarding ‘Who are the key agents in a particular issue area and how are they related to one another?’ and ‘What broad types of agents are central in the area of earth system governance?’ hinted towards a knowledge gap regarding whether the rise in nonstate and subnational actors was a general trend or existed only in certain issue areas or regions (Newell et al., 2012). ESG–Agency research distinguishes between actors and agents. An agent is understood as an individual or an organization possessing the ability to prescribe behaviour and to obtain the consent of the governed (Biermann et al., 2009, p. 38). We define agents, not by their mere participation in decision-making, but as authoritative actors whose ability to exercise power legitimately emerges through a relationship with those whom they seek to influence or govern (Dellas et al., 2011). Agents include actors such as governments, NGOs, corporations, and individuals who work alone and often collectively to improve various aspects of earth system governance. Linked to broader questions of social science, agency draws attention to how nonstate actors relate to the state; the sources of authority on which different types of actors rely; the relationship between agency and structure;

Introduction: Agency in Earth System Governance

9

and variations in governance and agency across different spheres and tiers of society. The ESG Science Plan (Biermann et al., 2009) outlined four research questions meant to guide scholarship on the analytical problem of Agency and directed at addressing the most pressing knowledge gaps on the relationship between Agency and earth system governance. 1. What is agency in earth system governance? This question addresses Agency from a theoretical and conceptual perspective, inquiring into its foundational elements. Can agency be understood as the capacity to act in the face of earth system transformation or in the production of effects that shape natural processes? Is it static or dynamic? Does it operate in a zero-sum fashion or can agency be shared? Can non-human entities have agency in earth system governance? 2. Who are the agents of earth system governance? This question asks not only which agents are involved in governing the earth system, but also how is agency configured across policy domains and at different social and political levels. It considers both nonstate (e.g., companies, NGOs, communities) and state agents with attention to how these agents interact with one another. 3. How is agency exercised in earth system governance? This question focusses especially on the process by which actors become agents and the important sources of authority such as gender, material resources, knowledge, and social connections that underlie agency. 4. How can we evaluate the significance of agents and agency in earth system governance? Finally, the 2009 Science Plan acknowledges the importance of assessing the impacts and effectiveness of agency and calls attention to the methodological challenges of doing so. To what extent are institutional measures of effectiveness (e.g., outcome–output–impact) applicable to evaluation of agency? Is there a Pareto-optimum of agency that can simultaneously realize goals related to environmental change and human livelihoods? This question also acknowledges the need to evaluate agency that is used to block environmental governance. Finally, ESG–Agency scholarship engages with many literatures and debates in the field of environmental governance. For example, ESG–Agency scholars draw on theories and concepts in global environmental governance (GEG) to focus on responses to environmental degradation across international borders. According to Biermann and Pattberg (2008), the field of GEG differs from traditional international environmental politics through a focus on (1) new types of agency and actors; (2) new mechanisms and institutions; and (3) segmentation and fragmentation of governance efforts. GEG scholars are broadly split between

10

M. M. Betsill, T. M. Benney, A. K. Gerlak, et al.

‘multilateralists’, focussed on traditional mechanisms that rely heavily on interactions among nation-states (intergovernmental organizations and treaty regimes) and ‘transnationalists’, who look at governance mechanisms and processes led by nonstate actors (Betsill et al., 2015). Policy studies scholars incorporate ideas from new public management to analyse agency through stakeholder engagement and participatory decision-making processes (e.g., Mukhtarov et al., 2013). They also focus on the configuration and operation of agency in the context of hybrid and private forms of governance (e.g., Auld et al., 2015) and the changing role of the state in these new forms of governance (e.g., Jordan and Huitema, 2014b). Adaptive governance scholars draw on ecological concepts of resilience and coupled socio-ecological systems and emphasize agency in the context of continuous change and uncertainty (e.g., Armitage et al., 2012; Lebel et al., 2016). Much of this work highlights the role of communities in earth system governance. Agency in Earth System Governance presents a novel synthesis of these diverse approaches. 1.4 The ESG–Agency Harvesting Initiative Agency in Earth System Governance is part of the ESG Project’s ‘harvest’ of research findings from its first decade. Specifically, we draw lessons from ESG research on agency through a systematic review of 322 peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2008 and 2016. In compiling the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database, we followed Weed’s (2008) approach to interpretive synthesis to go beyond a mere literature review. We coded these articles (details in the text that follows) on multiple dimensions to reveal the broad contours of agencyrelated research conducted within the context of the ESG Project. The ESG– Agency Harvesting Database provides a unique basis for examining how scholars within this research community have approached the analytical problem of Agency, in the process identifying key findings and debates. It also allows for reflection on how the ESG Project engages with broader environmental governance and social science scholarship. 1.4.1 Compiling the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database The ESG–Agency harvesting process began with a planning meeting at the Nairobi Conference on Earth System Governance in December 2016. Rather than predefining a set of topics and commissioning author teams, the team adopted a bottom-up approach that began by identifying the ‘field’ or body of work from which to harvest research results and then chose to explore how that field had developed and evolved over its first decade. Figure 1.1 outlines our approach.

Introduction: Agency in Earth System Governance 2521 publications by ESG researchers

+

11

316 ESG–Agency related publications

Produced N = 2837 publications Keyword search on Agency Produced n = 394 publications

Coding process Final publications for analysis (n = 322)

Figure 1.1 Process for creating the ESG–Agency database.

First, we gathered work broadly reflective of ‘ESG Research’. Although questions of agency speak to the field of environmental governance and social science more generally, our narrower approach is intentional. We sought to review work that reflected the broad scholarship taking place within the ESG Project rather than to produce a comprehensive review of all scholarship related to agency. We selected peer-reviewed articles from the Web of Science2 using two key criteria. Our first step was to download publications by all researchers officially affiliated with the ESG research network (e.g., steering committee members, lead faculty, and ESG research fellows as identified on the ESG Project’s website). We supplemented this list with publications that directly address the ESG research framework by referencing core ESG publications such as the 2009 Science Plan or the specific issue of Agency (Betsill et al., 2011; Biermann, 2007; Biermann et al., 2010a,b; Dellas et al., 2011; Schroeder, 2010). This first step produced an initial pool of 2,837 ‘ESG-related’ publications. Next, we sought to select only those publications that specifically addressed the analytical problem of Agency. As many scholars engage questions of agency using other terms, we identified several keywords (see Table 1.1). We identified 394 articles published between 2008 and 2016 that used three or more of these keywords in their abstract, title, or keywords. 2

We recognize the limitation of relying on the Web of Science, which does not catalogue books, edited volumes, and publications in law journals, but reasoned that the content of these types of publications may also appear in journal articles.

12

M. M. Betsill, T. M. Benney, A. K. Gerlak, et al.

Table 1.1 Agency keyword protocol Actor* (or Act*?) Agenc* Agent* Authority

Capacity ‘Decision within [5] of mak*’ Govern* [not government] Influence

Partici* Power* Role

Table 1.2 Agency Harvest simplified coding scheme Coding topic

Description

Relevance to Agency

Does this article contain research on the influence, roles, and responsibilities of actors; the ways in which authority is granted to these agents; and how it is exercised? Link to the ESG Science Plan Does this article speak to one of the four ‘core questions’ identified in the original science plan? Issue(s) What is (are) the specific environmental issue area(s) covered? Type(s) of actors What type(s) of actors are analysed? Theoretical approaches If possible, identify the primary theoretical approach used or advocated in the study of ESG. Research design and methods What research design and/or methods for data collection and analysis are used in the article? Links to broader social science In the ESG Science Plan, the problem of Agency is linked debates to four broad areas of social science inquiry that address questions of who governs and how (p. 38): (1) nonstate actors in governance; (2) actors, authority, and agency; (3) the structure–agent debate; and (4) agency in a multilevel context. Links to other ESG analytical Does the article speak to linkages between ‘agency’ and problems the four other analytical problems in the ESG Science Plan (Architecture, Accountability; Adaptiveness, and Access & Allocation). Links to ESG cross-cutting Does the article speak to linkages between ‘agency’ and themes the four cross-cutting themes identified in the original science plan (Power, Knowledge, Norms, and Scale)? Other themes or issues Identify any other themes or issues of note in the article.

We coded this subset of articles in spring and summer 2017, using a crowdsourced approach involving volunteers from the ESG research network. We developed a coding instrument to sort articles and identify common trends, approaches, and key priorities (see Table 1.2 and the Appendix). For instance, one coding topic

Introduction: Agency in Earth System Governance

13

identified which agency-related questions raised in the 2009 ESG Science Plan the articles addressed (Biermann et al., 2009), others aimed to classify each article’s theoretical perspective and methodological approach, and still others identified geographical regions and issue areas addressed in the article. We also tracked links to other ESG analytical problems (Architecture, Access & Allocation, Accountability, and Adaptiveness), cross-cutting themes (Power, Knowledge, Norms, and Scale) and broader social science debates. In addition, we explored the types of actors that have been studied as part of ESG–Agency research. Using a Google-form coding sheet, 22 individuals coded more than 700 entries over three rounds of coding (see Acknowledgements). Four master coders adjudicated conflicts to finalize the coded data. Eventually, 333 articles were determined to be relevant to ESG–Agency research, of which the 322 (96.7%) that had been coded at least twice were ultimately included in the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database. These articles represent the ‘field’ from which the findings in this volume are derived. For greater detail on the coding process and a list of the 333 articles, see the Appendix. 1.4.2 Broad Contours of ESG–Agency Scholarship The chapters that follow explore, in detail, different aspects of the articles included in the ESG–Agency Database. Here we provide a general overview3 that reveals some broad patterns and trends to provide a context for later chapters. We find that the research represented in the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database represents a multidisciplinary and growing field of scholarship with distinct clusters of researchers working in the areas of global environmental politics, policy studies, and socio-ecological systems. Figure 1.2 illustrates the historical publication levels of ESG–Agency research, which has grown steadily since 2008. Higher levels in 2012 and 2015 may reflect high-profile international events such as the Rio +20 summit and the Paris climate negotiations. ESG–Agency articles appeared in 128 publication outlets, although more than a third were published in ten interdisciplinary environment journals (Table 1.3). The articles confirm that ESG–Agency research, like environmental governance scholarship generally, is multidisciplinary, with contributions from political science, international relations, legal studies, development studies, public administration, anthropology, sociology, geography, and ecology, among others. No single, dominant publication outlet existed for such research between 2008 and 2016.4 3 4

The images created here include the full sample of 333 ESG–Agency related articles from the coding exercise. In 2019, the ESG Project launched a new flagship journal, Earth System Governance.

14

M. M. Betsill, T. M. Benney, A. K. Gerlak, et al.

Table 1.3 Top ten publication outlets for ESG–Agency-related research International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics Global Environmental Change Environmental Science and Policy Ecology and Society Global Environmental Politics Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy Environmental Management Land Use Policy Regional Environmental Change Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change

26 17 16 14 14 7 7 7 7 7

Count

40

20

0 2008

2009

2010

2011 2012 2013 Date of Publication

2014

2015

2016

Figure 1.2 Number of ESG–Agency-related articles by year.

Using bibliometric data, we can identify key authors in the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database as well as the intellectual foundations for this scholarship. We found 676 distinct scholars represented in the database. Figure 1.3 shows a coauthorship network of 281 connected authors, with nodes representing individual authors and edges indicating co-authorship between two authors. The size of the nodes represents the total number of documents in the dataset by this author. The figure illustrates distinct clusters of authors who collaborate frequently with one

Figure 1.3 Co-authorship network.

16

M. M. Betsill, T. M. Benney, A. K. Gerlak, et al.

another as well as a few authors who connect different clusters in the network, such as Frank Biermann, who chaired the ESG Project until 2018. We can also examine similarities among authors in the literature on which they draw to identify any common intellectual foundations. Figure 1.4 is a bibliographic coupling analysis that shows relatedness among authors based on the number of shared references. To keep the figure legible, we include those 81 authors in the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database who have at least three publications. The edges connect authors that cited the same references and edge strength represents the number of shared references, which is highly correlated with co-authorship. Node size represents the number of documents by each author in the database. Again, the various groupings represent different clusters of authors whose work is based on a similar scholarly foundation. Figure 1.5 is a bibliographic coupling analysis that shows relatedness among journals based on the number of shared references. To keep the figure legible, we include only journals that appear at least three times in the ESG–Agency database. The edges connect journals that cited the same references and edge strength represents the number of shared references. Node size represents the frequency of the journal’s appearance in the database. Again, the various groupings represent different clusters of journals where work is based on a similar scholarly foundation. Figures 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5 all suggest distinct, yet interconnected, clusters of scholarship rooted broadly in the fields of global environmental politics, policy studies, and socio-ecological systems, reflecting the disciplinary diversity of this research field and the ways in which ESG–Agency scholars are situated in the broader field of environmental governance research. Finally, Figure 1.6 is a co-citation analysis that reveals the relatedness among the 50 most cited journals (each cited at least 39 times), reflecting the number of times they are cited together in publications in the ESG–Agency Database. The nodes represent the journals in which a source was published and node size represents the number of sources published in that journal. Edges indicate co-citations (only 200 are shown) and the different clusters represent the various journals that are frequently cited together. This figure illustrates the breadth of the ESG–Agency research community, while the distinct clusters again suggest disciplinary distinctions between publications situated in the social sciences and those whose work draws more heavily on ecology and natural sciences. 1.5 Overview of the Volume Agency in Earth System Governance provides state-of-the-art understanding of how diverse actors engage with environmental decision-making and exercise authority in steering society towards (or away from) a more sustainable future as

Figure 1.4 Bibliographic coupling of ESG authors.

Figure 1.5 Bibliographic coupling of ESG-related journals.

Figure 1.6 Co-citations.

20

M. M. Betsill, T. M. Benney, A. K. Gerlak, et al.

well as their capacity to deliver effective, legitimate, and equitable earth system governance. Drawing on a systematic analysis of 322 journal articles published in the period 2008–2016, the chapters offer an accessible synthesis of this multidisciplinary research literature and a valuable orientation to some of the field’s major questions and debates. Our 30 contributors represent the face of scholars in the ESG Project’s research network with its diversity in terms of gender, discipline, geography, and career stage. We begin with more detailed overviews and reflections on the publications in the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database in terms of how agents and agency are conceptualized (Chapter 2), the theories and methods deployed (Chapter 3), and the issues and geographies incorporated in the literature (Chapter 4). In Chapter 2, Michelle Scobie, Tabitha Benney, Calum Brown, and Oscar Widerberg note that ESG–Agency scholarship is largely empirical and focussed on agency in practice. This research highlights the fragmented, expanding, and complex forms of authority that proscribe, steer, and govern behaviour related to human–environment interactions, but often without reflecting on how agency is conceptualized. The authors note ESG–Agency research engages with four broad interdisciplinary debates about (1) the types of agents involved in earth system governance; (2) the ways in which agents exercise authority; (3) how agents influence governance processes and outcomes; and (4) the varieties of structures and architectures in which agents operate. Although scholars examine a variety of actors, they find that the state continues to be at the centre of ESG–Agency scholarship. Chapter 3, by Tabitha Benney, Amandine Orsini, Devon Cantwell, and Laura Iozelli, reviews the articles in the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database from the perspective of the theoretical and methodological approaches used. They observe that most of the scholarship falls into one of three broad theoretical categories. Social and system dynamics approaches, which explore the complex interactions between agents and structures in earth system governance, are the most prominent. Agent-based approaches, which place greater emphasis on the autonomy of agents as they engage with earth system governance, are also central to this area of research. Critical theoretical approaches that emphasize asymmetric relationships related to power, class, race, gender, and human–nature relations are surprisingly less common within this body of scholarship. The authors find that despite earlier calls for methodological pluralism, ESG–Agency scholarship is dominated by qualitative research approaches, although they note that scholars increasingly apply multimethod qualitative approaches to their analyses of agency in earth system governance. They see great promise in the use of cross-disciplinary and complex integrative methodological approaches in future research. In Chapter 4, Andrea Gerlak, Megan Mills-Novoa, Alison Elder, Okechukwu Enichi, Pritee Sharma, and Kanak Singh catalogue the geographical and issue focus

Introduction: Agency in Earth System Governance

21

of publications in the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database. ESG–Agency research can be found in all regions of the world, but it has analysed earth system governance primarily in the global arena as well as in Asia and Europe. There are a diverse set of issues addressed in ESG–Agency research, from climate change and fisheries to water, energy, and biodiversity. Climate change, at multiple scales and across geographical contexts, is the dominant issue studied. In looking across geography and issues, the scalar nature of the environmental issue is an important factor in determining the scale and regional focus of research. They argue that we still simply don’t know enough about earth system governance in many parts of the Global South. To address this imbalance in the geographical focus of the ESG network, they call for ESG scholars to develop research projects and collaborations in understudied regions while also recruiting and supporting local scholars to become members of the ESG Project’s research network. Chapters 5, 6, and 7 explore how the articles in the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database engage with questions about the operation of agency in earth system governance. In Chapter 5, Andrea Gerlak, Thomas Eimer, Marie-Claire Brisbois, Megan Mills-Novoa, Luuk Schmitz, Jorrit Luimers, and Paivi Abernethy reflect on how power is used as an explanatory variable in research on agency in earth system governance. They note that while power is a frequent consideration, it often remains undefined and/or under-theorized. The authors differentiate between agency-centred notions of power (power to) and structural perspectives (power over), noting how these conceptions of power are connected to broader literatures and debates in the social sciences. They call for more comprehensive conceptualizations of power to strengthen the persuasiveness of normative arguments in ESG–Agency scholarship. In Chapter 6, Michele Betsill and Manjana Milkoreit identify 20 distinct governance functions performed by agents in earth system governance, and note that the articles in the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database have focused most heavily on rule-making and regulation; convening and facilitating participation; and knowledge generation, provision, and sharing. They observe that while the state has remained a central agent in ESG–Agency scholarship, the functions performed by state agents have diversified, particularly as they engage in partnerships and networks with other types of agents. Betsill and Milkoreit argue that the performance of governance functions is enabled or constrained by structural factors, especially the forms of governance in operation (hierarchies, markets, or networks) as well as the multilevel or multiscalar dynamics of a particular governance context. Following on this idea of governance functions, in Chapter 7 Manjana Milkoreit, Jennifer Bansard, and Sandra van der Hel look more closely at the relationship between knowledge and agency in earth system governance. They elaborate on the ways in which knowledge acts as a source of authority for a diversity of agents,

22

M. M. Betsill, T. M. Benney, A. K. Gerlak, et al.

underlying their ability to influence environmental decision-making processes. They identify three prominent themes in the articles in the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database with a central focus on knowledge: (1) the knowledgebased agency of scientists and local or indigenous communities, (2) learning, and (3) the link between knowledge and power. They connect ESG–Agency research on knowledge to broader social science debates and governance practices to emphasize the participatory processes of knowledge co-production and agency of non-scientific knowledge holders. Chapters 8, 9, and 10 discuss the ways in which ESG–Agency scholarship engages with agent–structure debates in the social sciences. In Chapter 8, James Patterson contends that ESG–Agency scholars are at the forefront of exploring novel forms of earth system governance that have transformed the global governance architecture, especially through their work on transnational and private governance. His chapter highlights the interactive linkages between agency and governance architectures to better understand how this affects institutional change and environmental politics. Patterson calls for greater focus on the causal mechanisms linking agency and architecture in earth system governance and the need for more reflexive and transformational institutional change to address the challenges of the Anthropocene. Chapter 9, by Michelle Scobie, Michele Betsill, and Hyeyoon Park, examines the articles in the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database through the lens of scale, which they define as ‘the spatial, temporal, quantitative, or analytical dimensions used to measure or rank any phenomenon’ (Gibson et al., 2000, p. 218). Noting the existence of multiple scales in earth system governance, they find that ESG– Agency scholars have focused most heavily on the institutional and geographical scales, often in conjunction with one another. Their review reveals that agents deploy many different strategies, such as bridging organizations, networks, and orchestration, to navigate the multilevel and multiscalar dynamics of earth system governance. Whether these dynamics enable or constrain the exercise of agency depends on the power relations between different actors as well as whether agents have sufficient resources and capacities to engage with earth system governance. The authors encourage ESG–Agency scholars to look to literatures in geography and political ecology to strengthen understandings of how agents shape the social construction of levels and scales in earth system governance. Mike Angstadt and Ina Möller examine the ideational dimension of structure in Chapter 10 through their review of norms in ESG–Agency scholarship. They find that this has not been an especially prominent area of research. They identify four distinct conceptualizations of norms: (1) as regulatory instruments, (2) as elements of the structural context, (3) as the outcome of a legitimation procedure, and (4) as expectations of the researcher. On this last point, they highlight the agency of

Introduction: Agency in Earth System Governance

23

scholars who shape, interpret, and use norms in their research, thereby affecting how others interpret norms. Angstadt and Möller call for greater attention to the theoretical link between agency and norms, drawing on existing empirical work in diverse geographical contexts. Chapters 11, 12, and 13 return to some of the core themes in the ESG Project’s analytical framework and the environmental governance literature more broadly. The link between agency and issues of equity and justice is the focus of Chapter 11, by Pritee Sharma, Okechukwu Enichi, and Salla Nithyanth Kumar. This chapter reviews relevant articles within the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database through the lens of different natural resource systems: land and forests, water, and biodiversity. They note that research on the particular questions of allocation of and access to resources has focussed on developing countries in Africa, Asia, and South America. Throughout their review, they highlight the trade-offs and synergies between environmental conservation and socioeconomic development. The authors emphasize the importance of recognizing those stakeholders who are dependent on resources and providing opportunities for meaningful participation in decision-making. In Chapter 12, James Patterson uses the concept of adaptiveness to guide his review of the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database. He concludes that diverse forms of agency are crucial to cultivating adaptive governance systems capable of dealing with the challenges of earth system transformation. He sees considerable potential for ESG–Agency scholars to contribute to broader social science and policy debates about the adaptiveness of political and governance systems across a range of social spheres. In the realm of earth system governance specifically, he calls for greater attention to the distinct material, normative, and temporal dimensions of adaptiveness. The link between agency and accountability is Calum Brown and Michelle Scobie’s focus in Chapter 13, where they highlight the connections between accountability research, agency theories, architecture, and power as raised in other chapters within Agency in Earth System Governance. They find that ESG– Agency scholars often treat accountability as an isolated and static normative property of earth system governance, with little regard for its broader and evolving role. Brown and Scobie call for greater attention to how accountability operates between different governance levels and scales. Chapter 14, by Sander Chan and Ron Mitchell, addresses the question of how to evaluate agents and agency in earth system governance. Their review of the articles in the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database reveals that ESG–Agency scholars have embraced the notion that agent influence is complex, contingent, and context dependent, with the success of environmental governance depending considerably on propitious environmental and social conditions. They note a shift from

24

M. M. Betsill, T. M. Benney, A. K. Gerlak, et al.

evaluating agent influence on behaviour and environmental outcomes to a focus on governance processes, with particular attention on democracy, participation, legitimacy, transparency, and accountability. Along with this more nuanced understanding of agency and its effects on earth system governance, they observe an increase in the diversity of methodological approaches and efforts to integrate findings from many different types of studies. At the same time, they see a need to return to evaluations of agency influence on behaviours and environmental quality through more interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, and transdisciplinary approaches to meeting the governance challenges associated with the Anthropocene. Finally, Chapter 15 by Andrea K. Gerlak, Michele Betsill, James Patterson, Sander Chan, Tabitha Benney, Marie-Claire Brisbois, Thomas Eimer, and Michelle Scobie, connects key findings from our analysis of the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database to broader debates in environmental governance scholarship and social sciences. They outline how ESG–Agency scholarship can inform decision-making across the policy process, while highlighting the complex, fragmented, and multiscalar nature of environmental governance systems as well as the challenges of developing participatory processes that truly empower stakeholders and account for diverse interests. The authors also reflect on what the contributions to Agency in Earth System Governance reveal about the ESG research community. While ESG– Agency scholars have made exemplary advances in empirical research, many of the core analytical concepts, such as agency, power, authority, and accountability, remain under-theorized. In addition, some types of actors, including women, labour, non-human agents, those who work against earth system governance, and many voices from the global South, remain largely hidden in ESG–Agency scholarship. Gerlak et al. conclude by suggesting next steps for future research and connecting our findings from the past decade of ESG–Agency research to the ESG Project’s new Science Plan (Earth System Governance Project, 2018a).

2 Conceptualizing Agency and Agents in Earth System Governance MI C H E L L E S C O B IE , TAB I THA M . BENNE Y, C A L U M B RO W N , A ND OS CA R E . W I D E R B E RG

Chapter Highlights • Earth System Governance (ESG)–Agency scholarship highlights the fragmented, expanding, and complex forms of authority that prescribe, steer, and govern behaviour on environmental issues. • Agency scholarship on earth system governance covers interdisciplinary debates in four broad areas: the types of agents, the ways authority is exercised, the nature of agents’ influence, and the varieties of governance structures or architectures within which agents act. • Even with increasing scholarship into the fragmentation of authority and multiplication of the types of agents to include nonstate, transnational, and subnational actors, states continue to be the centre of agency scholarship. • Future research is needed on agency theory and the theoretical nature of relationships between actors and within differing geographical, economic, and political contexts.

2.1 Introduction Over the years, earth system governance has come to include an increasingly large variety of actors. To borrow a term from Rosenau (2007), the field is characterized by ‘disaggregated authority’ including a proliferation of state, nonstate, and subnational organizations. Keohane and Victor (2011), for instance, argue that global climate governance has undergone a ‘Cambrian explosion’ in which a large number of institutional arrangements have appeared and competed for influence. Consequently, pinpointing what actors govern the earth system is becoming increasingly complicated, especially because the ways in which they wield power can vary dramatically. 25

26

M. Scobie, T. M. Benney, C. Brown, and O. E. Widerberg

The concept of agency was central to the 2009 Earth System Governance (ESG) Science Plan (Biermann et al., 2010) and has remained central to ESG research. Within the ESG Project, an agent is defined as an authoritative actor able to prescribe behaviour and govern (Biermann et al., 2010a; Dellas et al., 2011). This chapter uses a mixed method approach to explore how ESG– Agency scholars have conceptualized agency and identified the agents of earth system governance. We provide a systematic analysis of 322 academic articles published between 2008 and 2016 and included in the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database (see Chapter 1). We then triangulate our findings using quantitative text analysis (QTA), a systematic and automated method for processing large amounts of text data, to take a deeper look at what actors are most common to ESG–Agency research. Here we find the sheer range of actors and forms of agency to be notable, but that the state has persisted as the most central agent in the study of agency in earth system governance. The chapter concludes by situating this literature within a wider range of global environmental governance research to understand better how agency research has evolved over the past decade. 2.2 What Is Agency? Like most research into forms of environmental governance, ESG–Agency research often uses the concept of agency as a lens to identify and study particular types of agents and forms of authority. These span a range of actors including intergovernmental organizations, national governments, individuals, corporations, business groups, subnational governments, partnerships, and networks. Over the past decade, most agency-related research has largely taken the concept as a given and proceeded to investigate how agency works in practice: who the agents or authoritative actors in different contexts are and how those actors exercise their authority. This has provided a rich analysis of the complexity of types, forms, limits, contexts, and structures of agency and authority. While theoretical consideration of agency has not been ignored (Dellas et al., 2011), the heavy focus on agency in practice has left some distinct impacts on the field. Very few publications in the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database reflect on the theoretical concept of agency or the implications of conceptualizing an agent as an authoritative actor (Chapter 15). Instead, many scholars focus on how agency is exercised, and in particular, on how actors become agents through different forms of authority and in turn enact governance. Therefore, calls for increased comparative work that will help to deepen theoretical conceptualizations of the nature of agency

Conceptualizing Agency and Agents

Agency-Actor Nexus (Types of Agents)

27

Agency-Action Nexus (Forms of Authority)

Agency Governance Nexus Agency-Receiver Nexus (Agents and Their Influence)

Agency-Structure Nexus (Agents as Context)

Figure 2.1 Agency Governance Nexus in ESG research.

(e.g., different geographical, economic, and power contexts) remain appropriate even today. This chapter distils the ESG–Agency scholarship into four areas illustrated in the Agency Governance Nexus (Figure 2.1): the agent–actor nexus (types of agents), the agency–action nexus (forms of authority), the agency–receiver nexus (agents and their influence), and the agency–structure nexus (agents as part of a wider governance architecture or context). This is a useful heuristic for understanding key relationships in agency research over the past decade. Each area represents innovative ways in which authors have empirically explored and articulated the different types and modes of agency (e.g., authoritative action) in earth system governance. Together, these agency-related areas reflect a growing interest in the modalities, motivations, relationships, and ways in which authority is conferred on and exercised by agents in earth system governance at all scales. More importantly, the relationships of the Agency Governance Nexus reveal a rich and developing agenda in ESG–Agency research over the past decade. Many of these relationships are addressed in greater detail in subsequent chapters. 2.2.1 Agency–Actor Nexus The agency–actor nexus highlights the nature of authority, actor configurations, and forms of agency. Agency has been understood as authority (Pattberg and Widerberg, 2015) and as the capacity to act or make things happen (Westley et al., 2013) in the context of earth system transformations that influence natural and socio-ecological systems processes (Dellas et al., 2011). The authority upon which agency is based is an implicit and often explicit theme in agency research. Through our analysis of the articles in the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database (see Chapter 1 and the Appendix), we find that authority takes many forms, has many sources and cannot be limited to a subset of criteria. While the state seems to have

28

M. Scobie, T. M. Benney, C. Brown, and O. E. Widerberg

wider overarching authority, many other actors and agents steer governments in purposeful and effective ways, which may appear more limited but are not necessarily less impactful. Authority may be derived from a principal, as in the principal–agent debates between international secretariats and member states (Biermann and Siebenhüner, 2009a). Authority may also be derived from recognition of an agent’s legitimacy by other actors (Bernstein, 2011; Hurd, 1999). The sources of agency thus include delegated (Dellas et al., 2011), instrumental, associational, and governmental authority (Bulkeley and Schroeder, 2012). However, other conceptions also exist. For instance, Cashore (2002) shows how inducement and seduction, or the ability to offer economic benefits, can be a source of authority. Likewise, Rosenau (2002) looks at issue-specific competence and Bulkeley (2012) demonstrates that affiliation can be a form of authority. Agency in the Agency–actor nexus is often studied in the context of nonstate action, but authors caution against ignoring the continued active and even predominant agency of the state (see Chapter 6). In the case of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), for example, although agency was given to the carbon market in Chile, the role of the state was crucial to the CDM’s activity and some would argue that agency in that context was very much within the authority of the state (Rindefjäll et al., 2011). In other configurations, particularly where states have limited resources, new stakeholder networks that include the private sector and government as authoritative actors are particularly central to the efficient and effective development of renewable (wind) energy development, representing new forms of climate agency (Benecke, 2011). Among nonstate actors, the limited but more prominent power of private companies has become the focus of many recent studies on agency (Bouteligier, 2011). A prime example here is the environmental consultancy sector that includes groups of actors that develop and implement technical environmental solutions (Toivonen and Hyytinen, 2015) and facilitate knowledge management and training for state and nonstate actors (Bouteligier, 2011), effectively steering governance in both public and private sectors. 2.2.2 Agency–Receiver Nexus The second area is the Agency–receiver nexus, which explores what accounts for the relative and changing power(lessness) of agents and their ability to influence other actors (see Chapters 5 and 14). Agency is related to a capacity to influence that can be acquired, increased, decreased (Sending and Neumann, 2006), transferred (Partzsch and Ziegler, 2011), or lost. Agency is often related to effective and ineffective problem-solving or problem-creating, but also to norm creation (Partzsch and Ziegler, 2011) or diffusion (Rindefjäll et al., 2011) (see

Conceptualizing Agency and Agents

29

Chapter 10). Agency in this area can be dynamic in terms of the number, types, and roles of agents (Biermann and Pattberg, 2008) (Chapter 6). It is also capable of promoting (Benecke, 2011) but likewise constraining actions of environmental actors and stakeholders as well as positive outcomes. Agency can be shared between existing and emerging agents (Bouteligier, 2011) and is not limited to human actors; it may include, for example, God (DiMento, 2015; Francis, 2015), nature, and/or technology (Wardekker et al., 2009). Agency and authority are linked to architecture because agents influence and are influenced by the broader environmental governance architectures or structures (Biermann et al., 2010a; see also Chapter 8). Allocation & Access, related to the theme of environmental justice, is also related to Agency, as rights and duty holders in the allocation and access realm exercise agency (Chapter 11). 2.2.3 Agency–Action Nexus The third area of the Agency Governance Nexus is the Agency–action nexus, which is focussed on evolving or innovative forms or processes of agency (Westley et al., 2013). Literature on this topic includes such influential concepts as regime creation, functional fragmentation, cross-sector collaboration (Andonova, 2010; Andonova and Mitchell, 2010), multi-stakeholder partnerships (Dentoni et al., 2018; Minas, 2015), and global city networks (Bulkeley and Schroeder, 2012). Some forms of agency reflect types of leadership, such as institutional champions (Gilmour et al., 1999) or local leaders and champions (Taylor et al., 2012) and policy entrepreneurs (Brouwer and Huitema, 2017), or facilitators such as advisory committees (Vasseur et al., 1997). Fischer and Leifeld (2015) illustrate this by showing how policy forums, where issue-based intermediary organizations facilitate the interaction of political and societal actors, can be a valuable form of agency. Other forms of agency are centred on key individuals such as citizen scientists (Oscarson and Calhoun, 2007), organizational entrepreneurs (Hahn et al., 2006), stewards of traditional knowledge (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2012) and ‘expert practitioners’ (Cashmore et al., 2005; see also Chapter 7). Yet, other forms consider change agents from various levels of governance (Crawford et al., 2006) or recognize organizational agency bridging organizations (Kampelmann et al., 2016; see also Chapter 9). 2.2.4 Agency–Structure Nexus The final area is the Agency–structure nexus, which groups studies of agency in relation to a wider environmental governance architecture or context. This area includes the analysis of the institutions and organizations within, through, and

30

M. Scobie, T. M. Benney, C. Brown, and O. E. Widerberg

among which purposeful agents act (Chapter 8). In addition, this area explores the various scales (local, regional, international, global, polycentric) (Pattberg and Stripple, 2008); regimes; norms (e.g., legitimacy, accountability, fairness, transparency, etc.) (Bäckstrand, 2008; Biermann and Gupta, 2011); and the socioecological, legal, and economic spaces (Newell et al., 2015) within which agents act (see Chapters 9, 10 and 13). This in turn influences the capacity of an agent to act, resulting in a range of environmental outcomes (Werners et al., 2009; see also Chapter 14). Of particular interest to scholars in this area is the nature of their actions or agency and the roles of governance profiles (Nasiritousi, Hjerpe, and Bäckstrand, 2016) or capacity (e.g., qualities or skills needed for or that determine the exercise of agency) (Westley et al., 2013) in specific contexts (Chapter 6). These include, for example, agency as facilitating ecological and sustainability knowledge creation and dissemination (Olsson et al., 2006); agency as vision or social imaginary building across shared aspirations (Stephenson, 2011); agency as facilitating networks via bonding, bridging (Biggs et al., 2010), coalition building (Meijerink and Huitema, 2010), or linking persons and groups; agency as trust, legitimacy, and consensus building (Stephenson, 2011); agency as driving change, introducing and implementing new legal, technical, or economic solutions and innovations to environmental challenges (Huitema and Meijerink, 2010; Rocle and Salles, 2018); agency as effective awareness-building and communicating of messages between groups (Folke et al., 2004); agency as conflict resolution (in cases with resource scarcity, pollution, or other chronic resource challenges); agency as opportunity maximizing (Gunderson and Light, 2006); agency as lobbying, etc. Other ESG–Agency studies have focussed on power in agency (Chapter 5). For instance, several studies focussed on orchestration (Abbott and Bernstein, 2015), delegation (Dellas et al., 2011) and recognition (Kramarz and Momani, 2013). Others argued that new realms of agency were emerging: agency ‘beyond the state’ (Pattberg and Widerberg, 2015), in the context of market liberalism and pluralism (Rindefjäll et al., 2011) or through the use of carbon markets (Biermann and Pattberg, 2008). Other forms of power in agency arise from state–market agency interactions (Benecke, 2011), corporate environmental services (Bouteligier, 2011), shared or multiactor governance (Newell et al., 2012), or when agency is produced by driving innovation and entrepreneurship (Partzsch and Ziegler, 2011). Studies on agency in contexts also examined the actual or perceived power (Nasiritousi et al., 2016) or the lack of power and capacity for environmental policy implementation, as Atela et al. (2017) and others have illustrated through case studies of African states. ESG–Agency research in this area has also focussed on the way actors manage agency in contexts of limited power. States, ‘by design’, may create weak agents,

Conceptualizing Agency and Agents

31

such as the High-Level Political Forum (HLPF) on sustainable development, which was created in 2012, by the UN Conference on Sustainable Development, but has limited power, authority, and resources (Abbott and Bernstein, 2015). Abbott and Bernstein (2015) show how orchestration, as a governance strategy, can be a means to manage authority. In this case, agents use soft power to exert influence by working indirectly through and supporting intermediary organizations agents. The influence or authority of agents may also be enhanced through strategic agency, where agents purposefully employ techniques suited to their socioecological space and system, to introduce innovation and transformative management approaches (Westley et al., 2013). ESG–Agency research over the past decade has also demonstrated that contexts may weaken or strengthen agency (see also Chapters 6, 8, 9, and 14). For instance, Werners et al. (2009) show that the absence of good governance values (e.g., credibility, stability, inclusiveness, and adaptiveness) in governance systems may strengthen or weaken agency. Weak agency also creates further legal and institutional challenges for some states. For instance, a lack of coherence between internationally negotiated solutions and the local policies, laws, and regulations already in place have created additional obstacles for African states (Atela et al., 2017). Even public–private partnerships, such as the Clean Shipping Project, can be weakened if actors or agents do not have sufficient collaborative advantage, if market conditions are unfavourable, or if levels of commitment and cohesion are low in sustainability partnerships (Wuisan et al., 2012). On the positive side, van de Graaf and Lesage (2009) show that a positive, structural variable (e.g., powerful secretariat and an executive management team) can create positive path dependencies and institutional links to stronger organizations. And, in the case of international secretariats, the acquiescence of member states is the determinant of the agency–structure nexus in many instances (van de Graaf and Lesage, 2009). Such examples illustrate the range of work in this area. 2.3 Who Are the Agents? To move beyond our theoretical understanding of agency, we turn now to investigate which actors are the most prominent in ESG–Agency research. We triangulate the original coding of the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database (Chapter 1 and the Appendix) with QTA, a systematic and automated method for processing large amounts of text data.1 While QTA is an effective approach for minimizing 1

Here we use a ‘bag-of-words’ approach to quantitative text analysis, meaning that the position of the word in the sentences does not matter. It also uses a ‘counting and dictionary’ method in which important terms (e.g., ‘government’, ‘city’, and ‘ngo’) are defined a priori by the researchers based on some theory and is a deductive approach compared to other text analysis methods (e.g., supervised or unsupervised machine learning) which

32

M. Scobie, T. M. Benney, C. Brown, and O. E. Widerberg

researcher bias in text analysis, it also treats words and concepts out of context. As with all methodological approaches, QTA has limitations (Krippendorff, 2004) that make it difficult to understand every aspect of agency (Biermann et al., 2010a; Dellas et al., 2011). Consequently, in this analysis, the ‘rule-makers’ are not distinguished from the ‘rule-takers’ (Dellas et al., 2011) with complete accuracy. Despite this, both methods appear to come to similar conclusions in terms of identifying the agents most prominent in this body of scholarship. The chapter distinguishes between six different types of actors (Table 2.1). ‘The state’ is understood as a national government of a country. ‘International organizations’ are international organizations and agencies. ‘Cities’ are cities, local governments, and municipalities. ‘Regions’ are provinces, territories, and districts. Private actors are companies and investors. Civil society includes foundations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and civil society organizations (CSOs). Hybrid actors are various constellations of actors that have agency, primarily (public–private) partnerships. Subsequently, Table 2.1 contains a set of search terms for each category.

Table 2.1 Actor types and their search terms Type

Search terms

State International organization City* Subnational region NGO CSO Business Partnership

‘government,’ ‘state’ ‘international organization,’ ‘io’ ‘local government,’ ‘city,’ ‘municipality’ ‘province,’ ‘territory,’ ‘county,’ ‘counties,’ ‘district’ ‘non-governmental organization’ ‘civil society organization’ ‘business,’ ‘company,’ ‘corporations,’ ‘investor’ ‘partnership,’ ‘public–private partnership’

For all search terms the plural, American and British English spellings, and the abbreviations (e.g., NGO and CSO) for each type were also included. are more inductive (Welbers et al., 2017, p. 254). Consequently, identifying the words and combination of words to search for is crucial for the method to yield relevant results. The corpus of QTA consists of 318 articles from the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database (see the Appendix) and was preprocessed using the following steps. First, references, acknowledgements and author details were removed. Second, all text was transformed to lowercase. Third, all additional white space between words was removed. Fourth, all punctuations, special characters, and numbers were removed. All preprocessing (except step 1, which was done manually) was made using the ‘tm’ package in R. The analysis was carried out using the ‘tm’ and the ‘quanteda’ packages in R. Finally, the document term matrix (which provides an overview of the search term results per article) was merged with the article data from the original dataset including authors, year of publication, keywords, etc.

Conceptualizing Agency and Agents

33

2.3.1 Actor Prominence in ESG–Agency Research Measuring prominence in terms of absolute and weighted number of mentions in the articles provides insight into what actors are mentioned where, when, and by whom. In terms of the actors in ESG–Agency research, we illustrate the absolute count per actor category in Table 2.2. States are by far the most prominent actor in terms of mentions in the articles, followed by businesses and cities. States are on average mentioned thirty times in the sample, which is more than three times the number of mentions for the term ‘business’ (the second most mentioned actor). The skewed distribution towards states is even more apparent when looking at the median number of mentions (n = 22), which is eleven times more mentions than business (n = 2). Looking at the number of mentions, however, does not reveal what an article is actually about. For instance, nearly all articles mention states and nearly 80% of the articles mention business. If we consider the sentence ‘Cities, counties, provinces, regions, civil society, and corporations are responding to climate change independently from . . . the ‘official’ UN-sponsored negotiations and treaties’ (Widerberg and Stripple, 2016, p. 487), it is not clear that the article is actually about partnerships. Analysing which actors are most commonly studied requires a measure that captures whether an article is centrally about an actor. Here, the decision is taken to study articles that mention a certain actor more than ten times as a threshold for when an article should be considered related to a specific actor. Figure 2.2 shows the annual distribution of articles mentioning an actor more than ten times for the years 2008–2016.

Table 2.2 Summary of total number of mentions per actor type State Total number of 9,888 mentions Mean number of 30 mentions Median number 22 of mentions Appearing in 325 number of articles

Business City

NGO/ Partnership Region CSO

IO

2,809

2,443

2,301

1,279

414

468

9

7

7

3

1

1

2

0

1

1

0

0

255

161

181

220

173

96

CSO, civil society organization; IO, international organization; NGO, non-governmental organization.

34

M. Scobie, T. M. Benney, C. Brown, and O. E. Widerberg

100% 90% 80%

cso

70%

ngo

60%

Io

50%

region

40%

city partnership

30%

business

20%

state

10% 0% 2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Figure 2.2 Distribution of articles mentioning an actor more than ten times (in % over time).

Diving deeper into each actor category as well as identifying and reading key articles (using absolute and weighted number of mentions) for the different actors revealed new information. Surprisingly, despite an increasing focus on nonstate and subnational actors in earth system governance, states remain by far the most mentioned actors in the corpus (76% of the articles). However, in 57% of the articles on states, there is at least one additional actor mentioned more than ten times. Sofronova and colleagues’ (2014) article on NGOs in Russia is a good example; there the state is referred to no fewer than 165 times but the authors were focussing primarily on the relationship between the NGOs and the Russian state. Similarly, in the second highest scoring article in terms of mentions of states, Abbott (2008) writes about rational choice institutionalism where ‘the principal actors in international politics are states, which rationally pursue their own interests through their international relations’ (p. 6), noting that there is a ‘growing array of public, private, and mixed organizations with international interests and authority’ (p. 8). His suggestion is to develop a richer institutionalist theory, which can accommodate actors other than states. The third highest scoring article by Bulkeley and Schroeder (2012) challenges the strict boundaries between state and nonstate actors. Using global cities as examples, the authors argue that ‘what counts as the state and the nonstate, or as public or private authority, is not pregiven, but is determined through the process of governing as different actors, interests, ideas, and materials are variously included and excluded in order to shape climate change as a governable problem at the municipal level’ (Bulkeley and Schroeder, 2012, p. 744). From this perspective, the state in ESG research is thus an actor used for juxtaposing with other actors rather than the subject of the article itself.

Conceptualizing Agency and Agents

35

The second most mentioned actor category is business (14% of the articles), which is frequently discussed in terms of carrying out various governance functions and topics (Chapter 6). For instance, Orsini (2012) analyses the role of business as risk regulator in biosafety (Orsini, 2012). Pattberg (2012) analyses disclosure as a governance mechanism for businesses to manage climate change Likewise, Österblom et al. (2015) suggest that transnational corporations have become ‘keystone’ actors in marine governance. Moving down to the subnational level, cities (about 15% of the articles) and regions (12% of the articles) are also prominent in the dataset. Scholarship on cities appears to be driven by a few authors, and four articles (co-)authored by three scholars contain 20% of all mentions of cities (Bulkeley and Castán Broto, 2013; Castán Broto and Bulkeley, 2013; Gordon, 2016a, 2016b). Bulkeley, for instance, has (co-)authored 14% of all articles on cities. The same pattern is not present among scholarship on regions, where there is a much more diverse group of authors. This phenomenon is even more pronounced for the actor category ‘partnerships’, where the top three articles make up 30% of all mentions and one author has (co-)authored the top two articles (Bäckstrand, 2008; Bäckstrand and Kylsäter, 2014; Mert, 2014). However, only ten percent of articles mention partnerships more than ten times. Only two percent of the articles in the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database mention IOs more than ten times, although this is clearly an underestimate because IOs are often mentioned by name. However, with QTA we are able to add the list of 49 IOs provided by the United Nations’ Environmental Management Group,2 thus adding an additional layer of analysis. Doing so reveals that 39 IOs from this list are mentioned in the articles on at least one occasion and 29 are mentioned more than two times across a total of 197 articles. Of these important IOs, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (n = 62) is the most prominent, followed by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) (n = 24) and the UN Development Program (UNDP) (n = 17). The latter is followed closely by the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), World Trade Organization (WTO), and Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which are each mentioned in between 13 and 17 articles NGOs and CSOs are still mentioned slightly more than IOs in the dataset, totalling 3% of the articles. The governance level at which NGOs are studied varies substantially (see Chapter 9). For instance, whereas Robinson and Berkes (2011) study the role of NGOs in helping Kenyan pastoralist communities with participation and representation, Dombrowski (2010) studies NGO representation at the meetings of the UNFCCC. Only 4 articles mention civil society organizations more than ten times, all discussing participation of CSOs in multi-stakeholder 2

For a list of organizations, see https://unemg.org/about-us/membership.

36

M. Scobie, T. M. Benney, C. Brown, and O. E. Widerberg

processes on land-use and water (Brockhaus et al., 2014; Kabiri, 2016; Newton et al., 2016; Smits and Middleton, 2014). Finally, articles with mixed focus can be identified by filtering out those that mention several actors more than ten times. In 15% of the cases, the articles do not mention a single actor more than ten times and approximately 40% of the articles mention only one actor. Twenty-eight per cent of the articles mention two actors. Only seven articles mention five actors more than ten times. Articles that identify multiple actors generally make claims about the broader system of nonstate and subnational actors or about their relationship to the state, in particular on climate change. All but one of these articles discuss how nonstate and subnational actors are reshaping climate governance through various transnational climate initiatives (Abbott, 2014; Bäckstrand, 2008; Bulkeley et al., 2012; Burch et al., 2013; Pattberg and Stripple, 2008; Schroeder et al., 2013). 2.3.2 Key Insights Analysing how the ESG–Agency research community mentions various actors provides some additional insight into research priorities and themes. First, despite the focus on nonstate actors over the past couple of decades, the state remains a center of gravity. What has evolved, however, is how the state is depicted (see also Chapters 6 and 15). Some work clearly refers to national governments, but other works blur the line between state and nonstateness (Bulkeley and Schroeder, 2012). As work on multilevel governance matures, the importance of the state may still wane. Second, research on particular actors, notably NGOs and CSOs, appears to be of limited interest to ESG–Agency researchers. Similarly, research on IOs appears to be relatively neglected. We find these results surprising given that IOs and civil society traditionally have a very strong presence in global environmental governance. As the authority of IOs is broadly seen as legally derived from states (e.g., states give consent and delegated authority to IOs) and therefore theoretically well specified, we suspect this may explain why IOs were found to be less common in the ESG–Agency literature. However, this does not explain why agency of NGOs was largely under-researched. Third, while transnational actors are increasingly considered important for earth system governance, they are also viewed primarily in relation to the state. One possible explanation here is that states in this context are used to narrow the complexity of earth system governance research. In reflection of these important relationships, a logical future research agenda on agents and agency would shift the focus from individual actors to the relationship between actors. This could entail more relational ontology (Emirbayer, 1997), which emphasizes that actors derive

Conceptualizing Agency and Agents

37

power, interest, legitimacy and authority from their position in networks and their inherent attributes (e.g., Hafner-Burton et al., 2009; Slaughter, 2017). 2.4 Looking Back and Forward: Agents and Agency As the analysis in this chapter has illustrated, agency as a concept ranges from the traditional understanding of authority, which is derived from the legitimacy of the nationally elected government and nation-states, to more complex realities. There is also a more sophisticated understanding of the way agency exercises influence or steers governance today. Agency can be exercised in the form of problem-solving, norm creation, knowledge creation, and lobbying. The findings in this chapter have also highlighted the value of exploring a range of non-traditional actors that may exercise authority in earth system governance. ESG–Agency research has used the agency theme to provide rich empirical data and analysis on agency in its various relationships (e.g., as action, agency and action, agency and structure, agency and influence, and agency). Today the ESG and related communities have a more thorough vision of who the agents in earth system governance are and how their authority is derived. The agents, ESG studies have proven, are states or individuals, groups of states, leaders, individuals and even deities and God. Agency research in the next decade can expand on this good foundation in many ways. First, there is scope to develop agency theory further to draw out universal and common themes from the many case studies done thus far on agency and earth system governance (Chapter 3). Likewise, with additional concept framing and hypothesis testing, methodological advancement can also be made. Second, and building on theories of agency, studies can find ways to compare agency at different scales, in different historical, geographical, economic, and political contexts, questioning the assumption that agency is founded on authority and exercised as authoritative action (see also Chapter 15).

3 Theories and Methods of Agency Research in Earth System Governance TA BI THA M . B E N N E Y, A MA NDINE ORSINI , DE VON CANTWE LL , AND LAU RA I OZELL I

Chapter Highlights • Over the last decade, Earth System Governance (ESG)–Agency scholars have increased their use of social and system dynamic theories, participatory and actorness approaches in agency theories, and justice approaches within critical theories. • Qualitative and multiple qualitative methods are the most widely used approaches in research on agency in earth system governance, with very slowly growing methodological pluralism. • In the future, scholars in this field may benefit from the integration of crossdisciplinary and increasingly complex methods in an effort to foster linking of environmental sciences more broadly into environmental governance research.

3.1 Introduction Even in the absence of political authority, global governance provides the complex structures and processes actors use to coordinate their interests and needs. As with other areas of governance, environmental governance has seen an increase in the type and intensity of interaction between actors in the system. In addition, nontraditional actors are emerging with greater frequency. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the interdisciplinary perspective of the Earth System Governance (ESG) Project. This chapter explores the range of theories and methods used over the past decade to study agency among earth system actors and the trends and options used to theorize, frame, measure, and test the institutional mechanisms and intervening variables that impact all types of agents in ESG scholarship. Analysing theories and methods, being elements common to all 38

Theories and Methods of Agency Research

39

kinds of research, is also an excellent opportunity to question the specificity of ESG research in comparison to other related fields. 3.2 Theory and Agency in Earth System Governance Research Understanding the use of agency to tease out larger theoretical linkages in the governance literature has been helpful in advancing a range of debates. For instance, agency research has helped us to understand adaptive capacity or what Brown and Westaway (2011, p. 322) refer to as the ‘human motivation, behaviour, and responses’ that are crucial to environmental governance (see Chapter 12). Another fruitful theoretical linkage has been the use of agency to redefine ‘problems of agency as a problem of accountability’ (Rosenberg, 2017, p. 11), which may help to illustrate how and why environmental governance initiatives consistently lose traction (see Chapter 13). Using these and other types of linkage analysis creates new and innovative research tools, such as the principal–agent (P–A) theory, to problem solve dilemmas in earth system governance (Rosenberg, 2017). While fruitful linkages in agency research are more common today, how these linkages apply to earth system governance is not as well understood. 3.2.1 State of the Field: Theory and ESG–Agency Research Understanding agency related linkages in earth system governance has always been a priority of the ESG network. Back in 2009, the ESG Science Plan noted (Biermann et al., 2009, p. 26), ‘Conceptually, only a few theoretical approaches have emerged so far that provide avenues for bridging social and natural science research related to the earth system’ and even where such theories exist and are ‘applied to local or regional systems such as river basins, cities and terrestrial or aquatic ecosystems’, it is rare to see them applied to the earth system. As ESG researchers are well positioned to draw on insights across a range of social science and behavioural theories, our goal was to understand the trends in this area over the past ten years. To assess the state of the literature, we used the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database (see Chapter 1 and the Appendix) to systematically evaluate the types of theoretical approach used or advocated in the study of ESG–Agency research. According to the database, studies of agency in ESG research are compatible with a large number of theoretical approaches (see Table 3.1). This diversity is a common characteristic of interdisciplinary research and suggests that the theoretical choices used to study ESG–Agency–related topics are likely drawn from a wide array of academic fields.

40

T. M. Benney, A. Orsini, D. Cantwell, and L. Iozelli

Table 3.1 Classification of theories in the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database Theoretical approach

Related conceptual frameworks

Agent-based theories

Actorness, Complex System Theory, Game Theory, Participatory Approach, Reflexivity, Social Learning, Social Network Theory, Soft Power, Values Adaptation theory, Constructivism, Global Governance, Institutional Interactions, International Political Economy, Institutional Theory, Legitimacy, Multilevel: Scales & Fragmentation, National Implementation, Policy Cycle Analysis, Realism Ecojustice, Governmentality, Gramscian/Neo-Gramscian, Justice, Marxism

Social and system dynamic theories

Critical theories

To provide some comparison with other forms of global environmental governance research, we sorted the conceptual frames from the database into three broad theoretical categories, which are derived from previous work on transnational governance research (Bulkeley et al., 2014): Agent-Based, Social and System Dynamic, and Critical Theories. Table 3.1 illustrates the outcome of this process. We used these three categories as they are broadly used in the literature and provide good coverage for the data under consideration. We define Agent-Based Theories as those that are most directly related to agents and the autonomy that agents have with respect to structures. They therefore model the interactions of autonomous agents (both individuals and collective entities such as organizations or groups), in an effort to better understand their effects on the system as a whole. According to Bulkeley et al. (2014, p. 41), ‘Agency-based theories explain governance outcomes in terms of the interplay of the purposeful strategies of individuals or groups possessing agency. As work in this broad tradition has developed, it has moved away from narrow conceptions of agency in which particular interests, qualities and motivations are seen as inherent to actors and as determined by social or structural conditions (O’Neill, VanDeveer, and Balsiger, 2004)’. Related to this set of theories are approaches such as Actorness, Complex System Theory, Game Theory, Participatory Approach, Reflexivity, Social Learning, Social Network Theory, Soft Power, and Values. Examples of work in this area include the study by Andrachuk and Armitage (2015), which uses insights from Social Network Theory to better understand marine protected areas’ governance. Other work in this area is seen in Lebel et al. (2016). This work uses a simulation game from Game Theory to theorize fish farming practices in Thailand. Likewise, Babon et al. (2014) use the advocacy coalition framework, based on Values, to study tropical forest governance.

Theories and Methods of Agency Research

41

The second theoretical category encompasses the Social and System Dynamics Theories, which look at how structures interact with agents. ‘Rather than looking at the agency of individual actors, social and system dynamic theories emphasize the relationships, norms and practices that link actors, as well as the mutual constitution of agents and structures. This perspective starts by examining the dynamic nature of what counts as governance and how the governance system, in turn, shapes who governs, how and to what effect . . . ’ (Bulkeley et al., 2014, p. 47). The importance of an actor’s ‘embeddedness’ may be uniquely defined, but this factor is shared by each theory in this category. Accordingly, the Social and System Dynamics Theories are broad-scope theoretical frameworks, covering a high diversity of approaches such as Adaptation Theory, Constructivism, Global Governance, Institutional Interactions, International Political Economy, Institutional Theory, Legitimacy, Multilevel, Scales & Fragmentation, National Implementation, Policy Cycle Analysis, or Realism. For example, Giri and Darnhofer (2010) use Constructivism to analyse community forestry as a platform for social change in Nepal. Jinnah (2010) studies the trade and environment nexus using the Institutional Interactions framework, which clearly illustrates both the structure and dynamic aspects of this category. Finally, Bernstein (2011) analyses the changing legitimacy requirements for nonstate governance institutions, portraying the classic structural framework commonly used in international relations. The third category of theories includes the Critical Theories. Critical theories broadly refer to critical perspectives that attempt to illuminate asymmetric relationships and the domination of nature in connection with ideological issues of race, class, gender, and species. Regarding the agent/structure debates, these theories emphasize the co-constitutive nature of agents and structures, but argue that this factor allows power dynamics to dominate in shaping agents. ‘Compared with the social and system dynamics lens, critical political theory also shares a view of the world as structured, but emphasizes the social conflicts of identities, interests, norms and so on that make up these structures, as well as the consequences, contradictions, messiness and instabilities of social and political life. It also shares with agency-based lens a focus on actors’ pursuit of specific interests or programmes of intervention, while also placing more emphasis on the historical and social constitution of these interests than on the values and choices of individuals’ (Bulkeley et al., 2014, p. 53). Critical theories include Ecojustice, Governmentality, Gramscian/NeoGramscian, Justice, and Marxism. Work in this group includes a study by Armitage et al. (2012), which combines social and ecological theory to suggest an Ecojustice view on human–ecological systems. Apostolopoulou et al. (2014) also provide a good illustration of this category with their analysis of

42

T. M. Benney, A. Orsini, D. Cantwell, and L. Iozelli

the neoliberalization of nature using a Marxist perspective on biodiversity conservation. Among the three broad theoretical categories we identified from the literature, the most prevalent in the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database are Social and System Dynamic Theories (55.3%), followed by Agent-Based Theories (32.6%) and then Critical Theories (3.7%) (see Table 3.2). This indicates the willingness of ESG scholars to capture the dynamics of agents in their broader social context in order to have a more comprehensive view. In addition, we identified four articles that used more than one broad category of theory. Three of these used both Agent-Based and Social and System Dynamic Theories throughout the text of the article (Betsill et al., 2011; Galaz et al., 2016; Renaud et al., 2011). The final case (Biermann and Pattberg, 2008) was mainly Agent-Based, but also highlighted dynamic and also Critical Theories in this area. Considering the complexity of earth system governance, we were not surprised to find that Social and System Dynamic Theories dominate the field. However, the low number of articles using Critical Theory in ESG–Agency Database was an unexpected result. Within the group of Social System and Dynamic Theories, the dominant conceptual framework is Multilevel (27%), with a research focus, for example, on private governance arrangements (Auld, Renckens, and Cashore, 2015; Bulkeley, 2012; Kalfagianni and Pattberg, 2013), on urban climate governance (Bulkeley and Castán Broto, 2013; Castán Broto and Bulkeley, 2013; Gordon, 2016b; van Stigt, Driessen, and Spit, 2016) and on polycentricity (Bixler, 2014; Gallemore et al., 2015). This is followed by Adaptation Theory (19.1%) with a research focus, for example, on risk governance (Djalante et al., 2012; Mees et al., 2014) or climate change adaptation (Bowen et al., 2015; Mees et al., 2012; Uittenbroek et al., 2016); and Institutional Theory approaches (16.9%) with a focus on, among others, the effectiveness of institutions (Barau and Stringer, 2015; Breitmeier et al., 2011; Stoett and Temby, 2015; Tiwari and Joshi, 2015). Adaptation theory is the only framework that is drawn specifically from the 2009 ESG Science and Implementation Plan (referring to Adaptiveness), while the others are more general to the social and behavioural sciences. With regard to research adopting Agent-Based Theories, the most used frameworks are Actorness (59%), Participatory Approaches (23.8%), and Social Learning (6.7%). Actorness is the most used framework, as it enables researchers to study the autonomy of individual agents such as the EU (Koivurova et al., 2012; Rayner and Jordan, 2013; Schout and Jordan, 2008) or cities (Bulkeley et al., 2014; Seitzinger et al., 2012) in global environmental politics. Finally, within the group of Critical Theories, the dominant approach is Justice (33.3%) followed by Governmentality (25%) and Gramscian/Neo-Gramscian approaches (25%). The frequency of Justice-based approaches likely reflects the

Theories and Methods of Agency Research

43

Table 3.2 Theoretical approaches of the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database Frequency Distribution of subcategories for Agent-based theories Actorness 62 Participatory Approach 25 Social Learning 7 Social Network Theory 4 Values 2 Game Theory 2 Complex System Theory 1 Reflexivity 1 Soft Power 1 Subtotal 105

Percentage 59 23 6.7 3.8 1.9 1.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 100

Distribution of subcategories for Social and System Dynamic Theories Multilevel: Scales, Fragmentation Adaptation Theory Institutional Theory Legitimacy Institutional Interactions (Regime Complexes, Issue Linkage, Polycentricity, Orchestration) Constructivism International Political Economy National Implementation Policy Cycle Analysis Realism Global Governance Subtotal

48 34 30 15

27.0 19.1 16.9 8.4

12 11 10 7 4 5 2 178

6.7 6.2 5.6 3.9 2.8 2.2 1.1 100

Distribution of subcategories for Critical Theories Justice Governmentality Gramscian/Neo-Gramscian Eco/Justice Marxism Subtotal Other Subtotal Agent-Based Theories Social and System Dynamic Theories Critical Theories Other

4 3 3 1 1 12

33.3 25.0 25.0 8.3 8.3 100

27 105 178 12 27 322

32.6 55.3 3.7 8.4 100

44

T. M. Benney, A. Orsini, D. Cantwell, and L. Iozelli

growing political claims for fairness and equal opportunity by marginalized actors in global environmental politics (Coolsaet and Pitseys, 2015; Mathur et al., 2014; Paloniemi et al., 2015). Likewise, governmentality is mostly concerned about technology as a new agent (Bulkeley et al., 2014; Certomà, 2015), and rising technologies in this research area may explain this finding. These findings seem to suggest a stronger preference in the ESG literature for structured theories, which are able to capture the complexity of the earth system, while also mapping the constraints that are exercised on agents (see Chapters 8 and 9). However, other factors may also influence the norms found in related research (see Chapter 10). For instance, researchers in the network may not necessarily use methods that support other theoretical approaches, governance theories may be consolidating around preferred approaches, or the publication outlets related to the field may have inherent biases towards specific ideological or methodological frames (e.g., biases in the social sciences against interdisciplinary research). There is also a clear preference for flexible approaches such as Multilevel, Actorness, or Justice rather than consolidated, state-centric theories such as Marxism and Realism. Again, this may reflect the global perspective of the authors, which reduces the efficacy of commonly used international theories. 3.2.2 Historical Trends in Theoretical Approaches in ESG–Agency Research By looking at the distribution of the three main theoretical approaches to ESG– Agency research over the past decade (see Figure 3.1), and at the distribution of the subcategories of these main approaches, we identify three interesting trends. First, the use of Social and System Dynamic theories has increased over the years. As illustrated in Figure 3.1, we actually find consistent growth in the use of these theories from 2008 to 2011, but that growth has mainly levelled off and remained fairly consistent since 2012. This may reflect the increase in the study of multilevel governance issues more recently in ESG–Agency research (see discussion in the text that follows). Second, we note a spike in Agent-Based Theories in 2012, followed by a consistent increase in the use of Agent-Based Theories since that time. In addition, a closer look at trends within the subcategories of Agent-Based Theories in the period 2008–2016 reveals an increase in the number of articles adopting a Participatory approach (de Loë et al., 2016; Fujisaki et al., 2016; Jacobs et al., 2016; Kramarz, 2016), as well as in the number of articles focusing on Actorness approaches (see earlier). This may reflect the rise in diversity and use of qualitative approaches in the literature (as we discuss later in the chapter), which may help to determine the theoretical perspective used within the research in this

Theories and Methods of Agency Research

45

Count

40

20

0 2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Date of Publication Agent−Based Theories Agent−Based Theories − MULTIPLE − All Three Type of Theory

Agent−Based Theories − MULTIPLE (SSD & Agent) Critical Theory Socal and System Dynamic Theories

Figure 3.1 Categories of theories by type and year (2008–2016).

area or vice versa. Finally, the Critical Theories have been largely absent in these debates, as previously discussed. 3.3 Methods and Agency in Earth System Governance Research While the ESG Science Plan (Biermann et al., 2009, p. 77) has always emphasized the importance of social aspects of global change research, calls for methodological advancements and increased sophistication have also been emphasized. For instance, the 2009 plan called for the expansion of the more traditional social science approaches in two important ways. First, it called for the integration of social and natural science research into computer-based modelling or scenariobuilding projects. The goal in this case was to explore ‘the analytical value of these approaches and to potentially integrate these initiatives into a larger research programme on earth system governance’ (Biermann et al., 2009, p. 77). Second, it focussed on model specification. The 2009 Science Plan notes, ‘ . . . the study of earth system governance would benefit from improved tools for analysing complex causalities, capturing the dynamics of complex systems, and accounting for thresholds and abrupt change’ (Biermann et al., 2009, p. 77). While such methodological advancements have not been dramatically reflected in the articles included in the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database, our analysis in this area serves to illustrate how the methods and frameworks used to understand agency in ESG research have helped to advance the field overall. By encouraging

46

T. M. Benney, A. Orsini, D. Cantwell, and L. Iozelli

a greater range of interdisciplinary methods and the use of increasingly complex methodological concepts, ESG researchers have made some important progress. For example, by systematically tracing who has been exercising authority in environmental governance through norms and values, researchers and policymakers can identify and construct more meaningful policy interventions to solve related issues (Dellas et al., 2011). In addition, innovations in this area have triangulated the findings of traditional approaches and even shed new light on ESG–Agency topics that have not been well understood through other common methodological approaches. 3.3.1 State of the Field: Methods and Agency in ESG Research We used the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database to systematically evaluate how methods were used in the ESG–Agency literature over the past decade. As shown in Table 3.3, cases were coded and sorted into five categories of methods: Qualitative, Multiple Qualitative Methods (defined as two or more nonquantitative methods), Mixed Methods (defined as research that used both quantitative and non-quantitative methods), other synthetic approaches (e.g., Qualitative Comparative Analysis [QCA] or Q-Method), and quantitative methodological approaches (e.g., game theory, regression, or network analysis). Table 3.3 provides an illustration of the distribution of methods in ESG-agency research that were produced through this process. In the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database, most articles could be classified as doing non-quantitative methods (88.75%). This means two things. First, a wealth of qualitative and interpretative research has been done in this area, which has allowed for a richness and ‘thick’ description (Geertz, 1973) in the ESG literature. Schroeder (2010), for instance, looks at the REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation) agreements using a case study methodology Table 3.3 Methods used in the ESG-Agency Harvesting Database (2008–2016) Code 1 2 3 4 5 Total

Qualitative Methods Multiple Qualitative Methods Mixed Methods Other/Synthetic/QCA Quantitative Methods

Frequency

Percentage

223 63 9 3 24 322

69.25 19.5 2.79 0.93 7.45 100

Theories and Methods of Agency Research

47

to understand how REDD+ was negotiated and implemented from the perspective of indigenous peoples. Other examples of this include Feitelson and Fischhendler’s (2009) comparative work on Israel’s water policies and the policies of the countries surrounding it. Second, we found Quantitative Methods were used in only 7.5% of the articles. This is in stark contrast to the field of environmental management, for instance, where it is estimated that two-thirds of published work contains quantitative methods (Ashley and Boyd, 2006). If ESG–Agency research is mainly non-quantitative, this means that there is only a small segment of research methodologically approaching the ESG–Agency questions in a way that allows for formal modelling and hypothesis testing. Furthermore, while qualitative approaches are holistic, they are inherently less generalizable. With so little quantitative analysis, ESG–Agency research may lose out on the valuable knowledge gained from overlapping research that is generalizable or the certainty measures that can be used to triangulate details from surveys, metadata, or large-N datasets (see Chapter 14). Similarly, the least common category was that of ‘Other’, which was composed of synthetic methods (Breitmeier et al., 2011; Simpson, 2016; van der Heijden, 2015). These findings are surprising because such approaches are well known for simplifying complex concepts, such as those captured by earth system governance research. In addition, synthetic approaches are descriptive and holistic, while still managing 50–100 cases successfully. Despite this, such methods accounted for only 0.93% of the cases. While fantastic work using synthetic approaches is being used in other related fields, including Sociology (Grant, Jorgenson, and Longhofer, 2018), Development Studies (Goertz and Mahoney, 2012), Comparative Political Economy (Benney, 2015), and International Politics (Ignatow, 2011), they are less common in ESG–Agency research. The reasons for this methodological imbalance are uncertain, but could be due to a lack of support for quantitative methods at institutions ESG researchers hail from or currently work at, low success rate in quantitative publications in the field, a lack of continuous development opportunities for quantitative methods for early and mid-career researchers, or a simply a lack of knowledge accumulation and coordination as scholars carry out interpretative and qualitative research. On a positive note, many ESG scholars do use Multiple Qualitative Methods (MQM) when conducting research, which accounted for 19.5% of all cases. In addition, Mixed Methods accounted for 2.79% of the articles used. Work in these categories demonstrates some of the most impressive methodological innovations in the field. Often, MQM is used to triangulate findings and includes combinations of methods such as interviewing, document analysis, and case studies. A particularly complex implementation of mixed methods includes the work by

48

T. M. Benney, A. Orsini, D. Cantwell, and L. Iozelli

Orsini (2013), who developed an analytical framework to map how nonstate actors transmit knowledge and resources and then used that model to understand and categorize how nonstate actors participated in forestry negotiations. This article was unique because of its combination of theoretical modelling through qualitative data and quantitative analysis of a case study. A unique application of (multiple) mixed methods included Lebel et al.’s work (2016), which runs a role-playing simulation of fish farming to measure decision-making and then follows up this exercise with in-depth interviews to better understand causal factors for decisionmaking in the simulation. These various innovations reflect a clear and growing strength in the ESG–Agency research. 3.3.2 Historical Trends in Methods of ESG–Agency Research Interestingly, when the ESG–Agency Harvesting data are classified based on methods used over the past decade, several key trends and important gaps emerge. As Table 3.4 illustrates, while the overall number of publications in the field has increased, qualitative studies have remained the dominant methodological approach in this research. Since the field of ESG is still fairly new, these findings may reflect an effort to focus on foundational research in the field. It may also suggest a preference for theory development, which may require a more robust methodological approach, thus driving the use of diverse methods in the field.

Count

40

20

0 2008

Qualitative

2009

2010

2011 2012 2013 Date of Publication

Multiple Qualitative Methods

Mixed

2014

2015

Other/QCA/Synthetic

Figure 3.2 Methods categories by type and year (2008–2016).

2016

Quantitative

Theories and Methods of Agency Research

49

Although qualitative methods have remained the dominant methodological type, from 2011 to 2014, there is a distinct trend away from single qualitative approaches towards multimethod qualitative approaches. We also find a measurable uptick in quantitative research during this period, but this is followed by a distinct decline in such methods since 2015. This may suggest a movement towards increased hypotheses testing following the earlier period of foundational research and theory development common to many new research agendas (e.g., Chemistry, Biology, or Physics) (Kuhn, 1962). It may also reflect a rise in research focused on the 2008–2009 Global Economic Crisis, which is generally more intuitively studied using multi- or quantitative methods. While there is some back sliding in these trends beginning in 2015, efforts to triangulate and capture complexity through increasingly sophisticated methodological approaches are a promising sign and suggest some advancement in our understanding of the issue of agency (see Chapter 14). Despite the lower levels of quantitative and synthetic methods, the variety of methods used over time has become consistently more diverse. Thus, calls for increasing methodological pluralism from the 2009 ESG Science Plan (Biermann et al., 2009) have been heard, but there is still room for growth. While there has been extensive theory building and case studies on agency in environmental governance as a result of the dominant focus on qualitative approaches, there has simultaneously been a lack of research on agency that utilizes computer modelling, quantitative, or mixed method analysis. For example, according to Roig-Tierno et al. (2017, p. 25), the use of QCA has growing by 60% across all major disciplines, yet QCA and other synthetic approaches still account for only about 1% of ESG–Agency research. This is even more remarkable because the authors found that environmental sciences were the second largest consumer of QCA research (Roig-Tierno et al., 2017, p. 27). The lack of complex system-based approaches has also left gaps in the literature in some, more complex areas. For instance, calls for ‘systematic comparison of perceptions of agency across nonstate actors’ (Nasiritousi, Hjerpe, and Linner, 2016, p. 110) and ‘systematic interrogation or analysis of dimensions of agency in environmental change literature’ (Brown and Westaway, 2011, p. 326) further support the need for ESG–Agency research to expand into these new forms of analysis if increased interdisciplinary is sincerely the end goal. Some examples of this work being done outside of the ESG project include systematic comparison of nonstate actor perceptions of democratization efforts and institutions done in International Relations scholarship (Grugel, 2002; Payne and Samhat, 2012), as well as nonstate actor perspectives of international law (Ryngaert, 2016). Such approaches are also broadly used in environmental studies where teams, like Mark Jacobson’s (Jacobson et al., 2017) at Stanford, apply modelling approaches to clean energy transitions. Their recent book provides an energy transition plan for 139

50

T. M. Benney, A. Orsini, D. Cantwell, and L. Iozelli

countries based on an interdisciplinary Complex Adaptative System approach that they modelled to demonstrate how countries can reach a 1.5°C freeze to combat global warming. Research like this is compelling and is a natural next step to the theoretical foundations the ESG project has established over the past decade What explains the dominance of qualitative approaches? Possibly ESG–Agency research is inherently less well suited to synthetic, mixed, or quantitative methods; the sample or study has flaws; or the researchers using these types of methods have not been attracted to the field or the related publications. In any case, the ESG Project could benefit from supporting even greater methodological advancement and sophistication in the field. While that does not mean giving up the key approaches used today, efforts to integrate those approaches into larger projects (team science) is one key way to make advances. The ESG Project could also support training in mixed, multi-, and synthetic methods and provide special panels or sections focussed on advancing methods in the field. If the ‘main challenge is to find new methods or to combine a set of methods that can be used in inter or transdisciplinary research’ (Earth System Governance Project, 2018a, pp. 70–1), then some creative efforts will be needed to encourage the use of these methods in ESG–Agency research. 3.4 Conclusions and Future Research In an effort to better understand the important trends in ESG–Agency research, this chapter explored the types of theories and methods used over the past decade to study agency among earth system actors. From our analysis of theoretical frames over the past decade, we noted three key trends. In addition to a consistent increase in the use of Social and System Dynamic Theories, we also find an increase in the use of Participatory and Actorness approaches in Agency Theory and increasing use of Governmentality and Justice approaches within the Critical Theory categories. Likewise, our analysis of methodological approaches showed a clear preference for qualitative and multiple method qualitative research, and a very slowly growing methodological pluralism. While the 2009 ESG Science Plan made distinct calls to develop more interdisciplinary and complex methods and to integrate them into the social science arena, progress has been slow and even receded since 2015. What is clear from this analysis is that a diversity of theoretical frames has always been available to the ESG scholar, and increasingly methodological pluralism is being encouraged, but has not emerged in the key areas. As the 2018 ESG Science Plan (Earth System Governance Project, 2018a, p. 69) points out, scholars should be encouraged to choose the theory and method that best suits their research question or world view. It is precisely this diversity of perspective that underlies the concept of ‘team science’, that in fact, a better, more durable outcome or resolution

Theories and Methods of Agency Research

51

can be achieved when multiple perspectives are considered (Chapter 15). In short, innovative methods and theoretical frames must remain a priority if the ESG– Agency research is to advance further. The new ESG Science Plan is a keen reminder that quality research and methodological rigor should always remain a priority no matter the subject.

4 How Geographies and Issues Matter in ESG–Agency Research ANDREA K . GE RL AK , MEGA N M ILLS - NOVO A , ALISON ELDER , O KECHUK WU EN ECHI , P R ITE E S H A RM A , AND KAN AK SINGH

Chapter Highlights • Earth System Governance (ESG)–Agency scholarship most commonly focusses on the global arena as well as Asia and Europe, with critical geographic gaps in Africa and the Middle East. • Climate change is the dominant issue studied in ESG–Agency research, followed by forests and freshwater. • To address the geographic imbalance in ESG–Agency research, scholars need to develop research projects and collaborations in understudied regions while also recruiting and supporting scholars in those regions to engage with this research agenda.

4.1 Introduction As initially conceived under the 2009 Science Plan, the Earth System Governance (ESG) Project was envisioned to reflect a diversity of social science perspectives and engage in a variety of issues that span the globe (Biermann et al., 2009, p. 23). In recognizing that only integrated global solutions can ensure a sustainable coevolution of coupled natural and human systems, it was expected that ESG research would span the entire globe, but also draw on local experiences and insights that offer solutions to governance problems. The relevance of the ESG Project is greatly dependent on facing and acknowledging the different contextual conditions in which the global community interacts. An analysis of different geographies with their specific issues and their respective emerging trends are important in understanding the scope and extent of ESG research, and ultimately, its potential impact. 52

Geographies and Issues in ESG–Agency Research

53

In this chapter, we examine trends in ESG–Agency scholarship through a lens of geography and issues. We conduct an analysis of the ESG–Agency literature from 2008 to 2016, which was drawn from the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database (see Chapter 1 and the Appendix). We are interested in better understanding the trends in the geographic regions studied, the issues addressed, and the relationship between geography and issues in ESG scholarship over the past decade. 4.2 Analysis of Agency Research in ESG by Geography The 322 publications in the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database reflect a wide range of geographic foci from highly local case studies in particular countries to global comparative work. Approximately 87% of scholarly publications analyzed empirically situated Agency research in a particular area of analysis.1 Large-scale analyses are common, with approximately 22% of papers (n = 75) examining research questions at a global scale, highlighting the prevalence of high-level, earth system scale analyses conducted by ESG scholars. As an example of this trend, Pattberg and Stripple (2008) examine transnational climate governance by focusing on nonstate and transnational approaches in the international arena. These globalscale analyses offer new empirical and theoretical approaches that highlight the earth system focus of the ESG network. Analyzing agency at a global scale highlights the larger structural factors that shape agency more broadly. Alternatively, studies that focus on agency at the local scale provide insight into how contextspecific cultural identity, gender, and political economy shape and are shaped by the agency of diverse agents with implications for earth system governance. Approximately ten percent (n = 33) of papers conducted a comparative regional approach, examining common research questions across two or more regions. Exemplifying this approach, Jacobs et al. (2016) analyze the role of participatory governance and scientific information in decision-making across four basins in Brazil, Mexico, Thailand, and the United States. By drawing on the empirical work of a large interdisciplinary collaborative team, these scholars were able to draw cross-regional conclusions relating to sustainable water resources management. ESG research can be found in all regions of the world. Europe (17%) and Asia (18%) were the two research-site regions with the greatest concentration of ESG scholarship. Jointly, approximately 24% of all papers examined in the ESG– Agency Harvesting Database focus on Europe and/or the United States, reflecting the prevalence of Global North focused studies in the ESG network. In contrast, we find a dearth of ESG work in Africa (7%) and the Middle East/North Africa (1%). 1

Fifteen percent (n = 50) of papers did not specify a scale of analysis and were therefore coded as “none” or “not specified” in terms of geographical focus.

54

A. K. Gerlak, M. Mills-Novoa, A. Elder, et al.

Table 4.1 ESG publications by region, 2008–2016

Africa Asia Arctic Europe Global Latin America North America Oceania Middle East/North Africa None

2008–2010

2011–2013

2014–2016

Total

5 9 0 12 15 7 0 1 1 5

6 23 2 24 29 7 7 5 1 19

12 36 1 20 31 17 19 5 3 20

23 68 3 56 75 31 26 11 5 44

Note: Each region was counted individually if papers examined multiple regions. This periodization was chosen for analysis because it is evenly divides the years under analysis.

The imbalances of ESG study sites highlight critical geographical gaps for current ESG scholars (see Table 4.1). Since 2008, the number of papers published within the ESG network has substantially grown and the geographical breakdown of these papers has also shifted. In the earliest period, from 2008 to 2010, studies focused predominantly on Europe, but other regions have become increasingly more important sites of analysis over time (see Table 4.1). There is considerable scholarship that looks across the European Union instead of focusing on one particular country. As an example, van Tatenhove et al. (2014) investigated the efficacy and key challenges of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive for developing cooperation around the management of European seas. Regions such as Asia, Africa, and Latin America have been increasingly analyzed by scholars within the region over the nine years studied. The expansion of regionally comparative research in earth system governance reflects the increasing engagement of ESG scholars outside of Europe. In particular, there was a substantial increase in scholarship in the 2014–2016 period for Asia, Africa, Latin America, and North America. In one respect, this is a function of increasing numbers of publications within the ESG networks, but Europefocused studies have not increased from 2008 to 2016, suggesting that ESG scholars are increasingly focusing on regions outside of Europe (see Table 4.1). A prime example of the growing research is the work of Naess et al. (2015) that investigates how climate policy meets national development contexts in Kenya and Mozambique. This increasing focus on the regions outside of Europe reflects an encouraging trend within the network.

Geographies and Issues in ESG–Agency Research

55

4.3 Analysis of Agency Research in ESG by Issue There are a diverse set of issues addressed in ESG–Agency research, from climate change and fisheries to water, energy, and biodiversity. Of the 322 total publications in the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database, with some publications addressing multiple issues (n = 72), climate change is the most frequent issue discussed (n = 103 or 29%). Forests are the second most frequent issue, discussed in 35 publications or 10% of the publications studied here, followed closely by freshwater (10%) and ecosystems and land use (8%) (see Table 4.2). The ESG publications focusing on the climate change issue have a central focus on environmental governance issues encompassing a range of scales and a variety of actors (see Chapters 2 and 9). Many of the publications are case studies of a particular area and issue. For example, Prno et al. (2011) focus on the Kugluktuk community’s vulnerability to climate change in the context of other social, political, and economic changes in Nunavut, Canada. Similarly, Bastakoti et al. (2014) examine the perceived climate risks and existing

Table 4.2 Issues in ESG publications, 2008–2016 Total number of publications (%)

Issue Climate Change Other

a

103 (29) 47 (13)

Forests

35 (10)

Freshwater

34 (10)

Ecosystems and Land Use

29 (8)

None

28 (8)

Biodiversity

19 (5)

Energy

19 (5)

Fisheries

15 (4)

Trade/Markets

12 (3)

Oceans

10 (3)

Total

351 (100)

a

Other includes sanitation, Arctic, disaster management, environmental policy and institutions, polar regions, wetlands, urban environmental policy, sustainable development, international finance, role of scientists, environment and development, housing, infrastructure, hazards, disasters, health, and international development.

56

A. K. Gerlak, M. Mills-Novoa, A. Elder, et al.

adaptation strategies at the local level in the Lower Mekong River Basin in two specific areas in Thailand and Vietnam. Finally, Munaretto and Huitema (2012) explore the potential for adaptive co-management in the context of the Venice Lagoon. The scales range from the local to regional to national and international and the actors range from individuals to environmental justice nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to governments to international partnerships and governance groups. This focus on the interaction and collaboration of actors at the local and international scales and between actors in the private and public sectors illustrates an all-inclusive focus of ESG-Agency papers addressing climate change. In addition to being by far the most frequently addressed issue in ESG-Agency papers, climate change is also the issue most commonly linked with other issues in the 72 papers coded as addressing multiple issues. Slightly more than 50% (n = 53) of the ESG climate change papers are coded as multiple (e.g. – climate change along with another issue). An examination of the issues coded as multiple along with climate change reveals the cross-cutting nature of the climate change issue. Seven articles are coded for forests and climate change, five for freshwater and climate change, three for energy, two for ecosystems and land use, one for fisheries, and the rest for a host of other issues including health and biodiversity. This overwhelming focus on climate change in ESG papers illustrates its significant relationship with all of the other issues. As is illustrated in this diversity of papers, the climate change reality must be considered in relation to local and global governance problems (e.g., Biermann, 2010), international and subsistence agriculture (e.g., Olsson and Jerneck, 2010), humanitarian response organizations (e.g., Gero et al., 2014), national health and water sectors (e.g., Bowen et al., 2015), and a diversity of other areas. The ESG forests articles consist of a mix of case studies and papers that focus broadly on global governance issues. Of 35 ESG papers about forests, approximately 50% (17 articles) address REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation) processes (see Chapter 11). The REDD+ articles include both case studies of specific REDD+ programs such as Babon et al.’s (2014) article combining policy network approaches with the advocacy coalition framework to examine the influence of various coalitions in Papua New Guinea’s REDD+ policy domain. The papers also include broader explorations of REDD+ such as Dunlop and Corbera’s (2016) comparative study of national level REDD+ planning documents with an analysis of their governance themes and plans for implementing benefit sharing mechanisms (BSMs). The remaining ESG forests articles discuss topics ranging from the use of community forestry as a platform for social change by women in Nepal (Giri and Darhnofer, 2010) to the role of multiforum nonstate actors in global environmental governance (Orsini, 2013). A theme across the

Geographies and Issues in ESG–Agency Research

57

forests papers is a focus on including local voices in forest governance decisions, specifically marginalized groups such as indigenous people and women. Along with this theme is the criticism that voices heard do not translate into policy. The papers emphasize the multilevel, multiscale, multiactor nature of forest governance and many offer suggestions for more inclusive decision and implementation processes. The ESG freshwater articles address a broad variety of topics (n = 34). A vast majority of the freshwater articles, 85% (29 articles), are either case studies or comparative studies of particular geographies in the world. Several papers address transboundary water governance (n = 5) and hydraulic development (n = 4). The freshwater papers range from Partzsch and Ziegler’s (2011) examination of social entrepreneurs as change agents in the water sector to Mermeae et al.’s (2014) analysis of hydropower financing in the Mekong basin to Armitage et al.’s (2015) study of science-policy processes for transboundary water governance. A theme across the freshwater papers is a focus on the involvement of multiple stakeholders in governance and decision-making processes. This attention to climate change and freshwater is not altogether unexpected given that both of these issues were original flagship activities of the ESG Project. Climate change and freshwater are also systems central to planetary boundaries (Rockström et al., 2009). Other flagship issues – including the global food system and the global economic systems – are not as obvious from our analysis. Although we find some examples of food research in our database of agency research over the past decade (e.g., Clapp and Helleiner, 2012; Gabrielsson and Ramasar, 2013; Olsson and Jerneck, 2010), scholars of global food systems, including food certification, standards, and justice, do not appear to be well connected or integrated into the ESG framework, or these authors imply do not embrace ESG language. Our broader coding of issues under the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database related to the global economic system has been narrowly reduced to issues of trade and markets, and as a result, makes up a small percentage (12 papers, or 4%) of the publications studied here. This research looks at a variety of issues including the distributive and procedural justice implications for host communities with carbon market projects such as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), the REDD+ program, and voluntary carbon markets (VCMs) (Mathur et al., 2014) as well as the appropriate roles for business, government, and civil society in the sustainability transition, with a special focus on the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (Brown, de Jong, and Lessidrenska, 2009). However, when we performed a keyword search of abstracts in the ESG–Agency Harvesting Project Database for other economic-related terms such as “economics,” “private actors,” and “corporations,” we found a breadth of ESG research pertaining to global economic systems. We see global economic systems research

# of Issues in articles

58

A. K. Gerlak, M. Mills-Novoa, A. Elder, et al. 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Climate Change (103) Forests (35) Fresh Water (34) Ecosystems and Land Use (29) Biodiversity (19) Energy (19) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Year

Figure 4.1 Top six ESG issues addressed over time in ESG scholarship, 2008–2016.

across most of the issue areas studied. For example, there are studies examining the effects of transnational governance in climate change on global economic systems (Bäckstrand, 2008; Bulkeley et al., 2012; Corbera and Jover, 2012), as well as on the intersection of global economic systems with a range of other issue areas including ecosystems and land use (Simpson et al., 2016; Yengoh et al., 2016), biodiversity (Apostolopoulou et al., 2014; Young et al., 2012), energy (Lesage and Van de Graaf, 2013; Van de Graaf and Lesage, 2009), forests (Gallemore et al., 2015; Wyatt et al., 2015), and freshwater (Mirumachi and Torriti, 2012; Pahl-Wostl et al., 2012). Another interesting observation found in these data is a relatively steady increase in the number of ESG–Agency publications over time, characterized by some peaks and low points based on the issue area. Figure 4.1 shows the change over time of the top six issues: climate change, forests, freshwater, ecosystems and land use, biodiversity, and energy. This suggests that several issues addressed in ESG– Agency scholarship – such as biodiversity and forests – may rise and fall over time, but are generally on the rise. Other issues, such as climate change, energy, forests, and freshwater, have increased over time, but may be reaching a plateau, based on our review of the scholarship. Ecosystem and land use research stand out over the last two years. Here we see an almost 50% increase (14 out of 29 articles) of ESG publications on ecosystems and land management over the two-year period from 2015 to 2016, with papers published in a diversity of journals including Ecology and Society and Land Use Policy, among others. 4.4 The Intersection of Geographies and Issues Our analysis of scholarly publications focusing on issues from a geographical perspective shows that while climate change accounts for the most commonly

Geographies and Issues in ESG–Agency Research

59

researched issue area in the ESG literature, in the African region, for example, only 5% (n = 5) of papers studied climate. Of those five publications, the focus is less on the science and instead largely focused on power configuration and socioeconomic issues (Chapter 11). For example, Naess et al. (2015) focus on national development policy and climate change in Kenya and Mozambique, where they find that climate change and development outcomes are viewed differently based on how they are framed, who framed them, and which actors are involved. In contrast, climate change studies are often focused at the global scale (n = 17), which reflects the nature of the climate change problematique and its scale of governance. Asia has also been the site of substantial climate change scholarship within the ESG network (n = 21), likely because of China’s role as the largest greenhouse gas emitter globally and its crucial role in climate governance. The forest and agency scholarship can be found across geographical regions. Global studies focused on global forest governance (n = 7) initiatives such as REDD+ as detailed earlier or general forest management principles. Surprisingly, Latin America (n = 5) was not an area of focus despite the importance of the Amazon forest as a deforestation hotspot. Oceania (n = 3)-focused case studies are scant despite the importance of Indonesia as a case for forest governance. For example, Babon et al. (2014) examines the role of advocacy coalitions in forest governance under REDD+ in Papua New Guinea. In the forestry sector, additional comparative and case-study research is needed in deforestation hotspots such as Indonesia and Brazil. The freshwater and agency scholarship cover most geographical regions but especially Asia (n = 8) and global studies (n = 7). Studies conducted in Asia largely address questions of stakeholder engagement and institutional capacity. For example, Larson et al. (2013) studied the role of informal networks in promoting robust and adaptive urban water management in Indonesia. In contrast, Smits and Middleton (2014) find that the water governance–climate finance nexus in Vietnam has, despite its promise, not created new opportunities for community engagement. At the global scale, Mukhtarov and Gerlak (2013) examined the role of transnational policy entrepreneurs in producing and maintaining the global discourse of river basin organizations, a key element in global water governance. In looking across geography and issues, the scalar nature of the environmental issue is an important factor in determining the scale and regional focus of research (see Chapter 9). The prevalence of global-scale studies in climate studies, for example, reflects this trend. Despite the relationship between the scale of the issue and its related research, the same limitations found in our analysis of the overall geographical distribution of ESG studies are visible within issue areas. Looking across issues, the regional distribution of studies echoes the overall geographical distribution across all studies in the ESG Harvest database; namely,

60

A. K. Gerlak, M. Mills-Novoa, A. Elder, et al.

the majority of studies by issue area are in the following three areas: global, Asia, and Europe. This trend is reflected across issue areas, despite the differentiated regional importance of particular environmental issues. For example, within the forestry issue area, there are crucial scholarly gaps because many of the regions facing the greatest forestry challenges such as Latin America are understudied by the ESG network. 4.5 Future Directions The diversity of issue areas reflected in ESG–Agency research is considerable. Climate change is by far the most researched issue area in the ESG–Agency scholarship published over the past decade. This should come as no surprise given the broader shift in climate change in global environmental governance research (Dauvergne and Clapp, 2016). The dominance of climate change in current events over the study period may also explain why it has received as much attention from ESG–Agency researchers. It is also likely due to the fact that climate governance scholars more broadly have been aware of the ESG Project and have been active participants in the program. Some areas of the world are just not sufficiently studied. For example, while research on the Middle East/North Africa has tripled from 2008 to 2016, these publications still represent only 1% of those in our database. The imbalances of ESG study sites highlights critical geographical gaps for current ESG scholars (Chapter 15). It reinforces the assumption of global imbalance in ESG knowledge production between the Global North and South, which often do not reflect contextual sociopolitical variables of the South. We still simply don’t know enough about earth system governance in many parts of the Global South. This also highlights sites for strategic recruitment of scholars in these regions to join the ESG network. Cumulatively, the Global North, consisting of countries in Europe, North America, and Australia, accounts for approximately 79% of the total scholars of the ESG Project. Africa (n = 19, or 6%) and Latin America (n = 17, or 5%) have the fewest scholars on the ESG Project (Earth System Governance Project, 2018b). While scholars often study outside the region of their institutional affiliation, this geographical imbalance in the membership of the ESG network is likely a contributing factor to the lack of research in regions such as Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East. To ameliorate this imbalance in the geographical focus of the ESG network, scholars need to develop research projects and collaborations in understudied regions while also recruiting and supporting local scholars to become ESG members. The new ESG Science Plan (Earth System Governance Project, 2018a) acknowledges that the current capacity-building activities within the ESG Project have been

Geographies and Issues in ESG–Agency Research

61

focused on strengthening the research capacity, developing structured approaches, and facilitating exchange between the researchers. However, plans to expand the research agenda of the ESG network should be accompanied with broader agendas of capacity building and development (Earth System Governance Project, 2018a). A more “community organizing approach,” as outlined in the new Science Plan, can help to expand the research membership base of the ESG Project and adopt different foci on the targets for the capacity-building activities. Such a strategy is necessary if we are to truly lessen the gap in the North–South divide in research and innovation (Baskaran, 2017). Based on our analysis provided in this chapter, it is especially important to narrow the gap between current responses to the ESG Project and needed responses from various geographical points in different contextual issues. Framing and advancing ESG-Agency research on issues that are geographically specific will elicit interest among scholars and policymakers located in the Global South. With the Global South focused on socioeconomic and development issues, it is especially important that research issues are situated in the development context.

Part Two Agency and the Dynamics of Earth System Governance

5 Power(ful) and Power(less): A Review of Power in the ESG–Agency Scholarship AND RE A K . GE RL AK , TH OMAS R . EIME R , M A R I E - C L A I RE B RI S B O IS , MEGA N M ILLS NOV OA , L UUK SCH MITZ , J O R R IT LU I M E R S , AND PA IV I ABERNETHY

Chapter Highlights • Earth System Governance (ESG)–Agency scholars frequently use power as an explanatory variable, but often without definition or theoretical conceptualization. • Reflections on power in earth system governance research are divided between agency-centered (power to) and structure-centered (power over) perspectives, which mirrors the historic schism between liberal and critical International Relations scholars. • In the future, more comprehensive conceptualizations of power will strengthen the persuasiveness of normative arguments in ESG–Agency scholarship.

5.1 Introduction An academic examination of power is historically associated with the sources of power and the legal authority of the state. Yet, in an era of accelerated globalization, there is ongoing debate about the ability of the state to “command and control” (Clapp and Fuchs, 2009; Paavola, 2007). Authority for earth system governance has become more diffuse (Biermann et al., 2009; see also Chapter 2). Power may be rooted in ideational resources such as scientific knowledge or (perceived) moral superiority (Börzel and Risse, 2015). For instance, while the value of different types of knowledge is acknowledged in governance literature, both political decision-makers and scientists still tend to exercise power over “others” by determining the acceptable forms and expressions of knowledge (discursive power as defined by Foucault, 1980, p. 185). Empirically, different sources of power are intertwined and appear at least partially fungible (Eimer, 2014). Hence scientific discourse in

65

66

A. K. Gerlak, T. R. Eimer, M. C. Brisbois, et al.

itself both exerts power over other types of knowing and is influenced by sociopolitical power structures (see Chapter 7). In addition to studying sources of power, social scientists examine the modes through which power is exerted. Robert Dahl’s (1957, p. 204) understanding of power as a “successful attempt by ‘A’ to get ‘B’ to do something he would not otherwise do” is often used as a starting point in these discussions. While this concept presupposes intentional agency, Susan Strange (1988, p. 23) highlighted the impact of structural power, or ‘the indirect effect of authority on the context or surrounding conditions,’ which is anticipated by all actors involved. Lukes (2005, p. 27) describes another mode for exerting power that is enacted through discourses ‘by influencing, shaping or determining [the] very wants’ of the subject of power. Power is also linked to normative issues such as justice, equity, legitimacy, empowerment, participation, and transparency. For example, there is a broad consensus in the ESG literature that both the empirical legitimacy of power and its normative approval in academic writings strongly depend on the tacit consent of those subjected to power relationships (Steffek, 2004; see also Chapter 2). Whereas scholars of distributive justice assume that this consent is constituted by the results of political decisions (Cohen, 1987; Martinez-Alier, 2014), those studying procedural justice assume that the legitimate exertion of power depends on the establishment of participatory rights (Kuyper, 2014; Paavola, 2007; Williams, 1999; see Chapter 11). Normative perspectives argue that those who participate in power relationships should have a say about both how and for what purposes power is used (Nanz and Steffek, 2004; Schlosberg, 2004; see also Chapter 10). The purpose of this chapter is to summarize the ways in which ESG scholars have studied the link between Agency and Power over the last decade. The new ESG Science Plan indicates that power is a multidimensional concept that may be exercised through control over material as well as ideational resources, embracing structural and discursive dimensions (Earth System Governance Project, 2018a). As a starting point, we draw on Max Weber, who famously defined power as ‘any chance, within a social relationship, of giving effect to one’s own will even against opposition, whatever such chance rests on’ (Weber, 1925, p. 28). 5.2 Exploring Sources, Modes, and Normative Concerns of Power In the 2009 Earth System Governance (ESG) Science Plan (Biermann et al., 2009), Power was identified, alongside Norms, Knowledge, and Scale, as a cross-cutting research theme that is crucial for the study of each analytical problem, and also for the integrated understanding of earth system governance (see Chapter 1). Power is central in analyzing the emergence, maintenance, and influence of environmental governance architectures at local, national, and global levels. The 2009 ESG

Review of Power in the ESG–Agency Scholarship

67

Science Plan emphasizes that power has both constraining (power over) and enabling (power to) effects (Biermann et al., 2009, p. 67). We examined how power is defined and conceptualized in the ESG literature according to sources of power, the modes of its exertion, and how it is viewed from a normative perspective. In doing so, we ground our review by accounting for both the disposition of power and its exercise (Morriss, 1987). Our inclusion of normative assessments reflects the ESG network’s focus on the empirical results of power-based relationships. Our analysis is grounded in the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database developed by the contributors of this book between 2016 and 2018 (see Chapter 1 and the Appendix). Of the 322 articles in the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database, originally some 45% (n = 146) indicated attention to the cross-cutting ESG theme of Power. On closer examination of the articles, 18 were eliminated because they were not centrally focused on the topic of Power, resulting in 128 papers addressing Agency and Power. Our analysis is not intended to be exhaustive but rather to highlight the most salient trends and key patterns in the literature, identifying gaps and potential future directions for the next ten years of ESG research. 5.2.1 Sources of Power Our analysis of how power is defined and conceptualized reveals that explicit definitions of power are rare. We find only 20 explicit definitions of power, in 26% of the articles studied here. These included references to Lukes’ (2005) instrumental, structural, and discursive dimensions of power (Brisbois and de Loë, 2016; de Loë et al., 2016; Zeitoun et al., 2011) and Nye’s definition of soft power as the ability to achieve political goals through attraction rather than coercion (Breitmeier et al., 2011; Zeitoun et al., 2011). Others adopt Gramscian conceptualizations of power in terms of the ‘configuration of forces relative to each other and to adversaries’ (Okereke et al., 2009 referencing Levy and Newell, 2005, p. 64) and Foucauldian views of power as ‘government’ achieved through ‘modes of action, more or less considered and calculated, that were destined to act upon the possibilities of action of other people’ (Bulkeley, 2012 referencing Foucault, 2000, p. 341). Some authors provide their own context-specific definition of power. In their study of REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation), for example, Gallemore et al. (2015) show how power determines an actor’s position within multilevel REDD+ networks. They define power as the “perceived influence over REDD+” policy (Gallemore et al., 2015, p. 7). In their view, perceived or ‘reputational’ power stems from an actor’s economic, social, and legal resources. In their study of climate governance, Viola et al. (2012) define

68

A. K. Gerlak, T. R. Eimer, M. C. Brisbois, et al.

‘climate power’ as the ‘level of influence of certain agents over the climate social outcome at systemic level’ (Viola et al., 2012, p. 26). Overall, these findings reflect both diversity and a lack of formality in how power is defined and conceptualized in earth system governance research. 5.2.2 Modes of Power In terms of modes of power, or how power is exercised, we find that power is addressed from roughly two different perspectives. Liberal or productive approaches address power in the context of resource-dependent, yet at least potentially cooperative, interactions (e.g., Dombrowski, 2010). More critical perspectives focus on fundamental socioeconomic inequalities and inherently exploitative relationships (e.g., Bulkeley and Schroeder, 2012). Some approaches span both liberal and critical perspectives. For example, work on corporate power in global governance discusses both the continuous reproduction of structural inequalities by global supply chains and potential weaknesses in corporate power due to competition between firms (e.g., Clapp and Fuchs, 2009; Newell, 2012). Many of the authors using a liberal approach use power as a contextual condition or an underlying explanatory factor. Di Lucia and Kronsell (2010), for example, argue that power constellations are responsible for the implementation or nonimplementation of European Union (EU) environmental directives. Okereke and Coventry (2016) show that industrialized countries have made use of their geopolitical power to weaken the principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibility’ in the international climate regime. In these articles, power is implicitly understood as a potential to influence (Lesage et al., 2009) and to veto particular environmental policies, or to shift the decision-making to another arena (Biermann, 2010). This potential is ascribed to states (Coolsaet and Pitseys, 2015; Koivurova et al., 2012), corporate actors (Lund, 2013; Österblom et al., 2015), or both (Orsini, 2012). At least implicitly, the power of states is often connected to their lawmaking and enforcement capacities (Barau and Said, 2016), whereas the power of corporate actors stems from their superior economic resources (Di Lucia and Kronsell, 2010). While power gives agency to some actors (Morin, 2010), it is perceived as a structural condition by other involved or affected parties (Kolhoff et al., 2013). Papers from more liberal perspectives were often concerned with how seemingly less powerful actors may succeed in increasing their influence in environmental politics. These papers principally focus on the role of intergovernmental organizations and secretariats (Lesage and Van de Graaf, 2013) and environmental nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) (Böhmelt and Betzold, 2013; Davidson and de Loë, 2016). They describe how ideational resources make it possible for these actors to stimulate policy changes (see Chapter 7). For example, civil society

Review of Power in the ESG–Agency Scholarship

69

actors’ creative ideas and knowledge can challenge existing power structures in the water sector (Bowen et al., 2015), the establishment of networks strengthens the political clout of climate NGOs (Dombrowski, 2010), and expertise and “institutional memory” increase the authority of the World Trade Organization (WTO) secretariat (Jinnah, 2010). In line with broader liberal approaches, these articles take structural constraints as a given, but argue that ideational resources give agency to a broader range of societal actors and can allow them to have a significant say in environmental decision-making processes. This may also lead to the empowerment of traditionally marginalized actors, (e.g., widows in the rural areas in developing countries) (Gabrielsson and Ramasar, 2013). The sometimes optimistic assessment of weaker actors’ capacity for influence stands in stark contrast to those analyses rooted in traditions of critical political economy and ecology (e.g., Burke and Heynen, 2014; Forsyth, 2004; Gill and Cutler, 2014; Harvey, 2003). These types of analyses highlight the complexities of power, such as differentiating between benign versus malign forms of power (Sayer, 2011, p. 242), and authority and relations of power (Hajer, 2009; McKechnie, 1996). In this literature, power is generally understood as a structural constraint that stabilizes or even reinforces the hegemonic status quo of financially strong elites (Gill and Cutler, 2014; Wyatt et al., 2015). Underprivileged actors (e.g., indigenous groups) may be admitted to formally participate at decision-making processes, but their inclusion is understood as a more or less subtle form of cooptation (Bulkeley and Schroeder, 2012). In their case study on adaptive comanagement in the Venice Lagoon, Munaretto and Huitema (2012) argue that mainly the lack of social capital prevents weaker actors from being heard. Certomà (2015) shows that the ignorance of less powerful actors’ input is not necessarily a consequence of conscious strategic choices, but may be imbedded in historically evolved understandings of ‘rationality’ that preclude alternative policy courses from the outset. Throughout our analysis, ESG–Agency scholars tend to treat power as a key determinant of social interactions. Yet, power dimensions in earth system governance deserve much deeper social analyses, with foci ranging from conditional relationships, trust, credibility, and legitimacy to identities, institutional structures, discourses, and representations (Jasanoff, 2004). Further, economic aspects deserve more explicit attention. While superior financial resources may directly lead to an imbalanced representation in decision-making processes (Paloniemi et al., 2015), many authors follow a Gramscian perspective and argue that hierarchical (legal), economic, and discursive forms of power are mutually intertwined and lead to a capitalist hegemony (Bulkeley and Schroeder, 2012; Spagnuolo, 2011). Within this branch of the ESG literature, authors put particular emphasis on the ideational dimension of power, referring to Foucault’s concept of

70

A. K. Gerlak, T. R. Eimer, M. C. Brisbois, et al.

governmentality as the underlying structuration principle of environmental politics (e.g., Bernstein, 2011; Bulkeley et al., 2014). Against this background, the critical literature generally assumes that marginalized actors (e.g., indigenous or minority groups) will further be marginalized under any capitalist environmental governance regime (Apostolopoulou et al., 2014; Okereke and Coventry, 2016; Schroeder, 2010). Across the articles examined, these two interrelated perspectives, power as capacity for action within cocreated structures and power as continuously reinforcing capitalist hegemonic structures, are used to explain the structure, functioning, and outcomes of environmental governance. 5.2.3 Normative Assessments of Power About one-third of article authors link their understanding of power directly to normative concerns such as justice and equity (see Chapter 11). These connections make clear that the consideration of power in earth system governance is not an end unto itself. Instead, power is often employed as a conceptual lens to identify and address larger normative issues. For example, Okereke and Coventry (2016) argue that power dynamics shape the extent to which justice concerns are considered in the Paris Agreement and will impact the extent to which resultant action is effective. Likewise, Nayak et al. (2016) look beyond power as they examine the impacts of politics on socioecological regime shifts in lagoons in India and Vietnam: ‘Crafting effective governance responses to dynamic and multi-scale changes thus requires specific attention to equity, justice and power dimensions of change’ (Nayak et al., 2016, p. 336). In these and other articles, our analysis reveals a distinct focus on the ways that power contributes to the achievement of normatively desirable governance outcomes. Many normative assessments focus on questions of procedural legitimacy such as participation in decision-making (e.g., Giri and Darnhofer, 2010; Jodoin et al., 2015). For example, Dombrowski (2010) explores the costs and benefits of NGO participation strategies to address legitimacy issues with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meetings. Normative assessments also often focus on questions of resource distribution and distributive justice. Outcomes related to these themes are frequently presented as insufficient or negative (e.g., Nayak et al., 2016; Pickering et al., 2015; Robinson and Makupa, 2015). For example, Robinson and Makupa (2015) identify uncertainty among residents of a Wildlife Management Area in Tanzania that the distribution of resources resulting from their participation in the community-based management program was equal or fair. Such normative claims almost always highlight that outcomes could be more participatory, just, and/or equal (see Chapter 11).

Review of Power in the ESG–Agency Scholarship

71

The gap between the demand for more participation in decision processes and the allocation of (environmental) goods is sometimes tentatively connected to the question of power asymmetries (Brown, de Jong, and Levy, 2009). However, many scholars avoid analysis of the underlying causal mechanisms (e.g., societal distribution of wealth, market structures). The lack of attention to the underlying causal mechanisms that create power asymmetries represents a significant gap in ESG scholarship. Analyzing the underlying causes of power asymmetries inherently involves critical engagement with the economic structures that enable and constrain agency. Over the past 50 years, critiques of this nature have been politically unpopular. However, there is an emerging political appetite for substantive critiques and, significantly, alternatives to the economic structures that engender the power imbalances that shape environmental governance outcomes. For example, Piketty (2014) describes how the current market system contributes to social and economic instability in Europe. Participants at the 2012 World Economic Forum in Davos debated the future of capitalism in the face of widening civil unrest and environmental degradation (Schwaub, 2012). Within this emerging discursive space, there is significant opportunity for scholars of earth system governance to more substantially engage with the root causes of power asymmetries to ensure that future governance systems produce better social and environmental outcomes. 5.3 Future Research Directions Overall, we find the question of power underspecified in ESG–Agency scholarship (Chapter 15). Although power is engaged, it is rarely defined, well conceptualized, or systematically analyzed. While we find that many authors are increasingly discussing how the legitimacy of power depends on participatory process and explicit procedures, there is a general lack of empirical analysis and findings to support this. Furthermore, discussions on power in ESG–Agency scholarship tend to remain superficial and are seldom connected to the rich existing literature on power from political science, environmental sociology, or science and technology studies (e.g., Fischer, 2000; Leach et al., 2005). This reinforces the argument made by the new ESG Science Plan that Power in ESG research remains largely undertheorized (Earth System Governance Project, 2018a). Importantly, the work of the small group of scholars who have undertaken thorough analyses of power in ESG contexts is not well integrated into the broader ESG scholarship (e.g., Bernstein, 2011; Menga and Mirumachi, 2016; Zeitoun et al., 2011). There remains a tendency to refer to power as an explanatory variable in ESG processes and outcomes without proper definition or contextualization.

72

A. K. Gerlak, T. R. Eimer, M. C. Brisbois, et al.

Therefore, future work should seek to integrate a more informed perspective on power, even when the research is not specifically focused on power itself. Moving forward, we hope to see research that better conceptualizes and measures power. Future research can help ESG scholars better understand how governance can mitigate power imbalances. As a number of authors in our assessment have demonstrated, using power to analyze normative governance considerations can reveal dynamics and relationships that might otherwise remain hidden (e.g., Bernstein, 2011; Cashmore et al., 2015; Menga and Mirumachi, 2016). Thus, the field will benefit from studies that effectively use power to further improve our understanding of normative issues such as equity, justice, legitimacy, inclusion, and transparency in earth systems governance (see Chapters 11 and 13). The 2018 ESG Science Plan (Earth System Governance Project, 2018a) suggests that a greater focus on power is necessary to illuminate how different forms of unequal power are generated and sustained in global environmental governance institutions and processes. A more thorough study of normative issues through the use of power is likely to foreground highly political issues related to economic organization, and wealth and influence distribution. Our analysis reveals that, at present, many scholars use the concept of power casually as a blanket term to describe a range of politically charged dynamics that limit the achievement of desired normative goals. These issues are increasingly contested in the public sphere, and the evolution of these societal conversations will benefit from the concerted attention and expertise of ESG scholars. In particular, ESG scholars can be more explicit about the political roots and implications of power-related dynamics. A more thorough understanding of power dynamics will also help us to overcome the divisions between the liberal and the critical literature on environmental politics. Both liberal and critical ESG scholars are interested in influence chances of less powerful (civil society) actors. As of yet, the liberal literature focuses on their potentials for agency, whereas the critical literature emphasizes structural constraints. An empirically grounded and theoretically robust synthesis of these two literatures will help give a richer picture of Agency in earth system governance. It will help reveal the limitations of ‘liberal environmentalism’ (Bernstein, 2000) while also preventing an overly pessimistic assessment of the ‘green economy’ (Abbott, 2012). A more comprehensive understanding of power as both enabling and constraining structure and agency will enable the ESG community to better acknowledge the agency of ‘unheard or unheeded complaints, whether they come from the underprivileged, the disfranchised or the unborn, about the way the system works’ (Strange, 1982, p. 480). In this vein, the ESG community might eventually also make a contribution to the larger debate on legitimacy in transnational and international policymaking beyond the field of environmental politics.

6 The Performance of Agency in Earth System Governance M IC H E LE M . BET SILL AND MANJ ANA MILK OREIT

Chapter Highlights • Earth System Governance (ESG)–Agency scholars have identified 20 environmental governance functions performed by agents in earth system governance, with most scholarly attention focused on rule-making and regulation; convening and facilitating participation; and knowledge generation, provision, and sharing. • Forms of governance and multilevel/multiscalar dynamics serve as structural factors that enable or constrain the performance of agency in earth system governance. • ESG–Agency scholarship over the past decade confirms that the state remains a key agent of earth system governance, despite expectations that the state’s role would diminish with the rise of nonstate actors and the reconfiguration of authority in world politics.

6.1 Introduction Agency is a central concept in the social sciences and is usually defined as the ability to act independently, to exercise one’s own free will and thereby shape the future course of life events according with one’s own desires. Given the focus on intentionality, some scholarship in philosophy and psychology has focused on the cognitive dimensions of agency – the beliefs and ideas that generate a person’s will, their goals and motivations, and how those ideas translate into decisions and actions (Bandura, 1989). Within political science, social constructivist approaches to agency reflect this cognitive focus: identities, norms, and other ideas are key for explaining the decisions and behaviors of political actors (Milkoreit, 2017, p. 162). In this chapter, we focus instead on a related, behavioral dimension of agency and the question of how agents manipulate their environment with their decisions and 73

74

M. M. Betsill and M. Milkoreit

actions. We explore what agents do, especially what governance functions they fulfill, rather than inquiring about the motivations these actions are rooted in. Recognizing agents as “authoritative actors” (Chapter 1), we seek to understand how agents enact, conduct and perform agency in earth system governance. We acknowledge the iterative, and interdependent relationship between becoming authoritative and enacting agency. It is through the process of governing that agents continuously (re-)constitute, secure, maintain, and sometimes lose their authority (Heubaum and Biermann, 2015; Orsini, 2012; Partzsch and Ziegler, 2011; Pattberg, 2012; see also Chapter 2). The form of authority that gives rise to agency also enables, shapes, or constrains the governance functions and activities that agents can legitimately perform. In this chapter, we foreground what agents do with their authority and how they engage with earth system governance through the performance of diverse governance functions. This chapter reviews research conducted within the context of the Earth System Governance (ESG) Project on how agents exercise agency. The discussion is based on a qualitative analysis of the 254 abstracts in the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database (Chapter 1 and the Appendix) coded as relevant to the question ‘How do agents exercise agency?’ While our focus is on the performance of governance functions, it is important to note that diverse approaches have explored distinct but often related concepts, such as governance spheres, governance instruments or activities, and modes or logics of governance, which has led to a range of overlapping, sometimes synergistic and sometimes competing theoretical frameworks, making this conceptual landscape hard to navigate (e.g., Andonova et al., 2009; Pattberg and Stripple, 2008). Our coding strategy was informed by the 2009 ESG Science Plan (Biermann et al., 2009), existing frameworks and literature, and concepts and ideas that emerged through the coding process (Coffey and Atkinson, 1996; Glaser, 2017; Saldaña, 2016). Our goal was to get a general sense of the major themes in the 254 abstracts rather than to generate a comprehensive quantitative count of all themes. Each author reviewed all of the abstracts, but coded for different sets of ideas and themes. We cointerpreted some of our findings in the course of discussing our coding strategies and drafting the chapter. The chapter begins with a review of the governance functions performed by various agents in earth system governance, exploring the five most prominent functions in the literature in more depth. We then discuss research on the structural context within which agency is exercised, noting how forms of governance and multilevel/multiscalar dynamics enable and constrain the ability of agents to perform governance functions. Our chapter thus contributes to a long-standing discussion in the social sciences on the relationship between structure and agency, which crosses multiple disciplinary boundaries. Structure provides context for

Performance of Agency in Earth System Governance

75

agency in both an enabling and constraining sense. While structure affects agency, agency can change a given structure, introducing a permanent tension and interdependence into the relationship (Giddens, 1992; Wendt, 1999). We also consider how the performance of agency by states has been reconfigured with the rise of nonstate and subnational agents in earth system governance. Finally, we identify a number of gaps and areas for future research. 6.2 Agency through the Performance of Governance Functions To identify governance functions, we began with a taxonomy developed by Bulkeley et al. (2014) that differentiates between soft and hard governance modalities. Soft modalities refer to functions such as (1) knowledge and information sharing, (2) capacity building, (3) goal and target setting, (4) monitoring and review, and (5) standard setting/certification. Hard modalities include (6) rulesetting/regulation, (7) direct action (implementation), and (8) funding. Drawing on Hale and Roger (2014), we added two additional functions: (9) norm establishment, development, and enforcement and (10) convening/facilitating participation as predetermined coding. An additional set of ten governance functions emerged in the process of coding. Among the 254 articles in the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database that address the question of how agents exercise agency, two-thirds address governance functions in some form, although the authors rarely use this terminology or explicitly contribute to a conceptual debate about governance functions. Our analysis identified 20 different types of governance functions performed by agents in earth system governance (Table 6.1), reflecting considerable diversity both in terms of what agents do as well as what ESG–Agency scholars study. In the text that follows we briefly discuss the five most prominent governance functions explored in ESG–Agency scholarship. 6.2.1 Rule-Making and Regulation ESG–Agency researchers view rule-making as a governance function primarily associated with state agents and intergovernmental organizations (IGOs). Only 6 out of 38 articles address rule-making activities of nonstate actors, such as businesses and/or civil society organizations (Abbott, 2012; Eberlein et al., 2014; Kalfagianni and Pattberg, 2013; Orsini, 2012), indigenous peoples (Schroeder, 2010), or transnational private initiatives (Auld et al., 2015). Two of these six focus on efforts of these nonstate actors to influence intergovernmental rulemaking on climate and biosafety (Orsini, 2012; Schroeder, 2010). There is a link between the creation of rules and institutional work (see the text that follows), especially when considering global governance where rule-setting is seen as part of

76

M. M. Betsill and M. Milkoreit

Table 6.1 Governance functions in ESG-Agency research Governance functiona

Description

No. of articles

Rulemaking & Regulation

Developing and establishing enforceable rules (laws, statutes, regulations) Providing a platform for and attracting multiple actors to interact and coordinate activities Generating and making available factual information about the world Developing an actor’s abilities and resources to perform certain activities (e.g., respond to climate change) Developing, maintaining, or changing institutional structures Providing funds to enable certain activities Overseeing, assessing, and evaluating governance activities, esp. implementation Actively engaging other actors to align activities toward shared goals and to create synergies Putting policies, decisions, and programs into action Establishing or participating in accountability processes Establishing goals (desired end states) and milestones for governance Establishing and confirming compliance with benchmarks and requirements for a category of activities Addressing problems arising from overlap and linkages between different issue areas or institutional authority spheres Establishing and promoting shared standards or patterns of behavior

38

Convening & Facilitating Participation

Knowledge Development, Provision & Sharing Capacity Building

Institutional Work

Financing Monitoring, Review & Compliance Coordination & Cooperation

Implementation/Direct Action Ensuring Accountability & Legitimacy Goal & Target Setting

Standard Setting & Certification

Managing Issue Overlap & Linkage

Norm Development & Enforcement

34

30

27

23

15 12

12

11 10 7

5

6

3

Performance of Agency in Earth System Governance

77

Table 6.1 (cont.) Governance functiona

Description

Planning

Deciding how to pursue future goals and targets with strategies and scheduled tasks Making services available to a population of constituents Performing judicial functions, esp. related to conflict resolution Attending to, organizing, and structuring the interactions between scientists and policymakers; also boundary management Attending to and promoting equity and justice in all governance processes as well as outcomes (e.g., using equity as a decision-making criterion) Managing the challenges of governance activities across multiple scales (e.g., information flow, distribution of responsibilities, conflicting priorities)

Service Provision Dispute Resolution & Litigation Managing Science-Policy Interface

Ensuring Equity & Justice

Cross-scale Management

a

No. of articles 3

3 3

2

2

2

Bold text indicates predetermined coding categories; others emerged during coding.

regime development and international treaty-making. Scholars’ interest was equally divided between international rule-making processes (e.g., Colgan and van Graaf, 2015; Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen and van Asselt, 2009; Koivurova et al., 2012), national implementation of international rules (e.g., Brockhaus et al., 2014; Corbera and Jover, 2012; Mauerhofer et al., 2015; Rosendal and Andresen, 2016), and other national and subnational regulatory activities (e.g., Clapp and Helleiner, 2012; Liu et al., 2013; Qi and Zhang, 2014). 6.2.2 Convening and Facilitating Participation Convening (providing a platform for and attracting multiple actors to interact and coordinate activities) and facilitating participation has recently gained status as a specific governance function, especially in the context of orchestration efforts by states and IGOs to advance global climate change governance

78

M. M. Betsill and M. Milkoreit

(Abbott and Snidal, 2010; Hale and Roger, 2014; Jodoin et al., 2015). More generally, convening is a function related to collaborative modes of governance that require coordination between different actor types (e.g., Fujisaki et al., 2016; Olsson et al., 2008). Authors typically consider states and IGOs as conveners, for example, national governments engaged in implementing REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation) (Fujisaki et al., 2016) or the United Nations (UN) using crowdsourcing (Gellers, 2016), but researchers, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and local governments can have convening powers too. For example, Schroeder and Lovell (2012) explore the convening role of NGOs that organize side events during international climate negotiations. The growing importance and prominence of this function in the literature might signal an emergent norm favoring participatory and networked governance models instead of, or complementing, hierarchical models. According to Hale and Roger (2014, p. 67), convening power can support coordination among multiple actors, and can derive from ‘perceptions of legitimacy or functional attributes.’ The ESG–Agency literature reviewed here suggests that convening and facilitating participation can have different purposes, including coordination among stakeholders (Fujisaki et al., 2016), developing partnerships (Pittman et al., 2015), ensuring democratic legitimacy and accountability (Kanie et al., 2012; Rozema et al., 2012), managing multiscale and fragmented governance systems (Gupta et al., 2016; Thaler and Levin-Keitel, 2016), developing and exchanging knowledge (Hage et al., 2010), or capacity building (Hobson and Niemeyer, 2011; Thaler and Levin-Keitel, 2016). With regard to democratic legitimacy and accountability, there is a specific emphasis on deliberation as a purpose for convening (e.g., Dore and Lebel, 2010; Dryzek and Tucker, 2008). This diversity indicates that as a process function, convening enables the fulfilment of other governance functions if and to the extent that the agent is not willing or able to provide these on its own. 6.2.3 Knowledge Generation, Provision, and Sharing The performance of knowledge functions is closely related to questions of science– policy interactions and learning (see Chapter 7). Knowledge generation is a function usually performed by scientists, but also public agencies, IGOs, and NGOs. Over the last decade, authors have become increasingly interested in participatory knowledge coproduction processes, involving multiple actor types and requiring ‘coproductive capacity.’ van Kerkhoff and Lebel (2015, p. 1), for example, propose to “recast[s] the relationships between science and society from notions of ‘gaps’ to notions of interconnectedness and interplay (coproduction).” They define coproductive capacity

Performance of Agency in Earth System Governance

79

as ‘the combination of scientific resources and governance capability that shapes the extent to which a society, at various levels, can operationalize relationships between scientific and public, private, and civil society institutions and actors to effect scientifically-informed social change’ (van Kerkhoff and Lebel, 2015, p. 1). In addition, there are multiple forms of knowledge provision and sharing. Information provision or dissemination refers to making knowledge (e.g., about environmental conditions) publicly available to inform and enable constituents to engage in policy discourse or to hold public agencies accountable. This is usually considered to be a function of state agents and IGOs (e.g., Jinnah, 2010; Jinnah and Lindsey, 2015). However, the counterpart to public information provision is disclosure or transparency measures by private actors, often taken in the context of private governance initiatives, such as the Global Reporting Initiative (Brown, de Jong, and Lessidrenska, 2009). Knowledge provision can also take the form of policy advice, most often provided by scientific or other experts to state agents (e.g., Armitage et al., 2015). Further, a range of agents such as NGOs or IGOs can provide educational or ‘epistemic’ services, contributing to capacity building for various purposes (Freed et al., 2016; Urpelainen and Van de Graaf, 2015). Knowledge brokering is usually considered to be a function performed by secretariats of IGOs. Jinnah and Lindsay (2015, p. 124), for example, ‘demonstrate how the CEC [Commission for Environmental Cooperation] Secretariat has influenced trade–environment politics, primarily through knowledge brokering in ways that build state capacity to collaborate across borders on trade-environment issues.’ Finally, the term knowledge sharing is usually reserved for collaborative governance processes. Knowledge sharing across actor spheres and governance levels is increasingly recognized as an important soft governance function (Dzebo and Stripple, 2015; Gallemore et al., 2015; Stoett et al., 2015). 6.2.4 Capacity Building Capacity building is a governance function related to knowledge, learning, and empowerment. The literature distinguishes internal or institutional capacity building by the agent in question and external capacity building supporting the development of other actors’ capacities. Scholars have considered the former to be a function of governments and IGOs (Galaz et al., 2012a; Hurlbert et al., 2009), while a somewhat broader range of actors, including NGOs and researchers, is engaged in the latter (e.g., Jacobs, 2016; Lebel et al., 2015). The scholarship has explored various kinds of capacities, including adaptive capacity (Hobson and Niemeyer, 2011; Hurlbert et al., 2009), the capacity of IGOs to address new challenges (Galaz et al., 2012a), technical and institutional capacities (Scolobig et al., 2014), and implementation capacity (Dunlop and Corbera, 2016).

80

M. M. Betsill and M. Milkoreit

6.2.5 Institutional Work Institutional work or ‘creating, maintaining, or disrupting institutional structures’ (Beunen and Patterson, 2016, p. 1; see also Chapter 8) is a very broad governance function. This function is essential in the development or change of international regimes and organizations (combined with rule-making) (Beunen and Patterson, 2016; Pittman et al., 2015); the establishment of agencies, offices, policies, and programs (related to the notion of implementation) (Lund, 2013; Widman, 2016); and more generally, the stabilization of ideas, preferences, norms, and activities into recurring patterns of behavior (e.g., Brown, de Jong, and Lessidrenska, 2009; Pattberg, 2012) – the essence of governance. Institutional work can also create new actors of earth system governance, such as new international, public, or private organizations (Brown, de Jong, and Lessidrenska, 2009), and can affect ‘the relationship between governance actors’ (Davidson and de Loë, 2016, p. 62). It occurs across all spheres of governance – public, private, and nonstate. In a wider sense, institutional work creates the architecture of earth system governance; it structures the governance context over time in a path-dependent fashion. 6.3 Structure and the Performance of Agency The structural context in which agents operate can both enable and constrain the performance of governance functions. In agent–structure debates in the social sciences, structure usually refers to existing institutional and normative conditions that can render behavior meaningful, permissible, or immoral. Our coding on the role of structure followed a grounded or open coding approach (Coffey and Atkinson, 1996; Glaser, 2017), which revealed two general types of structural factors that figured prominently across the abstracts: forms of governance and multilevel/multiscalar dynamics. 6.3.1 Forms of Governance Forms of governance (understood as both specific governance instruments as well as their underlying modes of steering) shape the roles and capacities of agents to exercise agency. The form of governance affects the types of authority claims that are considered legitimate, thereby shaping the ability of actors to secure, maintain, and perform agency in earth system governance (Bernstein, 2011). We’ve organized this discussion by the major governance logics that underlie governance instruments, differentiating between hierarchy, markets, and networks as modes of steering, while identifying different governance instruments and institutions associated with each mode of steering. Although our focus is on how forms of

Performance of Agency in Earth System Governance

81

governance shape the roles and capacities of agents to perform governance functions, it is important to keep in mind that agents also shape the governance structures in which they exercise agency (Bulkeley et al., 2014; Kalfagianni and Pattberg, 2013; Pattberg, 2012). Hierarchical modes of steering rely on formal institutions dominated by state actors able to secure compliance with governance rules through coercion (PahlWostl, 2009; Pattberg and Stripple, 2008). Governance functions such as rulemaking and financing are often performed in hierarchical governance contexts through instruments and institutions such as multilateral treaties (e.g. Hagerman, 2012; Menga and Mirumachi, 2016; Papa and Gleason, 2012; Pavese and Torney, 2012), IGOs (e.g., Jinnah, 2010, 2011; Jinnah and Lindsay, 2015), and government policy and regulation (e.g., Barbi and Ferreira, 2014; Pickering et al., 2015), including the use of market-based instruments where state authority is required to establish market conditions (Lund, 2013; McDermott et al., 2012). KarlssonVinkhuyzen and McGee (2013) argue that states may use their privileged position in hierarchical forms of governance to establish rules of participation that exclude some types of agents or limit opportunities to perform governance functions. For example, Schroeder (2010) documented how rules of participation have limited the agency of indigenous peoples in UN treaty negotiations on REDD+. At the same time, Nasiritousi, Hjerpe, and Linner (2016) found that different types of nonstate actors are able to draw on distinct sources of authority to influence UN climate negotiations. Market-based forms of governance rely on formal and informal institutions and involvement from both state and nonstate actors (Cashore, 2002; Falkner, 2003; Pahl Wostl, 2009; Pattberg and Stripple, 2008). Governance is achieved by harnessing market forces to provide (dis)incentives for actors to behave in particular ways on the grounds that markets can efficiently allocate resources and solve environmental problems. ESG–Agency scholars have analyzed the performance of governance functions such as standard-setting and ensuring accountability in the context of market-based governance instruments including financial mechanisms such as REDD+ (e.g., de la Plaza Esteban et al., 2014; Fujisaki et al., 2016; McDermott et al., 2012) and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) under the Kyoto Protocol (Lund, 2013; Newell et al., 2011; Rindefjäll et al., 2011), as well as standard and certification schemes (e.g., Kafalgianni and Pattberg, 2013). Leventon et al. (2015) find the extractives industry plays a key role in climate compatible development through their corporate social responsibility activities. ESG–Agency scholars have also studied the performance of governance functions in voluntary carbon markets (e.g., Mathur et al., 2014) and public–private partnerships (e.g., Wuisan, 2012). Businesses (e.g., Corbera and Jover, 2012; Pattberg 2012) and civil society actors/NGOs (e.g., Newell, 2008b) are most commonly

82

M. M. Betsill and M. Milkoreit

associated with market forms of earth system governance, although often in coordination with states (Lund, 2013). There has been less attention to the role of stakeholder participation in market forms of governance compared to hierarchical and networked governance (but see Agrawal et al., 2008). Networked forms of governance rely on more informal institutions where states and nonstate actors seek to build consensus about the nature of environmental problems and appropriate responses (Pahl Wostl, 2009; Pattberg and Stripple, 2008). Convening and facilitating participation as well as knowledge provision and sharing to advance social learning are central to the operation of networked governance (Hahn, 2011). ESG–Agency scholarship has looked at diverse networked governance instruments including collaborative governance (e.g., Berardo et al., 2014; de Loë et al., 2016; Gerlak and Heikkela, 2011), adaptive comanagement (e.g., Armitage et al. 2008; Munaretto and Huitema, 2012), roundtables (e.g., Cheng et al., 2015; Schouten et al., 2012), stakeholder deliberations (e.g., Dryzek and Tucker, 2008; Jacobs et al., 2016; Jodoin et al., 2015; Mees et al., 2014), and transnational networks (e.g., Gordon, 2016a; Morin, 2010). Participatory and deliberative processes become central as governance processes shift from hierarchical to networked forms of governance. Though environmental scholars often see great theoretical promise in the participatory nature of networked governance, ESG–Agency research indicates that those promises may fail to materialize because of the ways in which participatory processes are structured (e.g. Armitage et al., 2012; Dryzek and Tucker, 2008; Olsson et al., 2008). For example, Robinson and Makupa’s (2015) work on community-based conservation in Tanzania calls attention to power asymmetries between participants (see also Ogier et al., 2016), and Munaretto and Huitema’s (2012) study of adaptive comanagement in Venice highlights the problem of unsupportive government policies. Other scholars point to weak capacities and limited resources of local stakeholders (e.g., Jacobs et al., 2016; Thaler and Leuin-Keitel, 2016). 6.3.2 Multilevel/Multiscalar Dynamics The performance of governance functions in earth system governance is also shaped by multilevel/multiscalar dynamics (see Chapter 9). For example, Mukhtarov et al. (2013) argue that agents involved in translating and implementing globally produced rules and governance narratives must operate in and across diverse national settings, working closely with other agents at the local and national levels. ESG–Agency scholarship has studied these dynamics in the cases of REDD+ (e.g., de la Plaza Esteban et al., 2014; Dunlop and Corbera, 2016; Fujisaki et al., 2016; Gallemore and Jespersen, 2016; Gupta et al., 2016), the CDM (e.g., Mathur et al., 2014; Rindefjäll et al., 2011), the Ramsar

Performance of Agency in Earth System Governance

83

Convention (e.g., Barau and Stringer, 2015; Mauerhofer et al., 2015), and the use of environmental impact assessments (e.g., Kolhoff et al., 2013; Rozema et al., 2012). Mauerhofer et al. (2015) contend that institutional and organizational complexity in the domestic implementation of these instruments open up multiple opportunities for local actors to exercise agency, often through participatory processes. However, as noted earlier, local actors are not always able to fully capitalize on these opportunities. Changes in the governance context from a centralized to a multilevel or multiscalar system alter the opportunity structure for the performance of governance functions, creating openings for new agents to emerge (van Leeuwan, 2015). In addition, agents can strategically use fragmentation in environmental governance systems to their advantage by forum shopping and focusing on institutional sites and forms of governance in which their particular source(s) of authority provide comparative advantage. For example, Orsini (2013) found that nonstate actors working across multiple fora in regime complexes related to forestry and access to genetic resources were more successful in exercising agency than single-forum nonstate actors. It should be noted, however, that agency is not necessarily fungible across different institutions and contexts (Pavese and Torney, 2012), and powerful actors may use their privilege to move governance processes to fora that exclude other actors (Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen and McGee, 2013; van Asselt, 2009). Abbot’s work (2014) suggests orchestration can be an effective strategy for enhancing agency in a multilevel or multiscalar context. 6.4 Changing Nature of State Agency ESG–Agency scholarship over the past decade confirms that the state remains a key agent of earth system governance, despite expectations that the state’s role would diminish with the rise of nonstate actors and the reconfiguration of authority in world politics and environmental governance (Falkner, 2003; Okereke et al., 2009; Wapner, 1995; see also Chapter 2). As noted earlier, institutional spaces relying on hierarchical forms of steering (e.g., UN treaty negotiations) continue to privilege state agency (e.g., Lesage et al., 2009; Koivurova et al., 2012; Rosendal and Andresen, 2016) and states routinely engage with new market-based (e.g., Lund, 2013; Merme et al., 2014) and networked governance mechanisms (e.g., Berardo et al., 2014; Olsson et al., 2008; Stoett and Tenby, 2015). The state remains essential in the performance of many governance functions such as the translation of governance mechanisms such as REDD+ and the CDM from the international to the national and local levels (referred to as “cross-scale management” in Table 6.1). States also play a central role in policy innovation (Jordan and Huitema, 2014b) and in providing institutional support and resources to facilitate local governance

84

M. M. Betsill and M. Milkoreit

efforts (e.g., Barbi and Ferreira, 2014; Robinson and Makupa, 2015; Thaler and Priest, 2014; Young et al., 2012). At the same time, states increasingly exercise agency alongside and in partnership with other types of actors (Bäckstrand, 2008; Castán Broto and Bulkeley, 2013; Merme et al., 2014). In many cases, states have moved away from the direct delivery of governance to a more facilitative role through enabling legislation, delegation, orchestration, and resource provision (Papa and Gleason, 2012). It is notable that not all policy areas have witnessed such shifts. Weber et al. (2011) found that the state continues to perform traditional governance functions in the case of Dutch noise policy for example. Pickering et al.’s (2015) research on climate finance reveals that the performance of state agency in global processes is shaped by interagency politics. Similarly, van Asselt et al.’s (2009) study of Japan’s approach to global climate governance highlights the role of domestic politics. 6.5 Gaps and Areas for Future Research The question ‘How do agents exercise agency?’ has generated significant interest within the ESG research community over the past decade and will continue to be a priority in ESG scholarship (Earth System Governance Project, 2018a). In this chapter we have focused on what agents do with their authority, emphasizing the governance functions performed by agents and the role of structural context in the exercise of agency in earth system governance. The literature included in the ESG– Agency Harvesting Database has analyzed a wide range of governance functions, reflecting the diversity inherent in the exercise of agency in earth system governance involving complex, multilevel, and multiscalar issues. Some governance functions, such as rule-making and regulation, convening and facilitating participation, providing knowledge, capacity building, and institutional work, have received considerable scholarly attention while others, such as norm development (see Chapter 10), standard-setting and certification, and goal and target setting have been analyzed much less frequently. While additional research on individual governance functions would be useful, especially with more explicit consideration of the linkages between different governance functions and sources of authority, there also is a need to understand the relative importance of different functions. High levels of scholarly attention do not necessarily mean that these are the most frequently performed governance functions in practice or the most effective in terms of shaping earth system governance. We also see promise in more systematic comparative analyses of multiple agents within a single context to understand how the performance of multiple governance functions may draw on diverse sources of authority and

Performance of Agency in Earth System Governance

85

interact to generate particular outcomes (e.g., Nasiritousi, Hjerpe, and Linner, 2016) or of a single agent across multiple contexts to better understand the interplay between agency and architecture (e.g., Orsini, 2013). Adding a temporal dimension would help illuminate whether there have been shifts in the governance functions performed by different types of agents over time. Finally, we do not see any ESG–Agency research that analyzes agency working against earth system governance. Scholars have started from an underlying assumption that governance functions such as rule-setting, knowledge provision, and capacity building help society move forward in advancing sustainability. This is problematic given the reality of environmental politics in many different contexts across levels of decision-making where powerful actors routinely set rules or use information campaigns that impede the pursuit of meaningful governance interventions.

7 Agency and Knowledge in Environmental Governance: A Thematic Review M A N J A N A M I L K O R E I T, JE NNIFE R S . B A N S A R D , AND SANDRA VAN DE R HEL

Chapter Highlights • Earth System Governance (ESG)–Agency scholars focus on the question of how knowledge can be a source of authority for a diverse set of state and nonstate actors, allowing them to influence environmental decision-making. • Key themes in the literature on agency in earth system governance over the past decade include the knowledge-based agency of scientists and local or indigenous actors, learning, and the link between knowledge and power. • ESG–Agency scholarship contributes to larger debates in the social sciences concerning the growing importance of participatory processes of knowledge coproduction, moving beyond the conventional primacy of scientific expertise in environmental governance and elevating the role of non-scientific knowledge holders.

7.1 Introduction This chapter unpacks the complex relationship between knowledge and agency in environmental governance by assessing the scholarship produced by members of the Earth System Governance (ESG) Project over the past ten years (see Chapter 1).1 The environmental governance literature accords knowledge a special status, regarding it as crucial for ‘identifying problems and devising solutions to global environmental problems’ (Bäckstrand, 2004, p. 695). Without 1

The Earth System Governance Project is the largest social science research network in the area of governance and global environmental change. It was launched in 2009 under the auspices of the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change and became a core project of Future Earth in 2015. The year 2018, marks the transition from the first to the second phase of the Earth System Governance Project. This volume contributes to harvesting the results of the project’s first phase.

86

Agency and Knowledge in Environmental Governance

87

knowledge of the environment, there would be no foundation to act on environmental problems. Seeking to tie this basic insight to the notion of agency, we explore how ESG scholarship has addressed a number of agency-related questions, such as: How do different agents create, acquire, use, and share knowledge? How and when does knowledge generate, enable, or constrain agency in global environmental governance? And what kinds of knowledge are privileged by certain agents and why? Central to this book is the premise that environmental problems cannot be and are not addressed solely by the nation-state, but that governance authority is dispersed among different actors, including non-governmental organizations (NGOs), businesses, and science networks (see Chapter 2). Looking back, the broader environmental governance literature has long focussed on the relationship between state actors and scientists – a privileged relationship in environmental policymaking processes. Main insights from this body of literature concern the benefits and challenges of the institutionalization of science in global governance (Edwards, 2010; Guston 2001; Miller and Edwards, 2001) and the factors that explain the influence of scientific communities or assessments in environmental policy (Cash et al., 2003; Haas, 1992). More recent scholarship, especially in the ESG community, continues to deepen our understanding of the science–policy interface, but also reaches beyond this topic to examine the way different actors acquire, use, and share knowledge in environmental governance processes. Shifting the research focus from structural-institutional questions to those concerning the role and influence of different knowledge holders, this literature explores the fundamental question of how knowledge can be a source of authority – generating agency in the first place – or of power for marginalized actors, allowing them to influence environmental decision-making in steering society toward (or away from) sustainable futures. Knowledge in environmental governance is acquired, shared, and used in many different ways, including through scientific assessments, participatory practices, or social learning (Bäckstrand, 2004; Luks and Siebenhüner, 2007; Siebenhüner, 2005). While scientific knowledge and expertise have received the most attention in the literature (e.g. Haas, 1992; Miller and Edwards, 2001), the importance of different ways of knowing as well as participatory (learning) processes has been increasingly demonstrated and acknowledged in environmental governance scholarship (Bäckstrand, 2004; Inoue and Moreira, 2016; Luks and Siebenhüner, 2007; Raymond et al., 2010; Siebenhüner, 2005). In this context, the purpose of this chapter is to uncover how the ESG community took up the theme of knowledge in relation to agency in environmental governance. We ask which specific themes dominated the scholarship in this network and provide insights in the major contributions of the ESG community to the

88

M. Milkoreit, J. S. Bansard, and S. van der Hel

environmental governance literature. We also reflect on the links between this body of research on agency and knowledge and broader debates in the social sciences, and we briefly sketch potential future research directions. 7.2 Methods The analysis presented in this chapter is grounded in an examination of the ESG– Agency Harvesting Database (see Chapter 1 and the Appendix). We developed a specific Knowledge and Agency data subset, starting with the 80 articles in the original database coded as relevant to knowledge. The title and abstract of each of these articles were recoded by two of the chapter authors to confirm their relevance for the knowledge theme. Cases that were not clear cut or where coders disagreed were discussed by all three authors. Of the 80 articles initially identified as addressing knowledge, we retained 56 articles for further investigation.2 Seeking to verify the comprehensiveness of the initial coding process, we further performed a keyword search in all abstracts contained in the database (322 articles) using the following terms: knowledge, expert*, information*, learn*, science, scientist*, boundary, and bridge.3 Two chapter authors coded each of the additional 71 papers identified this way for their knowledge relevance. After a discussion of intercoder disagreements, we retained 31 additional articles. We then coded this combined set of articles (n = 87) for a meaningful link between knowledge and agency. That is, we included only those articles that considered knowledge in relation to agency, and excluded those that mentioned knowledge but did not consider the interplay with agency in environmental governance. Applying the coding process outlined above resulted in a final database of 60 articles for our analysis, 41 stemming from the initial coding exercise and 19 from the complementary keyword search. The substantive analysis combined closed and open (grounded) coding performed by two authors for the abstract of each article in the Knowledge and Agency dataset. We started with closed coding to identify whether and how the articles address one or more of six topics that the 2009 Science Plan of the Earth System Governance Project4 identified as important foci for the study of 2

3 4

We contend that the decrease in the number of articles found to be relevant for the knowledge theme is mainly owed to the fact, that in the initial coding process, articles pointing to information gaps, identifying a lack of knowledge, or claiming to strengthen the understanding of an issue area were coded as knowledge-relevant, whereas we considered this insufficient to include the article in our deeper analysis. The asterisk indicates that we used right truncation in our search so as to include words that share the same root, but have a different ending (e.g. searching not only for ‘expert’ but also ‘experts’ and ‘expertise’). The Science Plan set out the research agenda for Earth System Governance Project. The first Science Plan covered the period 2009–2018 and established a research framework building on five analytical problems (Accountability, Adaptiveness, Agency, Allocation & Access, and Architecture) and the crosscutting themes of Knowledge, Norms, Power, and Scale (Biermann et al., 2009). A new Science Plan was adopted in November 2018 (Earth System Governance Project, 2018).

Agency and Knowledge in Environmental Governance

Final database

Initial coding

n = 80

n = 56

n = 41

Keyword n = 71 search

n = 31

n = 19

n = 60

89

Coding by two authors + debatable cases decided upon jointly by all three authors in a four-step coding process: (1) Re-coding abstracts of articles identified in collective coding effort as knowledge-relevant (2) Identifying additional articles in the full database with a keyword search,and coding the resulting set of abstracts for their knowledge-relevance (3) Coding the combined set of abstracts for a link between knowledge and agency (4) Substantive analysis of each article combining closed and grounded coding

Figure 7.1 Database development process.

knowledge in environmental governance: the science–policy interface, specifically the role and relevance of epistemic communities, scientific assessments, and boundary organizations; local and indigenous knowledge; and social learning (Biermann et al., 2009). Second, we performed open coding to identify how the articles in our dataset define the link between knowledge and agency, what actors they examine, and what additional themes they address. In a final step, we coded all articles for the additional themes identified in the open coding process. 7.3 Knowledge and Agency in ESG Scholarship In this section, we present the main insights resulting from our qualitative analysis of our ‘Knowledge & Agency dataset’, identifying key scholarly debates and advances over the last decade. 7.3.1 Scientific Expertise and Agency ESG researchers have shown great interest in their own agency – that of academics – in environmental governance. The literature considers that scientists derive their agency from their role as experts and knowledge providers in policymaking processes (e.g., Galaz et al., 2012a; Gelcich et al., 2010; Gupta, 2011; Mauerhofer et al., 2015; Milkoreit et al., 2015; Morin, 2014; Spruijt et al., 2014; Wassen et al., 2011). Some authors considered the mere conduct of research as constituting agency, e.g., supporting ongoing REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest

90

M. Milkoreit, J. S. Bansard, and S. van der Hel

Degradation) policy processes by distilling lessons learned and helping to address key governance challenges (Visseren-Hamakers et al., 2012). Others discussed Environmental (Impact) Assessments as specific mechanisms through which scientific experts gain agency in decision-making processes (Runhaar, 2009). A key question that emerges in this literature relates to the normative dimensions of scientific agency. Rozema et al. (2012) highlight that environmental assessments are typically perceived ‘as an objective scientific tool’, yet they represent intrinsically normative processes. Nevertheless, value neutrality – often equated with objectivity – is still held in high regard when it comes to the participation of experts in environmental governance (Cashmore et al., 2015). At the same time, the environmental governance literature encourages scientists to carefully consider their position as value-driven agents between science, politics, and policymaking (Milkoreit et al., 2015; see also Chapter 10) and calls for transparency about values and viewpoints among experts (e.g., Spruijt et al., 2014). 7.3.2 Participatory Knowledge Production Second, we noted increasing attention to participatory knowledge co-production processes in environmental governance scholarship (see Chapter 6). Instead of focusing on scientific knowledge as the dominant information source for environmental decision-making and institution-building, according special status and authority to scientists, researchers now increasingly emphasize the co-production of knowledge, where science is only one of multiple voices at the table. This shift elevates alternative forms of knowledge and the agency of its carriers. In this context, much attention is devoted to understanding the conditions for and effects of successful co-production processes. These processes are considered beneficial because they involve more stakeholders (democratic benefit), allowing them to exercise agency (empowerment benefit), while diversifying and broadening the knowledge (and value) base for decision-making, and thus potentially improving the quality and effectiveness of environmental governance (e.g., Armitage et al., 2015; Hage et al., 2010; Gelcich et al., 2010; Wassen et al., 2011). An important concept in this body of scholarship is that of co-productive capacity, which Van Kerkhoff and Lebel (2015) consider to be the ability to combine scientific resources and governance capabilities in ways that bring about informed social change. Participatory processes that develop and evaluate knowledge, e.g., concerning an ecosystem or watershed, can build co-productive capacity among science and governance actors, enabling and possibly enhancing the exercise of agency of all actors involved (e.g., Bowen et al., 2015; Lebel et al., 2015). Bowen and her colleagues, for example, show this in an examination of climate change adaptation in the Cambodian health and water sectors. Linking back to our

Agency and Knowledge in Environmental Governance

91

first finding, the literature also indicates that engaging in participatory processes might have become a strategy for scientists to exercise agency in environmental governance. In a context that increasingly favors participatory knowledgeproduction processes, scientists can no longer rely on their scientific expertise alone, but have to use co-production platforms to establish and maintain their legitimacy (e.g., Wassen et al., 2011). In this regard, boundary organizations are seen as important sites of participatory knowledge production at the intersection of science, policy, and society (Armitage et al., 2015; Hage et al., 2010; Mattor et al., 2014). 7.3.3 Local and Indigenous Knowledge Discussions about knowledge co-production are often interwoven with considerations about local and indigenous knowledge. Participatory processes can provide opportunities for actors at the local scale to establish and exercise agency by providing specific knowledge rooted in community-based practices and experience (e.g., Gerhardinger et al., 2009; see also Chapter 11). In other words, these processes allow local and indigenous actors to become political agents by claiming knowledge-based authority. These observations have two limiting implications. First, possessing certain kinds of knowledge or expertise, e.g., related to local ecological conditions, is a necessary condition for establishing this kind of agency (Thaler and Levin-Keitel, 2016). Second, exercising agency based on local and indigenous knowledge depends on the willingness of other agents to provide a platform for doing so. In other words, this kind of agency can be exercised only if others decide to conduct participatory processes and invite the knowledgeable agents (see Chapter 6). There are, however, other (i.e., non-participatory) pathways for local and indigenous knowledge holders to exercise agency. For example, in her research on REDD+ negotiations, Wallbott (2014) explored the use of indigenous knowledge as a power resource to influence the agenda of the global climate governance process, linking local and global scales (also see the widely cited Gelcich et al., 2010 and Chapter 9). Finally, the literature points to an important link between local and indigenous knowledge and adaptive capacity, especially in the context of climate change. Prno et al. (2011), for example, show that the erosion of local knowledge can undermine adaptive capacity and consequently diminish the exercise of agency at the local scale. 7.3.4 Knowledge-Based Authority and Power Expanding on the notion of local and indigenous knowledge-based authority, the literature identifies a number of linkages between the concepts of knowledge and

92

M. Milkoreit, J. S. Bansard, and S. van der Hel

power (Chapter 5). Scholars examine when and how actors in environmental governance derive authority and power from their knowledge and expertise (Cashmore et al., 2015; Kramarz and Momani, 2013; Chapter 2), and how they use knowledge as a form of control. For example, Kramarz and her colleague analyze the legitimacy and authority of the World Bank as a knowledge holder. Other authors explore how making knowledge about the activities of other actors publicly available in disclosure or transparency initiatives can provide leverage over those actors’ future behaviour (see, e.g., the widely cited Brown, de Jong, and Levy [2009] on the Global Reporting Initiative, or Pattberg [2012] on disclosurebased governance in global climate politics; see also Chapter 13). Moreover, securing an actor’s political interests can depend on knowledge-related capacities (Mulyani and Jepson, 2015). On the other hand, agents with the ability to limit others’ access to knowledge can also limit their agency. For example, when local agencies withhold or distort pollution information, they prevent their constituents from engaging in public accountability processes for failure to enforce environmental regulations (Qi and Zhang, 2014). Yet another set of studies examines how power differentials influence (scientific) knowledge production and sharing, e.g., in environmental assessments (Lebel et al., 2015) or governance regimes (Gallemore et al., 2015). Distinguishing the agency and power differential between the ‘hosts’ or facilitators and the actual participants is especially relevant in the context of participatory processes (Young et al., 2016; Chapters 5 and 15). More generally, the ability to have access to, develop, and use knowledge is essential to the exercise of agency in any democratic governance process (Bouteligier, 2011; Thaler and Levin-Keitel, 2016). Certain forms of agency, e.g., securing the actor’s political interests (Mulyani and Jepson, 2015), can depend on knowledge-related capacities, rendering these capacities constitutive of or enabling the emergence of agency: once equipped with certain capacities to act and influence their environment, an actor turns into an agent (Chapter 2). 7.3.5 Learning A fair share of attention in the literature is devoted to the issue of learning. Scholars consider the capacity to learn as an important characteristic of various actors that perform environmental governance functions, including institutions, organizations, and networks (e.g., Hahn, 2011; Lebel, Grothmann, and Siebenhüner et al., 2010; Siebenhüner 2008; see also Chapters 6 and 8). The acquisition and adjustment of knowledge and skills over time is seen as essential for actors in environmental governance, especially for those engaged in adaptive management. The latter requires actors to engage in iterative

Agency and Knowledge in Environmental Governance

93

learning based on feedback from their environment. In this context, social learning – ‘a process of iterative reflection that occurs when experiences and ideas are shared with others’ (Berkes, 2009, p. 1696) – is often considered a necessary condition for building adaptiveness at different scales (Lebel, Grothmann, and Siebenhüner et al., 2010a; see also Chapter 12) and for the successful engagement of local stakeholders in environmental governance processes, such as REDD+ (Mulyani and Jepson, 2015). In that sense, social learning is a process for capacity building, including the capacity to negotiate rules and interests in interactions with other agents. The literature also indicates that social learning occurs as a result of well-designed participatory processes (e.g., Mulyani and Jepson, 2015), which suggests that participatory processes can facilitate agency. So far, little is known about the processes and key variables influencing individual knowledge acquisition and knowledge use in decision-making (but see Lebel et al., 2016; Mulyani and Jepson, 2015). 7.3.6 Actor Diversity Finally, while we singled out scientists and holders of local and traditional knowledge in the previous sections, the types of agents considered in this body of literature are rather diverse (Chapter 2). They include governments at multiple scales, international organizations, transnational networks, NGOs, business actors, and individual resource users. The literature on environmental assessments, for example, also identifies non-scientific actors that may exert agency by participating in assessment processes, such as public agencies (Rozema et al., 2012), stakeholders (Lebel et al., 2015), or donors (de Jong et al., 2012). Each of these actor types might use different kinds of knowledge or use knowledge in different ways to claim or exercise their agency. However, we found no clear-cut link between actor type and use of knowledge. For example, both state and nonstate actors may express agency by knowledge provision, information sharing, or disclosure (Dzebo and Stripple, 2015; Pattberg, 2012; Schroeder and Lovell, 2012). Bouteligier (2011), for example, shows this in her analysis of environmental consultancy firms. Also, scientists are not the only actors providing policy advice. Nonstate actors and secretariats of international organizations also take on roles as knowledge creators and providers and brokers in environmental policy processes (e.g., Jinnah, 2010; Jinnah and Lindsay, 2015). Virtually all actor types engage in some form of learning or social learning that allows them to perform certain governance functions or make decisions in times of fast-paced environmental change (Chapter 6).

94

M. Milkoreit, J. S. Bansard, and S. van der Hel

7.4 Links to Broader Social-Science Debates With its focus on knowledge in governance processes, influenced heavily by political theories of power, authority, and institutions, ESG scholarship on this topic so far has had only limited overlap with knowledge-related research in other disciplines, including Science and Technology Studies (STS), sociology, and psychology. The most significant area of overlap and synergy concerns participatory knowledge production processes, which is of great interest to STS and futures research. Participatory knowledge production processes, recognizing and involving different ways of knowing, different sources of expertise, and different actor types, have been a major theme in ESG research over the last decade. But there is hardly any work on the challenges of science communication, which has drawn much attention over the past decade outside the ESG community, especially with regard to climate science and climate scepticism (e.g., Kahan et al., 2012; Moser, 2010; Nisbet, 2009). There is also a quickly growing body of research on the relationship between arts and science (e.g., their integration in stories or games), and the use of novel science communication tools to inform decision-makers, especially when grappling with complexity, long-term thinking, and the exploration of possible futures. While ESG scholars might, because of their disciplinary backgrounds, not be well positioned to address the psychological and cognitive aspects of science communication, such as belief formation and risk perceptions, they could explore the political and institutional implications of communication challenges and failures (e.g., Geden, 2016; Milkoreit, 2015b). There is also limited engagement with the question of how knowledge (scientific or other) relates to values and (political) beliefs and belief systems and ideologies, which is a growing topic among psychologists and political scientists (e.g., HomerDixon et al., 2013). Further, only a couple of studies explore the link between knowledge and decision-making or behaviour (e.g., Lebel et al., 2016), which is the subject of a lively debate in environmental psychology (e.g., Feinberg and Willer, 2013; Sacchi et al., 2014) and moral philosophy. Exploring what kind of knowledge informs local, national, or international policymakers when considering environmental management and conservation measures, identifying important knowledge gaps and effective ways to close them, would all constitute valuable pursuits for the environmental governance research community. Finally, given the growing interdisciplinary research interest in sustainability transformations, there is great potential for scholars of environmental governance to advance work on the role of knowledge in transformations and on transformative agency (Westley et al., 2013). Considering the structural effects of transformative change, this kind of

Agency and Knowledge in Environmental Governance

95

research could contribute to long-standing debates in the social sciences about the relationship between structure and agency. 7.5 Emerging Questions and Future Directions This chapter has examined ESG scholarship on knowledge and agency over the last decade. We identified key scholarly debates and advances relating to the agency of researchers in environmental governance; participatory knowledge production processes; exercising agency based on local and indigenous knowledge; linkages between knowledge and power; the relevance of learning, especially with regard to adaptive capacity; and the diversity of actor types using knowledge to exert agency. We also noted that certain themes, such as epistemic communities, scientific assessments, and boundary organizations, received only limited attention from scholars of the ESG Project. This is surprising, given that elsewhere the literature on these themes has burgeoned, particularly discussing the role of major knowledge institutions, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, e.g., Turnhout et al., 2014). Moreover, while ESG research has made significant advances in understanding the processes of knowledge development and its use to claim and exercise agency and authority, less attention has been directed to the use of knowledge for decisionmaking and policy development, i.e., whether and how agents use specific pieces of knowledge – as compared with values, beliefs, or other motivations – and translate these into specific decisions, policy content or institutional design (see Chapter 14). There is also a lack of studies on the role of knowledge in review, transparency, and accountability mechanisms in international environmental regimes (but see Milkoreit and Haapala, 2019; van Asselt, 2016; Chapter 13). Our analysis, including the missing links to existing debates in the social sciences, points to a number of interesting avenues for future research. Most of these new directions are reflected in the new Science Plan of the Earth System Governance Project (Earth System Governance Project, 2018a), including the question of how and to what extent decision-making processes as well as environmental assessments should be democratized by opening them up to more diverse forms of knowledge and knowledge holders (see the research lens ‘Democracy and Power’, Earth System Governance Project 2018a, p. 49). As we discussed earlier, doing so may enhance the agency of marginal actors and ensure that decision making is grounded in a plurality of knowledge forms and worldviews. Such knowledge integration would involve changes in power relations, participatory processes, and knowledge co-production, further echoing the prominent link between knowledge and power identified in the ESG scholarship. An important

96

M. Milkoreit, J. S. Bansard, and S. van der Hel

question that remains largely unanswered in this regard is whether and how power inequalities can be exposed and reduced through processes of knowledge generation, assessment, and sharing. Responding to the need to consider increasingly long temporal horizons to adequately address environmental problems, we note a growing interest of ESG scholars in futures as a research topic, and in foresight methods, such as scenario building (e.g., Milkoreit, 2016; Vervoort and Gupta, 2018). The network’s new Science Plan also picks up on this by highlighting the question of how to think about and govern largely unknowable futures. In particular, the Plan asks how anticipation and imagination processes as such become sites of governance and power, which in turn links to issues concerning the agency of different knowledge holders in such processes (see the research lens ‘Anticipation and Imagination’, Earth System Governance Project 2018a, p. 61). Such research would also contribute to the growing debates about the role of knowledge in transformations and transformative agency, as mentioned earlier. In this context, the question of researchers’ own agency in environmental governance remains relevant. Environmental governance scholars increasingly have to grapple with the inevitable challenge of positioning themselves and their research in political and policy debates and engaging in processes of societal change. As such, researchers are confronted with questions about their own values and beliefs concerning their role in governance and deliberate transformations for a sustainable future. Overall, we expect future ESG research to be characterized by increasing diversity, recognizing many knowledge systems, ontologies, epistemologies, and research methodologies. We contend that key drivers for this diversification are the success of the ESG community to attract scholars from a variety of geographical and disciplinary backgrounds, and to foster the engagement of early career scholars, who tend to champion ‘new’ directions, especially regarding research methods and societal engagement.

8 Agency and Architecture: Producing Stability and Change JAMES J . PATT E R S O N

Chapter Highlights • Earth System Governance (ESG)–Agency scholars are at the forefront of exploring novel forms of agency within changing global governance architectures, such as the emergence of transnational and private governance, over the past decade. • Agency and architecture influence each other in a range of ways, underpinning processes of change in institutions, governance, and politics. • Greater focus is required concerning causal mechanisms of agency–architecture interplay, and their role in producing reflexivity and transformations in governance systems under pressure.

8.1 Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to summarize the ways in which Earth System Governance (ESG) scholars have studied the interplay between Agency and Architecture over the last decade, and identify priorities and opportunities looking forward (see Chapter 1). ‘Architecture’ refers to ‘the interlocking web of widely shared principles, institutions, and practices that shape decisions at all levels in a given area of earth system governance’ (Biermann et al., 2009, p. 31). In other words, it refers to structural aspects of governance systems, within which agency is situated. Agency–Architecture interplay has been a strong theme in ESG research. After all, the structure–agency dialectic is a foundational premise in the social sciences, and thus it is not surprising to see this reflected in the large body of ESG scholarship on agency over the past decade (Chapter 15). Yet often agency and architecture are difficult to separate, both conceptually and empirically. ESG scholars show a core concern for understanding the effects that 97

98

J. J. Patterson

agents have both within and on governance systems. For example, this is reflected in studies on the role of policy entrepreneurship in sectoral transitions, the ways in which private actors exert authority in world politics, and the potential for transformative effects of agency on environmental governance institutions (Westley et al., 2011). Attention to agency in interaction with architecture is crucial for understanding processes of change in governance systems (both intentional and emergent). Arguably, though, this may also reflect a search for sources of optimism for explaining and theorizing intentional change in environmental governance systems towards sustainability. Broader social science accounts of political and governance change also often ascribe explanatory weight to agency-related factors. For example, policy change theorists have proposed explanations for change that involve policy entrepreneurs who act to broker solutions to problems during political windows of opportunity (Kingdon, 2014). Institutional theorists have proposed explanations of gradual change driven by agents interacting within certain political and institutional opportunity structures (Mahoney and Thelen, 2010). Organizational theorists have proposed explanations of strategic and ongoing micro-institutional behaviours that contribute to creating, maintaining, or disrupting institutions at a broader level (Lawrence et al., 2009). Sociologists have proposed explanations of change and stability in social life as underpinned by ‘strategic action fields’ involving endogenous political jockeying and coalitional dynamics, as well as endogenous shocks (Fligstein and McAdam, 2012). Consequently, insights on agency and architecture interplay that are gleaned by ESG scholars have potentially generalizable resonance for theories in a range of social science disciplines. The 2009 ESG Science Plan presciently observed substantial emerging activity among nonstate actors at the time, including among cities and regions, intergovernmental bureaucracies, public–private alliances, and business associations (Biermann et al., 2009, p. 37; see also Chapter 2). It particularly highlighted the public–private character of many of these emerging configurations of authoritative actors exerting novel forms of agency extending beyond advocacy, to the reshaping of rules, procedures, and norms (Biermann et al., 2009, p. 37; Chapter 6). As these initiatives have indeed expanded in number, scope, and form over the last decade, they exert new and oftentimes unforeseen influences on architectures of earth system governance. For example, a major area of cutting-edge scholarship concerns transnational governance (Bulkeley et al., 2014; Chan et al., 2015; Hale and Held, 2011), where traditional governance architectures are being reconfigured across political borders in highly diverse ways portending a plethora of shifts in authority, power, and rules. This raises urgent questions about the interplay between agency and architecture: conceptually in terms of how scholars understand, theorize, and predict processes of change in governance systems, and

Agency and Architecture: Producing Stability and Change Step

1. Identify subset of papers

ESG Agency Harvesting Database (n = 322)

Papers with identified links to Architecture (n = 171)

2. Bi-directional influence analysis

Scan of paper metadata to identify: a) Influence of Agency on Architecture b) Influence of Architecture on Agency

3. Implications and next steps

Discuss emerging opportunities and needs identified from both ESG scholarship and from broader social science fields.

99

Outcome

Identify key body of ESG Agency literature concerned with interplay between Agency and Architecture

Identify how Agency-Architecture relations are conceptualized and studied by ESG researchers

Inform research agenda on Agency for the next decade of ESG research

Figure 8.1 Systematic analysis protocol based on the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database.

empirically in terms of how these processes can be studied in ways that suitably take account of both agential and structural factors. This chapter conducts a high-level thematic analysis to interrogate and synthesize ESG scholarship on the interplay between Agency and Architecture over the past decade. This synthesis is based on the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database (Chapter 1 and Appendix). First, a systematic approach was employed to identify all papers within this dataset coded as being linked to the theme of Architecture. Second, a synthesis of paper metadata (title, abstract) for this same subset was conducted to explore the key ways in which Agency and Architecture are conceptualized and studied in two directions: (1) the influence of Agency on Architecture and (2) the influence of Architecture on Agency. Finally, a broader discussion of needs and opportunities in studying Agency and Architecture looking forward is presented. This approach is summarized in Figure 8.1. 8.2 Types of Interplay This section interrogates the ways in which interplay between Agency and Architecture is conceptualized in the identified subset of ESG Agency scholarship (Step 2 in Figure 8.1). The 2009 ESG Science Plan explicitly recognized the importance of studying the interplay between Agency and Architecture, posing questions about the ways in which architectures (involving rules, procedures, and norms) shape the behaviour of agents and the nature of broader co-evolution processes in governance systems (Biermann et al., 2009, pp. 39–40). Here,

100

J. J. Patterson

Box 8.1 Types of Agency–Architecture interplay (i) Agency influencing Architecture: • Creation – agents creating new institutions (e.g., introduction or promotion of new rules, procedures, and norms) • Disruption – agents disrupting existing institutions (e.g., purposeful or de facto efforts to call into question existing rules, procedures, and norms) • Maintenance – agents maintaining existing institutions (e.g., reinforcement of existing rules, procedures, and norms) (ii) Architecture influencing Agency: • Enabling – architecture enables efforts by agents to take desired actions (e.g., legal context enables introduction of new policies, international agreements support cooperative actions) • Constraining – architecture constrains efforts by agents to take desired actions (e.g., legal context constrains introduction of new policies, international agreements limit cooperative actions) • Gaps – a lack of existing architecture provides an incomplete or ambiguous framework that affords opportunity for agents to develop new architectures (e.g., creation of new transnational rule structures, addressing emerging issues such as climate change adaptation) (iii) Not determined

a framework of theoretical categories is applied which encompasses broad ways in which Agency may influence Architecture, and vice versa. The categories of Agency–Architecture interplay applied are presented in Box 8.1. The categories in Group (i) (Agency influencing Architecture) draw on Lawrence et al. (2009), who present the notion of ‘institutional work’ as a comprehensive approach to understanding the influence agency on institutional structures within organizational settings. This approach is increasingly generalized in the context of environmental governance (Bettini et al., 2015; Beunen et al., 2017; Beunen and Patterson, 2016). The categories of Group (ii) (Architecture influencing Agency) are broad categories that seek to encompass the range of ways in which institutional structures may exert influence in Agents in practice. Lastly, Group (iii) (Not determined) captures papers for which the specific forms of Agency–Architecture interplay are not clear based solely on the metadata analyzed. The results of applying the categories in Box 8.1 to the subset of ESG scholarship on Agency and Architecture (171 articles) are presented in Table 8.1. This shows that the majority of papers focus on Creation of new institutions in Group (i)

Agency and Architecture: Producing Stability and Change

101

Table 8.1 Forms of Agency–Architecture interplay Group and category (i) Agency influencing Architecture: Creation Maintenance Disruption (ii) Architecture influencing Agency: Enabling Constraining Gaps (iii) Not determined:

% of papersa 51 4 9 33 15 11 2

a

Coding in these categories is not mutually exclusive; i.e., a paper may relate to more than one category. In total 21% of papers address more than one category.

and the Enabling role of architecture in Group (ii), which are also the two highest rated categories overall. The remaining categories in Groups (i) and (ii) were substantially less represented. 8.2.1 Agency Influencing Architecture Creation of new institutions (e.g., rules, procedures, and norms) was the most highly represented category in this group, and of Agency–Architecture interplay overall (see also Chapter 6). This spans scales from local to global. For example, creation of new rules may occur at a local level through environmental nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) acting as institutional entrepreneurs to reshape water governance arrangements (Davidson and de Loë, 2016), or at an urban level through the crafting of both dedicated and mainstreamed urban climate governance initiatives (Uittenbroek et al., 2016). In transnational settings, rule-setting may be conducted by private entities, although this raises questions about whether more ‘open’ or ‘closed’ forms of rule-setting lead to more effective outcomes (Kalfagianni and Pattberg, 2013; see also Chapter 14). Through investigating the role of the Marine Stewardship Council in certifying sustainable fisheries, Kalfagianni and Pattberg (2013) observe both direct problem-solving effects as well as broader political and socio-economic effects, but also a risk of reinforcing poor practices from suppliers outside of certified channels. At a global level, Jinnah and Lindsay (2015) found cross-national secretariats to have potential for improving rules associated with environmental issues within international trade agreements. In general, though, power relations

102

J. J. Patterson

fundamentally condition the ability of agents to impact on regime complexes (Orsini et al., 2013; see also Chapters 5 and 6). There was also a notable emphasis on the creation of new norms across scales (Chapters 9 and 10). For example, at a local level this includes the influence of actor preferences on the institutionalization of participatory processes in climate change governance (Kabiri, 2016). At an urban level, this includes the ways in which urban experimentation cultivates new constellations of municipal and non-municipal actors with potential to ‘open up new political spaces’ (including new norms) for climate change governance (Castán Broto and Bulkeley, 2013). At a transnational level, the emergence of initiatives involving new configurations public and private actors (Bulkeley et al., 2012) appears to be creating new norms about how climate change is governed in dispersed both transnationally (Bulkeley et al., 2014) and polycentrically (Jordan et al., 2018). Yet such activities challenge accountability norms (Chapter 13). For example, Kramarz and Park (2016) interrogate accountability in global governance, questioning its potential to improve environmental outcomes, but concluding that accountability needs to be applied to actors responsible for designing and executing environmental governance, thus explicitly bringing an accountability lens to the behaviour of agents. At a global level, Okereke and Coventry (2016) observe that political debates between nations over justice issues have shaped the normative character of the Paris Agreement, and more generally Dombrowski (2010) considers whether NGOs can help to address gaps in civil society representation in global climate change negotiations, especially to better involve the views of marginalized groups. Specific venues have also been considered in terms of their norm-related influence on global governance, including the role and operation of the High-Level Political Forum (HLPF) and its role as an orchestrator (Abbott and Bernstein, 2015), and the role of minilateral forums feeding ideas and expectations into global climate change negotiations (Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen and McGee, 2013). The creation of new procedures is closely linked to rules and norms, yet may have contradictory effects. For example, new procedures may be created in implementing global agreements, but this may maintain existing power relations (Chapter 5). For example, scholars have argued that the development of the REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation) regime was shaped by donor countries in Europe and North America which persists through continued regime centralization (Gallemore and Munroe, 2013). In another case, the delegation of implementation roles to private companies in implementation of the Clean Development Mechanisms was seen to allow these actors to essentially become ‘street level bureaucrats’ shaping the development of the mechanism over time (Lund, 2013). Alternatively, Wallbott (2014) observes the role of indigenous peoples acting as entrepreneurs for new norms in UN climate negotiations. Therefore, the

Agency and Architecture: Producing Stability and Change

103

influence of agents working to create new institutions is multifaceted, and dynamics of rules, procedures, and norms need to be considered jointly. Disruption and Maintenance of existing institutions were much less prominent topics, but nonetheless observed by some scholars. At a local–national level, Bergsma et al. (2012) observe disruption to existing governance regime caused by an increasingly dominant neoliberal political paradigm has disrupted the existing water governance regime by causing confusion about responsibilities, fragmenting knowledge, and producing conceptual tensions about goals. On the other hand, Mirumachi and Van Wyk (2010) observe the maintenance of existing procedures and norms in the water governance regime of South Africa including that nonstate actors continue to have limited decision-making power despite the introduction of new progressive arrangements intended to reconfigure these relations (Chapter 10). From a global perspective, Orsini (2013) points out the potential for disruption by nonstate actors engaging in venue shopping within already fragmented systems, which can drive further fragmentation. On the other hand, normative ideas about partnerships for sustainable development have served a maintenance role as a legitimating strategy for UN agencies in an increasingly multilateral global governance context (Bäckstrand and Kylsäter, 2014). 8.2.2 Architecture Influencing Agency The Enabling role of architecture on agency was the most highly represented category of this Group, with focal scales ranging from local to global (see Chapter 6). From an ecosystem perspective, scholars have examined how marine fisheries management approaches enable climate change adaptation by practitioners at the ecosystem scale (Ogier et al., 2016), and the ways in which participatory process setups shape interaction among actors (either collaborative or conflictual) in ecosystem management (Berardo et al., 2014). At a transnational level, de la Plaza Esteban et al. (2014) observe growing interest among actors linked to new private steering mechanisms in global environmental governance, suggesting an emerging enabling role for these schemes. New architecture may also provide new sites of contestation by agents seeking to shape its form and operation; for example, it has been argued that the EU Energy Union provides a vessel for a wide range of actors to seek to impart their objectives on energy policy, thus both enabling discussions about a new regime while also being created by actors seeking to influence its setup (Szulecki et al., 2011). From a global perspective, Fujisaki et al. (2016) study the enabling role of REDD+, observing an enabling role for national governance structures in supporting stakeholder participation. Others have argued that despite questions about impact, REDD+ nevertheless provides a vital forum for dialogue in the context of broader political

104

J. J. Patterson

conflicts, thereby providing a de facto enabling role by helping to manage fragmentation (Gupta et al., 2016). Constraining effects of architecture on agency were a less common focus. Sometimes these are discussed in terms of mixed enabling and constraining effects. For example, the contested effects of national flood risk policy that transfers risks and responsibilities to local authorities (Thaler and Priest, 2014). At a transnational level, differing logics may underpin transnational private governance initiatives (e.g., control through rules vs. empowerment of marginalized groups) which has a variety of implications for actors associated with these initiatives (Auld et al., 2015). Constraining effects may be relatively clear, such as constraints on the HLPF to exert agency within the ‘emerging governance architecture for sustainable development’ due to limited authority and resources (Abbott and Bernstein, 2015). However, such effects may also be more subtle. For example, the operation of ‘power as domination’ in the global climate change regime unknowingly conditioning the preferences of subjects of the regime such as smallholder farmers (Sova et al., 2015; see also Chapter 5), and a lack of institutional arrangements for successful REDD+ implementation (e.g., benefit sharing, dispute resolution, financial accountability) that leads to ‘ambiguous legislation’ and ‘weak institutional capacity’ hindering stakeholder participation (Dunlop and Corbera, 2016). Lastly, Gaps in institutional architecture may afford opportunities for agents to develop new architectures, particularly in light of new issues or knowledge emerging about global environmental governance needs (Chapter 7). For example, emerging transnational climate partnerships may seek to address governance gaps in the global climate regime but lack rule-setting authority, yet nonetheless contribute to shifting patterns of authority between state and nonstate actors (Bäckstrand, 2008). Scholars have also analysed the changing role of the International Energy Agency (IEA) within shifting geopolitical contexts, including how institutional gaps drives rethinking on its role and operation (Van de Graaf, 2012), and how G8 nations have contributed to adapting the role of the IEA in the face of new global energy governance demands (Lesage et al., 2009). More broadly, scholars have argued that there is a key need to address gaps in the global institutional capacity to govern planetary boundaries (Galaz et al., 2012a), including a need for a United Nations Sustainable Development Council to guide transformations in the face of global nonlinear, abrupt, and irreversible global change (Kanie et al., 2012). 8.3 Next Steps and Future Directions This section discusses needs for future research on Agency–Architecture interplay, and the broader opportunities where this work stands to make significant

Agency and Architecture: Producing Stability and Change

105

contributions both within ESG scholarship and within broader social science literature (Step 3 in Figure 8.1). 8.3.1 Needs ESG scholars identify a variety of ways in which Agency and Architecture interact. The emphasis on Creation of new institutions and the Enabling role of architecture (Table 8.1) may reflect a particular interest among ESG scholars in understanding drivers of change in governance systems, particularly in seeking to explain the dynamics of the global environmental governance landscape over the last decade (e.g., the emergence of new forms of transnational governance). Alternatively, it may also reflect a particular interest among ESG scholars to constructively identify opportunities for improvements in governance systems (e.g., sources of optimism). Yet the areas that are more weakly addressed in Table 8.1 may be areas requiring greater attention looking forward. For example, more work appears to be needed on the ‘dark side’ of agency, that is, agents working to undermine efforts to address environmental issues such as through maintenance of existing arrangements (Chapter 15). This relates to issues of power which are a priority in Chapter 4.2 of the new ESG Science Plan 2018–2028 (Earth System Governance Project, 2018a; see also Chapter 5). Relatedly, disruption is another area requiring greater attention, including both purposeful as well as unintended disruption, which may open up new opportunity contexts for agency and sites of political contestation. Overall, a key observation is the presence of multiple types of Agency–Architecture interplay in political struggles within and over governance systems, which often may need to be considered simultaneously (Chapters 2 and 14). Looking forward, the explicit study of Agency–Architecture interplay will require attention to causal mechanisms of interplay, within a framework such as that applied in this chapter as a starting point. This requires substantial theoretical and methodological innovation to rigorously conceptualize and test hypotheses about such causal mechanisms across diverse issues, contexts, and scales (e.g., see Beach and Pedersen, 2013; Chapter 3). However, it also requires linking this work to relevant broader frameworks of governance in service of larger goals. For example, the study of Agency–Architecture interplay has potential to help (re)theorize dynamics animating governance systems and their evolution over time, to move beyond the often static conceptual models that often continue to be employed. This is especially relevant in light of the plethora of unfolding transformations across many spheres of human society (see Chapter 3.1, ESG Science Plan 2018–2028).

106

J. J. Patterson

8.3.2 Opportunities Three key areas in which research into Agency–Architecture interplay stands to make major scholarly contributions are (1) understanding processes of transformation in governance systems, (2) explaining processes of institutional change and development more generally, and (3) responding to fundamental new governance imperatives in the Anthropocene. Calls are rapidly increasing for urgent transformations in governance systems across local to global levels to address many social and environmental problems (e.g., climate change, biodiversity, inequality, health), particularly in governance systems that are no longer fit-for-purpose in changing global contexts (Biermann et al., 2012, 2016). Yet understanding of how the needed transformations in governance systems may occur is sorely lacking, particularly regarding the political and governance aspects (Patterson et al., 2017). Recent scholarship gives increasing attention to topics such as innovation in governance (Jordan and Huitema, 2014a, b), overcoming path dependency and lock-in (Seto et al., 2016), and the politics of decarbonization (Bernstein and Hoffmann, 2018). Chapter 3.1 of the new ESG Science Plan 2018–2028 gives significant recognition to multiple unfolding transformations which earth system governance needs to contend with. Agency–Architecture interplay is central in both responding to transformations and to actively shaping transformations in governance systems (Earth System Governance Project, 2018a). ESG scholars thus stand to make fundamental contributions in these areas. In addition, institutional change has become a key topic at the forefront of multiple social science disciplines in recent years (e.g., political science, sociology, planning). For example, Hall (2010) argues that institutionalist literature has traditionally focused on exploring how institutions shape behaviour (a ‘firstorder problem’), and is now shifting towards understanding how institutions themselves change (a ‘second-order problem’). Influential arguments have been advanced that current theories of institutional change are lacking because they emphasize either stability (e.g., self-replication) or radical change (e.g., in response to shocks), but fail to explain more gradual and evolutionary modes of change that are actually most common (Mahoney and Thelen, 2010; Thelen, 2009). Studying Agency–Architecture interplay opens up novel opportunities for explaining institutional change within environmental governance and beyond, which gives ESG scholars a unique vantage point for contributing to the development of institutional theory in broader political science and sociology. Yet this is also crucial practically for addressing pressing problems of democratic decay (Fukuyama, 2014) and gridlock in political institutions (Hale et al., 2013) which increasingly intersect with efforts to address environmental governance challenges.

Agency and Architecture: Producing Stability and Change

107

A final key contribution is understanding of the role of Agency–Architecture interplay in cultivating reflexivity in the Anthropocene. The changing boundary conditions for environmental governance systems caused by the Anthropocene (e.g., surpassing planetary thresholds and triggering nonlinear climate and environmental changes) are likely to severely stress existing governance and social systems and push many to failure. This is recognized in Chapter 3.3 of the new ESG Science Plan 2018–2028 (Earth System Governance Project, 2018a). The profound material, political, and philosophical consequences of this situation are poorly understood, yet what is clear is that reflexivity in societies and governance systems will be fundamental to navigating new unfolding realities over time (Dryzek, 2016; Galaz, 2014). Agency–Architecture interplay will be central to cultivating reflexivity, because this depends on finding ways for societies and governance systems to intelligently reflect on their performance in context, and change not only their operation but possibly also their overall structure, goals, and raison d’être. This casts Agency–Architecture interplay in a new and open-ended light in future scholarship.

9 Agency in a Multiscalar World M I C H E L L E S C O B I E , MI CHELE M . B E T S I L L , A ND HYEY OON PA RK

Chapter Highlights • Earth System Governance (ESG)–Agency scholarship highlights the multiscalar and multilevel dynamics of earth system governance, with particular focus on the institutional and geographic scales. • Agents in earth system governance deploy diverse strategies and mechanisms, such as networks, bridging organizations, and orchestration, to navigate across global to local levels and ecological, social, economic, and political scales. • Whether multilevel and multiscalar dynamics enable or constrain agency in earth system governance depends on power dynamics and the resource capacities of agents. • Future research should examine the role of agents in political struggles related to the social construction of levels and scales in earth system governance.

9.1 Introduction Earth system governance processes take place within and across diverse boundaries, which in turn shape the way actors understand problems and possibilities for addressing them (Bulkeley, 2005; Sternlieb et al., 2013). The scales at which governance processes take place are marked by particular ideologies (Bai et al., 2010; Dore and Lebel, 2010), goals and values (Armitage et al., 2012; van Leeuwen, 2015), and power dynamics (Mirumachi and Van Wyk, 2010; Sova et al., 2015a; van Kerhoff and Lebel, 2015), which affect who is able to participate, what forms of authority are recognized as legitimate, and whether agents are effective in influencing decision-making processes and outcomes. 108

Agency in a Multiscalar World

109

This chapter reviews research by scholars associated with the Earth System Governance (ESG) network on the link between Agency and Scale published in the period 2008–2016. As outlined in Chapter 1, Scale is one of the four cross-cutting themes (along with Power, Knowledge, and Norms) in the ESG Project’s research framework (Biermann et al., 2009). The theme of Scale builds on previous work conducted under the Institutional Dimensions of Global Environmental Change project (the ESG Project’s predecessor) where “fit, interplay, and scale” was one of the major research themes (Young et al., 2008). The 2009 ESG Science Plan identified a number of possible avenues for this area of research, focused on how actors may gain or lose agency when an issue is scaled up or down to different institutional levels (e.g., from global to national); the politics of moving issues across levels and scales; how agency changes over time; and the link between agency and the spatial scale of a particular environmental problem (Biermann et al., 2009). Gibson et al. (2000, p. 218) define scale as ‘the spatial, temporal, quantitative, or analytical dimensions used to measure or rank any phenomenon.’ In their review of water governance in the Mekong region, Dore and Lebel (2010) analyzed five different scales: management cycle, administration, hydrology, ecosystem, and economy. Sternlieb et al. (2013) note that scales may be bounded in physical terms or through social practices. Levels are ‘the unit of analysis located at different positions on a scale’ (Gibson et al., 2000, p. 218). For example, a geographic scale may be divided between rural and urban areas or different countries. A temporal scale may distinguish between fast- or slow-moving processes or between the past, present, and future. Levels may be hierarchically organized, as with political jurisdictions in a federal system (local, state, national) or ecosystems (micro-habitat, patch, reach, river, biogeographic region) (Dore and Lebel, 2010). Alternatively, levels may be categorical as in individual countries within a geographic scale. Drawing on publications in the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database (see Chapter 1 and Appendix), this chapter examines the broad contours of ESG research linking Agency and Scale as well as the specific scales and levels analyzed. We began our review with the 134 articles that were coded as addressing Scale. On closer review, it became apparent that while these articles focus on agency in a particular geography or institutional setting at a particular time, they often fail to systematically interrogate the connection between Agency and Scale. Our in-depth analysis of Scale in ESG Agency research draws on the 69 articles with a more explicit focus on the relationship between Agency and Scale. These abstracts were analyzed qualitatively using both open and axial coding strategies (Coffey and Atkinson, 1996; Saldaña, 2016) in order to reveal the scales and levels addressed and to generate a better

110

M. Scobie, M. M. Betsill, and H. Park

understanding of the relationship between Agency and Scale.1 We find that much of the ESG–Agency research over the past decade has focused on the Institutional scale and in particular, the multilevel and multiscalar dynamics of earth system governance. While ESG–Agency scholars have paid considerable attention to the effects of Scale on Agency, there has been relatively little work on how Agency affects Scale. The chapter concludes with a discussion of gaps and areas for future research. 9.2 Scale in ESG Agency Scholarship Research on Agency and Scale is multidisciplinary. In the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database, we found scholars drawing on theories and approaches in political science (e.g., Jordan and Huitema, 2014b), international relations (e.g., Bäckstrand, 2008; Dauvergne and Clapp, 2016), public administration (e.g., Qi and Zhang, 2014; Termeer et al., 2012), economics (e.g., VillamayorTomas et al., 2014), ecology (e.g., Lebel et al., 2015, global health (e.g., Bowen et al., 2013), sociology (e.g., Taylor, 2012), legal studies (e.g. Abbott, 2014; Hurlbert, 2014), development studies (e.g., Dunlop and Corbera, 2016), urban planning (e.g., Barau and Stringer 2015), and geography (e.g., Gallemore and Jesperson, 2016; Mulyani and Jepson, 2015), among others. Many researchers in political science, international relations, public administration, and legal studies explore interactions between state and private actors (e.g., Bäckstrand, 2008) and between different government agencies (e.g., Qi and Zhang, 2014; Termeer et al., 2012) in emerging governance complexes across levels and areas of political jurisdiction. In this context, scholars redefine conventional notions of the role of state and private actors in governance (e.g., Dauvergne and Clapp, 2016; Jordan and Huitema 2014b). Studies in ecology, global health, development studies, and geography tends to focus on how multiscalar governance complexes affect and empower local actors related to their economic and social benefits (e.g. Bowen et al., 2013; Dunlop and Corbera, 2016; Gallemore and Jesperson, 2016; Mulyani and Jepson, 2015). Research on climate change was especially prominent, which is not surprising given the prevalence of climate change in broader environmental governance literature (Dauvergne and Clapp, 2016) and the now common assumption that climate change is multiscalar by definition (Levin et al., 2012). Similarly, scholars acknowledge that natural resource and biodiversity 1

This coding exercise was conducted by a single coder and involved subjective judgments based on a close reading of each abstract as well as a brief review of the full article where the abstract did not provide sufficient information. We believe this approach is sufficient for the purposes of this chapter, where we do not aim for an exhaustive review of the ESG–Agency and Scale literature, but rather seek to identify some more general patterns, trends, and themes in the literature over the first decade of the ESG Project.

Agency in a Multiscalar World

111

Table 9.1 Scale in ESG–Agency scholarship Scale

Defined in terms of . . .

No. of articles

Institutional

Political jurisdiction or administrative boundaries The particular place where something occurs Biogeophysical; features The location of economic exchanges and/or the economic sectors involved Common values, beliefs, and/or practices Time Where technological innovations occur

61

Geographic Ecosystem Economic Social/cultural Temporal Phases of sociotechnical transitions

35 14 12 11 8 3

issues are subject to scalar dynamics from the local to the global level (Paavola et al., 2009; see also Chapter 4). Consistent with the ESG Project’s focus on governance, the Institutional scale was by far most prominent in the 69 articles in the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database that foreground the link between Scale and Agency (Table 9.1). These articles emphasize the political jurisdiction(s) and administrative boundaries within which decision-making processes take place. Half of the articles address the Geographic scale, noting the importance of the particular place (e.g., a city or country) or type of place (e.g., urban area) where earth system governance occurs. Other types of scales were analyzed far less frequently, suggesting a wealth of opportunity for ESG–Agency scholars to expand considerations of Scale in future research. For example, scholars can integrate the Economic scale to examine agency in particular economic sectors (e.g., Burch et al., 2013; Leventon et al., 2015; Zhao et al., 2014), along supply chains (Newton et al., 2013), and/or in diverse resource ownership systems (Chhatre and Agrawal, 2009). In particular, we note ESG–Agency scholars have paid scant attention to temporal scales (for exceptions, see Bai et al., 2010; Dore and Lebel, 2010; Heuer, 2012), thus limiting our understanding of how agency changes over time, which was one of the questions raised in the 2009 ESG Science Plan (Biermann et al., 2009). The majority of articles attend to multiscalar dynamics, dominated by the Institutional and Geographic scales, which were analyzed together in nearly onehalf of the articles (Figure 9.1). Feitelson and Fischhendler (2009), Fujisaki et al. (2016), Liu et al. (2013), and van Laerhoven (2014), for instance, each highlight

8 1 0

4 3

9

7

1

Temporal

STS 1

3

Social/Cultural

0

8

Economic

9

4

12

Ecological 4

0

30

Geographic

30

Institutional

20 Ecological 12

10 Geographic 30

0

40

3 0

0

0

0

3

8

2 0 3

4

9

60 Social/Cultural 9

Economic 8

50

NUMBER OF ARTICLES

Institutional 18

Institutional

Geographic

Ecological

Economic

Social/Cultural

Temporal

STS

Figure 9.1 Multiscalar dynamics in ESG–Agency research.

SCALE CATEGORY

70

1

0

0

3

1

3

Temporal 7

80

1

1

0

0 0

STS 1 1

90

Agency in a Multiscalar World

113

how different institutional levels may provide participatory mechanisms for local actors’ engagement and influence governance capacity across the distinct geographic regions of the Mediterranean, Asia-Pacific, China and Japan, and Brazil. The socio-ecological systems perspective with its focus on adaptive governance is reflected in the 12 articles that combine both Institutional and Ecological scales, often with linkages to other scales (see also Chapter 12). Armitage et al. (2012) and Pittman et al. (2015) argue that to empower agents, institutional arrangements should be integrated with ecological scale by way of ecological resilience. Jedd and Bixler (2015) examine the dynamics of institutional, ecological, and geographic scale in conservation networks across multiple levels along the US–Canadian border. Robinson and Berkes (2011) focus on the geographic region of northern Kenya, studying multilevel networks considering both social and ecological resilience and their impact on mobilizing marginalized groups in decision-making processes. Meanwhile, Chhatre and Agrawal (2009) and Dore and Lebel (2010) tie multiple institutional and ecological scales with economic scales by showing that institutional settings across different levels lead to distinctive economic benefits for different stakeholders, but particularly related to local citizens’ livelihoods. On the other hand, Barau and Stringer (2015), Brockhaus et al. (2012), Paloniemi et al. (2012), Plummer et al. (2013), and Sternlieb et al. (2013) link institutional and ecological scales with social scales that produce different actors’ perspectives and perceptions, often reflected in knowledge exchanges and deliberative discussions. Paloniemi et al. (2012) claim that building crossscale communication platforms, such as in the case of biodiversity conservation, may be a solution to the problem of knowledge mismatches between various societal actors (see Chapter 7). Within the 61 articles that analyzed the Institutional scale, approximately one-third examined Agency at a single level, focused on municipalities (e.g., Bastakoti et al., 2010; Castán Broto and Bulkeley, 2013; van Laerhoven, 2014); subnational states or provinces (e.g., Wyatt et al., 2015), national governments (e.g., Termeer et al., 2012), or international processes (e.g., Schroeder, 2010; van Asselt et al., 2009). That the local and subnational levels figure prominently in ESG–Agency research is notable in light of early concerns that the research network would have a global bias given the large number of international relations scholars.2 Theoretically, we expect that the sociopolitical dynamics of decision-making may vary across levels (and scales) depending on the particular rules of engagement, opportunities for participation, etc. with implications for agency (Bulkeley 2005; see also 2

Betsill’s personal recollection as a member of the team that originally developed the ESG analytical framework.

114

M. Scobie, M. M. Betsill, and H. Park

Chapter 6). There is an opportunity for ESG scholars to synthesize this singlelevel research to draw out general observations about how the governance context varies across levels of political jurisdiction and the implications for agency (Chapter 15). The vast majority of articles at the Institutional scale address the multilevel context in which environmental governance takes place, engaging with a variety of theoretical concepts and literatures. Earlier studies introducing social-ecological systems (e.g., Armitage et al., 2012; Plummer et al., 2013; Robinson and Berkes, 2011) and sustainable supply chains (e.g., Newton et al., 2013) shed light on multilevel institutional scales, particularly regarding environmental governance capacity. Some scholars focused on the ways in which governance dynamics at a single scale or level are shaped by forces operating at another scale or level (e.g., Liu et al., 2013; Mathur et al., 2014; Qi and Zhang, 2014). Others examined the shift of agency between levels of political jurisdiction (e.g., Bergsma et al., 2012; Zhao et al., 2014). Leventon (2015) and Mauerhofer et al. (2015) apply the concept of multilevel governance to issues related to national actors’ compliance with international environmental policies such as the Ramsar Convention. Mukhtarov et al. (2013) show how national actors engage in multilevel governance politics when they introduce transnational narratives into national policy. Polycentricity is another core concept in environmental governance studies across institutional scales. Gallemore et al. (2015) explain how transaction costs of actors involved in Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+) in Indonesia are influenced by polycentric systems including national and provincial levels of governance. Governance fragmentation also features in multilevel environmental governance studies. Gupta et al. (2016) critically analyze the REDD+ Partnerships which bridge multiple stakeholders to manage fragmentation (see also Biermann and Pattberg, 2008; Galaz et al., 2016). Abbott and Snidal (2013) and Dzebo and Stripple (2015) use the concept of transnational governance to explain overarching institutional architectures across political scales. Scholars working in the area of transition studies use institutional scale within studies on the multilevel perspectives (e.g., Bulkeley and Castán Broto, 2013; Rosenbloom et al., 2016). Vasileiadou and Safarzynska (2010) illustrate the contribution of complexity theory, using different levels of policymaking processes to understand contested issue such as the role of agency in transition. Overall, we find that ESG–Agency scholars have deployed a diverse range of approaches to study the linkages between Agency and Scale in earth system governance. In the next two sections, we review what this literature reveals about how Acale affects Agency and how Agency affects Scale.

Agency in a Multiscalar World

115

9.3 How Scale Affects Agency As noted earlier, the Institutional scale was by far the most prominent in the 69 abstracts in the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database that foreground Scale, and it is here that we can most easily extract broader findings on the interplay between Agency and Scale. In terms of how Scale affects Agency, a number of studies demonstrate that dynamic interactions across institutional levels can constrain the exercise of agency (see also Chapter 6). Taylor and Cheng (2012) and Mathur et al. (2014) suggest that the expanded scope of actors in multilevel governance structures can disadvantage local communities in efforts to protect their interests. Shifting governance from the national level to the local level also can constrain effective public participation and local policy implementation when the capacity of local government is weak (Liu et al., 2013; Qi and Zhang, 2014). In contrast, other studies indicate that these multilevel interactions can enhance the ability of actors to exercise agency in earth system governance by increasing the participatory capacity and the implementation ability of nonstate local agents and private actors (Burch et al., 2013; Fujisaki et al., 2016; Mauerhofer et al., 2015). Sorting out the conditions under which cross-level interactions either enable or constrain agency is an area worthy of future research as this has direct implications for policymaking (Chapter 15). ESG–Agency scholarship highlights the importance of strategies and mechanisms that allow agents to work across levels and scales (Corbera and Jover, 2012; Di Lucia and Kronsell, 2010; Leventon et al., 2015; Tierney, 2012; Vasileiadou and Safarzyńska, 2010). Networks in particular have received considerable attention. Most network studies explain that the interconnectivity of collaborative networks increases the role of nonstate actors such as social entrepreneurs, local citizens, and business actors (Bai et al., 2010; Burch et al., 2013; Heuer, 2012; Jedd and Bixler, 2015) and overcomes the limitations of traditional hierarchical governance systems led by national or local governments (Schroeder et al., 2013). In addition, knowledge exchange and learning processes facilitated by networks empower nonstate actors (Alexander et al., 2016; Galaz et al., 2016; Paloniemi et al., 2012; see also Chapter 7). However, Gordon (2016a) points out the weak authority and influence of networked governance. Other studies highlight the advantages of working through bridging or boundary organizations (Bowen et al., 2013; Gupta et al., 2016; Plummer et al., 2013; Sternlieb et al., 2013). Cheng et al. (2015) demonstrate the ways in which collaborative governance arrangements enhance agency across levels and scale through the creation of ‘boundary objects’ that can lead to improved implementation and innovative action. Orchestration can be an effective means of exercising agency in a multilevel/multiscalar context (Abbott, 2014; Abbott and Snidal, 2013). These new governance realms between and across

116

M. Scobie, M. M. Betsill, and H. Park

boundaries allow agents to go beyond static and state-centric governance systems to pursue innovation and flexibility. Several studies have explored how movement between institutional levels affects agency, in particular from the global to the national and local levels. As global initiatives such as REDD+ (Fujisaki et al., 2016; Gallemorea et al., 2015; Gupta et al., 2016; McDermott et al., 2012; Mulyani and Jepson, 2015) or the Ramsar Convention (Barau and Stringer, 2015; Mauerhofer et al., 2015) are implemented in particular places, they are seen to ‘globalize’ local spaces, creating new opportunities for agency by community members and other local stakeholders. For example, in their study of the Pulau Kukup Ramsar site in Malaysia, Barau and Stringer (2015) found that this designation allowed local communities to capitalize on ecosystem services afforded by conservation efforts despite the national government’s failure to implement the convention. Similarly, Zhao et al. (2014) found that a shift in responsibility for energy efficiency measures from the national to the local level alleviated barriers for Chinese businesses to adopt new technologies. Both studies show that moving an issue to the local level can trigger effective policy implementation. At the same time, evidence suggests that downscaling (or more accurately, moving to lower levels on a particular scale) does not necessarily lead to local empowerment in all cases. Thaler and Priest’s (2014) study of flood risk governance in the UK found a gap between the downscaling of responsibility for risk management and the availability of key resources including financing and social capital. Proponents of devolution often contend that it facilitates more participatory forms of governance, but again that seems to be dependent on local capacities and resources. Young et al. (2012) found that successful participatory processes often rely on government involvement and support. Mulyani and Jepson (2015) identified historical experience with such processes as well as social learning to be important, bringing in consideration of temporal scales as well. All three studies emphasize downscaling problems caused by insufficient social, political, and financial capacities of local agents in the absence of strongly centralized authority. While downscaling implies a democratic shift, the redistribution of responsibilities requires that local actors have appropriate abilities, power, and political willingness to participate in governance. 9.4 How Agency Affects Scale Despite a rich social science literature on the politics of scaling, there has been surprisingly little attention to the question of how Agency shapes Scale within the ESG–Agency research community. Geographers suggest that levels and scales are

Agency in a Multiscalar World

117

not given but rather are socially constructed through political struggles among various actors. In this sense, different scales represent distinct power relations (see Chapter 5). For example, Bulkeley (2005) highlights the political nature of how particular scales and levels become seen as legitimate sites for governance. Gruby (2017) presents a strong agency perspective emphasizing the need to consider who is producing scale, through what means, and toward what ends (see also McCarthy, 2005). Only four articles in the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database directly engaged with the effect of Agency on Scale. Feitelson and Fishendler (2009) demonstrated how multiple actors advocating different storylines competed to shape the main discourse in the process of constructing scale in water governance between Israel, Jordan, and Palestine. They noted that the outcome had implications for the ability of different agents to be seen as legitimate participants in decision-making processes. Rozema et al. (2015) explain ‘respatialization’ through local protest regarding a high-speed rail project in the UK. In this case, local actors formed new legitimate identities as autonomous citizens being apart from local interests by transferring spatialities. Similarly, Mukhtarov et al. (2013) regard scaling as a strategy of policy entrepreneurs, especially transnational actors in the case of biodiversity conservation policy in Vietnam. Translating global narratives to the local level changed the scope of supporters and led to new issue framings in different contexts dependent on multiple levels and sites of governance. Dore and Lebel (2010) also showed how actors used rescaling and releveling of water governance in the Mekong basin to have more power in deliberative dialogues. In each of these studies, discursive strategies are seen to be especially important in legitimizing particular understandings of scale or level within a governance arena and in enhancing agents’ efforts to shape outcomes. Agents shift scales to more easily project their interests and power on policy discourses because different administrative, spatial, and time scales privilege certain dimensions of environmental problems. These processes of scale contests have significant implications for the position of marginalized groups. The politics of scaling shows the fluid power of agents who work through contested discourses at different scales. Moving across scales and shaping scales can lead to creating new authorities and (re) establishing hierarchies among actors in multilevel environmental governance (Bulkeley, 2005). In this sense, scale is a social construct reflecting how agents try to overcome asymmetrical power relations. This perspective places agents in the position of active political subjects and boundary spanners in multilevel governance by highlighting individual reflexivity and autonomy (Sternlieb et al., 2013; Vasileiadou and Safarzyńska, 2010). In the future, ESG–Agency scholars could draw on the fields of political ecology and political geography, which more actively debate the complex dimensions of power relations embedded in the

118

M. Scobie, M. M. Betsill, and H. Park

politics of scale (e.g., Brown and Purcell, 2005; Engel-Di Mauro, 2009; Gruby, 2017; Neumann, 2009). 9.5 Gaps and Areas for Future Research The challenges associated with the Anthropocene require engagement with environmental governance systems at all scales (Earth System Governance Project, 2018a). In this chapter, we have demonstrated that while Scale has been a common theme in ESG–Agency scholarship, the linkage between Agency and Scale often remains in the background and under-theorized. We suggest that there is considerable room for research that more explicitly addresses questions such as: (1) How does agency vary across levels of a particular scale? (2) Under what conditions does the scale or level of environmental governance or interactions across levels and scales enable or constrain agency? (3) What are the impacts of cross-scalar dynamics and politics on agency? These questions continue to be central to the ESG research agenda (Earth System Governance Project, 2018a) in particular and to the wider environmental governance scholarship more generally. Within the ESG research community, there are opportunities for research beyond institutional and geographic scales including temporal and ecosystem for example (Earth System Governance Project, 2018a, p. 10). The 2018 ESG Science Plan (Earth System Governance Project, 2018a) provides specific openings for advancing agency research on the temporal scale. The focus on Transformations as a contextual condition for earth system governance points to ways that agency may contribute to ‘lock-in’ and path dependencies in environmental policy in the future. The Justice and Allocation research lens includes intergenerational justice and the possible clashes between present and future agents for environmental costs and benefits. There is scope for more research on the impacts of Agency on Scale, and on how agents engage with the politics of scaling. Given the assumption that earth system governance in the Anthropocene requires transformation in governance systems at all levels and scales, ESG scholars and researchers in related fields including environmental economics, environmental law, intellectual property law, disaster risk reduction, international trade and many other fields that study the human and environmental relations can contribute to this process by understanding the political and power dynamics of scale and identifying strategies for enhancing opportunities for such transformations. Where Scale has been foregrounded, ESG–Agency scholarship contributes to broader environmental governance research since both agency and scale are often foundational for environmental law, economics, ethics, justice, and environmental politics research. ESG research has highlighted the many forms of agency across scales, while refining the understanding and application of the scale concept that is

Agency in a Multiscalar World

119

often taken as a premise for much of the research in related fields. In environmental law, rights and duty holders operate at global and temporal scales (May and Daly, 2015). Ecological economists debate the need for post-growth ceilings and changes to consumption patterns, balancing the needs of societal actors with environmental conservation within geographic and temporal planes (Gough, 2017). There are significant debates surrounding intellectual property and the importance of protecting indigenous communities and local knowledge at multiple sociocultural scales. Similarly, biotechnology developments raise questions about the agency of science and regulators on agricultural communities at global scales (Phillips et al., 2015). Energy policy and regulation occurs across diverse political landscapes involving different actors and changing economic contexts (Goldthau and Keating, 2018). Research on agency in multiscalar issue areas such as climate change, biodiversity loss, natural resource depletion, and urban pollution (van Stigt et al., 2016) has brought governance, agency, and scale scholarship into dialogue with wider policy and resource degradation and distribution literatures. Agency and scale have been related to debates on the agency of the planet, of future generations, of the water, health and food poor as well as domestic politics, public policy, economics, etc. These have practical policy implications for many important elements of the global sustainable development agenda, including, for example, knowledge, information, and technology access at local scales (Tiwari and Joshi, 2015); emerging systems of ‘governance without government’ for the polar regions (Young, 2016a); and in further understanding the power of social activism in social and environmental change and accounting (Thomson et al., 2015). In addition, research on agency in multiscalar contexts contributes to neo-pluralist perspectives on the power of business in the international political economy and global environmental governance (Falkner, 2012). Continued research on the interlinkages between Agency and Scale will be essential in overcoming the governance challenges associated with the Anthropocene and securing a sustainable future for the planet.

10 Agency and Norms: Who Defines What Ought to Be? MICH AEL ANGSTA DT AND IN A M ÖL LER

Chapter Highlights • Norms are conceptualized in different ways by Earth System Governance (ESG)– Agency scholars, including as regulatory instruments, as part of the surrounding structure, as the outcome of a legitimation procedure, or as an expectation of the researcher. • Actors who engage with norms exercise agency by shaping, strategically interpreting, and using, as well as managing other actors’ interpretations of norms. • Future research could benefit from more explicitly theorizing the interaction of agency and norms by integrating existing empirical insights and increasing the geographic diversity of scholarship.

10.1 Introduction How do actors know what they should strive for? Beyond the interests of the individual, organized societies are held together by shared understandings of what is considered desirable behaviour (Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998). These norms represent the cognitive foundations upon which institutions are formed. Environmental governance in particular is characterized by an amorphous landscape in which binding legal agreements are far outnumbered by voluntary commitments based on common understandings of appropriate conduct and institutions. But beyond the recognition of their existence, the roles and effects of norms on actors’ behaviour still hold many open questions. One of the most potent questions revolves around who decides how these norms are to be interpreted, and which ones to apply when and where. Conversely, another question examines how existing norms determine the 120

Agency and Norms: Who Defines What Ought to Be?

121

actions and desires of individual agents. These questions reveal a complex relationship between structure and agency, with norms informing both the motivation and interests of governance agents, as well as contouring the setting within which those actors can shape new modes of governance (Chapter 15). Researchers such as Kratochwil (1989) and Wendt (1987) have long studied the relations between human agents and normative social structures, emphasizing their mutually constitutive nature. Likewise, extensive research by authors including Acharya (2004), Falkner and Buzan (2017), and Krook and True (2012) considers the purposive and contested nature of the process by which norms emerge and gain meaning, spread and gain currency, and ultimately secure adoption and implementation. This chapter evaluates how the nexus of norms and agency has been treated in the Earth System Governance (ESG) research network. Our review indicates that the subject of Norms, identified as an important cross-cutting theme in the first ESG Science Plan (Biermann et al., 2009), has garnered interest among many. However, the amorphous character of this theme makes the evaluated contributions fragmented and dispersed, necessitating systematic review to bring together key insights. We find that norms are conceptualized in different ways, including as regulatory instruments, as parts of the surrounding structure, and as expectations held by researchers. These diverse conceptions yield different research approaches that are not necessarily comparable. With respect to agency, we find that actors engage with norms in multiple ways. These include commonly discussed efforts to use agency to shape norms, but also include exercising agency to interpret and use norms and exerting agency to manage norms and other actors’ interpretation of them. We also find that the research on norms and agency, at least in this sample of articles, has concentrated within a few regions. Thus, the international perspective, the European and Asian perspectives are much more heavily represented than African or Oceanian perspectives (see also Chapter 4). We conclude that future case studies should give priority to underrepresented regions and themes, and we also highlight the need for theoretical contributions that draw insights from existing empirical literature (see also Chapter 3). 10.2 Key Debates Regarding Agency and Norms For our review, we drew upon the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database described in Chapter 1 and the Appendix of this volume. The project entailed a qualitative analysis of publication abstracts for 322 academic journal articles that address the analytical problem of Agency. Sixty-one of the articles were coded as addressing both Agency and Norms, and we subsequently conducted a detailed qualitative analysis of these articles. Based on this review, we suggest that existing

122

M. Angstadt and I. Möller

ESG–Agency and Norms research may be broadly organized into two formative debates: one based on how norms are defined, the other on how agency is typified. 10.2.1 Definitions of Norms The first debate on Agency and Norms relates to definition. Norms are conceptualized in a number of different ways, and the definition in turn influences the type of research questions that are asked. Whether they are understood as a type of regulatory instrument, a part of the structural surrounding, an outcome of a legitimation procedure, or a normative expectation of the researcher, is of fundamental importance to the type of research that scholars choose to engage in. Scholars who define norms as a regulatory instrument (i.e., ‘soft law’ as opposed to ‘hard law’) tend to research norms as a mode of informal governance. They often take a rationalist/institutionalist stance and are interested primarily in the way in which norms affect behaviour (see Chapter 3). Conceptual contributions including the study by Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen and Vihma (2009) have theorized norms in relation to other forms of legal instruments, but also expanded the application of norms-based behaviour to states within international organizations (Colgan and Van de Graaf, 2015) and to nonstate actors (Abbott, 2008). Empirically, scholars following this definition have analysed the effect of ‘soft law’ institutions on state and nonstate actors, including the willingness of actors to conform to one institution or the other. Researched cases include the Asia-Pacific Partnership in the issue area climate change (Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen and van Asselt, 2009), as well as resource-management institutions such as Access and Benefit Sharing (Rosendal and Andresen, 2016) and the Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+) (Babon et al., 2014). One important finding that comes out of this line of inquiry is the particular role of norm conflict. Often, new soft law institutions promoted by one international organization stand in competition with already established institutions promoted by another. The anticipated turf war between international organizations can make it less attractive for a state actor to conform to a new institution. An interesting example of this is discussed by Taplin and McGee (2010), where the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate as a newer model of an international climate agreement is seen as being in contravention with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and is therefore less attractive to implement. At the level of nonstate actors, conflict may appear when a new certification standard follows a different logic of action than an older, more established one. Auld et al. (2015) describe how the fact that some transnational private governance initiatives pursue a ‘logic of control’ while others pursue a ‘logic of empowerment’ poses a dilemma for actors who want or need to accommodate for different initiatives.

Agency and Norms: Who Defines What Ought to Be?

123

Actors with less power and resources seem to encounter more challenges in balancing such conflicting logics of action than well-endowed actors, which raises questions for Agency in relation to Allocation & Access (see Chapter 11). Scholars who define norms as a part of the structural environment tend to research norms as an obstacle or a catalyst for agency. These publications discuss the overarching institutional landscape of international environmental governance, the institutional interplay between two policy areas (in particular climate change and development), or the institutional process of one negotiation in particular. For example, Naess et al. (2015) indicate that navigating a complex institutional environment shaped by informality, historical embeddedness, power relations, and policy networks requires actors to have a certain type of expertise and experience. On the other hand, Coolsaet and Pitseys (2015) describe how the normative structures that shape negotiating processes of international agreements (such as those of the Nagoya Protocol) can be surprisingly inclusive, lending power and influence to actors that are traditionally assumed to be the most disadvantaged. Scholars who define norms as an outcome of legitimation tend to research the role that legitimacy plays in making a norm acceptable or attractive. These publications are more interested in agency than in structure, and see legitimation as a strategic way of increasing the attractiveness of a norm or institution. They highlight the role that agents play in framing and constructing social reality. Examples of empirical investigations include Rozema et al. (2012), who study the role of discursive construction in environmental assessments in order to legitimize certain policies. Similarly, Rosenbloom et al. (2016) study the use of narratives to promote sociotechnical innovations such as solar energy. Feitelson and Fischhendler (2009) conduct a related type of inquiry by specifically looking at how conflicts in framings and discourses relate to conflicts over the governance of resources. Central insights that can be drawn from this literature relate to the importance of constructing win–win narratives (e.g., through discourse coalitions); the importance of authoritative actors providing endorsement; and the particular power of science in many of the issue areas examined (see Chapter 7). Finally, those scholars for whom norms represent an expectation held by the researcher take a normative perspective on earth system governance. Approaches using this type of definition include Stevenson and Dryzek (2012), who present overarching recommendations for the reform of global environmental governance. Reforms of specific subsectors within earth system governance are addressed by the likes of Obani and Ogbodo (2013), for example, in the area of environmental migration. Paloniemi et al. (2015) use normative reasoning to study the way in which a particular norm (such as equal participation) is being adhered to in a certain policy area. Others, such as Okereke and Coventry (2016), highlight their

124

M. Angstadt and I. Möller

normative position in how ‘good’ norms (e.g., global distributive justice) and ‘bad’ norms (e.g., neo-conservatism) interact in shaping international regimes. In these publications, scholars see liberal norms such as legitimacy, accountability, fairness, and representation as preconditions for effective environmental governance (see Chapter 14). Theoretically, they are often based in literatures on critical political economy or global justice (Chapter 3). In terms of results, this literature provides evaluative insights for different policy areas, highlighting both deficits and successes when it comes to the realization of normative goals in earth system governance. Important here is to realize that different ways of conceptualizing norms lead to different research approaches that are not necessarily comparable. For a comparative evaluation of empirical results, it is important that the meta-study accounts for different understandings of what a norm is. However, once this is done, there are ample possibilities for using existing studies to draw higher-level insights about the theoretical nature of norms in their different forms and functions. 10.2.2 Types of Agency The second debate revolves more explicitly around the question of Agency and the different ways in which actors engage with norms. The most obvious strategy discussed in these analyses (and already touched upon in the 2009 ESG Science Plan) is the agency to shape norms. In addition, our review indicates that strategic use and management of norms are equally important ways of exerting agency (Chapter 6). Publications examining the shaping, use, and management of norms cover a large variety of actors, including states, international secretariats, financial investors, public–private partnerships, expert consultants, and indigenous peoples (Chapter 2). Some examples are provided in the text that follows. For an actor to shape norms, the reviewed literature indicates that forum, authority, and linkage are important requirements. To begin with, some kind of social-interaction forum is needed. For example, Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen and McGee (2013) explain how minilateral governance fora like the Asia-Pacific Partnership or the G8 climate process provide sites for powerful countries to shape the assumptions and expectations of global environmental governance. This is an important governance function, despite the fact that minilateral fora are often criticized for their lack of legitimacy and effectiveness. Another type of forum is highlighted by Cashmore et al. (2015), who study the role of non-binding guidance documents in shaping international norms. According to these authors, such ‘governance by guidance’ represents an often taken-for-granted machinery of environmental steering that requires further investigation. In these fora, authority plays an important role in determining who is listened to. Cashmore et al. (2015) describe how individuals are made into authoritative experts through the labels of States and

Agency and Norms: Who Defines What Ought to Be?

125

Organizations under which such guidance documents are published. Wallbott (2014) in turn shows how indigenous peoples draw on the legitimacy linked to their special position to increase authority and improve their bargaining position (see Chapter 2). Her study also provides a good example of how linkage and argumentation determines whether an idea is deemed acceptable. By framing their demands in terms of already existing and accepted norms, actors such as the indigenous groups studied here are more likely to find followers who will endorse or support their position. Jinnah (2011) provides further evidence for the importance of linkage by analysing the way in which the secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity strategically links biodiversity and climate change to improve the saliency of conservation. Another way in which actors engage with norms is through strategic interpretation and use. In this account, actors do not shape a norm per se, but use an existing norm to further their own goals and interests. One example here is the study by Rindefjäll et al. (2011), showing how Chile uses the internationally recognized Clean Development Mechanism primarily as a tool to attract foreign investments. Mukhtarov et al. (2013) make similar observations about how the norm of ‘Payments for Ecosystem Services’ is strategically interpreted and used by transnational policy entrepreneurs to influence Vietnamese government policies on conservation. In the process, they uncover the problems that arise when local communities are not involved in the formation and use of these narratives (see Chapter 11). While studies like these are mostly analytical, explaining how a certain actor has used a norm to achieve a certain outcome, other publications take a more solution-oriented character. Armitage et al. (2012) suggest that greater awareness of ideas and concepts in environmental governance can help actors such as conservation managers to better achieve their goals. Brockhaus et al. (2012) emphasize the importance of revealing discourses in order to break the influence of actors who use these narratives and interpretations to pursue their own interests. What all of these studies show is that actors have agency in the interpretation and presentation of norms in order to pursue collective or individual interests. A third way in which actors engage with norms is through management. Publications in this area look at how certain types of actors, in particular intergovernmental organizations, enhance (or fail to enhance) the potential for change that a certain norm carries. Abbott (2012), as well as Abbott and Snidal (2013), showcase this by studying norms such as ‘responsive regulation’ or ‘private sustainability governance’. According to their studies, such norms require organizational support because they come out of a more local/national environment and are not adapted to the international setting. By orchestrating public and private actors’ interpretation and engagement with these norms, international governmental organizations can enhance their international uptake and implementation. In

126

M. Angstadt and I. Möller

other cases, the problem is turned on its head. Jinnah (2011) and Abbott and Bernstein (2015) explain how seeing biodiversity as an adaptation measure to climate change, or the norm of sustainable development, originated at the global level and requires management in order to be adopted by national or local actors. Their findings echo earlier observations made by Acharya (2004), in that international norms need to be actively adapted by agents in order to become relevant to local contexts. Thus, management of norms by intergovernmental organizations and similar actors seems to serve as a way to translate a norm from one context to another and to enhance its adoption by other actors (see also Chapter 9). The variation in which actors can and do engage with norms indicates that there is a wide variety of possibilities in exercising agency when it comes to norms and soft law. The way that we categorized these possibilities (shaping, use, and management) is just one possible option; a different sample of literature or a different reading could lead to other categories. However, the most important insight here is that variation exists. Future research could focus on these variations and establish what conditions result in what type of engagement. 10.3 Trends in Existing ESG Literature Linking Agency and Norms After analysing the content of general debates, we take a more descriptive approach to show where research on Norms and Agency is concentrated, and where it is still lacking. The literature reviewed for this volume shows that scholars have engaged substantially in broader social science debates and with the areas of focus identified by the 2009 ESG Science Plan. In comparison, the subfield of Norms and Agency has received only moderate attention. Of the 322 ESG abstracts identified as addressing the analytical problem of Agency (Chapter 1), only ten are coded as exclusively examining norms. Among these efforts, two examples include Stevenson and Dryzek’s (2012) examination of democratic norms in climate governance, as well as Obani and Gupta’s (2016) consideration of how a human right to water and sanitation might normatively be constructed within the context of varying paradigms. The evaluation of norms is more common in combination with other themes and analytical problems. For example, Newton et al. (2016) generate a taxonomy of terms that characterize the relationship between forest-dependent people and their associated natural resources, demonstrating an approach that enables them to simultaneously evaluate both Norms and Knowledge in the context of Agency (see also Chapter 7). Elsewhere, Okereke and Coventry (2016) examine contemporary climate governance, noting how justice norms have shaped politics and emphasizing the links between Agency, Norms, and Power (see also Chapter 5). Further intersections with other ESG analytical problems mirror the complex,

Agency and Norms: Who Defines What Ought to Be?

127

multifaceted nature of norms and agency, as well as its foundations in broader agency–structure debates (Chapter 15). Among the 61 articles analysed, more than half also consider the analytical problem of Architecture – a finding that echoes the 2009 ESG Science Plan’s presentation of analytical problem areas as interlinked (see also Chapter 8). One example of this is Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen and van Asselt’s (2009) examination of the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, which considers both the norms driving the partnership’s emergence and its resulting structure. In addition, 28 of the articles examining Agency and Norms were coded as sharing links to the analytical problem of Accountability, which suggests that researchers recognize a need to understand how norms can shape, mediate, and reflect the accountability of agents in various ways (see also Chapter 13). For example, Stevenson and Dryzek (2012) evaluate the democratization of climate governance within and throughout the public sphere, and Young et al. (2016) study how trust affects the resolution of conservation conflicts among landowners and managers. Roughly one-fifth of the abstracts examine the relationship between Norms, Agency, and considerations of Allocation & Access. This suggests interest among researchers in exploring the equitable and distributional considerations that accompany norms (see also Chapter 11). The coding effort also indicates that research on Norms and Agency exhibits concentrations for certain geographic and thematic areas (see also Chapter 4). More than a third of the abstracts hold a global focus and systemically examine the norms associated with particular environmental regimes, notably climate change. One clear example of this is Milkoreit’s (2015a) extensive analyses of how various actors, including policymakers and diplomats, affirmatively introduce normative content into global climate change dialogue. Similarly, Wallbott (2014) provides a detailed account of how indigenous peoples have shaped discourse within the global REDD+ framework, emphasizing how these actors can insert new forms of entrepreneurship that facilitate and mediate the introduction of norms in international negotiations. Many of the remaining abstracts situate their analysis in certain regional contexts. Some, including Asia, have been richly documented, with researchers such as Bastakoti et al. (2014) highlighting how local actors have shaped agency and framed responses to climatic change and variability. Similarly, a rich literature examines how agency and norms have shaped earth system governance in Europe. For example, Paloniemi et al. (2015) examine how norms have shaped agency in biodiversity governance among certain European countries, emphasizing the relevance of key environmental justice norms including diversity, public participation, and community knowledge to effective responses in those settings. Less attention has been directed to similar questions in other regions, including Africa and particularly the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). Exceptions include

128

M. Angstadt and I. Möller

Leventon et al.’s (2015) detailed examination of how climate norms have shaped agency within extractives governance in Zambia, and Feitelson and Fischhendler’s (2009) use of the Israeli–Arab context to exemplify local influences on norms and agency. Recognizing the value of this scholarship, we suggest that the uneven geographic focus of Norms and Agency research merits further attention (see also Chapter 4). 10.4 Summary and Avenues for Future Research Norms represent comparatively soft forms of governance that are easily accessible for actors to shape, use, manage, and contest. This accessibility of norms as a governance instrument implies that the extent and role of actors in contemporary governance is not as clear-cut as one might think. In shaping, using, and managing norms, ‘weaker’ actors can gain significant agency if they are endorsed or supported by ‘stronger’ actors. Furthermore, hearing can be enhanced by strategically linking new issue areas to established forms of argumentation. This indicates that there might be more interdependence between different actor classes than commonly assumed, and that actors have more possibilities of gaining agency than commonly recognized. Moreover, the literature surveyed for this chapter echoes broader conclusions that contemporary governance enshrines much greater diversity than a simplistic state/private actor dichotomy. Indeed, contemporary earth system governance is driven in large measure by the contributions of experts, international secretariats, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as agents of normative change (see also Chapter 2). In short, the surveyed literature emphasizes that in terms of norms and agency, the primacy and singularity of the state is severely questioned. Beyond putting forth own standards and cooperating with state actors in public–private partnerships, nonstate actors engage in different forms of norm shaping, norm usage, and norm management, activities that also have the potential to influence state behaviour (Chapter 6). Although its focus is constrained to questions of earth system governance, it is clear that existing ESG–Agency and Norms literature has enriched the broader understanding of what sorts of mechanisms actors use to engage with norms. Despite the importance of this cross-cutting theme, we find that the amount of ESG literature exclusively addressing Agency and Norms is relatively small. Our quantitative analysis shows that while upwards of one-fifth of existing ESG– Agency literature addresses norms, only about 3% is coded as focusing exclusively on norms. This indicates that the role of norms in studying agency has yet to be fully developed. The new ESG Science Plan emphasizes the value of further research examining the implications of normative diversity (Earth System

Agency and Norms: Who Defines What Ought to Be?

129

Governance Project, 2018a, p. 37) and the ways that norms might alleviate inequality and abuse of power (Earth System Governance Project, 2018a, p. 56). These and other questions suggest that norms maintain interest and relevance in the ESG community, and research could be expanded in the following ways. Based on our descriptive analysis, we see an opportunity to research norms in underrepresented regional settings (Chapter 4). Our coding indicates that almost 40% of the existing norm-focused ESG research exhibits a global focus, and that nearly another quarter focuses on norms within the Asian or European contexts. In contrast, only 3 of the 61 norm-focused articles were coded as exclusively examining norms within Africa. Other regions, including Oceania and the polar regions, have received similarly limited treatment. This suggests a clear opportunity to extend norm-focused analysis to geographic regions beyond Europe and Asia, and to diversify its exploration of environmental issues and regimes, particularly those that directly affect sensitive populations and developing countries. As the original ESG Science Plan noted, global norms interact with and are mediated by regional and local politics, and thus researchers’ understandings of norms must be contextualized within local settings and belief systems (Biermann et al., 2009, p. 72). Furthermore, by directly evaluating the regional- and scale-dependent character of norms, researchers can enhance understanding of normative diversity, which the new ESG Science Plan identifies as an important, yet underdeveloped, research area (Earth System Governance Project, 2018a, pp. 37–38). This focus will also align with efforts throughout International Relations to better understand regional norm drivers and dynamics (e.g., Acharya, 2004). We also see an opportunity for researchers to inform broader social science debates by integrating explorations of Agency and Norms with questions of Adaptiveness (Chapter 12). The limited existing efforts illustrate the integrative insights that such an approach can provide. By examining how partnerships shape European basin flood risk management, Thaler (2014) promoted understanding of the influence that diverse perspectives and paradigms can exert in regional responses to natural hazards. Similarly, by exploring diverse state- and nonstate actors’ engagement in Indonesian disaster risk reduction efforts, Djalante et al. (2012) demonstrated that diverse normative perspectives and capacities can both expand and constrain efforts to adapt. Further examining how Norms and Agency relate to Adaptiveness may beneficially extend our understanding of how contemporary governance addresses complex challenges and regimes, including climate change. More integrative research in this field would also advance the goal of developing case study insights across the original ESG analytical problem areas and generating more robust theoretical understanding of earth system governance (Biermann et al., 2009, p. 28; see also Chapter 3). Finally, by noting that Adaptiveness is shaped by diversity among factors such as knowledge and

130

M. Angstadt and I. Möller

capabilities (Earth System Governance Project, 2018a, p. 74), the new ESG Science Plan suggests that ESG researchers, like social scientists more broadly, continue to find compelling questions at the nexus of Agency, Adaptiveness, and Norms. Based on insights from our qualitative analysis, we see opportunities for explicitly theorizing and systematically comparing the function and usage of norms in earth system governance. This is particularly relevant for inquiries that consider norms in terms of agency, for which there seems to be less theory and systematic comparison available than for research that considers norms in terms of structure (e.g., Buzan, 2004; Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998). Yet, the literature reviewed here indicates that strategic usage of norms plays an important role in shaping global institutions. Contributions that explicitly link Agency, Actors, and Norms under the new ESG Science Plan might be able to fill this gap in the international relations literature and provide crucial insights about processes of change and influence in earth system governance. We hope that the analysis provided above offers a first orientation for informing such an approach. We also see a space for research that examines the positional nature of norms research and the embeddedness of ESG researchers themselves within earth system governance, as discussed by Milkoreit et al. (2015). This debate echoes growing emphases across the social sciences regarding the positionality of scholarship and the need to consciously consider how researchers’ own backgrounds influence their agency (e.g., Blaney and Inayatullah, 2008; Smith, 2002). Future research may benefit from recognizing that earth system governance scholars are themselves normative agents. Doing so will link ongoing earth system governance scholarship to two efforts advocated in the new science plan: recognizing new forms of agency in earth system governance (Earth System Governance Project, 2018a, p. 45) and acknowledging and addressing inequality within earth system governance and the ESG research community (Earth System Governance Project, 2018a, p. 28).

11 Agency in the Allocation of and Access to Natural Resources P R I T E E S H A R M A , O KECHUK WU ENECHI , AN D S AL LA N ITH YANT H KU M AR

Chapter Highlights • Allocation & Access in Earth System Governance (ESG)–Agency studies is broadly seen as the process of sharing resources among multiple users, where efficiency and equity are the analytical tools for allocation and access, respectively. • Within ESG–Agency scholarship, the allocation of and access to water, food, land, and forest systems is studied widely, but is especially focused on developing countries in Asia, Africa, and South America. • Opportunities for future research include furthering understanding the trade-offs and synergies in conservation policies and potential conflicts with ownership and livelihoods, the role of gender in resource management (especially water resources), evaluating the types of power wielded in this area, and understanding how people acquire it.

11.1 Introduction The problem of access and allocation, understood as the process of sharing scarce resources among multiple users and resulting in an overall maximum social welfare, has emerged as a dominant discourse among academics and global policymakers in the field of sustainable development, especially with the critical role of agency. The concepts are inextricably associated with efficiency criteria and pricing mechanisms playing key role in economic development and environmental conservation. Fair and equitable allocation of benefits produced from the conservation of the environment among all stakeholders reduces inequalities and poverty and promotes sustainable livelihoods. Following its importance, studies on access and allocation are raising key questions and debates regarding the issues of 131

132

P. Sharma, O. Enechi, and S. N. Kumar

distributive and procedural justice in an uneven global political environment, and continue to generate unresolved debate in earth system discourses. For example, justice that concerns how resources are allocated and the process that resolves dispute of resource allocation remains critically unresolved in international environmental politics (Coolsaet and Pitseys, 2015; Okereke and Coventry, 2016). This chapter focuses on the linkages between the analytical problems of Agency and Allocation & Access in Earth System Governance (ESG) research (see Chapter 1). The goal of the analytical question of access and allocation in the ESG research framework is focused on analysing and understanding the role and influence of state and nonstate actors towards fulfilling governance functions in the context of earth system transformations (Biermann et al., 2009). Starting with the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database (see Chapter 1 and the Appendix), we conducted a meta-analysis of the articles coded as relevant to Allocation & Access (n = 54) with a view to explore the significant pattern of scholarship within the subset focusing on crosscutting themes, resource systems, and geography. Our meta-analysis shows that agency in earth system governance, especially the agency of nonstate actors, has increasingly expanded to include policymaking and implementation – shaping and framing the access to and allocation of resources with direct impact on livelihoods (Bulkeley et al., 2012). For example, ESG scholarly efforts have focused on understanding the phenomenon through the analyses of the implementation structure of Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+) and its impact on the livelihood of the marginalized (Fujisaki et al., 2016), public participation by the marginalized in the governance of land use (Barau and Said, 2016; Kabiri, 2016), the implementation of Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects (Smits and Middleton, 2014),and the power of agency in support of policy reform that is fair, equitable, and reflects justice in developing countries (Brockhaus et al., 2014). ESG scholars have addressed these debates by analysing the role and influence of agency in allocation of and access to scarce resources in the context of environmental change across sectors. For example, in the forestry sector, studies have analysed the benefit-sharing regime, inclusiveness, and participation in policy implementation and its impact on livelihoods, especially in developing countries (Chhatre and Agrawal, 2009; Coolsaet and Pitseys, 2015; Dunlop and Corbera, 2016; Fujisaki et al., 2016; Mathur et al., 2014). An analysis of the Allocation & Access articles in the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database shows that 37% are focused on Forest & Land Systems; 25% are focused on Biodiversity conservation; 14% are focused on Water systems, while 21% are focused on more than one resource (Figure 11.1). The studies also are diverse in terms of geographic focus

Agency in the Allocation of and Access to Natural Resources

133

Africa 14%

Multiple 16%

Asia 21%

Global 30% North America 3% South America 9% Europe 7%

Figure 11.1 Focus of research articles by sectors. Number of studies 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Multiple

Biodiversity

Land

Water

Forest

Figure 11.2 Geographic distribution of research in the last ten years.

(Figure 11.2). Of particular note, there is greater coverage of earth system governance in Africa than in other areas of ESG–Agency research (see Chapter 4). Following a resource-based approach, the chapter addresses the role and influence of agency in the allocation of and access to resources in the areas of Forest & Land, Water, and Biodiversity conservation, focusing on two questions: (1) What is the influence of agency on the analytical problem of Allocation & Access? (2) How

134

P. Sharma, O. Enechi, and S. N. Kumar

have the issues of equity, fairness, and justice influenced agency in the face of earth system transformations? We find that through ‘indirect agency’, civil society organizations, indigenous people, and communities (traditional and scientific) are acquiring rights and influencing policies through instruments such as local knowledge, collective action, participation in discourses, and local agreements. Across the three issue areas studied here, agency plays an important role in every phase of the policy cycle (decision-making, agenda-setting, problem definition, policy design, policy implementation, policy enforcement, policy evaluation), which has a direct impact on the allocation of and access to resources. ESG–Agency research engages a variety of broader debates, including the trade-offs between environmental conservation and livelihood options, public participation in decision-making processes, regime power dynamics, and local knowledge. We conclude by drawing lessons, identifying gaps, and suggesting a way forward in studying the linkage between Agency and Allocation & Access. 11.2 Forest and Land Systems Development policies related to forest systems face various constraints such as climate change in the form of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, deforestation, agricultural practices, biodiversity, livelihoods, human rights, and infrastructure. In the ESG–Agency research on Allocation & Access published over the past decade, we see analysis and discussion of policies related to forest systems, including REDD+, land acquisitions, and land resettlement schemes. How agency shapes these policies in the face of allocation and access is discussed here. 11.2.1 REDD+ REDD+ emerged from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) as a central policy instrument to govern land-use–related carbon emissions from developing countries. REDD+ intends to reduce forest loss, hence to reduce emissions from land-use change. REDD+ was initially designed as a market-based mechanism for conservation whereby developed country actors provide direct payments to developing countries in return for measurable reductions in carbon emissions beyond what would have occurred under a ‘business as usual’ scenario (Corbera & Schroeder, 2011). To qualify for financial compensation under the UNFCCC, countries have to formulate (and implement) national REDD+ strategies (Brockhaus et al., 2014). Biermann et al. (2009) argue that REDD+ governance encompasses a range of institutions; organizations; principles; norms; mechanisms; the allocation of and access to REDD+ benefits; the effectiveness of monitoring systems; and ‘good governance’

Agency in the Allocation of and Access to Natural Resources

135

principles such as transparency, accountability, and legitimacy. Dunlop and Corbera (2016) contend that decentralized governance can also provide a chance for local elites to capture the resources. Suitable Benefit Sharing Mechanisms (BSMs) must also be in place for the successful implementation of REDD+ in the long term. Forests are a source of food, fuel, fibre, and various ecosystem services. The efficient and sustainable management of forests is essential for sustainable development. The drivers of deforestation and forest degradation are widely varied and country specific. For example, they include agriculture (including large-scale forest plantations such as oil palm, small scale, subsistence); logging and mining in Indonesia; and agriculture, infrastructure, logging, fire, shifting cultivation, and migration in Vietnam (Brockhaus et al., 2014). Among these sectors, policies exist for and against REDD+. For the successful implementation of REDD+, inclusion of all stakeholders who depend on forests and consideration of their interests has to be facilitated through public participation in decision-making. Newton et al. (2016) hold the view that before identifying relevant stakeholders in the forestry sector, it is important to define the term ‘forest-dependent people’. Targeted beneficiaries of development or conservation policies vary according to the definition of the term. Owing to the wide range of services provided by forests, there arise many dimensions of the term. Identifying and defining exactly who counts as forest-dependent people is necessary for their inclusion in the decisionmaking process. A taxonomic approach, relying on the dimensions of the term and characterization of dimensions of forest–social relations is helpful in identifying forest dependent people. Usually the term ‘forest-dependent people’ is aggregated; instead, a disaggregated approach is required and it would prove successful in mitigating trade-offs and promoting synergies in the form of effective inclusion of targeted beneficiaries in the decision-making process, whose livelihood options are affected. Otherwise forest conservation is made possible at the cost of forestdependent communities, infringing on their rights and affecting their livelihood options. Environmental governance and climate change are not only technical challenges, but also have serious distributional implications. The neo-liberal environmentalism approach applied to REDD+ lays special emphasis on efficiency and its principles are comparably easy to account for equity. Article 6 of the UNFCCC states that, at all levels (local, regional, national), the state has to promote and facilitate access to information, public involvement in decision-making, and access to justice. With sufficient local knowledge, forest policy decentralization reforms that transfer ownership and management responsibilities to the local forest user organization can provide social and ecological benefits together. However, public

136

P. Sharma, O. Enechi, and S. N. Kumar

participation should not be seen only through the outcome lens because there are differences in conceptualization of power and influence (see Chapters 5 and 15). Though REDD+ was emerging within the framework of UNFCCC, it was not until the Cancun Agreements of the sixteenth session of the Conference of the Parties (COP-16) in 2016 that the rights of indigenous peoples (IPs) and local communities were acknowledged as part of the social safeguards to REDD+ by taking note of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). UNDRIP recognizes IP’s inherent substantive rights, including the right to self-determination; collective rights to lands, territories, and resources; and cultural rights, but also their procedural rights and the provision of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC). Wallbott (2014) finds this could be possible for IPs by ‘Importing Power’ exercising FPIC, and lobbying for rights in the community and state-level institutional spaces. Witter et al. (2015) observe how nonstate actors influence the negotiation process by sounding alarm, shaming, and aligning with state actors. Nonstate actors’ participation in decisionmaking is important, but without power is considered as void (see Chapter 5). The emphasis of most research has been on non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and civil society organizations (CSOs), but there are many individuals, communities, indigenous peoples, and local communities whose interests also should be served (see Chapter 2). Often these people are marginalized through various regulatory instruments of the state. Public participation has three facets: access to information, involvement in the decision-making process, and access to justice. For successful public participation to obtain, the three facets should be conceptualized as a package rather than in isolation (Kabiri, 2016). ‘Public’ here refers to all other actors than the state. Agency here has to ensure the public participation at every phase of the policy cycle with no marginalisation in the three facets. The public satisfaction arising out of policy implementation must also be distributed in an equitable manner. These three facets are dependent on country-specific constitution, law enforcement, and the type of government in place. They may be interlocked in the system as well. For instance, a constitution may provide the right to access information for its citizens, but the same law gives the state the right to deny the disclosure of confidential information (Chapter 8). Therefore, creation of institutions for public participation that particularly deals with REDD+ and environmental governance is required. A number of other factors may constrain public participation, including the knowledge capacity of the participants (Chapter 7), state bureaucracies may not like to work with nonstate actors, and infrastructure problems. REDD+ is an incentivizing programme, a performancebased funding mechanism. It lays importance to the amount of carbon emissions reduced. This fund can be used by the state to intimidate the other participants, which otherwise have refused the decision of the state (Sova et al., 2015b).

Agency in the Allocation of and Access to Natural Resources

137

11.2.2 Land Acquisition and Land Resettlement Power asymmetries are major challenges to analyse in earth system governance (see Chapter 5). Land acquisition by foreign investors in developing countries for agricultural purposes is a rapidly increasing phenomenon after the 2007–2008 world food price hikes. Land acquisition can also take place for purposes other than agricultural production. Food production not only affects land acquisition, but also causes reallocation of water and energy, which are required for food production. This leads to reallocation of land, water, and energy resources in developing countries. The vulnerability of the host countries may increase due to land acquisition. In a study based on the socioeconomic data of households in Sierra Leone, Yengoh et al. (2016) found that areas where there are low levels of education are becoming easier targets for these land investments. The areas with powerful traditional chiefs and the areas with heavy corruption are also prone to land acquisition by investors. Investors also exploit the poor economic situation of local households by making promises of development opportunities. Land investors are invited in the name of food security, fuel security, and infrastructure development. Poor governance in the local region and the marginalisation of local peoples’ rights, low agricultural productivity, low level of technology used in the agriculture, and the inadequate land tenure system are other factors drawing land investment to particular areas. These land acquisitions and investments affect the future and livelihoods of the locals. Many sub-Saharan African countries are presently food insecure; this gets intensified if land investors produce biofuel crops as the biofuel crops have higher market returns. Displacement of people in developing countries due to various development projects such as dam construction, transportation, and ecosystem conservation is quite common. This affects their livelihoods adversely, and the effects can be short term and long term. Land resettlement schemes are present in developing countries, but not many are successful. The reasons are many, including taking away people’s skill sets, introduction to new livelihood options about which they may not have knowledge, forceful expulsion from the area, and lack of political will. These were evident during the construction of the Three Gorges Dam in China (World Commission on Dams, 2000). One successful land resettlement scheme is the Federal Land Development Authority (FELDA) in Malaysia. Using the ESG analytical framework (Chapter 1) and its analytical tools combined with the path dependency approach, Barau and Said (2016) characterized the multidimensional aspects of the policy. FELDA was established in 1956. It served the interests of the landless population by providing them land for shelter, farming, jobs, and

138

P. Sharma, O. Enechi, and S. N. Kumar

ownership of valorized land titles. According to the Scudder (1981, 1993) model, every land settlement scheme goes through four stages: (1) planning infrastructure development and recruitment, (2) transition, (3) economic and social development, and (4) handing over and incorporation. FELDA has gone through all four stages. Initially, each beneficiary received ten acres of agricultural land for cultivation of rubber, half an acre for housing, one acre of private orchard, and a soft loan to pay back within 15 years for forest clearing expenses. In 1960, FELDA started developing land on its own throughout peninsular Malaysia (Barau and Said, 2016). In 1967, FELDA set up the Settlers Social Development Division. Its main task was to modernize settlers and introduce them to modern business and procedures for marketing rubber and palm oil. Lastly, in 2005, FELDA introduced a subsidiary company named the FELDA Techno Plant Company Limited. Thus, the economic nature of the institutions is introduced. 11.3 Water Systems Governance of the water system is heterogeneous due to its multilevel nature including local, national, and transnational basins (see Chapter 9). The interactions between natural and built systems are evident in water governance, particularly dealing with the quality aspect of water. ESG–Agency research on governance of water systems include studies on the Ramsar Convention and the role of agencies including shared river basin organizations (international, national, regional), social-ecological regime shifts, and marine protected areas management. This section discuses studies on how agents make decisions about the allocation of and access to water resources. The methods used in analysing the governance of water systems include analysis of discursive and ideological dimensions of power, semistructured interviews, focus group interviews, historical analysis, fieldworks, local surveys, and discourse analysis (Chapter 3). Some of the research reflects a realist view of power as well as perspectives drawn from political ecology and political economy. 11.3.1 Ramsar Convention and Wetlands The Ramsar Convention is an intergovernmental treaty which provides the framework for national action and international cooperation for the conservation and wise use of wetlands and their services and resources. According to the Ramsar Convention of 1971, wetlands are ‘areas of marsh, fen, peat land or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or seasonal with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salty, including areas of marine water the depth of which at low tide

Agency in the Allocation of and Access to Natural Resources

139

does not exceed six metres’. Wetlands, which are saturated and inundated for an extended period, have unique soils and vegetation, and natural cycle processes that support unique biodiversity. Many environmental hazards arising from industrial pollution, climate change, and rapid urbanization are posing threats to wetlands across the globe. Using the principles of wise use of wetlands, national conservation agencies of wetlands often place more emphasis on conservation, which restricts the rights of the public to access the ecosystem services that wetlands provide (e.g., Regulatory, Provisioning, Supporting, and Cultural services). The negative impacts of conservation range from displacement to loss of livelihood options, while the positive benefits include opening of new livelihood options concomitant with ecotourism. The trade-offs between conservation and livelihood options and across the various ecosystem services are illustrated in Barau and Stringer’s (2015) study of the Pulau Kukup area as a Ramsar Site. This designation has restricted people’s ability to access cultural and historical values of the site, contradicting the Ramsar Convention’s principles of wise use. At the same time, the Ramsar designation has improved their livelihoods in the form of local business, fishing, hotels, and gastronomy tourism due to the influx of ecotourists. People in the Pulau Kukup site expressed their happiness about their long-term livelihood option enabling socio-economic development. 11.3.2 Forms of Agency in the Water Systems The sustainable management of water resources requires decentralized governance and public participation in decision-making. Public participation in water management is increasing, but resulting in more complexity. In their comparative study on Yaqui Valley, Mexico; Upper San Pedro Basin, USA; Ceara Basin, Brazil; and Upper Ping River, Thailand, Jacobs et al. (2016) suggest that participatory processes are better in the context of short-term decisions such as water allocations and not for long-term, high-stakes decisions regarding infrastructure. The transaction costs of public participation processes are high and require huge amounts of time. Integrated understanding of the problems related to the governance of water systems has to be addressed. Co-management, knowledge building, and problemsolving approaches are not common in water governance across the world (see Chapter 7). Water systems governance is dynamic in nature and hence understanding the socio-ecological regime shifts and transformations depend on water systems information. Empirical studies of Cau Hai Lagoon in central Vietnam (Andrachuk and Armitage, 2015), Chilika Lagoon in India, and Tim Giang Lagoon in Vietnam (Nayak et al., 2016) suggest that community perceptions of

140

P. Sharma, O. Enechi, and S. N. Kumar

the social-ecological system and social relations of power and politics in periods of abrupt coastal and marine change will adversely affect the ongoing efforts to predict and navigate changes to the benefit of ecosystems and human wellbeing, respectively. On the other hand, Gerhardinger et al. (2009) find that the incorporation of fisher’s local ecological knowledge and the resource user communities ‘goals (irrigation, urban drinking, hydropower generation, industrial use) in governance improves the management of water resources. Allocation problems in the water system are linked to other natural factors such as geographic position (e.g., upstream and downstream problems) and infrastructural, financial, and the political power asymmetries existing between these positions. For example, Menga and Mirumachi (2016) find that decision-makers in Tajikistan have employed various strategies to establish the country’s role as an environmental champion via international diplomacy, the mobilization of financial support through powerful allies, and the adoption of a domestic policy aimed at fostering a sense of national identity and patriotism through the Rogun Dam. ‘Soft’ power plays a role in trans-boundary water interactions through discourses that frame river basin development as attaining integrative benefits and facilitating buyin to the proposed measures (Menga and Mirumachi, 2016). Gabrielsson and Ramasar (2013) emphasize that gender plays a major role in water management. Increased empowerment of widows and their collective action in the Nyanza province, Onjiko location, Western Kenya, illustrates the way to respond to water scarcity, uncertainty, and working out innovative livelihood strategies. Reforms are needed in the political, ecological, cultural, and economic spheres to empower women and understand their role in water resource management. Likewise, in marine systems, Osterblom and Folke (2015) found that under globalization trends, transnational corporations are becoming the ‘keystone’ actors in the fishing and aquaculture industry. This power asymmetry between transnational corporations and local fishing communities further exacerbates the pressure on diverse species of marine ecosystems, besides making fishing communities vulnerable, unemployed, and hampering their socioeconomic development (see Chapter 5). 11.4 Biodiversity Conservation The third issue area where we explore the links between ESG–Agency and Allocation & Access research over the past decade is biodiversity. Biodiversity is important for the planet Earth; we derive many benefits from biodiversity in the form of ecosystem goods and services. Maintaining biodiversity for the present and future generations is crucial for achieving sustainable development. In the Anthropocene era, human interactions with the environment in the areas of forest, water, agriculture, mining, and industrial pollution have huge impacts on

Agency in the Allocation of and Access to Natural Resources

141

biodiversity. In 2010, parties to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization (Secretariat of the Convention on Bio Diversity, 2010). Access and benefit sharing issues have evolved out of concerns for distributive injustice where the loss of access and gain of benefit arising out of biodiversity conservation is unequally distributed on the basis of income, reallocation of resources, and shifting of livelihood options (Coolsaet and Pitseys, 2015). Decisions about the distribution of benefits and costs between the user and providing parties of genetic resources depend on the material, social, political, cultural, and institutional circumstances prevailing (Coolsaet and Pitseys 2015). As a result of power asymmetries existing among participants in any environmental negotiations, the better outcomes may not be always towards the disadvantaged sections. Principles of procedural justice (access to information, involvement in the decision-making process, and access to justice) are assumed to enhance the fairness and equity in the outcomes regarding benefit sharing of any environmental conservation policy. The number of stakeholders involved in the decision-making process is not necessarily an efficient indicator to evaluate the effectiveness of public participation (Chapter 15). Rather, the likelihood of their voices being able to influence the outcomes of decisions is also an important dimension to consider. Taking into account all of the stakeholders, including NGOs, CSOs, IPs, businesses, and local communities (Paloniemi et al., 2015), in making decisions regarding environmental conservation ensures the fairness of the process (Young et al., 2016). Environmental governance networks comprising state and nonstate actors can be seen as an opportunity in influencing the decision, but lobbying or threats between these actors gives scope to the state to fulfil its own interests. The trust between these actors in the governance network enables the achievement of common goals (Young et al., 2016). Hence, decentralized governance coupled with community management of resources plays an important role in the allocation of and access to resources (Robinson and Makupa, 2015). 11.5 Discussion and Way Forward The issues of access to and allocation of natural resources are becoming central political discourses in a world with growing inequalities within and across national borders. Inequality as a contextual condition in the new ESG Science plan is interrelated with the other three contextual conditions (Transformations, Anthropocene, and Diversity) as well (Earth System Governance Project, 2018a). There are multiple trade-offs and synergies occurring in governing resources for socio-economic development along with conservation of the environment (Chhatre

142

P. Sharma, O. Enechi, and S. N. Kumar

and Agrawal, 2009). Conservation policies place emphasis on the protection of the environment and safeguarding ecosystem goods and services. This often leads to loss of access to the environment for the people who are dependent on the environmental goods and services, such as forest-dependent people and fishing communities. Consideration of all stakeholders dependent on these resources is a promising approach for making decisions without affecting any section of the society. Opportunities for future research include furthering understanding of the trade-offs and synergies in conservation policies and potential conflicts with ownership and livelihoods; the role of gender in resource management, especially in the water resources; evaluating the modes of power in which power acts; and understanding the way in which people acquire the power (Chapter 5). Legitimate and transparent democratic processes can promote acceptance of environmental policies with strong linkage to the question of access to and allocation of resources (Kalfagianni and Pattberg, 2013). Public participation in decision and policy making is an important tool towards ensuring justice in earth system governance as it empowers and mobilizes communities to seek equitable distribution of resources (Anand, 2004). However, Atela and colleagues (2017) stress the quality of participation and inclusiveness in policy and decision-making in environmental governance, especially from the Global South. In addressing the question of justice in environmental governance, divergent views arise in the description of the affected as a result of interest, context, and understandings about the purpose of the resources (Newton et al., 2016). Therefore, there is a need to reinforce ESG research towards interrogation of the role of agency in the pathway of achieving justice in the allocation of and access to resources in the face of increasing global inequality.

12 Agency and Adaptiveness: Navigating Change and Transformation JAMES J . PATT E R S O N

Chapter Highlights • Earth System Governance (ESG)–Agency scholarship reveals that diverse forms of agency are crucial to cultivating adaptiveness of governance systems within complex and changing contexts. • ESG–Agency scholars are well positioned to apply extensive insights to major emerging questions in the social sciences about adaptiveness and renewal of political and governance systems across many spheres of society. • Greater focus is required concerning the effects of agency on adaptiveness of environmental governance systems in several ways: materially, normatively, and temporally.

12.1 Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to summarize the ways in which Earth System Governance (ESG) scholars have studied the interplay between the analytical problems of Agency and Adaptiveness over the last decade, and identify needs and opportunities looking forward. ‘Adaptiveness’ refers to both the ‘governance of adaptation to social-ecological change as well as the processes of change and adaptation within governance systems’, in particular, focusing on ‘changes made by social groups in response to, or in anticipation of, challenges created through environmental change’ (Biermann et al., 2009, p. 45). The focus here is on the adaptiveness of governance systems, in contrast to the governance of climate change adaptation, which is an overlapping but differing topic. Diverse forms of agency are intricately bound up in realizing adaptiveness within complex, dynamic, and rapidly changing contexts (Beunen et al., 2017). 143

144

J. J. Patterson

Environmental governance is a key field in which the notion of adaptiveness has been developed, across many specific problem domains (e.g., biodiversity conservation, marine systems, freshwater water systems, climate change, development) (see Chapter 1). Agency is often given a prominent (and sometimes primary) role in explaining adaptiveness in environmental governance systems, through variables such as entrepreneurship (Huitema and Meijerink, 2009), niche experimentation (Loorbach et al., 2017), and strategic action vis-à-vis windows of opportunity for transformative action (Moore et al., 2014; Olsson et al., 2014; Westley et al., 2013). Yet constraints on agency are also a key challenge for adaptiveness, for example, within state bodies which generate conflicting demands for and against adaptiveness (Wyborn and Dovers, 2014). Broader social science disciplines are increasingly also concerned with rethinking and adapting political systems in response to unfolding pressures, such as democratic decay; geopolitical power shifts; and environmental, socioeconomic, and technological change – issues which increasingly intersect with ESG research as identified in Chapters 1 and 3 of the ESG Science Plan 2018–2028 (Earth System Governance Project, 2018a). This points to a key role for agency in public good governance within changing local and global contexts. However, a key distinction between a focus on adaptiveness and many traditional theories of social and political change is that adaptiveness has a distinct focus on intentionally adjusting governance systems to meet normative concerns within a changing environment (e.g., sustainability, equity, democracy). In other words, adaptiveness focuses on understanding how to shape or navigate change towards normatively desirable futures, not only explain (past) change. The observation in the 2009 ESG Science Plan that ‘most governance systems are largely unprepared for the expected magnitude and diversity of increased environmental challenges’ (Biermann et al., 2009, p. 46) remains as true today as a decade ago, if not more so. Yet the unfolding Anthropocene also recasts adaptiveness in much broader material, political, and philosophical terms. Fundamental environmental boundary conditions on which human societies depend are being destabilized in ways that make unprecedented demands on global governance systems. Coping with unfolding climatic changes, biodiversity loss, global urbanization, rapid technological change, and instabilities in global economic and political systems is possible only if human societies are able to both adapt and act reflexively at all scales from local to global (Dryzek, 2016; Galaz, 2014). Agency is central to cultivating adaptiveness for both issue-specific governance regimes as well as for broader aspects of political order (and disorder) in global environmental governance. This raises major new questions for ESG scholars about how to understand and study the relationship between agency and adaptiveness, including how agency contributes

Agency and Adaptiveness

145

to cultivating adaptiveness and what demands adaptiveness makes on agency within changing governance settings. This chapter conducts a high-level thematic analysis to interrogate and synthesize ESG scholarship on the interplay between the analytical problems of Agency and Adaptiveness over the years 2006–2018. This synthesis is based on the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database (see Chapter 1 and the Appendix). First, a systematic approach was employed to identify all papers within this dataset coded as being linked to the theme of Adaptiveness. Second, a synthesis of paper metadata (title, abstract) for this same subset was conducted to explore ways in which Agency and Adaptiveness are broadly conceptualized, considering two key attributes: (1) intentionality of agency in relation to adaptiveness (e.g., intended vs. unintended effects), and (2) temporal patterns in adaptiveness effects linked to agency (e.g., incremental vs. radical change). The degree of intentionality is important because both intentional activities (e.g., leadership, entrepreneurship, change agents), as well as unintentional activities (e.g., unintended consequences of proximate or distal actions) may conceivably affect adaptiveness. Considering temporal patterns of change is important in light of major contemporary interest in transformative change (Biermann et al., 2012; Patterson et al., 2017), and because effects of agency may be incremental or radical, or both (Streeck and Thelen, 2005). Hence this provides a useful heuristic typology to link agency with adaptiveness dynamics. Finally, a broader discussion of needs and opportunities in studying Agency and Adaptiveness looking forward is presented. This approach is summarized in Figure 12.1. Step

1. Identify subset of papers

2. Analyze the role of agency in adaptiveness

3. Implications and next steps

ESG Agency Harvesting Database (n = 322)

Papers with identified links to Architecture (n = 65)

Scan of paper metadata to identify: a) Intentionality b) Temporal patterns of effect

Discuss emerging opportunities and needs identified from both ESG scholarship and from broader social science fields

Outcome

Identify key body of ESG Agency literature concerned with interplay between Agency and Adaptiveness

Identify how Agency contributes to Adaptiveness

Inform research agenda on Agency for the next decade of ESG research

Figure 12.1 Systematic analysis protocol based on ESG–Agency database.

146

J. J. Patterson

12.2 Links between Agency and Adaptiveness This section interrogates the links between Agency and Adaptiveness in the identified subset of ESG–Agency scholarship (Step 2 in Figure 12.1). This centers on two particular attributes in the way that the relationship between Agency and Adaptiveness is viewed by scholars: (1) the intentionality of agents in cultivating adaptiveness, and (2) the nature of temporal patterns of change linked to agency– adaptiveness activity. The 2009 ESG Science Plan (Biermann et al., 2009) alludes to the importance of studying the interplay between Agency and Adaptiveness through identifying a range of governance processes that may foster adaptiveness, in which agency plays a key role (pp. 47–9). The attributes of intentionality and temporal patterns aim to provide a general typology for examining Agency– Adaptiveness linkages that is not bound to any specific theoretical approach, and provide a means to critically reflect on where scholarship to date has focused or neglected. The attributes applied in analyzing Agency–Adaptiveness linkages are presented in Box 12.1. The results of applying the categories in Box 12.1 to the subset of ESG scholarship on Agency and Adaptiveness are presented in Table 12.1. This shows that in regards to intentionality, the majority of papers focus on intentional adaptiveness, although a non-trivial amount also consider unintentional aspects. In regards to temporal patterns in the effects of agency for adaptiveness, papers focus mostly on incremental change but a substantial number also focus on radical change. It is important to point out that these coded attributes (i.e., intentionality and temporal patterns in effects) are sometimes clearly identifiable in the abstracts, but other

Box 12.1 Lens for Analysing Links between Agency and Adaptiveness (i) Intentionality of agents towards cultivating adaptiveness: • Intentional adaptiveness (e.g., purposive or reflexive behaviour) • Unintentional adaptiveness (e.g., unintended consequences, other causes of adaptiveness) (ii) Temporal patterns of change linked to agency–adaptiveness activity: • Incremental change (e.g., incremental adaptations, gradual transformation over time) • Radical change (e.g., major reforms, reorganization following shock, rapid transformation) • No change (e.g., inertia, path dependence, lock-in) (iii) Not determined.

Agency and Adaptiveness

147

Table 12.1 Links between Agency and Adaptiveness in ESG–Agency literature % of papersa

Group and category (i) Intentionality: Intentional adaptiveness Unintentional adaptiveness (ii) Temporal patterns: Incremental change Radical change No change (iii) Not determined:

83% 18% 54% 37% 15% 9%

a

Coding in these categories within each group are not mutually exclusive; i.e., a paper may relate to more than one category. In total 37% of papers address more than one category in either group.

times they are inferred. For example, capacity-related factors (e.g., capacities, coproduction) are categorized as intentional, whereas structural conditions or experiences that are indicated as surprising in some way are categorized as unintentional; improvements or innovations in governance systems are categorized as incremental changes, whereas changes that are specifically indicated as radical, transformative, or linked to a shock/crisis are categorized as radical changes. 12.2.1 Intentionality The direct role of agency in cultivating adaptiveness was the most prominent way in which Agency–Adaptiveness linkages were conceptualized across the whole body of literature. For example, Uittenbroek et al. (2016) explore how agency shapes climate change adaptation in cities, identifying a key role for various agency-related factors including strategic problem framing, political leadership, and institutional entrepreneurship. This is an example of agency playing a central role in cultivating adaptiveness in a governance system. More generally, Brouwer and Huitema (2017) develop a comprehensive typology of strategies employed by policy entrepreneurs, which reflect a wide range of intentional activities geared towards policy change. These strategies are (1) attention- and support-seeking strategies (e.g., demonstrating need for action, persuading others to join, linking to focusing events); (2) linking strategies (e.g. coalition-building, issue linking, negotiation); (3) relational management strategies (e.g. networking, trust-building); and (4) arena strategies (e.g., venue shopping, timing). This typology offers a potentially generalizable set of insights

148

J. J. Patterson

about intentional strategies of cultivating adaptiveness in governance systems. Importantly, however, Lebel, Xu and Bastakoti et al. (2010) emphasize the role of power in shaping intentional actions for climate change adaptation in water governance in monsoon Asia, arguing that the political benefits of such actions will be a key determinate of whether or not these efforts are successful. This highlights the importance of power as a mediating variable between Agency and Adaptiveness (see also Chapter 5). From an ecosystem perspective, scholars have also argued that agency is a crucial factor for cultivating adaptiveness. For example, Plummer et al. (2013) review the propositions of adaptive co-management (a prominent approach to adaptiveness in social-ecological systems scholarship) in relation to environmental governance, with agency playing a key role in several ways (e.g., roles of actors, learning processes). This essentially reflects a capacities-based approach in which intentional forms of agency are emphasized. From an explicit temporal perspective, Österblom and Sumaila (2011) examine a series of crises and responses in fisheries governance in the Southern Ocean over a 14-year period. They identify an evolving set of intentional responses aimed firstly towards immediate short-term intervention, and subsequently towards more strategic and contingency-based approaches, reflecting a sustained and apparently maturing level of adaptiveness over time. Some ESG scholars have also examined Agency–Adaptiveness linkages from an organizational perspective, which is important when considering the internal dynamics of specific agents within a governance system. For example, Heubaum and Biermann (2015) examine adaptiveness in the mandate of the International Energy Agency (IEA) over time, which has expanded to embrace renewable energy and climate change despite beginning with a very different mission (focused on oil crisis) several decades ago. This demonstrates organizational adaptiveness at a global level through ‘various efforts to pursue its energy-centric mandate in a fast-changing global policy environment’ (Heubaum and Biermann, 2015, p. 229). Also examining the organizational adaptiveness of the IEA, Van de Graaf and Lesage (2009) highlight the importance of agency in crediting the G8 members, and the secretariat and executive of the IEA for producing its ‘institutional adaptability’ over time. Agency–Adaptiveness linkages are also observable in regards to several emerging earth system governance issues. From an urban perspective, Seitzinger et al. (2012) argue that the ‘global system of cities’, in connection with their rural surrounds, have become ‘a key component of planetary stewardship’. Thus by virtue of their global importance, cities have a key role both individually and collectively as agents of global-level adaptiveness. From a climate change adaptation perspective, Dzebo and Stripple (2015) examine the nature of global climate

Agency and Adaptiveness

149

change adaptation governance, arguing that a new transnational ‘era’ is emerging through activities that are both intentional and unintentional, through the growing involvement of nonstate actors in many dispersed ways simultaneously. Lastly, from a global sustainability perspective, Galaz et al. (2012a) reflect on the implications of planetary boundaries for global environmental governance, highlighting the role of international organizations in adapting governance systems to the new conditions for human society imposed by the Anthropocene. This thus relates to a broad notion of adaptiveness, identifying specific agents responsible for cultivating adaptiveness in global governance systems. Unintentional aspects of agency may also arise in subtle or indirect ways with implications for adaptiveness. For example, Sova et al. (2015b) analyse ways in which subtle power asymmetries, linked to ‘power over’ relations between actors who shape the UNFCCC regime and smallholder farmers affected by the regime, have implications for the agency of these smallholder farmers (see also Chapter 5). This reflects a form of unintentional adaptiveness in which smallholder farmers implicitly adapt their interests and preferences to the broader regime in which they find themselves. This is an example of adaptiveness of subjects to patterns of power in a governance regime, showing the role of power as a key mediating variable between Agency and Adaptiveness. From an environmental migration perspective, Renaud et al. (2011) demonstrate intentional and unintentional aspects of agency involved in environmentally induced migration: most directly the factors influencing decision-making are intentional, but more indirectly they reflect unintentional forces shaping agency because migrants are often responding to environmental changes and political economic conditions beyond their control. This shows how agency can be conditioned by broader forces to which agents are subject. More generally, this leads to a final key observation regarding the importance of considering the structural context within which agency is situated (Chapter 15). Pahl-Wostl et al. (2012) highlight the role of polycentric governance arrangements which allow innovative activity that enhances the adaptive performance of water governance systems in a large global cross-basin global study (Chapter 9). This demonstrates that agency and adaptiveness should not be looked at in isolation; otherwise this may give a misleading picture of causal pathways and the potential of agency to cultivate adaptiveness (see Chapter 14). Instead, they must be situated within the structural context of governance architectures, as well as broader political, economic, and historical contexts, to examine how agency interacts with architecture to produce adaptiveness (or not) (Chapter 8). From a different angle, Bulkeley et al. (2014) highlight the role of urban ‘infrastructure networks’ in conditioning urban governance, not only materially but also politically and institutionally. Furthermore, these authors argue that urban climate change experiments within infrastructure networks can channel the efforts of dominant agents in new

150

J. J. Patterson

ways, which can contribute to reconfiguring these infrastructure networks. Similar to Pahl-Wostl et al. (2012), this demonstrates the importance of paying attention to the structural contexts within which Agency–Adaptiveness dynamics play out: both intentional efforts to cultivate adaptiveness, as well as potentially unintentional adaptiveness effects (e.g., new sites of contestation that arise). 12.2.2 Temporal Patterns Temporal patterns were often not fully discernible based on the metadata analysed, and is likely to require substantial in-depth analysis to elucidate, which is beyond the scope of this chapter. Nonetheless, scholars may indicate dispositions regarding the temporal patterns of effects of agency for adaptiveness (see Chapter 9). This is an important consideration, particularly in light of growing discussions about timeframes and dynamics of sustainability transformations (e.g., Patterson et al., 2017) and transitions (e.g., Loorbach et al., 2017), as well as institutional change in environmental governance (e.g., Biermann et al., 2012) and in social sciences more broadly (e.g., Mahoney and Thelen, 2010; Streeck and Thelen, 2005). Overall, the majority of papers reviewed imply a disposition towards incremental effects of agency, which is perhaps explainable by the strong focus on political processes among ESG scholars which may tend to foster humility about the pace of change in governance systems. An example where an incremental disposition is made explicit is the study of urban climate change adaptation by Uittenbroek et al. (2016) which identified seemingly incremental emergence of either ‘dedicated’ (i.e., specific policies focusing on climate change adaptation) or ‘mainstreamed’ (i.e., climate change adaptation responses integrated into existing urban governance policies and arrangements). However, a focus on incremental effects should not be seen simplistically to imply a lack of more radical impact, particularly over longer time periods: incremental change may (or may not) lead to transformative effects (Mahoney and Thelen, 2010), yet this is a separate question and a conceptual frontier in ESG scholarship (Patterson et al., 2017). On the other hand, some scholars have presented empirical analyses with a focus on explaining temporal patterns in governance that reflect a disposition towards more radical effects of agency. For example, in their study of crisis-response dynamics in fishery governance, Österblom and Sumaila’s (2011) focus on explaining crisis-response dynamics indicates a concern with radical temporal effects within human–natural systems linked to Agency–Adaptiveness dynamics. Olsson et al. (2008) explore transformation in governance towards ecosystem-based management in the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) in Australia. Changes in governance are attributed largely to the intentional activities of the GBR Marine Park Authority to cultivate adaptiveness in governance at an ecosystem scale, in combination with

Agency and Adaptiveness

151

a growing sense of urgency in the broader scientific and socio-political context. Gelcich et al. (2010) explore transformation in a large coastal and marine governance system in Chile, highlighting the key role of various intentional and unintentional activities in combination with shock/crisis (ecosystem collapse) which stimulated transformation in the governance system, including major legislative reform, and has improved fisheries sustainability. This case demonstrates a clear role for agency in cultivating adaptiveness in governance at an ecosystem scale within a dynamic ecological, social, and political context. Interestingly, these three studies come from an ecosystem perspective where there has been major interest in resilience and transformation through the lens of social-ecological systems, although arguably such literature sometimes shows a normative bias towards a narrative of transformation. From a transnational governance perspective, Dzebo and Stripple (2015) imply that increasing instances of agency in emerging transnational climate change adaptation governance by nonstate actors are cumulating into more fundamental effects on governance systems. Broadly, Galaz et al. (2012a) begin from a frame of potential radical change occurring in human–environmental systems via the notion of planetary boundaries, which conceptualize tipping points as core concerns for governance systems. Here the focus of agency is on cultivating adaptiveness through avoiding (and where necessary navigating) radical changes linked to such thresholds. 12.3 Future Directions This section discusses future directions for research on the role of Agency in cultivating Adaptiveness in ESG research (Step 3 in Figure 12.1). It identifies three key topics: (1) developing stronger understanding of Agency–Adaptiveness linkages, (2) bringing insights about agency to bear in examining the politics of adaptiveness, and (3) the role of agency in cultivating adaptiveness and reflexivity in the Anthropocene. 12.3.1 Understanding Agency–Adaptiveness Linkages Based on the findings of the previous section there is a need to develop a stronger understanding of Agency–Adaptiveness linkages in several ways. From the previous section, understanding intentional strategies to cultivate adaptiveness needs to center on the inherently political nature of these processes and their variation across contexts. This is an obvious area requiring further work, although there is an extensive foundation on which to build, as demonstrated by this review. There is a gap regarding the role of unintentional aspects, such as unintended consequences

152

J. J. Patterson

from proximate or distal factors, experiences that stimulate agency in unexpected ways, or the role of structural forces in subtly conditioning agency. More generally, the role of power as a mediating variable on efforts to cultivate adaptiveness (e.g., Morrison et al. 2017; Chapter 5), and the importance of situating agency within its structural context (i.e., both governance architectures as well as broader political, economic, and historical contexts) (see Chapter 8) are key areas for attention in studying Agency–Adaptiveness linkages. There is a particular need for attention to the temporal effects of agency in cultivating adaptiveness, and this remains a vastly understudied area (see also Chapter 9). For example, being explicit about the consequences of agency for (and against) adaptiveness. Paying attention to the timeframes of effects will also provide insights about the nature of incremental versus radical change (e.g., Pierson, 2003). Currently, empirical studies claiming to observe radical change tend to be ex post, sometimes quite descriptive, and arguably weak in regards to politics and power aspects. ESG scholars have a key opportunity here to develop new insights about causal mechanisms in understanding the operation and effects of agency in cultivating adaptiveness (see Chapters 3 and 14). For example, a casual mechanisms approach (e.g., Beach and Pedersen, 2013) could provide a useful analytical lens for explaining the effects of agency within and across individual cases. 12.3.2 Agency and the Politics of Adaptiveness The politics of agency and adaptiveness is a particular area requiring an expanded program of research looking forward. For example, how do agents navigate contestations between winners and losers in changing governance systems? What are the consequences of power asymmetries and structural factors which condition agency, in efforts to cultivate adaptiveness? How do agents balance competing demands for flexibility and stability in realizing adaptiveness in governance systems? The politics of adaptiveness was identified as a priority topic in the 2009 ESG Science Plan (Biermann et al., 2009), yet arguably remains understudied. This continues to be key need looking forward, for example, it is a prominent topic identified in Chapter 4.5 of the ESG Science Plan 2018–2028 (Earth System Governance Project, 2018a), both in relation to climate change which has stimulated much discussion about adaptiveness over the past decade, as well as the much broader societal condition of the Anthropocene which profoundly recasts the politics of adaptiveness. There is an opportunity for novel developments here by explicitly (and critically) bringing agency considerations into adaptiveness debates.

Agency and Adaptiveness

153

Social justice has also become a prominent theme in adaptiveness literature (Bulkeley et al., 2013; Klinsky et al., 2016; Schlosberg et al., 2017). Concerns about injustice and disempowerment in the face of climate change have seeded influential arguments about the need to pivot from adaptiveness (as responding to the impacts of climate change on various vulnerable groups) to transformation (of structural conditions that create vulnerability in the first place) (O’Brien, 2012; Park et al., 2012; Pelling, 2011). Agency is often given a central role in pursing transformation in these debates, yet exactly how this may be achieved remains poorly understood (see Chapter 11). ESG research stands to make fundamental contributions to understanding the role of agency in pursing adaptiveness and transformation. For example, how to navigate the complex politics of adapting to climate and Earth system changes in ways that pay attention to both instrumental consequences (e.g., effectiveness) as well as ethical consequences (e.g., social justice), particularly in contexts of failing global governance systems and weak political responses to chronic and acute global problems (Chapter 14). A related challenge for ESG research is to understand the politics of anticipatory action, both within the domain of climate change and beyond (Chapter 4.5, ESG Science Plan 2018–2028), in which agency will play a key role (Earth System Governance Project, 2018a). 12.3.3 Agency and Reflexivity in the Anthropocene The final priority area identified is the role of agency in cultivating reflexivity in the Anthropocene (Chapter 15). Reflexivity requires that societies and governance systems find ways to intelligently reflect on their performance in context, and change not only their operation but possibly also their overall structure, goals, and even raison d’être, in order to navigate shifting boundary conditions that unfold over time (Dryzek, 2016; Galaz, 2014). This implies cultivating adaptiveness in a broad sense: materially, politically, and philosophically, across scales from local to global (Dryzek and Pickering 2018). Agency will be central to pursuing reflexivity because this implies a primarily anticipatory disposition rather than a solely reactive one, not only because of the need to perceive unfolding change, but because reflexivity also inherently involves intelligent responses to such insights. Both aspects (i.e., perceiving/making sense of change as well as taking intelligent action in response) are likely to depend on agency to establish governance architectures capable of supporting such systemic activity, as well as because collective decision-making in human society will always involve navigating political debates (e.g., persuading, contesting, negotiating, deciding). Reflexivity is identified as a priority in Chapter 4.5 of the new ESG Science Plan 2018–2028, which opens up

154

J. J. Patterson

novel needs for considering the role of agency in realizing reflexivity (Earth System Governance Project, 2018a). In conclusion, ESG scholars have extensively studied Agency–Adaptiveness interplay, although the importance of this interface only increases looking into the future. Furthermore, as mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, questions of adaptiveness are increasingly coming to the fore in a variety of social science disciplines. Consequently, insights and further questions about agency and adaptiveness in environmental governance can readily contribute to broader fields of social science in disciplines such as international relations, public policy, and sociology, as these disciplines grapple with challenges such as international institutional reform and renewal, overcoming decay and gridlock in domestic political systems, and dealing with rapidly evolving technological, financial, regulatory, and human security challenges. ESG scholars thus have a unique opportunity and vantage point from which to contribute at the forefront of these emerging theoretical and empirical debates, leveraging insights across broader fields of social science. This will demand bold ambition as well as theoretical and methodological innovativeness, although the opportunities are rich and the insights vital for navigating unfolding earth system transformations.

13 Accountability in the Governance of Global Change C A L U M BR O W N A N D MI C H E L L E S C O B IE

Chapter Highlights • Earth System Governance (ESG)–Agency scholarship on accountability is linked to legitimacy and agency theories and to research on architecture and power. • ESG–Agency scholars often consider accountability as an isolated, static, and normative property, with relatively little critical reflection on its broader, evolving role in earth system governance. • Greater theoretical development is needed on how accountability operates between extremes of governance level (individual to international) and how this relates to international environmental governance initiatives.

13.1 Introduction The transformation of the earth system through human activity, and the further transformations required to ensure future sustainability, pose huge governance challenges (Foley et al., 2005; Reid et al., 2010). These challenges can complicate and overshadow efforts to achieve accountability, and may even require their wholesale reconceptualization (Lövbrand et al., 2009; Biermann et al., 2012). Understanding the emerging pressures and forms of accountability under rapid global change is therefore a crucial task for earth system governance research (Papadopoulos, 2007; Biermann and Gupta, 2011). While the scale of many current governance challenges is new, responses can build on decades of research into accountability (Biermann and Gupta, 2011). In doing so, they inherit a number of perspectives and open debates. Of particular relevance are discussions about the value and function of accountability, whether as an independent normative property of governance systems (Chapter 10) or as an 155

156

C. Brown and M. Scobie

interacting element with benefits and trade-offs for others (Blair, 2000; Papadopoulos, 2003; Steffek and Ferretti, 2009). Recent research also emphasizes the dynamism of accountability as a theoretical and practical construct, and of its relationships with governance legitimacy and effectiveness (Bovaird, 2005; Papadopoulos, 2007; Bovens, Schillemans, and Hart, 2008). In 2009, accountability was one of the five analytical problems identified by the Earth System Governance (ESG) Science Plan (Biermann et al., 2009), in which accountability was linked to agency and legitimacy (see also Chapter 1). The Plan emphasized that issues related to accountability have profound policy implications for governing earth system transformations, and invited an analysis of the nature of accountability in democracy theorizations and accountability’s relevance for institutional effectiveness. This chapter analyses the extent to which these issues have been explored in earth system governance research over the last ten years, using articles from the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database (Chapter 1 and the Appendix) and other related research. Particular attention is paid to the conceptual, theoretical, and empirical perspectives of published papers. This is not intended to provide an exhaustive overview of recent research but to highlight the most noteworthy trends in the literature, picking out current themes, gaps, and potential future directions. In particular, we focus on frequently researched issues related to how accountability develops and affects the success of earth system governance, and its relationship to legitimacy between governance actors. 13.2 Conceptualizing Accountability Accountability can be defined as ‘the legal obligation to respect the legitimate interests of others affected by decisions, programs, and interventions’ (Considine, 2002, p. 21) or less formally as ‘the willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one’s actions’ (Biermann and Gupta, 2011, p. 1857). These widely adopted conceptualizations identify accountability as a key aspect of earth system governance with respect to transformations that promote sustainable development. As such, research into the sources, mechanisms, forms and effects of accountability is of clear importance (Biermann et al., 2009). Particularly important are the theoretical and normative foundations of accountability. Increasingly, these foundations are required to support a shifting load, with traditional forms of accountability losing relevance under both increasingly international and interactive forms of governance (Held, 1999; Torfing et al., 2012; Brink and Wamsler, 2018). Global challenges, and political responses to them, raise qualitatively novel issues of accountability; for instance, concerning the democratic rights of Southern and developing states, or of individual citizens,

Accountability in the Governance of Global Change

157

within globalized systems of knowledge and governance (Held, 1991; South Centre, 1997; Miller, 2007; Mason, 2008). These issues are especially pertinent given disparities in resources, representation, and power between actors (see Chapters 5 and 11). Several authors have suggested that new conceptualizations of accountability are required in this context, to deal with new modes of authority exercised by nonstate actors (Bernstein, 2004; Dingwerth 2007; Dingwerth and Pattberg, 2009), new relationships between accountability, legitimacy, and transparency (Florini 2007), and new relationships between power, authority, and influence (Willer et al., 1997). Underpinning many of these issues are changes in the extent and nature of agency in earth system governance, both in terms of actors involved and the extent of agency available to those actors (Biermann and Gupta, 2011; see also Chapters 1 and 2). Beyond its theoretical underpinnings, it is also necessary to understand the practical or structural forms of accountability that are most relevant to earth system governance. For example, financial support has long been used to increase the attendance of civil society groups, representatives of labour movements, and developing states at decision-making forums (Spiro 1988, 1995). Other proposals have included a Forum of Civil Society within the United Nations and a global parliamentarian assembly (Carlsson and Ramphal, 1995). As these examples suggest, the continuing diversification and internationalization of governance systems have made architecture a key factor in accountability (Papadopoulos, 2003; Radaelli, 2003). Architecture often controls access and allocation across scales, structures, and forums of governance (Chapters 8 and 9). Potential steps to increase the scope of accountability in these settings include performance measurement and sanctions, knowledge dissemination, and efforts to extend agency itself (Miller, 2007; Gupta, 2008; Dryzek and Stevenson, 2011). Ultimately, these steps also determine the legitimacy of resulting governance arrangements (Biermann and Gupta, 2011). In the following sections, we use the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database (systematic review) and other relevant literature (non-systematic review) to examine the extent to which these major theoretical and practical questions of accountability have been addressed, and go on to draw tentative conclusions about emerging conceptualizations of accountability and areas requiring future attention. 13.3 Existing Agency-Accountability Research 13.3.1 Coverage of Literature Using the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database of 322 articles to give a representative overview of the field (Chapter 1 and the Appendix), we found

158

C. Brown and M. Scobie

that 90 articles (28%) addressed questions of accountability in some way. These articles were reviewed in detail to ascertain dominant foci in terms of research questions, theoretical or methodological approaches, geographic coverage, and types of actor. Overall, the number of articles steadily increased during the period 2008–2016, suggesting a growing prominence of accountability in earth system governance research. These studies were also found to have a largely global distribution (with Europe and Asia particularly well represented), either focusing explicitly on globalscale governance (25 papers), or covering diverse areas between them (see also Chapter 4). Nineteen articles focused on national or smaller scales, while 15 carried out international comparisons (eight of which were cross-continental). Across geographies, the single most commonly studied agent type was states or national governments, which were included in 40 of the 90 articles analysed (Figure 13.1; see also Chapter 2). In the great majority of these studies (all but two), relationships between these agents and others at smaller and/or larger geographic extents were the focus of study, with good representation of most other agent types. Particularly often included were issues of accountability involving state–inter-governmental organization (IGO) links. Conversely, individual agents were rarely included in studies, and only two studies focused on state–individual relationships. Civil society agents were more often considered, as were intermediate-scale businesses, partnerships, and networks, but subnational governments

Individuals Other

Type of Actor

Sub-national governments NGOs Civil society Networks Partnerships Business IGOs States/National governments 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Number of Papers

Figure 13.1 Types of agents included in studies contained in the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database.

45

Accountability in the Governance of Global Change

159

were the second-least studied type, included in only 13 papers. The representation of different agent types did not vary clearly through time, except in the case of individual agents, which were included more commonly towards the end of the reviewed period (2012–2016). Many studies considered issues related to accountability in the key global change topics of climate change mitigation or adaptation (37 papers in total, 41% of the papers analysed; see also Chapter 4). Aside from these, frequently studied issues related to freshwater (10 papers), forests (8), or biodiversity (6 papers). These issues were generally investigated through case studies, with 49 papers utilizing this approach, far more than any other method (Chapter 3). Quantitative analysis (8 papers), institutional analysis (6 papers) and descriptive analysis (5 papers) were also relatively common, but other approaches (including for example literature review, interviews or concept framing) were rarely used. This imbalance indicates a strongly empirical focus in the papers analysed, with conceptual and theoretical work being rare. Nevertheless, all of the papers did identify a theoretical basis, even where they did not attempt to contribute to its development. By far the most common of these was legitimacy theory, which was adopted by 31 papers, and agency theory, which was adopted by 19. This appears to indicate widespread acceptance of a relationship between accountability and legitimacy (as reflected in the ESG Science Plan), with a potential shortage of critical reflection on the nature of this relationship. The majority of studies (60 studies, or 66% of the total) also considered the issue of Architecture and how it relates to Accountability (Chapter 8). The problem of Allocation & Access was included in a substantial minority (19%) of papers (Chapter 11), while Adaptiveness was only included rarely (11%) (Chapter 12), despite the strong focus on climate change adaptation. Overall, the literature on Accountability appears well embedded in broader earth system governance and social-scientific debates, albeit with some clearly predominant foci (particularly on Legitimacy and Power) that may overshadow novel or divergent conceptualizations. 13.3.2 Conceptual Findings Within and beyond the literature described earlier, a number of conceptual developments are apparent in accountability research. For instance, accountability has been prominently used to refer to objective setting and compliance enforcing as part of the power relationships of global environmental governance (Gordon 2016b; see also Chapters 5 and 6). In this sense, accountability can be understood as a set of rules and procedures that outline who has the right to make decisions, and how they can be held accountable for those decisions (Chan and Pattberg, 2008; Scobie, 2017). A linked development is the conceptualization of legitimacy as the

160

C. Brown and M. Scobie

extent to which actors with political power (agency) are governed by valid rules and shared understandings, as well as the extent to which stakeholders are the source of authority and consent to the structure of the governance system (Gellers, 2016). Actors exercise agency in accountability by their right to hold others to a recognized set of standards (normative accountability), to determine how they have fulfilled their responsibilities (decision accountability), and to impose sanctions for failures (behavioural accountability) (Grant and Keohane, 2005; Jamali, 2010; Gilbert et al., 2011). Crucially, the question of accountability by and to whom (the relational accountability nexus) (Biermann and Gupta, 2011) has been the basis of all the reflection on accountability and legitimacy in the different areas of ESG–Agency research over the last decade. This includes accountability to citizens, especially affected groups, cities, markets, funding and development agencies, civil society, member states in governance regimes, the media, the judiciary, and government environmental agencies (in the case of Environmental Impact Assessments [EIA]), among others (Gordon, 2016b; Kolhoff et al., 2016). Many studies suggest that the conceptual breadth of accountability has, and continues to, expand across actors of these and other types as governance challenges prompt more actors to seek agency of their own and accountability of others (e.g. Considine, 2002; Scherer et al., 2006; Bäckstrand 2008). This expansion, in turn, necessitates new practical forms of accountability (see Section 13.3.3), and new concepts that allow for novel, fluid relationships between governing and governed. These developments may have been hampered by the focus on national-level and other ‘established’ agents in the recent literature. The expansion of the range of actors involved in earth system governance has, nevertheless, prompted consideration of rationales of accountability between different actors (Chapter 2). For example, Kramarz and Park (2016) refer to a public, private, and voluntary logic of accountability to describe public responsibility, private motivations, or community or collective good motivations. Actors may also be driven by internal logics of accountability (oriented towards those within the system or direct stakeholders) or by external logics (oriented to those actors outside the system or external stakeholders) (Keohane, 2003; Bäckstrand, 2008). It is notable that these rationales implicitly or explicitly link accountability with legitimacy, inclusiveness (Dingwerth, 2005), democracy, democratic legitimacy (Fuchs et al., 2011) and representativeness, impartiality, empowerment, deliberativeness, lawfulness (Leach, 2006, 2013), human rights (Obani and Gupta, 2016), distributive justice (Okereke and Coventry, 2016), and transparency (Gupta 2010; Kramarz, 2016). Not all of these links are clear, however, with the strength and direction of effects both subject to ongoing debate (Jamali, 2010; Few et al., 2011; Papadopoulos, 2014). These debates suggest that complex interactions between

Accountability in the Governance of Global Change

161

accountability and other facets of governance exist, both in theory and practice, with outcomes potentially differing widely in different governance systems and contexts (Bovens, 2014; see also Chapter 14). Conceptualizations of accountability have therefore been notably fluid over recent years, and while they have expanded into several new areas, they have crystalized in relatively few. This is perhaps most apparent in ongoing debates about the role and value of accountability in evolving governance settings, with different conceptualizations underpinning different assessments (as well as different ultimate implementations). Many papers acknowledge a democratic deficit caused by inadequate representative participation and accountability in global environmental governance, and see the solution as one of greater involvement of stakeholders in ‘collaborative’, ‘networked’, or ‘interactive’ governance (Torfing et al., 2012; Jedd and Bixler, 2015; Gellers, 2016). Others, in contrast, suggest that such forms of governance risk embedding existing hierarchies and obscuring power dynamics, making outcomes less effective and even less democratic (Papadopoulos, 2007, 2014; Steffek and Ferretti, 2009). Fundamentally distinct ideas of what accountability can and should be are suggested by these arguments, demonstrating that further conceptual development – or at least clarification – remains necessary. 13.3.3 Practical Findings The broad but partly unsettled conceptual nature of accountability is mirrored in practical attempts to increase it, which are growing in number but not necessarily in success. As our literature review showed, case studies are a major focus of research into accountability, providing considerably more evidence about implementation than about basic conceptualization. However, many governance arrangements still tend to underrepresent local stakeholders and weaker groups in particular, limiting their utility as exemplars (e.g. Werners et al., 2009; Clare et al., 2013; Gulbrandsen and Auld, 2016). Accountability has been found to be particularly lacking in governance of climate change adaptation (Mees and Driessen, 2019). Networked or interactive governance has recently gained prominence as a potential solution to difficulties of accountability in the era of global change (Torfing et al., 2012; Jedd and Bixler, 2015). By formally including stakeholders from more diverse groups and levels, this mode of governance has been posited to increase democracy and legitimacy, but concerns have also been raised that existing hierarchical structures may become ‘locked in’, with illusory inclusivity actually reducing genuine democratic accountability (Papadopoulos, 2014). This has been identified as a factor for the environmental groups that have begun to separate themselves from the Marine Stewardship Council private certification

162

C. Brown and M. Scobie

agency (Gulbrandsen and Auld, 2016), and the public–private partnerships used by the World Bank for biodiversity conservation (Kramarz and Momani, 2013). Despite the goal of increasing inclusiveness and empowerment in these institutional arrangements, they were more often than not unable to achieve democratic governance (Chapter 15). Furthermore, even where successful, more inclusive forms of governance may be more suited to promoting mutual understanding and learning among stakeholders than tackling urgent but complex issues such as climate change, which might require bold, technical, and often controversial responses (Papadopoulos, 2003; van Buuren et al., 2013; Baird et al., 2014; see also Chapters 7 and 14). This basic tension between inclusivity and effectiveness is clearly unresolved in the field of climate change governance at least, with the literature suggesting that the necessary knowledge, motivation, and mechanisms to increase both facets are lacking (Considine, 2002; Steffek and Ferretti, 2009; Few et al., 2011; Vink et al., 2013; Brink and Wamsler, 2018). Given these challenges, a substantial focus of recent research has been specific tools that can increase accountability and allow some actors to hold others responsible for their actions (Gordon, 2016b; Kramarz and Park, 2016). These tools include certification, public participation (Jodoin et al., 2015), performance monitoring and self-reporting, stakeholder partnerships (Scobie, 2017), cooperative initiatives between state and nonstate actors (Widerberg and Stripple, 2016), or future scenario planning and foresight practices with social actors (Kunseler et al., 2015). The spread of such practices represents a success in itself, and they have been found to result in meaningful improvement in the reach of both agency and accountability. However, widespread shortcomings have also been reported, often with respect to the adoption of particular practices providing an impression of accountability while granting little or no real agency to monitor or alter governance systems (Jamali, 2010; Behnam and MacLean, 2011). Accountability is therefore also facilitated by independent monitoring of dispute resolution mechanisms and participatory monitoring of environmental activities (Dunlop and Corbera, 2016). Some studies of local natural resource management found trust-building between stakeholders and the incorporation of local ecological knowledge helpful for accountability and for resolving conservation conflicts (Young et al., 2016; Chapter 11). Stakeholder partnerships have been found to help legitimise the operations of firms, increase positive exposure in the media, improve their reputation, build knowledge, strengthen relationships, increase ‘moral capital’ (den Hond et al., 2015), their ‘social license to operate’ (Gunningham et al., 2006) and reduce their reputational risks (Godfrey Paul et al., 2008). Nevertheless, it is unclear whether these collaborative processes truly facilitate legitimacy (Clare et al., 2013), particularly when powerful actors can operate

Accountability in the Governance of Global Change

163

outside collaborative relationships to achieve their goals (Chapters 5 and 15). Successful collaboration is premised inter alia on adequate incentives for participation, small imbalances in power and resources, and supportive leadership that can help deepen trust and shared understandings (Ansell and Gash, 2008). In practice, however, local stakeholders enter these relationships with considerably less knowledge or access to knowledge, power, and resources, again making these processes ill equipped for accountability. Indeed, accountability through stakeholder participation in local level institutions depends on the stakeholders’ capacity to act, access to resources (including knowledge, finance, and time [Thaler and Leuin-Keitel, 2016]; see also Chapters 6 and 7) and in rural sectors upon the socioeconomic characteristics of local populations (lower levels of education, authoritativeness of local tribal leaders and corruption made some local populations particularly vulnerable to land acquisition investors in Sierra Leone, for example (Yengoh et al., 2016; Chapter 11). These difficulties are amplified in international governance systems, where even the forms of legitimacy and accountability in national democratic systems are lacking. At this scale, studies have identified relatively few mechanisms for increasing accountability. Crowdsourcing among global civil society allows for greater participation by a wide range of civil society actors, effectively giving them agency in governance and improving accountability. Unfortunately, this method may not necessarily be democratic or legitimate since crowdsourcing that depends on technology is limited by the inequitable ‘digital divide’ in favour of developed states’ civil societies. Crowdsourcing will facilitate accountability if democratic designs focus on multiple forms of outreach to allow balanced participation among stakeholders (Gellers, 2016). At the global scale, press conferences at international negotiations (as for example in climate negotiations) could increase transparency and contribute to accountability, although they may also allow powerful states to wield undue influence (Betzold et al., 2016). The widespread use of international accountability standards provides another example, but one in which agency is largely situated with the organisations adopting those standards, shielding them from meaningful oversight with potentially counter-productive consequences (Rasche, 2009; Behnam and MacLean, 2011). Similar findings have been made in political, managerial, and financial research, with agency often found to reside with those supposedly subject to accountability, severely limiting the efficacy of that accountability (Broadbent and Laughlin, 2003; Demirag et al., 2004; Asenova and Beck, 2010). Notwithstanding the limited number and success of methods to promote accountability, the literature suggests that improvements risk becoming counterproductive, and that accountability should not necessarily be an end in itself for

164

C. Brown and M. Scobie

agents of earth system governance. Often efforts to improve accountability focus on performance and compliance monitoring that may lead actors to lose sight of the environmental problems they were designed to redress (Kramarz and Park, 2016; Fuchs et al., 2011; Chapter 14), or to apply accountability only in the latter part of the policy cycle, leaving policy formation and institutional design cycles without crucial inputs from stakeholders (Chan and Pattberg, 2008; Gulbrandsen, 2008). This has been a feature of conservation programs that have led to the displacement of resource-dependent communities, for example (Chapin, 2004). More fundamentally, increased accountability, however it is achieved, may be to the detriment of flexibility, legitimacy, and effectiveness, particularly where it operates on policy implementation as well as planning (Mees and Driessen, 2019). In these cases, efforts to increase accountability have often been found to reduce the scope for democratic alteration of implemented actions, either because they favour dialogue over decisive control, or because they replace genuine transparency and control (Steffek and Ferretti, 2009; Behnam and MacLean, 2011; Papadopoulos, 2014). They can also reduce effectiveness where accountability is promoted in the absence of mechanisms to inform actors about governance topics and initiatives (i.e. where agency and accountability outstrips knowledge) (Adserà et al., 2003; Chapters 7 and 14). 13.4 Future Research Directions Given the uncertainties about the nature and effects of accountability in earth system governance, a number of promising future research directions are apparent. Research published over the last decade does provide a broad evidence base that particularly addresses the development of accountability in specific governance settings. These often relate to accountability at the level of states or national governments, and in their relationships with a range of other agents (especially businesses and IGOs). Beyond these frequently studied areas, priorities for future research might include those listed in the text that follows (several of which are considered in literature outside the earth system governance field, such as business ethics or international relations, meaning that they could be pursued effectively through cross-disciplinary research [Falkner, 2003; Jamali, 2010; Behnam and MacLean, 2011]). Accountability at and between extremes of governance scale: Accountability at and between individual, substate, and international scales has been relatively rarely studied (Steffek, 2010; Chapter 9). This topic may justify more attention given the international nature of many governance initiatives, and their dependency upon

Accountability in the Governance of Global Change

165

buy-in, action, and, ultimately, accountability of agents from individual to societal levels (Miller, 2007). Accountability in practical climate change mitigation and adaptation: Climate change mitigation and adaptation are very often studied, being the dominant topics in literature published over the past decade. However, their treatment is often abstract and not related to specific practices, issues, or changes. This suggests substantial scope for engaging with particular instances of mitigation or adaptation and the distribution of their relationships with agency and accountability (e.g. Bäckstrand, 2008; Bache et al., 2015). Different, general perspectives on accountability: In contrast to the often generic approach to climate-related issues, studies of agency and accountability have an overall tendency to rely on case studies, with relatively few taking theoretical or conceptual approaches. Furthermore, while theoretical foundations were identified in all the reviewed papers, there was relatively limited diversity in the theories used, with theories of legitimacy and agency being strongly dominant (Chapter 3). While this suggests that relationships between agency, accountability, and legitimacy are well established, future studies that include a wider diversity of perspectives would have clear value in contributing to more fundamental knowledge of accountability. Evolving relationships between accountability and other issues of agency: The relationships between governance architecture and accountability is well studied, providing a substantial body of knowledge about how different agents create and affect accountability. However, much of this research relates to relatively static systems, with little research having been conducted into adaptiveness of accountability in particular (Chapter 12). This stands in stark contrast to the volume of work on adaptation as a process of agency, and suggests limited understandings of how accountability, and architectures that support it, themselves respond to changing contexts (Chapter 8). This lack of knowledge may be exacerbated by concurrent changes in allocation and access, both of which are relatively under-studied in the literature on accountability (Chapter 11). Also neglected to date are links between knowledge (a key facet of agency) and accountability, once again implying scope for further research into the dynamics of accountability in evolving governance systems (Chapter 7). Positive versus normative accounts: In general, the literature confirms the conceptual risk of treating accountability as a fundamentally normative characteristic (Chapter 10). The foci of recent research are usually on identifying

166

C. Brown and M. Scobie

accountability and the circumstances that support it, rather than exploring its changing role in earth system governance and relationships to other outcomes, including the range of consequences that forms and degrees of accountability can have for other normative outcomes (Papadopoulos, 2007; Steffek and Ferretti, 2009). Research that aims to redress this balance could potentially offer important new insights into relationships (both positive and negative) between accountability of different agents, at different scales, and in different governance settings. 13.5 Conclusions Accountability is a frequently studied concept in the ESG–Agency literature. Conceptual and empirical definitions have to some extent converged towards an understanding of accountability as a product of the rules by which agency is permitted to, and later defined as the responsibility of, particular actors. To a large extent, definitions of this sort have been normative in nature, and a large proportion of the literature has been dedicated to identifying governance systems and structures within which accountability is maximized. This may have undesirable consequences for our understanding of accountability as an embedded characteristic of governance systems, subject to complex interactions with other characteristics that may or may not be valued in their own right. Furthermore, studies of this kind have largely taken place in the absence of more fundamental explorations of accountability as an evolving property of earth system governance, and with limited development of underlying theory or concepts. This remains a constraint on our understanding of the impact of accountability on earth system transformations, or indeed their impact on it. Nevertheless, we found that the research reflected the growing concern for systems of accountability, particularly for state agents, but also for nonstate actors, including networks, businesses and, to a limited extent, individuals. Similarly, ‘accountability to whom’ has been increasingly addressed as the heretofore disempowered – from marginalized groups to the biosphere – are given increasing prominence. Finally, many studies recognized the multiple forms and effects of accountability and their relationships to power. Accountability, by its presence or absence, has had profound impacts on the effectiveness of governance, and is a key consideration for attempts to stimulate earth system transformations. Future research must enable us to ascertain how accountability might change, and how it is required to change, along with governance structures and the earth system itself.

Accountability in the Governance of Global Change

167

The novel, global nature of these challenges provides a strong link between earth system governance research and other fields. Questions of agency and accountability are widely considered in literature on climate change mitigation and adaptation, business and international relations, among others. The relationships between actors involved in responding to global change are crucial to the success of those responses, and understanding how such relationships can best be shaped and utilized represents a major contribution of earth system governance research.

14 How to Evaluate Agents and Agency SAND ER CHAN AND RONA LD B . MI TC HEL L

Chapter Highlights • Earth System Governance (ESG)–Agency scholars have embraced the notion that agent influence is complex, contingent, and context dependent, with the success of environmental governance depending considerably on propitious environmental and social conditions. • Scholars have shifted from an earlier focus on how agents influence behaviours and environmental quality in earth system governance to how they influence governance processes, with increasing focus on democracy, participation, legitimacy, transparency, and accountability. • ESG–Agency scholars employ increasingly diverse methods to integrate insights from case studies, interviews, surveys, statistical analyses, and other approaches leading to deeper and more nuanced understanding of agency in earth system governance. • Adopting more interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, and transdisciplinary approaches to evaluating agency can foster future understandings of and contributions to earth system governance.

14.1 Introduction Evaluating agents and their effectiveness has long been, and continues to be, an important topic for scholars of earth system governance. The growing number and types of actors engaged in environmental governance (see Chapter 2) provides new opportunities to understand how agency works in earth system governance while, simultaneously, making such assessments more complicated. For instance, the growing relevance of multiple agents not only raises the question of their individual

168

How to Evaluate Agents and Agency

169

governance contributions, but also whether and how interactions affect governance. The Earth System Governance (ESG) Project specifically engages questions of the evaluation and effectiveness of agency against a background of analytic problems, including Accountability and Legitimacy (Chapter 13); Allocation & Access (Chapter 11); and the design and Adaptiveness of institutions (Chapters 8 and 12), all of which have prompted diverse scholarship over the last decade (Chapter 1). This chapter reviews this literature, seeking to understand how ESG scholars have evaluated agents and the strategies that they adopt to promote and improve earth system governance. We assess how well ESG scholars have addressed knowledge gaps identified in the 2009 Science Plan (Biermann et al., 2009). We also identify remaining gaps in knowledge and research trends to suggest new research directions. 14.2 Scope of the Review The 2009 ESG Science Plan encouraged scholars to use methods traditionally used to study institutions and political systems to evaluate the increasing diversity of agents and of strategies for exercising agency (see also Chapter 3). As the Science Plan notes, ‘stable, adaptive, and inclusive earth system governance requires the consent and involvement of national governments, their bureaucracies, and the growing population of nonstate actors’ (Biermann et al., 2009, p. 37). In any given realm of earth system governance, relevant actors express their agency as freestanding agents, within principal–agent relationships, and through their network relationships (Chapter 2). Evaluation of agency, therefore, requires examining the extent and nature of collaboration, the legitimacy of agents, and their ‘performance’ in generating and influencing outputs and outcomes. Like others in this volume, we started with the 322 articles in the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database (see Chapter 1 and Appendix). Coders identified almost half of those articles (155 or 48%) as addressing the question of ‘how to evaluate the significance of agents and agency?’ We analysed those articles to identify major themes and how they addressed specific knowledge gaps noted in the Science Plan (Biermann et al., 2009), including relevant types of agency, conceptual understandings of relevance and effectiveness, and assessment methodologies. We organize the chapter accordingly. We first summarize knowledge gaps related to evaluation of agents and agency and then review trends in the observations and findings of this literature. We conclude by reflecting on remaining and emerging knowledge gaps that point towards new research directions.

170

S. Chan and R. B. Mitchell

14.3 Relevance and Roles of Different Types of Agents and Agency Over the past decade, ESG scholars have expanded their investigation of agency beyond the study of international treaties, regimes, institutions, and policies that dominated earlier environmental governance scholarship. Scholars continue to assess the effectiveness of intergovernmental environmental institutions, particularly those related to climate change and within the context of the European Union (EU) (Underdal et al., 2012; Gehring et al., 2013; Kluvánková-Oravská et al., 2013; Leventon, 2015). In the EU case, scholars now recognize the dynamic development and adaptation of the EU to an increasingly polycentric governance environment (Rayner and Jordan, 2013). However, scholars also increasingly recognize that accurately assessing state- and nonstate actors (including firms) requires examining their influence in ways that move past the binary of adoption/compliance versus non-adoption/non-compliance. For instance, Chappin et al. (2009) highlight that agent influence often reflects cumulative policy interventions and innovation that emerges through intra-firm interaction. Many scholars also have replaced a focus on a single level of governance to polycentric and multilevel governance (see Chapters 6 and 9). Multinational corporations, political groups, civil society sectors, and other stakeholders have influenced environmental governance outcomes for decades and, over the past decade, scholars have begun to recognize that the who, how, and when of stakeholder participation fosters accurate identification and parsing of the influence of all agents involved. Private sector agents – individually, in partnerships, and through collective private governance – now garner scholarly attention (van der Heijden, 2010). Stakeholders and private sector actors now garner a focus that rivals that on epistemic communities in the 1990s (though see Spruijt et al., 2014; van Kerkhoff and Lebel, 2015). Scholars are paying particular attention to the involvement of stakeholders in knowledge production and to less powerful groups (Hage et al., 2010; Auld et al., 2015; see also Chapters 5 and 7). More broadly, scholars increasingly use participation and accountability as criteria for evaluating agents and institutions (see Chapter 13). This wider view of relevant stakeholders dovetails with an increasing recognition that influence flows from networks and relations as much as from single actors, echoing scholarship from the 2000s on networks, institutional interplay, and overlap (Taplin and McGee, 2010; Benecke, 2011). Faced with ‘complex, contextual and multi-faceted issues’ (Larson et al., 2013, p. 4425), effective governance and adaptive capacity have been found to emerge out of complex interactions among social factors and social networks of actors at and across governance levels as well as formal institutions (Gupta et al., 2010; Grothmann et al., 2013) (See; Chapters 8, 9, and 12).

How to Evaluate Agents and Agency

171

Researchers increasingly find that earth system governance becomes more effective when synergies emerge among organizations and institutions working across scales rather than independently (see Chapter 9). Joint efforts among economic, political, social, and environmental actors at the local level ‘generate better social and environmental outcomes’ (Kuzdas et al., 2014; Brisbois and de Loë, 2016, p. 22). One study, for instance, found that the effectiveness of health governance in Guangzhou, China depended on understanding interactions across myriad actors at the micro-level, including patients and their social networks, paying institutions, social organizations, and civil society (Bork et al., 2011). In addition, coordination and learning among agents fosters effective city-level cooperation (Seitzinger et al., 2012) (See; Chapter 7). Such linkages among organizations and people also span scales (Chapter 9). Scholars have shown the contribution that linkages between international organizations and nonstate actors can make toward low-carbon emissions pathways (Chan et al., 2016; Widerberg and Stripple, 2016). Similarly, scholars have found that integrating stakeholder participation into intergovernmental cooperation has improved governance to protect the Great Barrier Reef, large marine areas, and fisheries resources (Olsson et al., 2008; van Tatenhove et al., 2014; Defeo et al., 2016). At times, the political and social contingency of one agent’s actions on those of others can be a constraint as well as a resource, limiting network authority and agent influence. ESG scholars have shown the costs to effective governance of mismatches between scales (Paloniemi et al., 2012), obstacles to partnership building (Thaler and Priest, 2014), competition between networks (Chan and Pattberg, 2008), and limited governance capacities of subnational actors (Gordon, 2016b). 14.4 Conceptual Understandings of Relevance and Effectiveness The last decade has seen more nuanced views of agents in earth system governance emerging. In reviewing the large body of research emerging from the ESG project, we have found it valuable to see agent influence as conditioned by three sets of factors: (1) broad (above the agent) institutional norms, rules, and processes that structure interactions among agents; (2) the characteristics and resources of the specific agent in question; and (3) political, economic, and social contexts. Factors in these three sets promote certain outcomes and inhibit others and any specific agents influence in promoting a particular outcome. Scholars have ‘zoomed out’ to get a broader view that captures both proximate influences on outcomes that can be attributed to particular agents and intermediate and deeper forces that foster or impair an agent’s influence. This approach supports more nuanced, refined, complex, and contingent understandings of agent influence and

172

S. Chan and R. B. Mitchell

effectiveness. Similarly, the criteria against which we evaluate agents and agency influence have evolved and multiplied. Whereas earlier work focused on changes in environmental policies and behaviours, scholars are now equally interested in the influence of agents on the traits and processes of other institutions. 14.4.1 Norms, Rules, and Processes One major focus of research has been when, whether, and how agents prompt institutions to become more participatory, democratic, transparent, accountable, and legitimate (see Chapters 10 and 13). Many scholars have assessed the democratic legitimacy of the agents pushing for policy change and the governance institutions they seek to influence (Fuchs et al., 2011; Bernauer and Betzold, 2012; Bäckstrand and Kylsater, 2014; Widerberg and Stripple, 2016). Some scholars see legitimacy as an evaluative criterion distinct from effectiveness, evaluating the legitimacy of particular agents and the factors that promote or inhibit that processual (as opposed to outcome) trait (Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen and Vihma, 2009; Bernstein, 2011; Schouten and Glasbergen, 2012; Mees et al., 2014). Others see legitimacy as a mediating variable that underpins greater environmental effort or promotes better outcomes (Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen and McGee, 2013). Closely related to legitimacy are issues of transparency and accountability, both as contributors to agent influence and as traits of agents and their decision-making processes (Bäckstrand, 2008; Chan and Pattberg, 2008; Newell, 2008a; Sofronova et al., 2014; Jedd and Bixler, 2015; Gordon, 2016b; Kramarz and Park, 2016). Scholars also increasingly assess how participatory agents are, both as an end in itself and as a contributor to effectiveness. Duyck (2015), for instance, assesses the influence of the Aarhus Convention’s participation provisions on the climate regime. Sanz et al. (2016, p. 963) shows that participatory approaches work best when combined with ‘supportive capacity building and command-and-control policies’. Young et al. (2013) show that those who participate are more likely to perceive biodiversity management efforts as effective. However, scholars also have raised cautions, noting that participation may ‘increase the costs of the policy making process’ (van Tatenhove et al., 2014, p. 364) and that ‘many nongovernmental organizations themselves lack democratic legitimacy’ (Bernauer and Betzold, 2012, p. 62). 14.4.2 Characteristics and Resources of Specific Agents Although scholars continue to see effectiveness as dependent on resources or capacities (e.g., Bastakoti et al., 2014), they increasingly appreciate the highly contingent, complex, and dynamic nature of agent influence. Increasingly, the

How to Evaluate Agents and Agency

173

connectedness among actors itself becomes a trait that shapes effectiveness and outcomes (Bodin and Osterblom, 2013; Wallbott, 2014). Bernstein and Cashore (2012) argue for assessing effectiveness in complex governance environments in light of the ability of actors to influence policies, norms, and discourses domestically, internationally, and through market interventions. Similarly, polycentric governance has become a common thread in assessments of agent influence. For instance, Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+) projects operate as transactions within a complex polycentric system involving ‘transnational development governance, including private aid, public-private sustainable development projects, and transnational polycentric governance initiative’ (Gallemore and Jespersen, 2016, p. 1). Polycentric governance highlights cross-scale interactions, institutional linkages, authority, networks, and markets in ways that help communities realize ‘local benefits, while increasing adaptive capacity to deal with complex socialecological challenges’ (Bixler, 2014, p. 155; see Chapter 9). 14.4.3 Political, Economic, and Social Contexts By emphasizing complexity, connectedness, and polycentricity, ESG scholarship increasingly emphasizes the context dependency of agency, encouraging scholars to unpack the influence of contextual factors rather than accepting it as an undifferentiated assemblage of exogenous factors. For instance, scholars increasingly call attention to the ways in which contexts create constraints and opportunities that shape actor influence (see Chapters 6, 8, 9, and 13). For instance, in some countries, ‘the informal nature and historical embeddedness of decision making’ plays a major role in actors’ positions and ‘how they make decisions’ (Naess et al., 2015, p. 534). Even well-designed earth system governance efforts, such as environmental impact assessment programs and community-based natural resources management, may fail to realize their potential because of constraining policy contexts (Kolhoff et al., 2013; Leventon et al., 2014). Although context is a major theme in agency assessment and evaluation research, ESG scholars assess non-human agency only rarely (see Chapters 2 and 15). Some have found that climate change shapes discourses, networks, and policy approaches in the conservation realm (Hagerman et al., 2012) and alters migration decisions in communities dependent on vulnerable ecosystems (Renaud et al., 2011). Work on ecosystem services highlights the role that ‘biotic agents’ play in the availability of carbon sinks and the sustainability of fisheries (Lee et al., 2014). Rozema et al. (2015) argues that ‘place’, conceptualized as an assemblage rather than in dualistic terms, reconfigured British protests against high-speed rail developments. Gellers (2016) shows that new technologies that made ‘crowdsourcing’ possible, in turn,

174

S. Chan and R. B. Mitchell

fostered participatory decision-making. Generally, however, the ESG community has yet to embrace the Science Plan’s invitation to investigate non-human agency (Biermann et al., 2009, p. 41). 14.5 Methods for Assessing Agents and Their Influence Shifts in conceptual understandings necessitate the rethinking of methods to assess agents and their influence (see also Chapter 3). The past decade of research on agents, agency, and their influence in earth system governance has seen scholars using increasingly diverse methods, reflecting their disciplinary backgrounds, their research questions, and the interdisciplinary nature of the field. Here, we review the dominant methods used and identify opportunities to expand both the methods and interdisciplinarity of the ESG community. Of the 155 articles in the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database identified as related to evaluating agency (see Section 14.2), abstracts show the use of interviews in 25, case studies in 20, surveys in 8, qualitative methods in 11, and quantitative methods in 7 articles. Discourse analysis, Q methodology, fuzzy set analysis, and meta-analyses of prior research were used in only one or two articles despite being increasingly common in many fields (Breitmeier et al., 2011; Hobson and Niemeyer, 2011; Mukhtarov and Gerlak, 2013; Brockhaus, et al., 2014; Spruijt et al., 2014; van Laerhoven, 2014; van der Heijden, 2015; Simpson et al., 2016). Here we highlight some examples of each. Single case studies continue to dominate ESG scholarship on agents and agency. This seems to be consistent with the growing need to understand how agency in specific cases is contingent on context. For instance, case studies have situated social learning in forest management in a historical context (Mulyani and Jepson, 2015), improved our understanding of governance by examining floodplain management in the Tisza river (Werners et al., 2009), and developed hypotheses regarding adaptive capacity in collaborative governance (Cheng et al., 2015). Surveys and interviews have clarified why some stakeholders see the World Bank as a ‘legitimate knowledge actor’ while others ‘contest that authority’ (Kramarz and Momani, 2013, p. 409). Indeed, interviews of stakeholders, experts, or community members have become central to case study research (Apostolopoulou and Pantis, 2009; van der Heijden, 2010; Gerhardinger et al., 2011; Gerlak and Heikkila, 2011; Apostolopoulou et al., 2012; Bergsma et al., 2012; Hurlbert, 2014; Kuzdas et al., 2014; Bowen et al., 2015; Milkoreit, 2015a). Scholars are using case studies not only to identify ‘good practices’ and ‘early adopters’ but also to explain governance failure as in Orsini’s (2012) exploration of the failure of private biosafety initiatives. Case studies permit time-consuming methods that are essential to understanding complex, multifaceted phenomena and the processes that drive them. For instance, scholars have developed detailed

How to Evaluate Agents and Agency

175

reconstructions of the drivers of Philadelphia’s (USA) approach to climate adaptation (Uittenbroek et al., 2016) and in-depth ethnographies to identify the moments of influence of indigenous people and local communities on the Convention on Biological Diversity negotiations (Witter et al., 2015). Scholars have used comparative case studies to identify patterns and draw more generalised conclusions. For instance, Termeer et al. (2012) compare the effectiveness of four European states’ national adaptation strategies and derive six qualities of governance institutions that promoted their effectiveness. Some studies assess a few cases, employing interview and documentary analysis (Mees et al., 2014; Scolobig et al., 2014). Small-n comparative case studies, like single case studies, serve exploratory purposes such as demonstrating the usefulness of an analytic framework for effectiveness (Kolhoff et al., 2013). Comparative studies can reveal how contexts and socio-economic factors shape the success and failure of policy approaches (Defeo et al., 2016) and how an actor’s influence or a policy innovation functions in different political systems or contexts (Dryzek and Tucker, 2008; Gehring et al., 2013). A few scholars, seeking generalizable lessons, have undertaken larger comparative studies. Van der Heijden (2015) compared 30 Voluntary Environmental Programmes to establish how such programs perform on average, independent of individual program design, to better inform choices of such programs over alternative strategies in other settings. Scholars also compare cases to identify outliers, as in Urpelainen and Van de Graaf’s (2015) contrasting of the International Renewable Energy Agency’s (IRENA) unique origin story and unusually focused mandate to other international organizations. Looking forward, the abundance of single and comparative case studies offers opportunities for meta-analyses that could assess how well specific conclusions hold up across multiple studies (Chapter 15). Meta-analyses have been rare in the ESG community. Exceptions include Breitmeier et al.’s (2011) meta-analytic comparison of quantitative evaluations of regime effectiveness and Widerberg and Stripple’s (2016) review of five databases of cooperative initiatives for decarbonization. More large-n studies and meta-analyses could help make research on the effectiveness of agents and agency in earth system governance a field that reflects both in-depth, contingent stories about particular cases and large-N studies that show how well particular claims hold up in various contexts. The latter offers greater confidence to those looking for strategies that might improve the governance efforts of particular agents (see Persha et al., 2011; Hultman et al., 2012; Schultz et al., 2015). The last decade has seen more ESG scholars using statistical techniques and developing large datasets to investigate the influence of various types of agents (Breitmeier et al., 2011; Widerberg and Stripple 2016). Using mixed methods, scholars seek to reap the advantages of quantitative and qualitative methods while

176

S. Chan and R. B. Mitchell

mitigating their weaknesses, e.g., by establishing correlations with the former and strengthening claims of causality with the latter (Orsini, 2013; Mert, 2014; Davidson and de Loë, 2016). Scholars increasingly apply statistical models to data from their own surveys and interviews (Vasileiadou et al., 2014; Gallemore et al., 2015), to documentary data from web searches (Gallemore and Jespersen, 2016), or to large databases of expert-coded data (Böhmelt and Betzold, 2013). Van Laerhoven (2014) investigates the determinants of participatory local environmental governance in Brazil, using regression models that take account of the existence and form of local government, private sector actors, and civil society. Böhmelt and Betzold (2013) investigate the influence of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) on international environmental negotiations by analysing 23 different environmental regimes. Most such modelling focuses on social indicators in the evaluation of agency. For instance, Gallemore et al. (2015) use Exponential Random Graph Modelling (ERGM) to analyse how transaction costs in social networks shape power differentials among transnational and local actors in Indonesian forest governance (see also, Kim, 2013). Modelling that analyses correlations among biophysical and social data remains less common, though there are exceptions. Wang et al. (2013) undertook a multilevel statistical analysis of household and biophysical data to investigate adaptation strategies of Mongolian herders. Similarly, Persha et al. (2011) assessed the relative contributions of forest size, economic dependency on forests, and stakeholder participation to biodiversity conservation and sustainable livelihoods. Despite growing recognition of earth system governance as complex and of ‘context’ and scope conditions as endogenous to governance outcomes, the limited integration of biophysical and social data in statistical models to date suggests that scholars still struggle to ‘unpack’ complexity and complex interlinkages in ways that can show how social, environmental, and economic systems interact. We see similar obstacles to integrating socio-economic and biophysical data among researchers that investigate stakeholder agency through surveys coupled with statistical analysis. Studies that look for agent influence on environmental outcomes are rare (see Pattberg and Widerberg, 2015). Instead, most statistical studies by ESG scholars focus on the relationships among agents and stakeholders, rather than those between biophysical and socio-economic systems. For instance, Davidson and de Loë (2016) combined surveys and social network analysis to study NGO entrepreneurship in water governance. Other scholars have used similar techniques to investigate accountability in transboundary collaborations, the roles of nonstate stakeholders in climate governance, and actor perceptions of governance quality (Cadman and Maraseni, 2013; Jedd and Bixler, 2015; Nasiritousi et al., 2016b). Bodin and Österblom (2013) regressed survey responses to assess how the resources and activities of actors in a fisheries regime influenced

How to Evaluate Agents and Agency

177

perceptions of those actors’ importance. Burch et al. (2013) used surveys to assess perceptions of social enterprises and the ways that regional authorities enabled actions in a Canadian climate initiative. Gerlak and Heikkila (2011) developed a theory of learning by combining surveys and interviews of those involved in collaborative ecosystem restoration. Yengoh et al. (2016) combined survey and focus group data to identify the factors that make communities in Sierra Leone vulnerable to unequal engagement in large-scale land acquisitions. Environmental conditions have begun to appear in research on earth system governance in efforts to address the complexity of human systems, environmental systems, and the coupled human and natural systems that join them (Liu et al., 2007). Vasileiadou and Safarzńska (2010) argue that the complexity that emerges due to the heterogeneity and plurality of agency should not be taken as a given but should be subject to critical reflection. ESG scholars also have shown with increasing nuance that both agents’ goals and the success of their influence reflect complex relationships. For instance, the success of desalination efforts in the Arabian Gulf was found to depend on 29 separate cause-and-effect relationships and nine intervention strategies (Barau and Al Hosani, 2015). Variation across outcomes in biodiversity and forest conservation revealed ‘both positive and negative relationships, leading to joint wins, losses, and trade-offs depending on specific contextual factors’ (Persha et al., 2011, p. 1606). Designations of marine protected areas improve biodiversity outcomes only if agents’ strategies take an array of contextual factors into account (Gerhardinger et al., 2011). Similarly, implementation of clean production rules improves when participatory approaches account for socioeconomic constraints, blend capacity-building with command-and-control policies, and account for regulatory realities such as zoning regulations (Sanz et al., 2016). Two under-realized aims of the ESG initiative have been to promote methodological diversity and to improve communication and understanding between the natural and social sciences (Biermann et al., 2009; Pattberg and Widerberg, 2015). First, as noted, ESG scholarship on agents and their effectiveness depends excessively on a limited range of methods (Chapter 3). Numerous opportunities exist to apply new methods to achieve deeper insights and to increase our confidence in those insights. Such methods could include applying agent-based modelling, forecasting techniques, cross-correlations in time-series analysis, scenario analysis, and integrated biophysical and socio-economic models. ESG scholars could learn from the examples taken outside the ESG network, for instance, integrating social science and econometric modelling to understand the role of state and nonstate actors in emissions reduction scenarios (Hsu et al., 2018). Second, the ESG Science Plan (Biermann et al., 2009) encouraged research on earth system governance to become a joint natural and social science enterprise but

178

S. Chan and R. B. Mitchell

that integration has remained elusive. The last decade reveals only limited progress in expanding the disciplines reflected in ESG scholarship. Such interdisciplinarity as occurs usually involves a few social sciences (e.g., political science and economics) or, less often, humanities and social sciences. As Pattberg and Widerberg note (2015), scholars too often focus on the ‘human component’ of global environmental governance, despite opportunities for ESG scholars to deepen their insights by also addressing environmental, demographic, and energy systems. Opportunities exist to link ESG scholars and their expertise on governance into the broader communities’ turn toward integrated modelling while seeking to develop interdisciplinary collaborations that bring natural and social scientists together (Ledford, 2015). 14.6 Conclusions Over the past decade, scholars have broadened and deepened our understanding of agents and their influence in earth system governance. Most significantly, scholars have vastly expanded our understanding of who shapes global environmental governance and how they shape it. Single and comparative case studies and quantitative techniques have documented the array of actors beyond international institutions, governments, and high-visibility NGOs that shape earth system governance. Scholars have also highlighted how participation by community members and by political, social, and economic stakeholders and networks among them alter the policies that emerge, the processes of implementation, and the degree to which behaviours change and environmental quality improves. Our review of a decade of scholarship in the ESG project has resulted in the following key findings. First, ESG scholars have embraced the notion that agent influence is complex, contingent, and context dependent. The success of environmental governance efforts depends considerably on propitious contextual conditions, both environmental and social. Success usually reflects interactions and networking among actors rather than independent efforts of a single agent. And, increasingly, the focus on social networks, multiple stakeholders, networks, and polycentricity has rendered ‘context’ as endogenous, rather than as an assemblage of exogenous factors. Second, ESG scholars have expanded how they define and assess agent influence. They have shifted from an earlier focus on how agents influence behaviours and environmental quality to how they influence governance processes. Democracy, participation, legitimacy, transparency, and accountability increasingly appear in ESG research on agents as criteria for evaluating agents, as traits of agents that deserve explanation, and as capacities of agents that enhance their influence in the more traditional, behavioural or environmental, sense.

How to Evaluate Agents and Agency

179

Third, ESG research on agency has become more diverse with respect to methods. However, deep analyses of one or a few well-chosen cases continue to dominate and offer nuanced understandings of the processes and complexities of agency influence rather than the reductive, single-variable understandings of much of the early regime effectiveness literature. Interviews and surveys now shed light on how influence actually works, comes to be shaped by stakeholder perceptions, and depends on complex interactions among agent characteristics and capacities, contextual factors, and social processes. While still limited, some ESG scholars are applying novel quantitative methods, meta-analytic approaches, network analysis, Q methodology, and fuzzy set techniques. Overall, recent research on agents and agency in earth system governance has deepened our understanding of which actors and agents operate in a given policy space, their multiple interactions in that space, the processes by which they wield influence, and the range of factors that shape and condition their influence. Our review, however, also identifies opportunities for growth in research on agency. We believe benefits would accrue by coupling the increased attention to participation, legitimacy, democracy, accountability, and networks to more traditional assessments of agent influence in terms of improving environmental quality and reducing behaviours that threaten it (Chapter 15). We also urge ESG scholars to continue bridging the social/natural science divide. Interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, and transdisciplinary research remains undersupplied but critical to the success of our collective desire to understand and improve earth system governance. In this regard, the new Earth System Governance Science and Implementation Plan (Earth System Governance Project, 2018a) should be welcomed, as it seeks to extend disciplinary and interdisciplinary collaborations to transdisciplinary efforts that recognize a plurality of perspectives on problems and solutions. Obstacles to progress towards inter- and transdisciplinarity arise from a scholarly context that rewards disciplinary depth and punishes, excludes, and ignores interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary work. We can overcome those obstacles, however, by designing projects to understand coupled human and natural systems, by building collegial relationships that foster understanding and respect, and by encouraging a new openness of editors and reviewers to such research.

Part Three Policy Implications and the Future of Agency in Earth System Governance Research

15 Conclusion: Policy Implications of ESG–Agency Research and Reflections on the Road Ahead ANDREA K . GERLAK , M IC H E L E M . B E T SI L L , JAMES J . PAT T E R S O N , S AN DER C HA N , TAB I THA M . BENNE Y, M A R IE - CL A IR E B RI S BO IS , T HOMAS R . E IM ER , A ND M I C H E L L E SC OB I E

Chapter Highlights • While the state remains a key actor across stages of the policy process, it does

•

•

•

•

so alongside and in partnership with diverse actors. The role of the state as an agent of earth system governance has become more complex, contingent, and interdependent. In some instances, participatory and collaborate processes have contributed to more effective, equitable, and legitimate environmental governance outcomes. However the reality of participation, particularly in contexts of power asymmetry between actors, is far more complicated. Analyses of these processes should be situated within a broader governance perspective, which recasts questions of policy change around questions of power and justice. The complexity and normative aspects of agency in earth system governance requires new forms of policy evaluation that account for social impacts (e.g. legitimacy, accountability, and democracy) as well as the ability of governance systems to adapt within changing contexts. While Earth System Governance (ESG)–Agency scholars have made exemplary advances in empirical research, we note that many of the core analytical concepts, such as agency, power, authority, and accountability, remain under-theorized. In addition, some types of actors, including women, labor, non-human agents, those who work against earth system governance, and many voices from the Global South, remain largely hidden in ESG–Agency scholarship. To address the geographic imbalance in ESG–Agency research, scholars need to develop research projects and collaborations in understudied regions while also recruiting and supporting scholars in those regions to engage with this research agenda.

183

184

A. K. Gerlak, M. M. Betsill, J. Patterson, et al.

15.1 Introduction We began this volume by noting that the advent of the Anthropocene, with humans now driving the earth system transformation, creates unprecedented governance challenges. Decision makers from the global to the local level must find ways to limit human impacts on biochemical and geophysical cycles that sustain life on Earth and advance long-term sustainability goals by changing political, economic, social, and legal systems at multiple scales (Biermann, 2007; Galaz et al., 2012a, 2012b). The analytical problem of Agency recognizes that governing changes in the Earth’s system effectively requires the consent and involvement of a broad range of actors. Collectively, the contributions to Agency in Earth System Governance provide a state-of-the-art understanding of how diverse actors engage with environmental decision-making and exercise authority. In many cases, they are steering society towards a more sustainable future and developing their capacity to deliver effective, legitimate, and equitable earth system governance. Drawing on a systematic analysis of 322 journal articles published in the period 2008–2016 within the context of the Earth System Governance (ESG) Project (see Chapter 1 and the Appendix), the chapters offer an accessible synthesis of this broad body of literature and a valuable orientation to some of the field’s major questions and debates. The chapters went further and examined the relation between these bodies of literature and the wider literatures that relate to earth system governance across the social and natural sciences and the humanities. Overall, we find a richness and diversity of ESG–Agency research covering a wide range and issues across geographic settings (Chapter 4) and levels of governance (Chapter 9) from varying theoretical perspectives and methodological approaches (Chapter 3). This work highlights the power and influence of diverse agents (Chapters 2, 5, and 14) in advancing sustainability goals in the face of unprecedented earth system transformation. In this final chapter, we outline how ESG–Agency scholarship can inform decision-making across the policy process. We highlight the complex, fragmented, and multiscalar nature of environmental governance systems as well as the challenges of developing participatory processes that truly empower stakeholders and account for diverse interests. We then reflect on what we have learned about ourselves as a research community. While ESG–Agency scholars have made exemplary advances in empirical research, we note that many of the core analytical concepts, such as agency, power, authority, and accountability, remain undertheorized. In addition, some types of actors, including women, labor, non-human agents, those who work against earth system governance, and many voices from the Global South, remain largely hidden in ESG–Agency scholarship. We conclude by

Policy Implications and the Road Ahead

185

suggesting next steps for future research and connecting our findings from the past decade of ESG–Agency research to the ESG Project’s new Science Plan (Earth System Governance Project, 2018a). 15.2 What Are the Policy Implications of ESG–Agency Scholarship? The findings of this volume have a wide range of implications for policy, as highlighted by many of the case studies in our dataset, and specifically related to the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals, climate and ocean governance, biodiversity governance, and governance of cities, among others. These implications span all aspects of policy processes, including agenda-setting, design, implementation, diffusion, entrepreneurship, coalitional dynamics, evaluation, and interplay with broader governance systems and society. Further, the findings also have implications for normative aspects of policy, particularly in light of rapid global change and unfolding earth system transformations. Collectively, a key message arising from the chapters of this volume is the sheer complexity and plethora of agency-related aspects within earth system governance, which spans both state and nonstate actors across all scales from local to global. In Chapter 2, Michelle Scobie, Tabitha Benney, Calum Brown, and Oscar Widerberg document the diversity of actors that have been studied by ESG scholars over the past decade, including states, intergovernmental organizations, subnational governments, nongovernmental and civil society organizations, and businesses. Subsequent chapters elaborate on the diverse ways in which these agents engage with earth system governance from scientists and academics shaping the coproduction of knowledge (Chapter 7) and the development of global norms (Chapter 10) to resource-dependent communities trying to balance conservation goals with livelihood opportunities (Chapter 11). In Chapter 14, Sander Chan and Ron Mitchell observe that ‘influence flows from networks and relations as much as from single actors’ (p. 170) and emphasize the importance of understanding synergies between actors working collectively and across scales (see also Chapter 9). ESG–Agency scholarship over the past decade reveals that the role of the state has become much more complex, contingent, and interdependent. For example, Michele Betsill and Manjana Milkoreit (Chapter 6) find that while the state remains essential in performing many governance functions, it increasingly does so alongside and in partnership with other types of actors (Bäckstrand, 2008; Castán Broto and Bulkeley, 2013; Merme et al., 2014; Papa and Gleason, 2012). These findings have implications for the entire policy process. For instance, while the role of state in policy development and implementation does not disappear, it becomes difficult due to the need to deal with numerous diverse interests, claims, and sites of

186

A. K. Gerlak, M. M. Betsill, J. Patterson, et al.

authority (Bell and Hindmoor, 2009). Betsill and Milkoreit identify a wide variety of governance functions where agency of the state is central and that cut across all aspects of policy development and implementation (Weible and Sabatier, 2017). For example, the ‘convening and facilitating participation’ function relates to policy design and implementation, as does the ‘knowledge generation, provision and sharing’ function relate to policy diffusion and evaluation (see also Chapter 8). However, we call for greater attention to the comparative geographies of policy processes, as all the aforementioned aspects of policy processes will be conditioned by political systems, sociopolitical cultures, and administrative practices and traditions, which vary across contexts (Chapter 4). Considering internal and external political dynamics shaping policy processes, and effects of policy processes on broader governance systems and on socioeconomic and political contexts are worthy of further research by earth system governance researchers. Given this complexity, a key question arises concerning the ‘character’ of policy development and implementation needed to advance earth system governance. Participatory and collaborative forms of policymaking are often touted as a way of reconciling diverse and competing interests, whereby different actors (such as citizens, businesses, agencies, nongovernmental organizations [NGOs]) are able to interact and identify mutually acceptable solutions (e.g. Ansell and Gash, 2008). ESG–Agency scholarship over the past decade reveals the rapid rise of participatory and collaborative forms of governance and highlights instances in which such processes have contributed to more effective, equitable, and legitimate outcomes. For example, knowledge coproduction processes can help different actors build capacity to participate in and shape governance processes (Bowen et al., 2015; Lebel et al., 2015; Chapter 7). Such processes provide openings for incorporating new forms of knowledge (e.g. indigenous or local) and knowledge-based authority (Gerhardinger et al., 2009; Chapters 7 and 11). In some instances, multilevel governance processes can enhance the ability of actors to exercise agency in earth system governance by increasing the participatory capacity and the implementation ability of nonstate local agents and private actors (Burch et al., 2013; Fujisaki et al., 2016; Mauerhofer et al., 2015; Chapter 9). However, a recurring theme across the chapters in this volume is that the reality of participation, particularly in contexts of power asymmetry between actors, is far more complicated (Cooke and Kuthari, 2007). Certain actors may exert agency to maneuver or manipulate policy processes to their own ends (Brisbois and de Loë, 2015; Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen and McGee, 2013). For example, Chapter 5 (Agency and Power) discusses the extensive ways in which power and agency interact in earth system governance research (see also Ansell and Gash, 2008). In Chapter 7, Manjana Milkoreit, Jennifer Bansard, and Sandra van der Hel note that exercising agency based on indigenous or local knowledge requires that other agents provide

Policy Implications and the Road Ahead

187

a platform and/or recognize the value of such knowledge in governance processes (see also Chapter 2). When analyzing agency through the lens of scale, Michelle Scobie, Michele Betsill, and Hyeyoon Park (Chapter 9) observe that expanded scope of actors in multilevel governance structures can disadvantage local communities in efforts to protect their interests (Mathur et al., 2014; Taylor and Cheng, 2012). In addition, shifting governance from the national level to the local level allows for effective public participation and local policy implementation only when local actors have sufficient capacity and resources (Liu et al., 2013; Mulyani and Jepson, 2015; Qi and Zhang 2014; Thaler and Leuin-Keitel, 2016; Young et al., 2012; Chapters 9 and 13). In their review of ESG–Agency literature on accountability (Chapter 13), Calum Brown and Michelle Scobie found that more often than not, involving stakeholders in governance processes failed to make them more democratic or legitimate (Gulbrandsen and Auld, 2016; Kramarz and Momani, 2013; Papadopoulos, 2014). Yet, how are diverse interests to be addressed in earth system governance, if not through greater attention to participation? An alternative approach is to view policy development and implementation as a political activity, thereby casting question of agency through a prism of political decision-making; for example, which actors are involved in policy processes, in what ways, and with what consequences? While a variety of models of policy change exist (e.g. Weible and Sabatier, 2017), the value proposition for earth system governance is to situate these processes within a broader governance perspective, which recasts questions of policy change in fundamentally new ways, perhaps around questions of power or justice, and other concepts relevant to earth system governance research. Considering the effects of policy processes brings normative questions to the fore, as both environmental and social evaluation criteria are often likely to be important. For example, Calum Brown and Michelle Scobie argue in Chapter 13 that policy evaluation should include not only the extent to which specific sustainability problems are solved, but also broader social performance concerning legitimacy, accountability, and democracy (see also Chapter 14). Furthermore, James Patterson implies in Chapter 12 that policy evaluation also needs to include the ability of governance systems to adapt within changing contexts (e.g. flexibility, anticipation, and reflexivity). Moreover, ESG–Agency scholarship also indicates a need to evaluate against equity and justice outcomes (Chapters 5 and 11). It is unlikely that single policies will address all these aspects, which means that policy evaluation also needs to look at these aspects within policy systems involving multiple policies and their combined effects. This highlights the need to develop new methods that account for the complex and contingent effects of agency in earth system governance (Chapters 3 and 14).

188

A. K. Gerlak, M. M. Betsill, J. Patterson, et al.

Lastly, what are implications for individual policymakers and policy implementors, particularly in the context of rapid global change, which spurs the need for urgent action (e.g. IPCC, 2018; Mace et al., 2018; Nerini et al., 2018; Tortajada and Biswas, 2018)? A first implication is the politically laden nature of policy development and implementation work, which probably comes as no surprise to practitioners involved in such activities, but is important because it indicates potential for influence across potentially all aspects of policymaking and implementation. For example, ‘institutional work’ involving both strategic and day-to-day activities may have effects that cumulate into much larger changes within governance systems (Chapters 6 and 8) (Beunen and Patterson, 2016). How organizations and policy actors learn about the nature of ESG challenges and collectively develop solutions to these challenges will play an important role in policy implementation (Heikkila and Gerlak, 2013, 2019). A second implication is the importance for those involved in policy development to think aspirationally beyond specific policy problems to align policy with larger earth system governance challenges (Chapter 12). At the same time, it may be useful for policy evaluation to critically examine how policy activities contribute to addressing these larger problems, even if indirectly (e.g. policy experimentation opening up new actor configurations or imaginations, catalytic effects across policy and problem domains, ‘diffusion of inspiration’ across contexts) (Bernstein and Hoffmann, 2018; see also Chapters 7 and 14). A final, broader, implication concerns the enduring value of the state as a critical source of ideas, action, and authority for addressing societal problems (Chapter 2). From a policy perspective, the state arguably retains potential as an authoritative anchor for collective action, even though earth system governance is more and more dispersed. Despite being heavily critiqued over the last decade or more, the role of the state is experiencing somewhat of rapprochement in recent years in some lines of thinking, such as arguments about the need for ‘mission-oriented innovation policy’ to support collective action in addressing major societal challenges (Mazzucato, 2017). This opens up new avenues for agency in policy development for shaping societal transformations towards sustainability. 15.3 What Have We Learned about Ourselves as a Community? Through the ESG–Agency Harvesting Initiative, we have learned that ESG scholars have broadened and deepened our understanding of agents and agency in earth system governance through innovative empirical research. We have documented the diversity of actors engaged with issues such as climate change, deforestation, freshwater conservation, energy governance, and biodiversity protection and highlighted the rise of participatory processes and stakeholder engagement as

Policy Implications and the Road Ahead

189

a platform for the exercise of agency. We have come to understand that agents perform many different functions that can shape multiple aspects of governance architectures and policy processes. At the same time, we have come to have a more nuanced understanding of agents and agency, recognizing that their operation and effects are often contingent and context dependent. This demands greater attention to interactions and networking between agents, power relations, and multilevel and multiscalar dynamics. That said, it is important to reflect on some notable gaps that came to light in the course of our review. First, we find that several different types of actors and perspectives are underrepresentes (if not entirely absent) in ESG–Agency scholarship between 2008 and 2016. For example, Gabrielsson and Ramasar’s (2013) study of widows in the context of food and water security in Kenya was one of the only articles in the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database with an explicit focus on women and a gendered perspective. Other identity-based groups (e.g. racial and ethnic minorities; children) were virtually absent in this body of scholarship. While business has received considerable attention as an agent of earth system governance, other types of actors within the political economy of earth system governance have been overlooked. This includes workers who can be understood both as an organized interest with a vested stake in earth system governance as well as individuals who may be affected by the environmental impacts of economic activities and/or shifts to a low-carbon economy. In addition, investments from private philanthropies increasingly underlie many of the world’s sustainability efforts from the global to the local level. Their flexibility and willingness to take risks may be essential in speeding up a transition to a sustainable future, but their role in earth system governance raises challenging questions about democracy, justice, and power dynamics. Within the context of the Anthropocene, it becomes more essential to incorporate non-human agents including nature, technology, and planetary systems into our analyses of Agency. Most importantly, given the rise of populism and rapidly changing political dynamics around the world, it is essential to pay greater attention to agents and agency that operate against earth system governance. We found very few critiques of these groups within the literature. Finally, we find an underrepresentation of agents based in and perspectives from the Global South. Second, we observe that some of the core concepts of earth system governance remain under-theorized. For instance, while a large number of scholars aim to understand various agents and agency in earth system governance, often agency is assumed rather than explained (Chapter 2). While assuming agency is a practical stance that has not prevented excellent agency-centered (often case-based) research; earth system scholarship should not eschew the theoretical work to understand how actors become agents or how their authority is exercised and

190

A. K. Gerlak, M. M. Betsill, J. Patterson, et al.

restricted. In this sense, a decade of ESG research has not diminished the relevance of (preceding) calls for greater theoretical reflection about the nature of agency and authority (Eisenstad, 1989; Kelly and Adger, 2000; Shove, 2010). The lack of theoretical reflection, while not preventing the build-up of (case-based) knowledge of manifestations of agency, could perpetuate and amplify methodological and geographic biases, and prevent a better understanding of principles that underlie different forms of agency. Similarly, power is under-theorized. For instance, power is frequently used as an explanatory variable in describing environmental governance dynamics and outcomes without specifically developing what is meant by the term. Power is often linked to normative issues such as justice, equity, and inclusion that are associated with the quality of governance processes and outcomes (e.g. Jodoin et al., 2015; Robinson and Makupa, 2015). However, the failure to clearly define what power is and how it operates weakens the persuasiveness of these normative arguments and makes them difficult to measure or count in policy terms. This gap may be related to the low prevalence of critical theoretical perspectives in ESG–Agency research (Chapter 3). Where power is examined in ESG–Agency research, it tends to be conceptualized as either power ‘to’ (e.g. the ability of the less powerful to influence outcomes), or power ‘over’ (e.g. structural constraints that make it impossible for marginalized actors to fully realize their interests) (Chapter 5). This results in analyses with a tendency to produce either overly optimistic or pessimistic assessments of the ability of actors to exercise agency in earth system governance processes. However, an increasing number of works do move beyond this dichotomy (e.g. Clapp and Fuchs, 2009; Newell, 2012). Further, there are a number of rich conceptualizations of power in ESG contexts (e.g. Bernstein, 2011; Brisbois and de Loë, 2016; Bulkeley, 2012; Zeitoun et al., 2011). Nevertheless, these insights have not been widely integrated or developed in ESG–Agency scholarship. Rather, the ESG community appears reluctant to interrogate the socioeconomic and market structures that shape the power to determine governance outcomes, even where those structures are noted as problematic. There is considerable room for further conceptual development that builds upon existing work and critically examines the sources and modes of power that shape governance, even when this produces scholarship that is political in nature. Further, we observe division within the ESG community around questions of power and authority. Although there seems to be a consensus in the ESG–Agency literature that globalization has increased the power of nonstate actors such as scientific experts, NGOs, and firms, there is a disagreement on whether their power goes along with authority. For Max Weber, power can be defined as the mere ‘probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in a position to carry

Policy Implications and the Road Ahead

191

out his own will,’ whereas authority ‘is the probability that a command with a given content will be obeyed by a given group of persons’ (Max Weber, quoted in Coleman, 1997, p. 31). As authority rests on the consensual acceptance of superand subordination, it is empirically perceived as legitimate (Steffek, 2004). The exercise of authority is usually associated with democratic decision-making procedures (Bernstein, 2011, pp. 21–2). Power, in contrast, describes a ‘merely factual relation’ which may or not be perceived as legitimate (Coleman, 1997, p. 32). Despite the many possible concepts of power, in earth system governance scholarship, many authors assume that environmental governance can be justified by its outputs, (i.e. its contributions to the conservation of nature and the prevention of climate change [Breitmeier et al., 2011]). However, they also assume that the lack of democratic controls must be counterbalanced by stricter standards for accountability, responsiveness, and transparency (Bernstein, 2011; Jodoin et al., 2015). Other authors, however, argue that the power of transnational actors is ultimately rooted in the highly unequal structures of the global political economy (Bulkeley and Schroeder, 2012; Spagnuolo, 2011). These two camps in the ESG literature tend to speak past each other. Against this background, we think that scholars should devote more attention to the question of whether and how shifting power constellations can be reconciled with authority in order to increase the legitimacy of global environmental politics. Finally, we can reflect on how ESG–Agency scholarship has engaged with and contributed to the broader environmental governance literature as well as agent– structure debates in the social sciences. As noted in Chapter 1, the ESG Project represents a unique approach to the study of environmental governance. This volume highlights how ESG–Agency research intersects with several of the key themes in the environmental governance literature, including scale (Chapter 9), adaptiveness (Chapter 12), learning and knowledge (Chapter 7), accountability (Chapter 13), and equity and justice (Chapter 11). Despite hopes that the ESG Project’s planetary perspective would foreground challenges such as the global food crisis and climate migration, we find that ESG–Agency research has focused on fairly ‘traditional’ issues such as climate change, forests, and freshwater (Chapter 4). We do see that ESG–Agency researchers have embraced the ESG Project’s normative commitment to sustainable development, which appears to have shaped the research agenda by emphasizing the creation of new institutions and enabling the role of architecture in agency (Chapter 8) and focusing largely on the most visible actors working towards a sustainable future (Chapter 2). Throughout this volume, contributors find that the ability of actors to become agents as well as how agents interact with governance process is shaped by the structural context in which they operate. For example, forms of governance (hierarchical, market-based or networked) and multilevel/multiscalar dynamics

192

A. K. Gerlak, M. M. Betsill, J. Patterson, et al.

can enable or constrain the ability of agents to perform governance functions (Chapters 6 and 9). In Chapter 8, James Patterson focuses on this interplay, noting that agency shapes structure (Architecture) through the creation, maintenance and disruption of institutions. He concludes that structure often enables agency by providing new sites of contestation while acknowledging that structures may also constrain agency through limitations on authority as in the case of the High-Level Political Forum (Abbott and Bernstein, 2015) or weak institutional capacity to support stakeholder processes (Dunlop and Corbera, 2016). Finally, Mike Angstadt and Ina Möller’s discussion of the link between agency and norms (Chapter 10) identifies one strand of research that defines norms as part of the structural environment with a focus on both the constraining and catalytic effects on agency (e.g. Coolsaet and Pitseys, 2015; Naess et al., 2015). 15.4 Where Should We Head with ESG–Agency Scholarship? By discussing agency across the breadth of earth system governance scholarship, this volume can be useful for individual scholars to position themselves, build on, and critically reflect on relevant work. This involves reflecting on possible biases in agency research on earth system governance. For instance, we observe that scholars have a strong normative commitment to sustainable development, assuming governance functions such as norms and standard-setting, providing a knowledge base and building capacity to help society advance sustainability (see Chapter 7). Such commitment, while laudable, has led to a relative neglect of agency against earth system governance. We see, however, opportunities to make the systematic uncovering of possible biases a recurring endeavor in agency-centered research, applying approaches that sift through a large body of predominantly case-study research (see Chapter 8). Although there may be fewer incentives for meta-studies of existing case studies, adopting a meta-study approaches can help uncover biases and inconsistencies in a more systemic manner and also place individual contribution in the context of rich and ongoing discussions. Although our examination of methodological approaches showed a clear preference for qualitative and multimethod qualitative research, we also observed a slowly growing methodological pluralism. Pluralism in research can occur across research methods and the number of methods used, the qualitative and quantitative divide, and from a single case to many cases (Campbell et al., 2015). Inherent in the practice of methodological pluralism is the belief that all research methods add value, none are superior to the others, and that varied perspectives all add information about the phenomena at hand. Some emerging research reports that diversity in a range of fields produced positive outcomes. Studies have shown that diverse teams tend to perform better than similar teams (Ellison and Wallace, 2014). Others

Policy Implications and the Road Ahead

193

find that inclusive teams make better business decisions 87% of the time (Sherbin, 2017). In earth system governance research, exploring important topics from various perspectives can help to triangulate or confirm findings; illustrate new thresholds, mechanisms, or variables; and improve overall confidence in the research findings. Owing to the sheer size, importance, and complexity in ESG–Agency research, it seems imperative that a range of perspectives should be encouraged to address urgent environmental and social change. Methodological pluralism is an important strategy for producing researchers who can work in inter- and multidisciplinary settings and share information, thus increasing the speed of innovation and impact. The 2018 ESG Science Plan (Earth System Governance Project, 2018a, p. 69) reaffirms that methodological diversity is expected to produce a better, more durable outcome or resolution when multiple perspectives are considered. However, securing the gains from methodological pluralism requires more than just awareness. As with all types of imbalances, efforts must be made to assure methodological rigor from a broader range of methodical approaches. Innovative methods and theoretical frames must remain a priority if ESG–Agency research is to advance and make important contributions to earth system governance. This can be accomplished through training; dedicated panels; and sections focused on advanced methods, mixed methods, and innovative synthetic methods. The widening of the ESG network, in this regard, could prove an opportunity to engage scholarship that works with underrepresented methodologies such as threedimensional computer modeling or other complex methods. Growing awareness of, and reflection on, agency could help individual researchers situate their contributions in the broad field of environmental governance. However, by themselves, they will run into difficulties in realizing interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity, which the 2009 ESG Science Plan and many scholars since, have since pointed out as crucial in advancing earth system governance. The scholarly community around earth system governance thus face a triple challenge: (1) to continue and to deepen disciplinary research; (2) to link across disciplines; and (3) to build transdisciplinarity. The role of scholarly networks in general, and the ESG Project specifically, have an important role to play, both through dyadic linkages between scholars with different backgrounds within these networks, as well as through facilitating linkages across different sites of knowledge in both theoretically and in applied settings. Deeper disciplinarity may seem the stronger fit within ESG scholarship, considering the continuing orientation toward case studies. Nonetheless, many disciplines of social sciences are increasingly concerned with questions of causality, and the regularities of social life (see Mounk, 2016). Within political science, for instance, the number of scholars interested in explaining particular (irregular)

194

A. K. Gerlak, M. M. Betsill, J. Patterson, et al.

events through descriptions and interpretations has been dwindling, while the number of scholars, academic programmes and journals focused on understanding the world through largely comparative and quantitative research is increasing. Recent methods, however, may open up different pathways for deeper disciplinarity. For instance, Bruno Latour’s Actor–Network Theory (ANT) could inform contemporary ethnographies of social practices in earth system governance. Process tracing could help earth system governance scholarship uncover causal mechanisms in the real world and compose rich and in-depth case studies (e.g. Beach, 2018). We could also apply these methods to ourselves as communities of earth system governance scholars, to explore our (academic) agency – and to detect possibly self-reinforcing feedbacks that perpetuate the types of research we do and the biases that we tend to replicate. Interdisciplinarity could be thought of as the acknowledgment of relevance of agency across different scientific disciplines: the idea that cocreated outputs of research are often superior to disciplinary orthodoxy. A decade of implementation of the 2009 ESG Science Plan was marked by social and economic upheaval that was often met by incomprehension with the very disciplines that were seen as bestequipped to understand these changes. For instance, the 2008 financial crisis was not anticipated by most economists who often used mathematical models that failed to capture the agency of financial institutions (Colander et al., 2009). Similarly, the rise of populism and the shock election of President Donald Trump, or the UK vote to leave the European Union, was not anticipated by the majority of political scientists. Through a combination of deeper disciplinarity and interdisciplinary collaboration, the complex world marked by nonlinear systemic linkages may be better grasped. Not only does a broader representation of people with different skills and knowledge backgrounds bring different theoretical perspectives into the understanding of contemporary events and developments, but there is also real scope for furthering earth system governance as a whole through cocreating research and research agendas between scholars of different disciplines. Fortunately, interdisciplinary research has increased substantially over the past decade (see Chapter 3), which has been expressed in a rich variety of theoretical approaches, and methodological pluralism. However, interdisciplinary collaborations are unevenly distributed in the ESG–Agency community. While significant collaboration is found between a few social sciences (e.g. political science and economics), some disciplines are rare in collaborations, including humanities and law. Interdisciplinary collaboration between natural and social scientists is even rarer, as discussed in Chapter 14. Moreover, despite significant system-based theory building, methods have barely kept up with the scrutiny of the complexity of earth systems. In this regard, the envisaged collaboration between social and natural sciences in the 2009 ESG Science Plan (Biermann et al., 2009) remains

Policy Implications and the Road Ahead

195

rare. In other words, there is still a lack of studies that apply integrates ESG– Agency research and complex models or mixed methodologies (see Chapter 3). This should not be reason to rush into applying (new) sets of methodologies, but to contemplate the complexity and multifaceted questions we ask in earth system governance. Instead, we aim to consider the strength and limitations of existing methods, and to build new partnerships across disciplines and with researchers that can enrich a systems perspective of social, ecological, and economic change. Similarly, reflexivity and disciplinary humility are key to transdisciplinarity, which could be thought of as the acknowledgement of different types of knowing within and beyond academia, and the appreciation of the perspective of others, especially the under-represented. Transdisciplinarity can enrich knowledge creation and help avoid theoretical myopia. For instance, by engaging stakeholders in the practice of sustainability governance not only as research subjects, but also as knowledge cocreators, scholars can reconsider or reexamine the questions they seek to answer or the data they seek to obtain. Such transdisciplinarity will allow the weaving in of views of interconnectedness into research designs, between the social and the natural, and between knowledge communities, as well as include a significant degree of reflexivity and awareness of positionality. Researchers should not be limited in their investigation of fundamental and theoretical questions, being largely publicly funded, they also need social legitimacy. To stimulate transdisciplinarity, it will be necessary for scholars of earth system governance to consider positionality and reflexivity. Transdisciplinary processes will require the consideration of positionality of earth system governance research itself, researchers will need to clarify their values and positions (Armitage et al., 2012; Milkoreit et al., 2015). Chapters 6 and 8 emphasized such need to understand agency and architecture interplay in the Anthropocene; the same, however, also applies to the architecture and agency of the scholarly community of earth system governance and academia in general. Reflexivity will require a focus beyond mere performance, but also an investigation in the scope conditions and contexts that inform the questions we ask, the credibility of our position as researchers and whether and to which extent research should respond to, and interact with social and environmental change (see Chapter 8). Credible communication of science-based recommendations is one area where earth system governance scholars need to continue to engage. Indeed, on the ‘output side’ of academia, clear communication and translation of relevant findings to and with audiences beyond specific disciplines require much work. Much is changing in this regard, scholars often facilitate interconnections between research and science and policymaking; research funders and journals are encouraging to highlight policy relevant findings, and panels with nonacademic experts are no exception anymore at scientific conferences. Scholars have played, and continue to

196

A. K. Gerlak, M. M. Betsill, J. Patterson, et al.

play, an important part in communicating the urgency of global environmental change as they have most recently in the IPCC Special Report on 1.5 C and the March 2019 Report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services on the state of global biodiversity. For many scholars of earth system governance, the urgency emanating from research spills into other spheres of life. A normative commitment to sustainable development compels them not only to communicate urgency to communities beyond their discipline, but also to critically observe their own role in affecting change. From the unease of frequent academic traveling, to low-carbon diets at research meetings and building green universities, scholars in earth system governance increasingly question their own role beyond the confines of their research work. In this regard, the main concern about a lack of interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary work is that these are crucial to understand and improve the practice of earth system governance and realizing sustainable development (Chapter 14). A specific shortcoming, in terms of the positionality of ESG–Agency research, is that the majority of research is conducted in the Global North, and researchers with developing country backgrounds remain underrepresented. Engagement of Southbased partners and stakeholders in knowledge creation at an early stage in research design is commendable, but there may be a need to understand why such geographic imbalances might be there in the first place. Is it a question of limited capacities; or are research and problem statements primarily shaped by and funded by North-based perceptions and interests? In this regard, we note that linguistic differences may structure ESG–Agency research. While ‘agency’ might conjure a more or less common understanding among English-speaking researchers, the very notion may not translate or carry the same connotation outside the Englishspeaking world. For instance, contributors to this volume of very diverse background noted that the word ‘agency’ does not seem to have a precise equivalent in German, Dutch, Korean, or Chinese. Such linguistic differences may constitute a challenge in international research on agency. However, cross-cultural collaboration may also enrich and broaden the scope of research on agency by reflecting on the many proximate understandings of agency that may bring in new perspectives, and help uncover possible biases relating to an increasing English-dominated academia. Early engagement of scholars from emerging and developing countries in the design and proposal phase may also bring in much needed perspectives and problem framings beyond the Global North. In this regard, the ESG project, despite shortcomings, can actually serve as an example. Particularly, the project has aimed at geographically distributed advisory and implementation roles, in particular through ESG lead faculty and the Global Alliance of Earth System Governance Centres. A strategic focus on redressing geographic imbalances across all phases of

Policy Implications and the Road Ahead

197

research, from fundraising and proposal writing, to the implementation of research and communication of findings, through globally distributed networks could help facilitate researchers to connect and to codesign. Finally, the urgency of global environmental and social change compels the ESG scholarly community to develop communication strategies and networks to advance knowledge of sustainable development across disciplines and with practitioners and policy makers. We see a translation and dialogue challenge, particularly to communicate current research to different languages and to different audiences thereby, reducing the transaction costs of transdisciplinary cooperation. We challenge the ESG community to face and tackle this challenge head on.

Appendix ESG–Agency Harvesting Database

The Harvesting Protocol and Database The Earth System Governance (ESG)–Agency Harvesting process began with an initial planning meeting at the Nairobi Conference on Earth System Governance in December 2016. During this meeting, the team agreed that the initiative should focus on how ESG–Agency research has developed and evolved over the project‘s first decade. The following details our research design and approach for this harvesting project. Creating the Sample To create our sample, we gathered work broadly representative of ‘ESG Research.’ We selected peer-reviewed articles from the Web of Science based on two key characteristics. First, we downloaded publications by all researchers affiliated with the ESG network (e.g., steering committee members, lead faculty, and ESG research fellows).We then supplemented this list with publications that directly engage the analytical problems of ESG research, defined as referencing core ESG research on agency (Betsill et al., 2011; Biermann, 2007; Biermann et al., 2010a, 2010b; Dellas et al., 2011; Schroeder, 2010). These steps produced an initial sample size of 2,837 publications that could serve as a representative sample of literature from which to identify articles specific to the theme of Agency in ESG research. We recognize the limitations to this approach, which excludes books, edited volumes, and publications in law journals that the Web of Science does not catalogue. Next, we identified the subset of publications related specifically to the analytical problem of Agency. As many scholars engage questions of agency without explicitly using that term, we developed a list of keywords to capture

198

Appendix

199

Table A.1 Agency keyword protocol Actor* (or Act*?)

Capacity

Partici*

Agenc* Agent* Authority

‘Decision within [5] of mak*’ Govern* [not government] Influence

Power* Role

the broad concept of Agency (see Table A.1). Although our work is sometimes generalizable to the larger field of global governance, our narrower approach is intentional. We do not intend this as a comprehensive review of scholarship related to agency in environmental governance but to generate a sufficiently representative sample of ESG literature from which to isolate that subset related to the analytical problem of agency, thereby providing a basis for identifying key questions and themes in this developing area of research. Articles that use three or more of these keywords in their abstract or title and that were published between 2008 and 2016 were included, resulting in a sample of n = 394 articles. Developing the Coding Instrument Next, we developed a coding instrument to analyze these publications on Agency to identify common trends, approaches, and other key priorities (see Table A.2). For instance, one coding topic identified articles that prioritized the four key questions related to Agency raised in the 2009 ESG Science Plan (Biermann et al., 2009; see also Chapter 1), while other questions identified basic characteristics such as geographic region and issue area, and still others aimed to classify the work based on both theoretical perspective and methodological approach. We also tracked links to other ESG analytical problems (Architecture, Allocation & Access Accountability, and Adaptiveness), crosscutting themes (Power, Knowledge, Norms, and Scale), and other broader social science debates. In addition, we explore the types of actors that have been studied as part of ESG–Agency research. During development of the 2009 Science Plan (Biermann et al., 2009), debates about whether to limit analyses of ‘agency beyond the state’ were resolved in favor of an inclusive approach, including various human agents, nonhuman agents, and non–naturerelated agents. Table A.2 summarizes the factors considered as part of the coding scheme.

Coding topic

Relevance to Agency

Link to the ESG Science Plan

Question no.

Q1

Q2

Does this article contain research on the influence, roles and responsibilities of actors, the ways in which authority is granted to these agents, and how it is exercised? If in doubt, select yes. Does this article speak to one of the four ‘core questions’ identified in the original science plan? 1. What is agency in ESG? How is ‘agency’ defined? How do actors come to be authoritative? 2. Who are the agents in ESG? Who are the key agents in ESG and how does this differ across issue areas and levels of governance? 3. How do agents exercise agency in ESG? How are power and authority configured across types of governance arrangements and different types of agents? Processes of governing. 4. How to evaluate significance of agents and agency? The effectiveness of different agents and means of exercising agency.

Description

Table A.2 Agency Harvest simplified coding scheme

[choose best answer] · What is agency? · Who are the agents? · How do agents exercise agency? · How to evaluate significance of agents and agency? · Other – indicate

· Yes · No – explain (then STOP)

Possible responses from dropdown menu

Issue area

Types of actors

Q3

Q4

What type(s) of actors are analyzed? · States/governments: actors related to public authority · IGO: intergovernmental organizations where formal members are national states. · NGOs/non-profit organizations: actors not formally associated with public authority that operate through a formal legal entity that is not profit-seeking (may include associations representing business interests) · Business: for-profit organizations · Civil society/social movements: groups of citizens who may pursue particular collective interests but are not formally organized into a legal entity such as an NGO

What is the specific environmental issue area covered? For conceptual/theoretical papers, select ‘None’ [choose best answer] · Climate change -mitigation · Climate change -adaptation · Forests · Ecosystems and land-use · Oceans · Sanitation · Fresh water · Fisheries · Biodiversity · Trade/markets · Other – indicate · Multiple – indicate · None [choose all that apply] · States/governments · IGOs · NGOs/non-profit organizations · Business · Civil society/social movements · Networks · Partnerships · Individuals · Non-human (nature) · Non-nature (technology) · Other – indicate

Coding topic

Theoretical approaches

Links to broader social science debates

Question no.

Q5

Q6

Table A.2 (cont.) Possible responses from dropdown menu

· Networks: actors who are connected through particular types of associations; may include public-policy networks and various forms of transnational networks (municipal, advocacy, etc.). · Partnerships: cooperative associations between actors in different sectors (e.g. government, civil society, market) · Individuals: may include specific actors identified by name or particular types of individuals (e.g. social entrepreneurs) · Non-human (nature): research on the ways in which nature exercises agency · Non-nature (technology): research on the ways in which technology exercises agency Please use the terminology used in the abstract. If none apply then perhaps article is not relevant to the theme of Agency. If possible, identify the primary theoretical [fill-in the blank] approach used or advocated in the study of ESG. Please use the exact terminology used in the abstract. In the ESG Science Plan, the problem of [choose best answer] Agency is “linked to four broad areas of · Non-state actors in governance social science inquiry that address questions · Actors, authority, and agency of who governs and how. · Structure-agent debate · Agency in a multilevel context

Description

Q7

Research design and methods

Non-state actors in governance: ‘this area of research builds on fruitful work that calls attention to the range of actors beyond the state that participate in governance processes and force us to examine whether and how this development is changing the nature of the state’ (p. 38). Actors, authority and agency: ‘by what means do actors become authoritative’ What is the basis of authority, especially when it occurs outside the public sphere?’ (p. 39). Structure-agent debate: ‘From Weber to Durkheim to the present, social scientists have long debated whether social outcomes are primarily a product of individual actions by agents or broader social structures’ (p. 39). Agency in the multilevel context: ‘agency in the realm of earth system governance must be considered in a multilevel context’ (p. 40) that includes the multiple levels at which environmental problems occur and responses are developed. Also includes debates about the politics of scale. What research design and/or methods for data collection and analysis are used in the article? · Other – indicate · None

Coding topic

Links to other ESG analytical problems

Links to crosscutting themes in the ESG Science Plan

Question no.

Q8

Q9

Table A.2 (cont.)

Does the article speak to linkages between ‘agency’ and the analytical problems in the ESG science plan? Architecture: this may include research on the role of agents/agency in the emergence and evolution of particular institutions and governance mechanisms or the ways in which institutional context creates possibilities for, on constraints on, agency. Accountability: this may include research on the implications of different types of agents for the democratic quality of earth system governance and whether/how non-state agents can be held accountable. Allocation & Access: Includes research on participation by marginalized communities in decision-making and how resource access shapes agency. Adaptiveness: This may include research on the role of agency in adaptive governance processes. Does the article speak to linkages between ‘agency’ and the 4 cross-cutting themes identified in the original science plan? Please note the examples are meant to be illustrative.

Description

[choose all that apply] · Power · Knowledge · Norms · Scale

[choose all that apply] · Architecture · Accountability · Allocation & Access · Adaptiveness · None

Possible responses from dropdown menu

Q11

Q10

Other themes or issues of note

· None

[choose all that apply] • Africa • Asia • Europe • Latin America • Middle East/North Africa • North America • Global • Other • None Identify any other themes or issues of note in the [fill in the blank] article that have not be addressed.

Power: This may include research on differences in power between agents, the sources of authority or power in ESG, the importance of material sources of power or the significance of knowledge as a source of authority. Knowledge: this may include research on the role of knowledge in the exercise of agency or epistemic communities as agents. Norms: this may include research on the role of agents in the development and diffusion of norms or how norms shape the exercise of agency. Scale: this may include research on how agency plays out at different levels of governance or the role of agency in the politics of scaling as well as research on how agency changes over time. Geographic context Please indicate which, of any, geographic regions are the focus of the research.

206

Appendix

Creating the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database In the next stage of research, the 393 articles in our sample were coded during spring and summer of 2017, by a team of 22 volunteer researchers from the ESG community. Using an interactive survey created in Google forms, 22 individuals completed more than 700 coding entries, over three rounds of coding. Four master coders completed the final round of coding to resolve differences. In the first round, our target was to code 80% or more of the articles at least twice. While we did not meet this standard, we did remove 22 articles because they did not address the topic of Agency or were not related to earth system governance (e.g., a health topic). This left a sample of n =372 articles for additional coding. In the second round of coding, we surpassed our goal for coded cases. By this stage, 78% of cases were coded at least twice. In addition, the number of cases was further reduced from 372 to 334 for a variety of reasons. For instance, 23 articles were categorized as ‘not Agency’ related. One additional article was determined to be unrelated to the ESG field (e.g., music topic). Twenty-eight articles were found to have duplicated case numbers and were reconciled at this stage, which added an additional 14 articles to the sample. Intercoder reliability (ICR) is a key issue because of the large number of researchers involved in coding. According to Klaus Krippendorf, ‘agreement is what we measure; reliability is what we wish to infer from it’ (2004, p. 215). In other words, reliability tells us how trustworthy the data is. ‘When coders agree about how to code a piece of content, it is an indicator, though not a guarantee of reliability . . . ’ (Joyce, 2013, p. 1). In the second round of coding, ICR was estimated at 69%. As suggested by Lombard et al. (2002), we aimed for agreement on at least 80% of our responses. To improve the outcome after the second round of coding, our team performed a third round of coding that targeted cases that had not been coded at least twice, or that appeared to have a wide range of discrepancy among responses. In the third round of coding, illustrated in Table A.3, 333 of the 372 articles coded were determined to be ESG–Agency-related (ESG–Agency Articles 2008– 2016), and 322 (96.7%) were coded at least twice. These 322 articles were included in the ESG-Agency Harvesting Database and became our final sample for the project. We calculated a formal ICR statistic to assess the reliability of the project data. Because we required an ICR statistics for categorical data with three or more coders, we used a formalized extension of Scott’s (1955) Pi statistic (e.g., Fleiss’s 1971). Fleiss (1971) provides formulas for a kappa-like coefficient that is suitable for studies where any constant number of m coders is randomly sampled from a larger population of coders, with each subject rated by a different sample

Appendix

207

Table A.3 Coding outcomes: round 3 Times coded

No. of articles

% of articles

0 1 2 3 Total

2 9 274 48 333*a

0.60 2.70 82.28 14.42 100

a

Reduced by the number of cases defined as ‘not agency’ by the coders during the coding process.

of m coders’ (Hallgren, 2012: 29). In this case, the difference between the coders is divided by the arithmetic mean of kappa or the probability of expected agreement due to chance (this helps to account for the greater variance that is expected with a larger team of coders). We recorded a Fleiss’s kappa of approximately 63%, which did not reach the required ICR standard, requiring that we either drop instances of discrepancy or resolve them. Subsequently, we used four master coders to address all the remaining discrepancies in the dataset and to improve the overall reliability of the data. The goal at this stage was to reach a maximum on both standards and produce the largest n possible for later analysis. The final ICR statistic produced for these data was 83.23%. However, in this research we identified five coding topics with low individual ICR scores: • • • • •

Links to the ESG Science Plan Types of Actors Links to broader social science debates Links to other ESG Analytical Problems Links to Cross-cutting Themes in the ESG Science Plan

The low reliability on these questions is likely due to a variety of factors. For instance, these outcomes may be explained by the large number of coders and/or from the broad geographical locations and diverse disciplinary backgrounds from which they came. Reliability may also be impacted by the substance of the questions themselves and the impact of other factors on our understanding of these related concepts. According to Hallgren (2012, p. 31), reduced ICR scores may be ‘due to restricted range, poor psychometric properties of a scale, poorly trained coders, difficulty in observing or quantifying the construct of interest, or other reasons.’ Together, these factors may have caused variation in how the article abstracts were interpreted.

208

Appendix

While some survey questions did fall below the data average, these data are generally considered to have a sufficient level of reliability for the analysis of agency in the selected ESG publications. For these questions, the authors choose to analyse the articles with an even finer granularity than what was produced by the coding scheme or to recode the cases for specificity. Since none of the chapters produced from this research use the ICR estimates in statistical models and none of the observed variables were subjected to further hypothesis testing, the overall trade-offs to research are low in this case. For questions or further information about this dataset, please contact Dr. Tabitha M. Benney ([email protected]). The dataset and supporting materials are available to individuals who are formally connected to the ESG Project’s research network as lead faculty, senior research fellows, or research fellows by contacting the International Project Office (ipo@earthsystemgover nance.org). ESG–Agency Articles 2008–2016 (n = 333) Abbott, K. W. (2008). Enriching rational choice institutionalism for the study of international law. University of Illinois Law Review, 1, 5–46. Abbott, K. W. (2012). Engaging the public and the private in global sustainability governance. International Affairs, 88(3), 543–64. Abbott, K. W. (2014). Strengthening the transnational regime complex for climate change. Transnational Environmental Law, 3(1), 57–88. Abbott, K. W., and Bernstein, S. (2015). The high-level political forum on sustainable development: Orchestration by default and design. Global Policy, 6(3), 222–33. Abbott, K. W., and Snidal, D. (2013). Taking responsive regulation transnational: Strategies for international organizations. Regulation and Governance, 7(1), 95–113. Agrawal, A., Chhatre, A., and Hardin, R. (2008). Changing governance of the world’s forests. Science, 320(5882), 1460–2. Agterbosch, S., Meertens, R. M., and Vermeulen, W. J. V. (2009). The relative importance of social and institutional conditions in the planning of wind power projects. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(2), 393–405. Alexander, S. M., Andrachuk, M., and Armitage, D. (2016). Navigating governance networks for community-based conservation. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14 (3), 155–64. Alexander, S. M., and Armitage, D. (2015). A social relational network perspective for MPA science. Conservation Letters, 8(1), 1–13. Andrachuk, M., and Armitage, D. (2015). Understanding social-ecological change and transformation through community perceptions of system identity. Ecology and Society, 20(4), http://dx.doi.org/10.5757/ES-07759.200426. Anokye, N. A., and Gupta, J. (2012). Reconciling IWRM and water delivery in Ghana: The potential and challenges. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 47, 33–45. Apostolopoulou, E., Bormpoudakis, D., Paloniemi, R., et al. (2014). Governance rescaling and the neoliberalization of nature: The case of biodiversity conservation in four EU countries. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 21(6), 481–94.

Appendix

209

Apostolopoulou, E., Drakou, E. G., and Pediaditi, K. (2012). Participation in the management of Greek Natura 2000 sites: Evidence from a cross-level analysis. Journal of Environmental Management, 113, 308–18. Apostolopoulou, E., and Pantis, J. D. (2009). Conceptual gaps in the national strategy for the implementation of the European Natura 2000 conservation policy in Greece. Biological Conservation, 142(1), 221–37. Armitage, D., Béné, C., Charles, A. T., et al. (2012). The interplay of well-being and resilience in applying a social-ecological perspective. Ecology and Society, 17(4), 15. Armitage, D., de Loë, R. C., Morris, M., et al. (2015). Science–policy processes for transboundary water governance. Ambio, 44(5), 353–66. Armitage, D., de Loë, R., and Plummer, R. (2012). Environmental governance and its implications for conservation practice. Conservation Letters, 5(4), 245–55. Armitage, D., Marschke, M., and Plummer, R. (2008). Adaptive co-management and the paradox of learning. Global Environmental Change, 18(1), 86–98. Auld, G., Renckens, S., and Cashore, B. (2015). Transnational private governance between the logics of empowerment and control. Regulation and Governance, 9(2), 108–24. Babon, A., McIntyre, D., Gowae, G. Y., Gallemore, C., Carmenta, R., Di Gregorio, M., and Brockhaus, M. (2014). Advocacy coalitions, REDD+, and forest governance in Papua New Guinea: How likely is transformational change? Ecology and Society, 19(3), 16–29. Bäckstrand, K. (2008). Accountability of networked climate governance: The rise of transnational climate partnerships. Global Environmental Politics, 8(3), 74–102. Bäckstrand, K., and Kylsäter, M. (2014). Old wine in new bottles? The legitimation and delegitimation of UN public-private partnerships for sustainable development from the Johannesburg Summit to the Rio+20 Summit. Globalizations, 11(3), 331–47. Bai, X., McAllister, R. R., Beaty, R. M., and Taylor, B. (2010). Urban policy and governance in a global environment: Complex systems, scale mismatches and public participation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2(3), 129–35. Barau, A. S., and Al Hosani, N. (2015). Prospects of environmental governance in addressing sustainability challenges of seawater desalination industry in the Arabian Gulf. Environmental Science and Policy, 50, 145–54. Barau, A. S., and Said, I. (2016). From goodwill to good deals: FELDA land resettlement scheme and the ascendancy of the landless poor in Malaysia. Land Use Policy, 54, 423–31. Barau, A. S., and Stringer, L. C. (2015). Access to and allocation of ecosystem services in Malaysia’s Pulau Kukup Ramsar site. Ecosystem Services, 16, 167–73. Barbi, F. (2016). Governing climate change in China and Brazil: Mitigation strategies. Journal of Chinese Political Science, 21(3), 357–70. Barbi, F., and Ferreira, L. D. C. (2014). Risks and political responses to climate change in Brazilian coastal cities. Journal of Risk Research, 17(4), 485–503. Bartley, T., Andersson, K., Jagger, P., and van Laerhoven, F. (2008). The contribution of institutional theories to explaining decentralization of natural resource governance. Society and Natural Resources, 21(2), 160–74. Bastakoti, R. C., Gupta, J., Babel, M. S., and van Dijk, M. P. (2014). Climate risks and adaptation strategies in the lower Mekong River basin. Regional Environmental Change, 14(1), 207–19. Bastakoti, R. C., Shivakoti, G. P., and Lebel, L. (2010). Local irrigation management institutions mediate changes driven by external policy and market pressures in Nepal and Thailand. Environmental Management, 46(3), 411–23.

210

Appendix

Benecke, E. (2011). Networking for climate change: Agency in the context of renewable energy governance in India. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law, and Economics, 11(1), 23–42. Berardo, R., Heikkila, T., and Gerlak, A. K. (2014). Interorganizational engagement in collaborative environmental management: Evidence from the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(3), 697–719. Bergsma, E., Gupta, J., and Jong, P. (2012). Does individual responsibility increase the adaptive capacity of society? The case of local water management in the Netherlands. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 64(1), 13–22. Bernauer, T., and Betzold, C. (2012). Civil society in global environmental governance. Journal of Environment and Development, 21(1), 62–6. Bernstein, S. (2011). Legitimacy in intergovernmental and non-state global governance. Review of International Political Economy, 18(1), 17–51. Bernstein, S., and Cashore, B. (2012). Complex global governance and domestic policies: Four pathways of influence. International Affairs, 88(3), 585–604. Betsill, M. M., Pattberg, P., and Dellas, E. (2011). Editorial: Agency in earth systems governance. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 11 (1), 1–6. Betzold, C., Bernauer, T., and Koubi, V. (2016). Press briefings in international climate change negotiations. Environmental Communication, 10(5), 575–92. Beunen, R., and Patterson, J. (2016). Analysing institutional change in environmental governance: Exploring the concept of ‘institutional work.’ Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 1–18, DOI:10.1080/09640568.2016.1257423. Biermann, F. (2010). Beyond the intergovernmental regime: Recent trends in global carbon governance. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2(4), 284–8. Biermann, F., Betsill, M. M., Gupta, J., et al. (2010). Earth system governance: A research framework. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 10 (4), 277–98. Biermann F., and Pattberg, P. (2008). Global environmental governance: Taking stock, moving forward. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 33, 277–94. Bixler, R. P. (2014). From community forest management to polycentric governance: Assessing evidence from the bottom. Society and Natural Resources, 27(2), 155–69. Bodin, O., and Osterblom, H. (2013). International fisheries regime effectiveness activities and resources of key actors in the Southern Ocean. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 948–56. Böhmelt, T., and Betzold, C. (2013). The impact of environmental interest groups in international negotiations: Do ENGOs induce stronger environmental commitments? International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 13(2), 127–51. Bork, T., Kraas, F., and Yuan, Y. (2011). Governance challenges in China’s urban health care system: The role of stakeholders. Erdkunde, 65(2), 121–35. Bouteligier, S. (2011). Exploring the agency of global environmental consultancy firms in earth system governance. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 11(1), 43–61. Bowen, K. J., Alexander, D., Miller, F., and Dany, V. (2014). Using social network analysis to evaluate health-related adaptation decision-making in Cambodia. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 11(2), 1605–25.

Appendix

211

Bowen, K. J., Ebi, K., Friel, S., and McMichael, A. J. (2013). A multi-layered governance framework for incorporating social science insights into adapting to the health impacts of climate change. Global Health Action, 6(1), https://doi.org/10 .3402/gha.v6i0.21820 Bowen, K. J., Friel, S., Ebi, K., et al. (2012). Governing for a healthy population: Towards an understanding of how decision-making will determine our global health in a changing climate. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 9(1), 55–72. Bowen, K. J., Miller, F., Dany, V., et al. (2013). Enabling environments? Insights into the policy context for climate change and health adaptation decision-making in Cambodia. Climate and Development, 5(4), 277–87. Bowen, K. J., Miller, F. P., Dany, V., and Graham, S. (2015). The relevance of a coproductive capacity framework to climate change adaptation: Investigating the health and water sectors in Cambodia. Ecology and Society, 20(1), 13–24. Breitmeier, H. A., Underdal, A., and Young, O. R. (2011). The effectiveness of international environmental regimes: Comparing and contrasting findings from quantitative research. International Studies Review, 13(4), 579–605. Brisbois, M. C., and de Loë, R. C. (2016). State roles and motivations in collaborative approaches to water governance: A power theory-based analysis. Geoforum, 74, 202–12. Brockhaus, M., Di Gregorio, M., and Mardiah, S. (2014). Governing the design of national REDD+: An analysis of the power of agency. Forest Policy and Economics, 49, 23–33. Brockhaus, M., Djoudi, H., and Kambire, H. (2012). Multi-level governance and adaptive capacity in West Africa. International Journal of the Commons, 6(2), 200–32. Brouwer, S., and Biermann, F. (2011). Towards adaptive management: Examining strategies of policy entrepreneurs in Dutch water management. Ecology and Society, 16(4), 5. Brown, H. S., de Jong, M., and Lessidrenska, T. (2009). The rise of the Global Reporting Initiative: A case of institutional entrepreneurship. Environmental Politics, 18(2), 182–200. Brown, H. S., de Jong, M., and Levy, D. L. (2009). Building institutions based on information disclosure: Lessons from GRI’s sustainability reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(6), 571–80. Bulkeley, H. (2012). Governance and the geography of authority: Modalities of authorisation and the transnational governing of climate change. Environment and Planning A, 44 (10), 2428–44. Bulkeley, H., Andonova, L., Bäckstrand, K., et al. (2012). Governing climate change transnationally: Assessing the evidence from a database of sixty initiatives. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 30(4), 591–612. Bulkeley, H., and Castán Broto, V. (2013). Government by experiment? Global cities and the governing of climate change. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 38 (3), 361–75. Bulkeley, H., Castán Broto, V., and Maassen, A. (2013). Low-carbon transitions and the reconfiguration of urban infrastructure. Urban Studies, 51(7), 1471–86. Bulkeley, H., Luque-Ayala, A., and Silver, J. (2014). Housing and the (re)configuration of energy provision in Cape Town and Sao Paulo: Making space for a progressive urban climate politics? Political Geography,40, 25–34. Bulkeley, H., and Schroeder, H. (2012). Beyond state/non-state divides: Global cities and the governing of climate change. European Journal of International Relations, 18(4), 743–66.

212

Appendix

Burch, S., Schroeder, H., Rayner, S., and Wilson, J. (2013). Novel multisector networks and entrepreneurship: The role of small businesses in the multilevel governance of climate change. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 31(5), 822–40. Cadman, T., and Maraseni, T. (2013). More equal than others? A comparative analysis of state and non-state perceptions of interest representation and decision-making in REDD+ negotiations. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 26(3), 214–30. Cashmore, M., Richardson, T., Rozema, J., and Lyhne, I. (2015). Environmental governance through guidance: The ‘making up’ of expert practitioners. Geoforum, 62, 84–95. Castán Broto, V., and Bulkeley, H. (2013). A survey of urban climate change experiments in 100 cities. Global Environmental Change, 23(1), 92–102. Certomà, C. (2015). Expanding the ‘dark side of planning’: Governmentality and biopolitics in urban garden planning. Planning Theory, 14(1), 23–43. Chan, S., Brandi, C., and Bauer, S. (2016). The new impacts of the implementation of climate change response measures. Review of European Comparative and International Environmental Law, 25(2), 238–47. Chan, S., and Pattberg, P. (2008). Private rule-making and the politics of accountability: Analyzing global forest governance. Global Environmental Politics, 8(3), 103–21. Chappin, M. M. H., Vermeulen, W. J. V., Meeus, M. T. H., and Hekkert, M. P. (2009). Enhancing our understanding of the role of environmental policy in environmental innovation: Adoption explained by the accumulation of policy instruments and agent-based factors. Environmental Science and Policy, 12(7), 934–47. Cheng, A. S., Gerlak, A. K., Dale, L., and Mattor, K. (2015). Examining the adaptability of collaborative governance associated with publicly managed ecosystems over time: Insights from the Front Range Roundtable, Colorado, USA. Ecology and Society, 20 (1), 35. Chhatre, A., and Agrawal, A. (2008). Forest commons and local enforcement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 105(36), 13286–91. Chhatre, A., and Agrawal, A. (2009). Trade-offs and synergies between carbon storage and livelihood benefits from forest commons. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 106(42), 17667–70. Clapp, J., and Helleiner, E. (2012). Troubled futures? The global food crisis and the politics of agricultural derivatives regulation. Review of International Political Economy, 19(2), 181–207. Colgan, J. D., and Van de Graaf, T. (2015). Mechanisms of informal governance: Evidence from the IEA. Journal of International Relations and Development, 18(4), 455–81. Cook, H. F., Benson. D., Inman, A., Jordan, A., and Smith, L. (2012). Catchment management groups in England and Wales: Extent, roles and influences. Water and Environment Journal, 26(1), 47–55. Coolsaet, B., and Pitseys, J. (2015). Fair and equitable negotiations? African influence and the international access and benefit-sharing regime. Global Environmental Politics, 15 (2), 38–56. Corbera, E., and Jover, N. (2012). The undelivered promises of the Clean Development Mechanism: Insights from three projects in Mexico. Carbon Management, 3(1), 39–54. Crona, B., Nystrom, M., Folke, C., and Jiddawi, N. (2010). Middlemen, a critical social-ecological link in coastal communities in Kenya and Zanzibar. Marine Policy, 34(4), 761–71. Dany, V., Bowen, K. J., and Miller, F. (2015). Assessing the institutional capacity to adapt to climate change: A case study in the Cambodian health and water sectors. Climate Policy, 15(3), 388–409.

Appendix

213

Dauvergne, P., and Clapp, J. (2016). Researching global environmental politics in the 21st century. Global Environmental Politics, 16(1), 1–12. Davidson, S. L., and de Loë, R. C. (2016). The changing role of ENGOs in water governance: Institutional entrepreneurs? Environmental Management, 57(1), 62–78. de Coninck, H., and Bäckstrand, K. (2011). An international relations perspective on the global politics of carbon dioxide capture and storage. Global Environmental Change, 21 (2), 368–78. Defeo, O., Castrejon, M., Perez-Castaneda, R., Castilla, J. C., Gutierrez, N. L., Essington, T. E., and Folke, C. (2016). Co-management in Latin American small-scale shellfisheries: Assessment from long-term case studies. Fish and Fisheries, 17(1), 176–92. de Jong, A. A., Runhaar, H. A., Runhaar, P. R., Kolhoff, A. J., and Driessen, P. P. (2012). Promoting system-level learning from project-level lessons: An analysis of donor-driven ‘indirect’ learning about EIA systems in Ghana and the Maldives. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 33(1), 23–31. de la Plaza Esteban, C., Visseren-Hamakers, I. J., and de Jong, W. (2014). The legitimacy of certification standards in climate change governance. Sustainable Development, 22(6), 420–32. Dellas, E., Pattberg, P., and Betsill, M. M. (2011). Agency in earth system governance: Refining a research agenda. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 11(1), 85–98. de Loë, R. C., Murray, D., and Brisbois, M. C. (2016). Perspectives of natural resource sector firms on collaborative approaches to governance for water. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135, 1117–28. Di Lucia, L., and Kronsell, A. (2010). The willing, the unwilling and the unable: Explaining implementation of the EU Biofuels Directive. Journal of European Public Policy, 17(4), 545–63. Djalante, R., Holley, C., and Thomalla, F. (2011). Adaptive governance and managing resilience to natural hazards. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2(4), 1–14. Djalante, R., Thomalla, F., Sinapoy, M. S., and Carnegie, M. (2012). Building resilience to natural hazards in Indonesia: Progress and challenges in implementing the Hyogo Framework for Action. Natural Hazards, 62(3), 779–803. Dombrowski, K. (2010). Filling the gap? An analysis of non-governmental organizations responses to participation and representation deficits in global climate governance. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 10(4), 397–416. Dore, J., and Lebel, L. (2010). Deliberation and scale in Mekong region water governance. Environmental Management, 46(1), 60–80. Dryzek, J. S., and Tucker, A. (2008). Deliberative innovation to different effect: Consensus conferences in Denmark, France, and the United States. Public Administration Review, 68(5), 864–76. Dunlop, T., and Corbera, E. (2016). Incentivizing REDD+: How developing countries are laying the groundwork for benefit-sharing. Environmental Science & Policy, 63, 44–54. Duyck, S. (2015). Promoting the principles of the Aarhus Convention in international forums: The case of the UN Climate Change Regime. Review of European Comparative and International Environmental Law, 24(2), 123–38. Dzebo, A., and Stripple, J. (2015). Transnational adaptation governance: An emerging fourth era of adaptation. Global Environmental Change, 35, 423–35.

214

Appendix

Eberlein, B., Abbott, K. W., Black, J., Meidinger, E., and Wood, S. (2014). Transnational business governance interactions: Conceptualization and framework for analysis. Regulation & Governance, 8, 1–21. Ekstrom, J. A., Young, O. R., Gaines, S. D., et al. (2009). A tool to navigate overlaps in fragmented ocean governance. Marine Policy, 33(3), 532–5. Feitelson, E., and Fischhendler, I. (2009). Spaces of water governance: The case of Israel and its neighbors. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 99(4), 728–45. Freed, S., Dujon, V., Granek, E. F., and Mouhhidine, J. (2016). Enhancing small-scale fisheries management through community engagement and multi-community partnerships: Comoros case study. Marine Policy, 63, 81–91. Freed, S., and Granek, E. F. (2014). Effects of human activities on the world’s most vulnerable coral reefs: Comoros case study. Coastal Management, 42(3), 280–96. Fuchs, D., Kalfagianni, A., and Havinga, T. (2011). Actors in private food governance: The legitimacy of retail standards and multistakeholder initiatives with civil society participation. Agriculture and Human Values, 28(3), 353–67. Fujisaki, T., Hyakumura, K., Henry, S., and Cadman, T. (2016). Does REDD+ Ensure sectoral coordination and stakeholder participation? A comparative analysis of REDD+ national governance structures in countries of Asia-Pacific Region. Forests, 7 (9), 1–17. Gabrielsson, S., and Ramasar, V. (2013). Widows: Agents of change in a climate of water uncertainty. Journal of Cleaner Production, 60, 34–42. Galaz, V., Biermann, F., Crona, B., et al. (2012). ‘Planetary boundaries’—exploring the challenges for global environmental governance. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4(1), 80–7. Galaz, V., Österblom, H., Bodin, Ö., and Crona, B. (2016). Global networks and global change-induced tipping points. International Environmental Agreements, 16(2), 189–221. Gallemore, C., Di Gregorio, M., Moeliono, M., et al. (2015). Transaction costs, power, and multi-level forest governance in Indonesia. Ecological Economics, 114, 168–79. Gallemore, C., and Jespersen, K. (2016). Transnational markets for sustainable development governance: The case of REDD+. World Development, 86, 79–94. Gallemore, C., and Munroe, D. K. (2013). Centralization in the global avoided deforestation collaboration network. Global Environmental Change, 23, 1199–1210. Gehring, T., Oberthur, S., and Muehleck, M. (2013). European Union actorness in International institutions: Why the EU is recognized as an actor in some international institutions, but not in others. Journal of Common Market Studies, 51(5), 849–65. Gelcich, S., Hughes, T. P., Olsson, P., et al. (2010). Navigating transformations in governance of Chilean marine coastal resources. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 107(39), 16794–9. Gellers, J. C. (2016). Crowdsourcing global governance: Sustainable development goals, civil society, and the pursuit of democratic legitimacy. International Environmental Agreements: Politics Law and Economics, 16(3), 415–32. Gerhardinger, L. C., Godoy, E. A. S., and Jones, P. J. S. (2009). Local ecological knowledge and the management of marine protected areas in Brazil. Ocean and Coastal Management, 3(4), 154–65. Gerhardinger, L. C., Godoy, E. A. S., Jones, P. J. S., Sales, G., and Ferreira, B. P. (2011). Marine protected dramas: The flaws of the Brazilian national system of marine protected areas. Environmental Management, 47(4), 630–43. Gerlak, A. K., and Heikkila, T. (2011). Building a theory of learning in collaboratives: Evidence from the Everglades Restoration Program. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(4), 619–44.

Appendix

215

Gero, A., Fletcher, S., Rumsey, M., et al. (2014). Disasters and climate change in the Pacific: Adaptive capacity of humanitarian response organizations. Climate and Development, 7(1), 35–46. Giri, K., and Darnhofer, I. (2010). Nepali women using community forestry as a platform for social change. Society & Natural Resources, 23(12), 1216–29. Gordon, D. J. (2016a). Lament for a network? Cities and networked climate governance in Canada. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 34(3), 529–45. Gordon, D. J. (2016b). The politics of accountability in networked urban climate governance. Global Environmental Politics, 16(2), 82–100. Grothmann, T., Grecksch, K., Winges, M., and Siebenhuener, B. (2013). Assessing institutional capacities to adapt to climate change: Integrating psychological dimensions in the adaptive capacity wheel. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 13(12), 3369–84. Gupta, A. (2011). An evolving science-society contract in India: The search for legitimacy in anticipatory risk governance. Food Policy, 36(6), 736–41. Gupta, A., Pistorius, T., and Vijge, M. J. (2016). Managing fragmentation in global environmental governance: The REDD + Partnership as bridge organization. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 16, 355–74. Gupta, J., Termeer, C., Klostermann, J., et al. (2010). The adaptive capacity wheel: A method to assess the inherent characteristics of institutions to enable the adaptive capacity of society. Environmental Science & Policy, 13(6), 459–71. Hage, M., Leroy, P., and Petersen, A. C. (2010). Stakeholder participation in environmental knowledge production. Futures, 42(3), 254–64. Hagerman, S., Witter, R., Corson, C., et al. (2012). On the coattails of climate? Opportunities and threats of a warming earth for biodiversity conservation. Global Environmental Change, 22(3), 724–35. Hahn, T. (2011). Self-organized governance networks for ecosystem management: Who is accountable? Ecology and Society, 16(2), www.ecologyandsociety.org /vol16/iss2/art18 Hausknost, D. (2014). Decision, choice, solution: ‘Agentic deadlock’ in environmental politics. Environmental Politics, 23(3), 357–75. Heubaum, H., and Biermann, F. (2015). Integrating global energy and climate governance: The changing role of the International Energy Agency. Energy Policy 87, 229–39. Heuer, M. (2012). Sustainability governance across time and space: Connecting environmental stewardship in the firm with the global community. Business Strategy and the Environment, 21, 86–97. Hobson, K., and Niemeyer, S. (2011). Public responses to climate change: The role of deliberation in building capacity for adaptive action. Global Environmental Change, 21 (3), 957–71. Hultman, N. E., Malone, E. L., Runci, P., Carlock, G., and Anderson, K. L. (2012). Factors in low-carbon energy transformations: Comparing nuclear and bioenergy in Brazil, Sweden, and the United States. Energy Policy, 40, 131–46. Hurlbert, M. (2009). The adaptation of water law to climate change. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 1(3), 230–40. Hurlbert, M. (2014). Adaptive institutional design in agri-environmental programs. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 6(2), 145–65. Hurlbert, M., Corkal, D. R., Warren, J., and Diaz, H. (2009). Climate change and water governance in Saskatchewan, Canada. International Journal of Climate Change Strategy and Management, 1(2), 118–32. Ivanova, M. (2010). UNEP in global environmental governance: Design, leadership, location. Global Environmental Politics, 10(1), 30–59.

216

Appendix

Jacobs, K., Lebel, L., Buizer, J., et al. (2016). Linking knowledge with action in the pursuit of sustainable water-resources management. Proceedings of the National Academies of Science of the USA, 113(17), 4591–6. Jedd, T., and Bixler, R. P. (2015). Accountability in networked governance: Learning from a case of landscape-scale forest conservation. Environmental Policy and Governance, 25 (3), 172–87. Jinnah, S. (2010). Overlap management in the World Trade Organization: Secretariat influence on trade-environment politics. Global Environmental Politics, 10(2), 54–79. Jinnah, S. (2011). Marketing linkages: Secretariat governance of the climate-biodiversity interface. Global Environmental Politics, 11(3), 23–43. Jinnah, S., and Lindsay, A. (2015). Secretariat influence on overlap management politics in North America: NAFTA and the commission for environmental cooperation. Review of Policy Research, 32(1), 124–45. Jodoin, S., Duyck, S., and Lofts, K. (2015). Public participation and climate governance: An introduction. Review of European Comparative & International Environmental Law, 24(2), 117–22. Jordan, A., and Huitema, D. (2014). Policy innovation in a changing climate: Sources, patterns and effects. Global Environmental Change, 29, 387–394. Kabiri, N. (2016). Public participation, land use and climate change governance in Thailand. Land Use Policy, 52, 511–17. Kalfagianni, A., and Pattberg, P. (2013). Participation and inclusiveness in private rule setting organisations: Does it really matter for effectiveness? Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 26(3), 231–50. Kameyama, Y., Morita, K., and Kubota, I. (2016). Finance for achieving low-carbon development in Asia: The past, present, and prospects for the future. Journal of Cleaner Production, 128, 201–8. Kanie, N., Betsill, M. M., Zondervan, R., Biermann, F., and Young, O. R. (2012). A charter moment: Restructuring governance for sustainability. Public Administration and Development, 32, 292–304. Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S. I., and McGee, J. (2013). Legitimacy in an era of fragmentation: The case of global climate governance. Global Environmental Politics, 13(3), 56–78. Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S. I., and van Asselt, H. (2009). Introduction: Exploring and explaining the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 9(3), 195–211. Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S. I., and Vihma, A. (2009). Comparing the legitimacy and effectiveness of global hard and soft law: An analytical framework. Regulation and Governance, 3(4), 400–20. Kern, F., Gaede, J., Meadowcroft, J., and Watson, J. (2016). The political economy of carbon capture and storage: An analysis of two demonstration projects. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 102, 250–60. Klein, I., and Fischhendler, I. (2015). The pitfalls of implementing Host Community Compensation: A power balance perspective. Land Use Policy, 49, 499–510. Kluvánková-Oravská, T., Chobotova, V., and Smolkova, E. (2013). The challenges of policy convergence: The Europeanization of biodiversity governance in an enlarging EU. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 31(3), 401–13. Koivurova, T., Kokko, K., Duyck, S., Sellheim, N., and Stepien, A. (2012). The present and future competence of the European Union in the Arctic. Polar Record, 48(247), 361–71. Kolhoff, A. J., Driessen, P. P. J., and Runhaar, H. A. C. (2013). An analysis framework for characterizing and explaining development of EIA legislation in

Appendix

217

developing countries—Illustrated for Georgia, Ghana and Yemen. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 38, 1–15. Kolhoff, A. J., Runhaar, H. A., Gugushvili, T., et al. (2016). The influence of actor capacities on EIA system performance in low and middle income countries: Cases from Georgia and Ghana. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 57, 167–77. Kramarz, T. (2016). World Bank partnerships and the promise of democratic governance. Environmental Policy and Governance, 26(1), 3–15. Kramarz, T., and Momani, B. (2013). The World Bank as knowledge bank: Analyzing the limits of a legitimate global knowledge actor. Review of Policy Research, 30(4), 409–31. Kramarz, T., and Park, S. (2016). Accountability in global environmental governance: A meaningful tool for action? Global Environmental Politics, 16(2), 1–21. Kunseler, E. M., Tuinstra, W., Vasileiadou, E., and Petersen, A. C. (2015). The reflective futures practitioner: Balancing salience, credibility and legitimacy in generating foresight knowledge with stakeholders. Futures, 66, 1–12. Kuzdas, C., and Wiek, A. (2014). Governance scenarios for addressing water conflicts and climate change impacts. Environmental Science & Policy, 42, 181–96. Kuzdas, C., Wiek, A., Warner, B., Vignola, R., and Morataya, R. (2014). Sustainability appraisal of water governance regimes: The case of Guanacaste, Costa Rica. Environmental Management, 54(2), 205–22. Kuzdas, C., Wiek, A., Warner, B., Vignola, R., and Morataya, R. (2015). Integrated and participatory analysis of water governance regimes: The case of the Costa Rican dry tropics. World Development, 66, 254–68. Larson, S., Alexander, K. S., Djalante, R., and Kirono, D. G. C. (2013). The added value of understanding informal social networks in an adaptive capacity assessment: Explorations of an urban water management system in Indonesia. Water Resources Management, 27 (13), 4425–41. Lebel, L., Grothmann, T., and Siebenhüner, B. (2010). The role of social learning in adaptiveness: Insights from water management. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 10(4), 333–53. Lebel, L., Wattana, S., and Talerngsri, P. (2015). Assessments of ecosystem services and human well-being in Thailand build and create demand for coproductive capacity. Ecology and Society, 20(1), http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06527-200112 Lebel, L., Xu, J., Bastakoti, R. C., and Lamba, A. (2010). Pursuits of adaptiveness in the shared rivers of Monsoon Asia. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 10(4), 355–75. Lebel, P., Sriyasak, P., Kallayanamitra, C., Duangsuwan, C., and Lebel, L. (2016). Learning about climate-related risks: Decisions of Northern Thailand fish farmers in a role-playing simulation game. Regional Environmental Change, 16(5), 1481–94. Lee, S. Y., Primavera, J. H., Dahdouh-Guebas, F., et al. (2014). Ecological role and services of tropical mangrove ecosystems: A reassessment. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 23(7), 726–43. Lesage, D., and Van de Graaf, T. (2013). Thriving in complexity? The OECD system’s role in energy and taxation. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, 19(1), 83–92. Lesage, D., Van de Graaf, T., and Westphal, K. (2009). The G8’s role in global energy governance since the 2005 Gleneagles summit. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, 15(2), 259–77.

218

Appendix

Leventon, J. (2015). Explaining implementation deficits through multi-level governance in the EU’s new member states: EU limits for arsenic in drinking water in Hungary. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 58(7), 1137–53. Leventon, J., Dyer, J. C., and Van Alstine, J. D. (2015). The private sector in climate governance: Opportunities for climate compatible development through multilevel industry-government engagement. Journal of Cleaner Production, 102, 316–23. Leventon, J., Fleskens, L., Claringbould, H., et al. (2016). An applied methodology for stakeholder identification in transdisciplinary research. Sustainability Science, 11(5), 763–75. Leventon, J., Kalaba, F. K., Dyer, J. C., Stringer, L. C., and Dougill, A. J. (2014). Delivering community benefits through REDD+: Lessons from joint forest management in Zambia. Forest Policy and Economics, 44, 10–17. Liu, L., Matsuno, S., Zhang, B., Liu, B., and Young, O. R. (2013). Local governance on climate mitigation: A comparative study of China and Japan. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 31, 475–89. Lund, E. (2013). Who is driving? Public and private agency in the implementation of the CDM. Carbon Management, 4(1), 57–68. Marks, D., and Lebel, L. (2016). Disaster governance and the scalar politics of incomplete decentralization: Fragmented and contested responses to the 2011 floods in central Thailand. Habitat International, 52, 57–66. Mathur, V. N., Afionis, S., Paavola, J., et al. (2014). Experiences of host communities with carbon market projects: Towards multi-level climate justice. Climate Policy, 14(1), 42–62. Mattor, K., Betsill, M. M., Huber-Stearns, H., et al. (2014). Transdisciplinary research on environmental governance: A view from the inside. Environmental Science & Policy, 42, 90–100. Mauerhofer, V. (2013). The ‘governance-check’: Assessing the sustainability of public spatial decision-making structures. Land Use Policy, 30(1), 328–36. Mauerhofer, V., Kim, R. E., and Stevens, C. (2015). When implementation works: A comparison of Ramsar Convention implementation in different continents. Environmental Science & Policy, 51, 95–105. McDermott, C. L., Coad, L., Helfgott, A., and Schroeder, H. (2012). Operationalizing social safeguards in REDD+: Actors, interests and ideas. Environmental Science and Policy 21, 63–72. McGuirk, P. M., Bulkeley, H., and Dowling, R. (2016). Configuring urban carbon governance: Insights from Sydney, Australia. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 106(1), 145–66. Mees, H. L. P., Driessen, P. P. J., and Runhaar, H. A. C. (2012). Exploring the scope of public and private responsibilities for climate adaptation. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 14(3), 305–30. Mees, H. L. P., Driessen, P. P. J., and Runhaar, H. A. C. (2014). Legitimate adaptive flood risk governance beyond the dikes: The cases of Hamburg, Helsinki and Rotterdam. Regional Environmental Change, 14(2), 671–82. Meissner, R., and Ramasar, V. (2015). Governance and politics in the upper Limpopo River Basin, South Africa. Geo Journal, 80(5), 689–709. Menga, F., and Mirumachi, N. (2016). Fostering Tajik hydraulic development: Examining the role of soft power in the case of the Rogun Dam. Water Alternatives, 9(2), 373–88. Merme, V., Ahlers, R., and Gupta, J. (2014). Private equity, public affair: Hydropower financing in the Mekong Basin. Global Environmental Change, 24, 20–9.

Appendix

219

Mert, A. (2014). Hybrid governance mechanisms as political instruments: The case of sustainability partnerships. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law, and Economics, 14(3), 225–44. Milkoreit, M. (2015). Hot deontology and cold consequentialism: An empirical exploration of ethical reasoning among climate change negotiators. Climatic Change, 130(3), 397–409. Milkoreit, M., Moore, M. L., Schoon, M., and Meek, C. L. (2015). Resilience scientists as change-makers-growing the middle ground between science and advocacy? Environmental Science and Policy, 53, 87–95. Mirumachi, N., and Torriti, J. (2012). The use of public participation and economic appraisal for public involvement in large-scale hydropower projects: Case study of the Nam Theun 2 Hydropower Project. Energy Policy, 47, 125–32. Mirumachi, N., and Van Wyk, E. (2010). Cooperation at different scales: Challenges for local and international water resource governance in South Africa. Geographical Journal, 176(1), 25–38. Morin, J. F. (2010). The two-level game of transnational networks: The case of the access to medicines campaign. International Interactions, 36(4), 309–34. Mukhtarov, F., Brock, A., Janssen, S., and Guignier, A. (2013). Actors and strategies in translating global conservation narratives to Vietnam: An agency perspective. Policy and Society, 32(2), 113–24. Mukhtarov, F., and Gerlak, A. K. (2013). River basin organizations in the global water discourse: An exploration of agency and strategy. Global Governance, 19(2), 307–26. Mulyani, M., and Jepson, P. (2015). Social learning through a REDD+ ‘village agreement’: Insights from the KFCP in Indonesia. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 56(1), 79–95. Munaretto, S., and Battilani, A. (2014). Irrigation water governance in practice: The case of the Canale Emiliano Romagnolo district, Italy. Water Policy, 16(3), 578–94. Munaretto, S., and Huitema, D. (2012). Adaptive comanagement in the Venice lagoon? An analysis of current water and environmental management practices and prospects for change. Ecology and Society, 17(2), 19. Naess, L. O., Newell, P., Newsham, A., Phillips, J., Quane, J., and Tanner, T. (2015). Climate policy meets national development contexts: Insights from Kenya and Mozambique. Global Environmental Change, 35, 534–44. Nasiritousi, N., Hjerpe, M., and Linner, B. O. (2016). The roles of non-state actors in climate change governance: Understanding agency through governance profiles. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law, and Economics, 16(1), 109–26. Nayak, P., Armitage, D., and Andrachuk, M. (2016). Power and politics of social-ecological regime shifts in the Chilika lagoon, India and Tam Giang lagoon, Vietnam. Regional Environmental Change, 16(2), 325–39. Newell, P. (2008). Civil society, corporate accountability and the politics of climate change. Global Environmental Politics, 8(3), 122–53. Newell, P. (2009). Bio-hegemony: The political economy of agricultural biotechnology in Argentina. Journal of Latin American Studies, 41(1), 27–57. Newell, P., Bulkeley, H., Turner, K., et al. (2015). Governance traps in climate change politics: Re-framing the debate in terms of responsibilities and rights. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 6(6), 535–40. Newell, P., Phillips, J., and Purohit, P. (2011). The political economy of clean development in India: CDM and beyond. IDS Bulletin, 42(3), 89–96. Newton, P., Agrawal, A., and Wollenberg, L. (2013). Enhancing the sustainability of commodity supply chains in tropical forest and agricultural landscapes. Global Environmental Change, 23, 1761–72.

220

Appendix

Newton, P., Miller, D. C., Byenkya, M. A. A., and Agrawal, A. (2016). Who are forest-dependent people? A taxonomy to aid livelihood and land use decision-making in forested regions. Land Use Policy, 57, 388–95. Newton, P., Schaap, B., Fournier, M., et al. (2015). Community forest management and REDD+. Forest Policy and Economics, 56, 27–37. Obani, P., and Gupta, J. (2016). Human right to sanitation in the legal and non-legal literature: The need for greater synergy. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 3(5), 678–91. Obani, P., and Ogbodo, S. G. (2013). Strengthening the national institutional framework for environmental migration through sustainable development. Hong Kong Law Journal, 43 (3), 897–916. Ogier, E. M., Davidson, J., Fidelman, P., et al. (2016). Fisheries management approaches as platforms for climate change adaptation: Comparing theory and practice in Australian fisheries. Marine Policy, 71, 82–93. Okereke, C., Bulkeley, H., and Schroeder, H. (2009). Conceptualizing climate governance beyond the international regime. Global Environmental Politics, 9(1), 58–78. Okereke, C., and Coventry, P. (2016). Climate justice and the International regime: Before, during, and after Paris. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 7 (6), 834–51. Olsson, P., Folke, C., and Hughes, T. P. (2008). Navigating the transition to ecosystem-based management of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 105(28), 9489–94. Olsson, L., and Jerneck, A. (2010). Farmers fighting climate change: From victims to agents in subsistence livelihoods. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1(3), 363–73. Orsini, A. (2012). Business as a regulatory leader for risk governance? The compact initiative for liability and redress under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Environmental Politics, 21(6), 960–79. Orsini, A. (2013). Multi-forum non-state actors: Navigating the regime complexes for forestry and genetic resources. Global Environmental Politics, 13(3), 34–55. Orsini, A., Morin, J. F., and Young, O. R. (2013). Regime complexes: A buzz, a boom, or a boost for global governance? Global Governance, 19, 27–39. Österblom, H., and Folke, C. (2015). Globalization, marine regime shifts and the Soviet Union. Philosophical Transactions B, 370(1659), https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb .2013.0278 Österblom, H., Jouffray, J.-B., Folke, C., Crona, B., Troell, M., Merrie, A., and Rockström, J. (2015). Transnational corporations as ‘keystone actors’ in marine ecosystems. PLoS ONE, 10(5), https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127533 Österblom, H., and Sumaila, U. R. (2011). Toothfish crises, actor diversity and the emergence of compliance mechanisms in the Southern Ocean. Global Environmental Change, 21, 972–82. Pahl-Wostl, C., Lebel, L., Knieper, C., and Nikitina, E. (2012). From applying panaceas to mastering complexity: Toward adaptive water governance in river basins. Environmental Science & Policy, 23, 24–34. Paloniemi, R., Apostolopoulou, E., Primmer, E., et al. (2012). Biodiversity conservation across scales: Lessons from a science-policy dialogue. Nature Conservation-Bulgaria, 2, 7–19. Paloniemi, R., Apostolopoulou, E., Primmer, E., et al. (2015). Public participation and environmental justice in biodiversity governance in Finland, Greece, Poland and the UK. Environmental Policy and Governance, 25(5), 330–42.

Appendix

221

Papa, M., and Gleason, N. W. (2012). Major emerging powers in sustainable development diplomacy: Assessing their leadership potential. Global Environmental Change, 22, 915–24. Partzsch, L., and Ziegler, R. (2011). Social entrepreneurs as change agents: A case study on power and authority in the water sector. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 11(1), 63–83. Pattberg, P. (2012). How climate change became a business risk: Analyzing nonstate agency in global climate politics. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 30(4), 613–26. Pattberg, P., and Stripple, J. (2008). Beyond the public and private divide: Remapping transnational climate governance in the 21st century. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 8(4), 367–88. Pattberg, P., and Widerberg, O. (2015). Theorising global environmental governance: Key findings and future questions. Millennium-Journal of International Studies, 43(2), 684–705. Pavese, C. B., and Torney, D. (2012). The contribution of the European Union to global climate change governance: Explaining the conditions for EU actorness. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 55, 125–43. Persha, L., Agrawal, A., and Chhatre, A. (2011). Social and ecological synergy: Local rulemaking, forest livelihoods, and biodiversity conservation. Science, 331(6024), 1606–8. Pfeiffer, E., and Leentvaar, J. (2013). Knowledge leads, policy follows? Two speeds of collaboration in river basin management. Water Policy, 15, 282–99. Pickering, J., Skovgaard, J., Kim, S., et al. (2015). Acting on climate finance pledges: Inter-agency dynamics and relationships with aid in contributor states. World Development, 68, 149–62. Pittman, J., Armitage, D., Alexander, S., and Campbell, D. (2015). Governance fit for climate change in a Caribbean coastal-marine context. Marine Policy, 51, 486–98. Plummer, R., Armitage, D., and de Loë, R. C. (2013), Adaptive comanagement and its relationship to environmental governance. Ecology and Society, 18(1), 21. Prno, J., Bradshaw, B., Wandel, J., Pearce, T., Smit, B., and Tozer, L. (2011). Community vulnerability to climate change in the context of other exposure-sensitivities in Kugluktuk, Nunavut. Polar Research, 30(1), 7363. Pu, X. A., Cheng, H. G., Gong, L., et al. (2011). Revision of three-stakeholder signalling games for environmental impact assessment in China. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 31(2), 129–35. Qi, Y., and Zhang, L. (2014). Local environmental enforcement constrained by central–local relations in China. Environmental Policy and Governance, 24(3), 216–32. Rayner, T., and Jordan, A. (2013). The European Union: The polycentric climate policy leader? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 4(2), 75–90. Renaud, F. G., Dun, O., Warner, K., and Bogardi, J. (2011). A decision framework for environmentally induced migration. International Migration, 49, e5–e29. Rindefjäll, T., Lund, E., and Stripple, J. (2011). Wine, fruit, and emission reductions: The CDM as development strategy in Chile. International Environmental Agreements, 11(1), 7–22. Robinson, L. W., and Berkes, F. (2011). Multi-level participation for building adaptive capacity: Formal agency-community interactions in northern Kenya. Global Environmental Change—Human and Policy Dimensions, 21(4), 1185–94.

222

Appendix

Robinson, L. W., and Makupa, E. (2015). Using analysis of governance to unpack community-based conservation: A case study from Tanzania. Environmental Management, 56(5), 1214–27. Rosenbloom, D., Berton, H., and Meadowcroft, J. (2016). Framing the sun: A discursive approach to understanding multi-dimensional interactions within socio-technical transitions through the case of solar electricity in Ontario, Canada. Research Policy, 45(6), 1275–90. Rosendal, K., and Andresen, S. (2016). Realizing access and benefit sharing from use of genetic resources between diverging international regimes: The scope for leadership. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 16(4), 579–96. Rozema, J. G., Bond, A. J., Cashmore, M., and Chilvers, J. (2012). An investigation of environmental and sustainability discourses associated with the substantive purposes of environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 33(1), 80–90. Rozema, J. G., Cashmore, M., Bond, A. J., and Chilvers, J. (2015). Respatialization and local protest strategy formation: Investigating high-speed rail megaproject development in the UK. Geoforum, 59, 98–108. Rumsey, M., Fletcher, S. M., Thiessen, J., et al. (2014). A qualitative examination of the health workforce needs during climate change disaster response in Pacific island countries. Human Resources for Health, 12(1), 9. Runhaar, H. (2009). Putting SEA in context: A discourse perspective on how SEA contributes to decision-making. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 29(3), 200–9. Sanz, M., Siebel, M. A., Ahlers, R., and Gupta, J. (2016). New approaches to cleaner production: Applying the Sasi method to micro-tanneries in Colombia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 963–71. Schlyter, P., Stjernquist, I., and Bäckstrand, K. (2009). Not seeing the forest for the trees? The environmental effectiveness of forest certification in Sweden. Forest Policy and Economics, 11(5–6), 375–82. Schouten, G., and Glasbergen, P. (2012). Private multi-stakeholder governance in the agricultural market place: An analysis of legitimization processes of the roundtables on sustainable palm oil and responsible soy. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 15(B), 63–88. Schouten, G., Leroy, P., and Glasbergen, P. (2012). On the deliberative capacity of private multi-stakeholder governance: The roundtables on responsible soy and sustainable palm oil. Ecological Economics, 83, 42–50. Schroeder, H. (2010). Agency in international climate negotiations: The case of indigenous peoples and avoided deforestation. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 10(4), 317–32. Schroeder, H., Burch, S., and Rayner, S. (2013). Novel multisector networks and entrepreneurship in urban climate governance. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 31(5), 761–8. Schroeder, H., and Lovell, H. (2012). The role of non-nation-state actors and side events in the international climate negotiations. Climate Policy, 12(1), 23–37. Schultz, L., Folke, C., Osterblom, H., and Olsson, P. (2015). Adaptive governance, ecosystem management, and natural capital. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 112(24), 7369–74. Scolobig, A., Komendantova, N., Patt, A., et al. (2014). Multi-risk governance for natural hazards in Naples and Guadeloupe. Natural Hazards, 72(3), 1523–45.

Appendix

223

Seitzinger, S. P., Svedin, U., Crumley, C. L., et al. (2012). Planetary stewardship in an urbanizing world: Beyond city limits. Ambio, 41(8), 787–94. Siebenhüner, B. (2008). Learning in international organizations in global environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics, 8(4), 92–116. Siebenhüner, B., Rodela, R., and Ecker, F. (2016). Social learning research in ecological economics: A survey. Environmental Science & Policy, 55, 116–26. Simpson, A., and Park, S. (2013). The Asian Development Bank as a global risk regulator in Myanmar. Third World Quarterly, 34(10), 1858–71. Simpson, S., Brown, G., Peterson, A., and Johnstone, R. (2016). Stakeholder perspectives for coastal ecosystem services and influences on value integration in policy. Ocean and Coastal Management, 126, 9–21. Smits, C. C. A., van Tatenhove, J. P. M., and van Leeuwen, J. (2014). Authority in Arctic governance: Changing spheres of authority in Greenlandic offshore oil and gas developments. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 14(4), 329–48. Smits, M., and Middleton, C. (2014). New arenas of engagement at the water governance-climate finance nexus? An analysis of the boom and bust of hydropower CDM projects in Vietnam. Water Alternatives, 7(3), 561–83. Sofronova, E., Holley, C., and Nagarajan, V. (2014). Environmental non-governmental organizations and Russian environmental governance: Accountability, participation and collaboration. Transnational Environmental Law, 3(2), 341–71. Somorin, O. A., Visseren-Hamakers, I. J., Arts, B., et al. (2014). REDD+ policy strategy in Cameroon: Actors, institutions and governance. Environmental Science & Policy, 35, 87–97. Sova, C., Vervoort, J., Thornton, T., et al. (2015a). Exploring farmer preference shaping in international agricultural climate change adaptation regimes. Environmental Science & Policy, 54, 463–74. Sova, C. A., Helfgott, A., Chaudhury, A. S., et al. (2015b). Multi-level stakeholder influence mapping: Visualizing power relations across actor levels in Nepal’s agricultural climate change adaptation regime. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 28, 383–409. Spagnuolo, F. (2011). Diversity and pluralism in earth system governance: Contemplating the role for global administrative law. Ecological Economics, 70(11), 1875–81. Spruijt, P., Knol, A. B., Vasileiadou, E., Devilee, J., Lebret, E., and Petersen, A. C. (2014). Roles of scientists as policy advisers on complex issues: A literature review. Environmental Science & Policy, 40, 16–25. Sternlieb, F., Bixler, R. P., Huber-Stearns, H., and Huayhuaca, C. (2013). A question of fit: Reflections on boundaries, organizations and social-ecological systems. Journal of Environmental Management, 130, 117–25. Stevenson, H., and Dryzek, J. S. (2012). The discursive democratisation of global climate governance. Environmental Politics, 21(2), 189–210. Stoett, P., and Temby, O. (2015). Bilateral and trilateral natural resource and biodiversity governance in North America: Organizations, networks, and inclusion. Review of Policy Research, 32(1), 1–18. Stringer, L. C., Dougill, A. J., Dyer, J. C., et al. (2014). Advancing climate compatible development: Lessons from southern Africa. Regional Environmental Change, 14(2), 713–25. Szulecki, K., Fischer, S., Gullberg, A. T., and Sartor, O. (2016). Shaping the “energy union”: Between national positions and governance innovation in EU energy and climate policy. Climate Policy, 16(5), 548–67.

224

Appendix

Taplin, R., and McGee, J. (2010). The Asia-Pacific Partnership: Implementation challenges and interplay with Kyoto. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1(1), 16–22. Taylor, P. L. (2012). Multiple forest activities, multiple purpose organizations: Organizing for complexity in a grassroots movement in Guatemala’s Petén. Forest Ecology and Management, 268, 29–38. Taylor, P. L., and Cheng, A. (2012). Environmental governance as embedded process: Managing change in two community-based forestry organizations. Human Organization, 71(1), 110–22. Termeer, C., Biesbroek, R., and Van den Brink, M. (2012). Institutions for adaptation to climate change: Comparing national adaptation strategies in Europe. European Political Science, 11(1), 41–53. Thaler, T. (2014). Developing partnership approaches for flood risk management: Implementation of inter-local co-operations in Austria. Water International, 39(7), 1018–29. Thaler, T., and Levin-Keitel, M. (2016). Multi-level stakeholder engagement in flood risk management—A question of roles and power: Lessons from England. Environmental Science & Policy, 55, 292–301. Thaler, T., and Priest, S. (2014). Partnership funding in flood risk management: New localism debate and policy in England. Area, 46(4), 418–25. Thomson, I., Dey, C., and Russell, S. (2015). Activism, arenas and accounts in conflicts over tobacco control. Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, 28(5), 809–45. Tierney, K. (2012). Disaster governance: Social, political, and economic dimensions. The Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37, 341–63. Tiwari, P. C., and Joshi, B. (2015). Local and regional institutions and environmental governance in Hindu Kush Himalaya. Environmental Science & Policy, 49, 66–74. Uittenbroek, C. J., Janssen-Jansen, L. B., and Runhaar, H. A. C. (2016). Stimuli for climate adaptation in cities: Insights from Philadelphia – An early adapter. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 8(1), 38–56. Underdal, A., Hovi, J., Kallbekken, S., and Skodvin, T. (2012). Can conditional commitments break the climate change negotiations deadlock? International Political Science Review, 33(4), 475–93. Uppanunchai, A., Apirumanekul, C., and Lebel, L. (2015). Planning for production of freshwater fish fry in a variable climate in northern Thailand. Environmental Management, 56(4), 859–73. Urpelainen, J., and Van de Graaf, T. (2015). The international renewable energy agency: A success story in institutional innovation? International Environmental Agreement: Politics, Law and Economics, 15(2), 159–77. van Asselt, H., Kanie, N., and Iguchi, M. (2009). Japan’s position in international climate policy: Navigating between Kyoto and the APP. International Environmental Agreements, 9(3), 319–36. Van de Graaf, T. (2012). Obsolete or resurgent? The International Energy Agency in a changing global landscape. Energy Policy, 48, 233–41. Van de Graaf, T., and Lesage, D. (2009). The International Energy Agency after 35 years: Reform needs and institutional adaptability. The Review of International Organizations, 4, 293–317. van der Heijden, J. (2010). One task, a few approaches, many impacts: Private-sector involvement in Canadian building code enforcement. Canadian Public Administration, 53(3), 351–74.

Appendix

225

van der Heijden, J. (2015). The role of government in voluntary environmental programmes: A fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis. Public Administration, 93(3), 576–92. van Kerkhoff, L. E., and Lebel, L. (2015). Coproductive capacities: Rethinking science-governance relations in a diverse world. Ecology and Society, 20(1), 14. van Laerhoven, F. (2014). When is participatory local environmental governance likely to emerge? A study of collective action in participatory municipal environmental councils in Brazil. Environmental Policy and Governance, 24(2), 77–93. van Leeuwen, J. (2015). The regionalization of maritime governance: Towards a polycentric governance system for sustainable shipping in the European Union. Ocean & Coastal Management, 117, 23–31. van Stigt, R., Driessen, P. P. J., and Spit, T. J. (2016). Steering urban environmental quality in a multi-level governance context. How can devolution be the solution to pollution? Land Use Policy, 50, 268–76. van Tatenhove, J., Raakjae, J., van Leeuwen, J., and van Hoof, L. (2014). Regional cooperation for European seas: Governance models in support of the implementation of the MFSD, Marine Policy, 50, 364–72. Vasileiadou, E., Hisschemoller, M., Petersen, A. C., et al. (2014). Adaptation to extreme weather: Identifying different societal perspectives in the Netherlands. Regional Environmental Change, 14(1), 91–101. Vasileiadou, E., and Safarzńyska, K. (2010). Transitions: Taking complexity seriously. Futures, 42(10), 1176–86. Vijge, M. J. (2013). The promise of new institutionalism: Explaining the absence of a World or United Nations Environment Organisation. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 13(2), 153–76. Villamayor-Tomas, S., Fleischman, F. D., Ibarra, I. P., et al. (2014). From Sandoz to salmon: Conceptualizing resource and institutional dynamics in the Rhine watershed through the SES framework. International Journal of the Commons, 8(2), 361–95. Viola, E., and Franchini, M. (2014). Brazilian climate politics 2005–2012: Ambivalence and paradox. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5(5), 677–88. Viola, E., Franchini, M., and Ribeiro, T. L. (2012). Climate governance in an international system under conservative hegemony: The role of major powers. Revista Brasileira de Politica International, 55, 9–29. Wallbott, L. (2014). Indigenous peoples in UN REDD+ negotiations: Importing power and lobbying for rights through discursive interplay management. Ecology and Society, 19 (1), 21. Wang, J., Brown, D. G., and Agrawal, A. (2013). Climate adaptation, local institutions, and rural livelihoods: A comparative study of herder communities in Mongolia and Inner Mongolia, China. Global Environmental Change, 23(6), 1673–83. Ward, P. J., Pauw, W. P., van Buuren, M. W., and Marfai, M. A. (2013). Governance of flood risk management in a time of climate change: The cases of Jakarta and Rotterdam. Environmental Politics, 22(3), 518–36. Wassen, M. J., Runhaar, H., Barendregt, A., and Okruszko, T. (2011). Evaluating the role of participation in modeling studies for environmental planning. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 38(2), 338–58. Weber, M., Driessen, P. P., and Runhaar, H. A. (2011). Drivers of and barriers to shifts in governance: Analysing noise policy in the Netherlands. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 13(2), 119–37. Webster, D. G. (2015). The action cycle/structural context framework: A fisheries approach. Ecology and Society, 20(1), 33.

226

Appendix

Werners, S. E., Flachner, Z., Matczak, P., et al. (2009). Exploring earth system governance: A case study of floodplain management along the Tisza River in Hungary. Global Environmental Change, 19(4), 503–11. Westley, F. R., Tjornbo, O., Schultz, L., et al. (2013). A theory of transformative agency in linked social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 18(3), http://dx.doi.org/10.5751 /ES-05072-180327 Widerberg, O., and Stripple, J. (2016). The expanding field of cooperative initiatives for decarbonization: A review of five databases. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 7(4), 486–500. Widerberg, O., and van Laerhoven, F. (2014). Measuring the autonomous influence of an international bureaucracy: The Division for Sustainable Development. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 14(4), 303–27. Widman, U. (2016). Exploring the role of public–private partnerships in forest protection. Sustainability, 8(5), 496. Witter, R., Suiseeya, K. R. M., Gruby, R. L., et al. (2015). Moments of influence in global environmental governance. Environmental Politics, 24(6), 894–912. Wuisan, L., van Leeuwen, J., and van Koppen, C. K. (2012). Greening international shipping through private governance: A case study of the Clean Shipping Project. Marine Policy, 36, 165–73. Wyatt, S., Kessels, M., and van Laerhoven, F. (2015). Indigenous peoples’ expectations for forestry in New Brunswick: Are rights enough? Society & Natural Resources, 28(6), 625–40. Yengoh, G. T., Steen, K., Armah, F. A., and Ness, B. (2016). Factors of vulnerability: How large-scale land acquisitions take advantage of local and national weaknesses in Sierra Leone. Land Use Policy, 50, 328–40. Young, J. C., Butler, J. R., Jordan, A., and Watt, A. D. (2012). Less government intervention in biodiversity management: Risks and opportunities. Biodiversity and Conservation, 21 (4), 1095–100. Young, J. C., Jordan, A., Searle, K. R., Butler, A., Simmons, P., and Watt, A. D. (2013). Framing scale in participatory biodiversity management may contribute to more sustainable solutions. Conservation Letters, 6(5), 333–40. Young, J. C., Searle, K., Butler, A., Simmons, P., Watt, A. D., and Jordan, A. (2016). The role of trust in the resolution of conservation conflicts. Biological Conservation, 195, 196–202. Young, O. R. (2016). Governing the antipodes: International cooperation in Antarctica and the Arctic. Polar Record, 52(2), 230–8. Zeitoun, M., Mirumachi, N., and Warner, J. (2011). Transboundary water interaction II: The influence of ‘soft’ power. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 11(2), 159–78. Zhao, X., Li, H., Wu, L., and Qi, Y. (2014). Implementation of energy-saving policies in China: How local governments assisted industrial enterprises in achieving energy-saving targets. Energy Policy, 66, 170–84.

References

Abbott, K. W. (2008). Enriching rational choice institutionalism for the study of international law. University of Illinois Law Review, 1, 5–46. Abbott, K. W. (2012). Engaging the public and the private in global sustainability governance. International Affairs, 88(3), 543–64. Abbott, K. W. (2014). Strengthening the transnational regime complex for climate change. Transnational Environmental Law, 3(1), 57–88. Abbott, K. W., and Bernstein, S. (2015). The high-level political forum on sustainable development: Orchestration by default and design. Global Policy, 6(3), 222–33. Abbott, K. W., and Snidal, D. (2010). International regulation without international government: Improving IO performance through orchestration. Review of International Organizations, 5(3), 315–44. Abbott, K. W., and Snidal, D. (2013). Taking responsive regulation transnational: Strategies for international organizations. Regulation and Governance, 7(1), 95–113. Acharya, A. (2004). How ideas spread: Whose norms matter? Norm localization and institutional change in Asian regionalism. International Organization, 58(2), 239–75. Adsera, A., Boix, C., and Payne, M. (2003). Are you being served? Political accountability and quality of government. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 19(2), 445–90. Agrawal, A., Chhatre, A., and Hardin, R. (2008). Changing governance of the world’s forests. Science, 320(5882), 1460–2. Alexander, S. M., Andrachuk, M., and Armitage, D. (2016). Navigating governance networks for community-based conservation. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14 (3), 155–64. Anand, R. (2004). International Environmental Justice: A North–South Dimension. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing. Andonova, L. B. (2010). Public–private partnerships for the earth: Politics and patterns of hybrid authority in the multilateral system. Global Environmental Politics, 10(2), 25–53. Andonova, L. B., Betsill, M. M., and Bulkeley, H. (2009). Transnational climate governance. Global Environmental Politics, 9(2), 52–73. Andonova, L. B., and Levy, M. A. (2003). Franchising global governance: Making sense of the Johannesburg type II partnerships. Yearbook of International Cooperation on Environment and Development, 4, 19–31. Andonova, L. B., and Mitchell, R. B. (2010). The rescaling of global environmental politics. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 35(1), 255–82. Andrachuk, M., and Armitage, D. (2015). Understanding social-ecological change and transformation through community perceptions of system identity. Ecology and Society, 20(4), http://dx.doi.org/10.5757/ES-07759.200426 227

228

References

Andrew, J., and Huitema, D. (2014). Policy innovation in a changing climate: Sources, patterns and effects. Global Environmental Change, 29, 387–94. Ansell, C., and Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–71. Apostolopoulou, E., Bormpoudakis, D., Paloniemi, R., et al. (2014). Governance rescaling and the neoliberalization of nature: The case of biodiversity conservation in four EU countries. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 21(6), 481–94. Apostolopoulou, E., Drakou, E. G., and Pediaditi, K. (2012). Participation in the management of Greek Natura 2000 sites: Evidence from a cross-level analysis. Journal of Environmental Management, 113, 308–18. Apostolopoulou, E., and Pantis, J. D. (2009). Conceptual gaps in the national strategy for the implementation of the European Natura 2000 conservation policy in Greece. Biological Conservation, 142(1), 221–37. Armitage, D., Béné, C., Charles, A. T., Johnson, D., and Allison, E. H. (2012). The interplay of well-being and resilience in applying a social-ecological perspective. Ecology and Society, 17(4), 15–32. Armitage, D., de Loë, R. C., Morris, M., et al. (2015). Science–policy processes for transboundary water governance. Ambio, 44(5), 353–66. Armitage, D., de Loë, R., and Plummer, R. (2012). Environmental governance and its implications for conservation practice. Conservation Letters, 5(4), 245–55. Armitage, D., Marschke, M., and Plummer, R. (2008). Adaptive co-management and the paradox of learning. Global Environmental Change, 18(1), 86–98. Asenova, D., and Beck, M. (2010). Crucial silences: When accountability met PFI and finance capital. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 21(1), 1–13. Ashley, P., and Boyd, W. (2006). Quantitative and qualitative approaches to research in environmental management. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 13 (2), 70–8. Atela, J., Quinn, C., Arhin, A., Duguma, L., and Mbeva, K. (2017). Exploring the agency of Africa in climate change negotiations: The case of REDD+. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 17(4), 463–82. Auld, G., Renckens, S., and Cashore, B. (2015). Transnational private governance between the logics of empowerment and control. Regulation and Governance, 9(2), 108–24. Babon, A., McIntyre, D., Gowae, G. Y., et al. (2014). Advocacy coalitions, REDD+, and forest governance in Papua New Guinea: How likely is transformational change? Ecology and Society, 19(3), 16–29. Bache, I., Bartle, I., Flinders, M., and Marsden, G. (2015). Blame games and climate change: Accountability, multi-level governance and carbon management. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 17(1), 64–88. Bäckstrand, K. (2004). Scientisation vs. civic expertise in environmental governance: Eco-feminist, eco-modern and post-modern responses. Environmental Politics, 13(4), 695–714. Bäckstrand, K. (2006). Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: Rethinking legitimacy, accountability and effectiveness. European Environment, 16(5), 290–306. Bäckstrand, K. (2008). Accountability of networked climate governance: The rise of transnational climate partnerships. Global Environmental Politics, 8(3), 74–102. Bäckstrand, K., and Kylsäter, M. (2014). Old wine in new bottles? The legitimation and delegitimation of UN public-private partnerships for sustainable development from the Johannesburg Summit to the Rio+20 Summit. Globalizations, 11(3), 331–47.

References

229

Bai, X., McAllister, R. R., Beaty, R. M., and Taylor, B. (2010). Urban policy and governance in a global environment: Complex systems, scale mismatches and public participation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2(3), 129–35. Baird, J., Plummer, R., Haug, C., and Huitema, D. (2014). Learning effects of interactive decision-making processes for climate change adaptation. Global Environmental Change, 27, 51–63. Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44 (9), 1175–84. Barau, A. S., and Al Hosani, N. (2015). Prospects of environmental governance in addressing sustainability challenges of seawater desalination industry in the Arabian Gulf. Environmental Science and Policy, 50, 145–54. Barau, A. S., and Said, I. (2016). From goodwill to good deals: FELDA land resettlement scheme and the ascendancy of the landless poor in Malaysia. Land Use Policy, 54, 423–31. Barau, A. S., and Stringer, L. C. (2015). Access to and allocation of ecosystem services in Malaysia’s Pulau Kukup Ramsar site. Ecosystem Services, 16, 167–73. Barbi, F., and Ferreira, L. D. C. (2014). Risks and political responses to climate change in Brazilian coastal cities. Journal of Risk Research, 17(4), 485–503. Baskaran, A. (2017). UNESCO Science Report: Towards 2030. Institutions and Economies, 125–127. Bastakoti, R. C., Gupta, J., Babel, M. S., and van Dijk, M. P. (2014). Climate risks and adaptation strategies in the lower Mekong River basin. Regional Environmental Change, 14(1), 207–19. Bastakoti, R. C., Shivakoti, G. P., and Lebel, L. (2010). Local irrigation management institutions mediate changes driven by external policy and market pressures in Nepal and Thailand. Environmental Management, 46(3), 411–23. Beach, D. (2018). Achieving methodological alignment when combining QCA and process tracing in practice. Sociological Methods & Research, 47(1), 64–99. Beach, D., and Pedersen, R. (2013). Process-Tracing Methods: Foundations and Guidelines. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Beck, U. (1986). Risikogesellschaft. Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Behnam, M., and MacLean, T. L. (2011). Where is the accountability in international accountability standards? A decoupling perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(1), 45–72. Bell, S., and Hindmoor, A. (2009). Rethinking Governance: The Centrality of the State in Modern Society. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Benecke, E. (2011). Networking for climate change: Agency in the context of renewable energy governance in India. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law, and Economics, 11(1), 23–42. Benney, T. (2015). Making Environmental Markets Work: The Varieties of Capitalism in Emerging Economies. New York, NY: Routledge Press. Berardo, R., Heikkila, T., and Gerlak, A. K. (2014). Interorganizational engagement in collaborative environmental management: Evidence from the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(3), 697–719. Bergsma, E., Gupta, J., and Jong, P. (2012). Does individual responsibility increase the adaptive capacity of society? The case of local water management in the Netherlands. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 64(1), 13–22.

230

References

Berkes, F. (2009). Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(5), 1692–1702. Bernauer, T., and Betzold, C. (2012). Civil society in global environmental governance. Journal of Environment and Development, 21(1), 62–6. Bernstein, S. (2000). Ideas, social structure and the compromise of liberal environmentalism. European Journal of International Relations, 6(4), 464–512. Bernstein, S. (2004). Legitimacy in global environmental governance. Journal of International Law and International Relations, 1, 139–66. Bernstein, S. (2011). Legitimacy in intergovernmental and non-state global governance. Review of International Political Economy, 18(1), 17–51. Bernstein, S., and Cashore, B. (2012). Complex global governance and domestic policies: Four pathways of influence. International Affairs, 88(3), 585–604. Bernstein, S., and Hoffmann, M. (2018). The politics of decarbonization and the catalytic impact of subnational climate experiments. Policy Sciences, 51(2), 189–211. Betsill, M. M. (2014). Transnational Actors in International Environmental Politics. In M. M. Betsill, K. Hochstetler, and D. Stevis (eds.), Advances in International Environmental Politics, 2nd ed., pp. 185–210. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Betsill, M. M., and Bulkeley, H. (2004). Transnational networks and global environmental governance: The cities for climate protection program. International Studies Quarterly, 48(2), 471–93. Betsill, M. M., and Corell, E., eds. (2008). NGO Diplomacy: The Influence of Nongovernmental Organizations in International Environmental Negotiations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Betsill, M. M., Dubash, N. K., Paterson, M., van Asselt, H., Vihma, A., and Winkler, H. (2015). Building productive links between the UNFCCC and the broader global climate governance landscape. Global Environmental Politics, 15(2), 1–10. Betsill, M. M., Pattberg, P., and Dellas, E. (2011). Editorial: Agency in earth systems governance. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 11 (1), 1–6. Bettini, Y., Brown, R. R., and de Haan, F. J. (2015). Exploring institutional adaptive capacity in practice: Examining water governance adaptation in Australia. Ecology and Society, 20(1), 47. Betzold, C., Bernauer, T., and Koubi, V. (2016). Press briefings in international climate change negotiations. Environmental Communication, 10 (5), 575–92. Beunen, R., and Patterson, J. (2016). Analysing institutional change in environmental governance: Exploring the concept of ‘institutional work.’ Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 1–18. Beunen, R., Patterson, J., and Van Assche, K. (2017). Governing for resilience: The role of institutional work. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 28, 10–16. Biermann, F. (2007). ‘Earth system governance’ as a crosscutting theme of global change research. Global Environmental Change, 17(3–4), 326–37. Biermann, F. (2010). Beyond the intergovernmental regime: Recent trends in global carbon governance. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2(4), 284–8. Biermann, F., Abbott, K., Andresen, S., et al. (2012). Transforming governance and institutions for global sustainability: Key insights from the Earth System Governance Project. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4(1), 51–60. Biermann, F., Bai, X., Bondre, N., et al. (2016). Down to earth: Contextualizing the Anthropocene. Global Environmental Change, 39, 341–50.

References

231

Biermann, F., Betsill, M. M., Gupta, J., et al. (2010a). Earth system governance: A research framework. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 10 (4), 277–98. Biermann, F., Betsill, M. M., Gupta, J., et al. (2009). Earth System Governance: People, Places, and the Planet. A Science and Implementation Plan of the Earth System Governance Project. Earth System Governance Project Report No. 1. IHDP Report No. 20. Bonn, Germany. Biermann, F., Betsill, M. M., Vieira, S. C., et al. (2010b). Navigating the Anthropocene: The Earth System Governance Project strategy paper. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2(3), 202–8. Biermann, F., and Gupta, A. (2011). Accountability and legitimacy in earth system governance: A research framework. Ecological Economics, 70(11), 1856–64. Biermann F., and Pattberg, P. (2008). Global environmental governance: Taking stock, moving forward. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 33, 277–94. Biermann, F., and Siebenhüner, B., eds. (2009a). International Organizations in Global Environmental Governance. London: Routledge. Biermann, F., and Siebenhüner B., eds. (2009b). Managers of Global Change: The Influence of International Environmental Bureaucracies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Biggs, R., Westley, F., and Carpenter, S. (2010). Navigating the back loop: Fostering social innovation and transformation in ecosystem management. Ecology and Society, 15(2), 475. Bixler, R. P. (2014). From community forest management to polycentric governance: Assessing evidence from the bottom. Society and Natural Resources, 27(2), 155–69. Blair, H. (2000). Participation and accountability at the periphery: Democratic local governance in six countries. World Development, 28(1), 21–39. Blaney, D., and Inayatullah, N. (2008). International relations from below. In C. Reus-Smit and D. Snidal (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, pp. 663–74. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bodin, O., and Osterblom, H. (2013). International fisheries regime effectiveness activities and resources of key actors in the Southern Ocean. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 948–56. Böhmelt, T., and Betzold, C. (2013). The impact of environmental interest groups in international negotiations: Do ENGOs induce stronger environmental commitments? International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 13(2), 127–51. Bork, T., Kraas, F., and Yuan, Y. (2011). Governance challenges in China’s urban health care system – The role of stakeholders. Erdkunde, 65(2), 121–35. Börzel, T., and Risse, T. (2015). Dysfunctional state institutions, trust, and governance in areas of limited statehood. Regulation & Governance, 10(2), 149–60. Bouteligier, S. (2011). Exploring the agency of global environmental consultancy firms in earth system governance. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 11(1), 43–61. Bovaird, T. (2005). Public governance: Balancing stakeholder power in a network society. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 71(2), 217–28. Bovens, M. (2014). Two concepts of accountability: Accountability as a virtue and as a mechanism. In D. Curtin, P. Mair, and Y. Papadopoulos (eds.), Accountability and European Governance, pp. 28–49. London: Routledge. Bovens, M., Schillemans, T., and Hart, P. T. (2008). Does public accountability work? An assessment tool. Public Administration, 86(1), 225–42.

232

References

Bowen, K. J., Ebi, K., Friel, S., and McMichael, A. J. (2013). A multi layered governance framework for incorporating social science insights into adapting to the health impacts of climate change. Global Health Action, 6(1), https://doi.org/10.3402/gha.v6i0.21820 Bowen, K. J., Miller, F. P., Dany, V., and Graham, S. (2015). The relevance of a coproductive capacity framework to climate change adaptation: Investigating the health and water sectors in Cambodia. Ecology and Society, 20(1), 13–24. Breitmeier, H. A., Underdal, A., and Young, O. R. (2011). The effectiveness of international environmental regimes: Comparing and contrasting findings from quantitative research. International Studies Review, 13(4), 579–65. Brink, E., and Wamsler, C. (2018). Collaborative governance for climate change adaptation: Mapping citizen-municipality interactions. Environmental Policy and Governance, 28(2), 82–97. Brisbois, M. C., and de Loë, R. C. (2015). Power in collaborative approaches to governance for water: A systematic review. Society & Natural Resources, 29(7), 1–16. Brisbois, M. C., and de Loë, R. C. (2016). State roles and motivations in collaborative approaches to water governance: A power theory-based analysis. Geoforum, 74, 202–12. Broadbent, J., and Laughlin, R. (2003). Public private partnerships: An introduction. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 16(3), 332–41. Brockhaus, M., Di Gregorio, M., and Mardiah, S. (2014). Governing the design of national REDD+: An analysis of the power of agency. Forest Policy and Economics, 49, 23–33. Brockhaus, M., Djoudi, H., and Kambire, H. (2012). Multi-level governance and adaptive capacity in West Africa. International Journal of the Commons, 6(2), 200–32. Brouwer, S., and Huitema, D. (2017). Policy entrepreneurs and strategies for change. Regional Environmental Change, 18(5), 1259–72. Brown, H. S., de Jong, M., and Lessidrenska, T. (2009). The rise of the Global Reporting Initiative: A case of institutional entrepreneurship. Environmental Politics, 18(2), 182–200. Brown, H. S., de Jong, M., and Levy, D. L. (2009). Building institutions based on information disclosure: Lessons from GRI’s sustainability reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(6), 571–80. Brown, J. C., and Purcell, M. (2005). There’s nothing inherent about scale: Political ecology, the local trap, and the politics of development in the Brazilian Amazon. Geoforum, 36(5), 607–24. Brown, K., and Westaway, E. (2011). Agency, capacity, and resilience to environmental change: Lessons from human development, well-being, and disasters. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 36(1), 321–42. Bulkeley, H. (2005). Reconfiguring environmental governance: Towards a politics of scales and networks. Political Geography, 24(8), 875–902. Bulkeley, H. (2012). Governance and the geography of authority: Modalities of authorisation and the transnational governing of climate change. Environment and Planning A, 44 (10), 2428–44. Bulkeley, H., Andonova, L., Bäckstrand, K., et al. (2012). Governing climate change transnationally: Assessing the evidence from a database of sixty initiatives. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 30(4), 591–612. Bulkeley, H., Andonova, L. B., Betsill, M. M., et al. (2014). Transnational Climate Change Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bulkeley, H., Carmin, J., Castán Broto, V., Edwards, G. A. S., and Fuller, S. (2013). Climate justice and global cities: Mapping the emerging discourses. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 914–25.

References

233

Bulkeley, H., Castán Broto, V., and Maassen, A. (2013). Low-carbon transitions and the reconfiguration of urban infrastructure. Urban Studies, 51(7), 1471–86. Bulkeley, H., Luque-Ayala, A., and Silver, J. (2014). Housing and the (re)configuration of energy provision in Cape Town and Sao Paulo: Making space for a progressive urban climate politics? Political Geography, 40, 25–34. Bulkeley, H., and Schroeder, H. (2012). Beyond state/non-state divides: Global cities and the governing of climate change. European Journal of International Relations, 18(4), 743–66. Burch, S., Schroeder, H., Rayner, S., and Wilson, J. (2013). Novel multisector networks and entrepreneurship: The role of small businesses in the multilevel governance of climate change. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 31(5), 822–40. Burke, B. J., and Heynen, N. (2014). Transforming participatory science into socioecological praxis. Environment and Society, 5(1), 7–27. Buzan, B. (2004). From International to World Society? English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cadman, T., and Maraseni, T. (2013). More equal than others? A comparative analysis of state and non-state perceptions of interest representation and decision-making in REDD+ negotiations. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 26(3), 214–30. Campbell, R. Gregory, K. A., Patterson, D., and Bybee, D. (2015). Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods: A case example of mixed methods research in community psychology. In L. A. Jason and D. S. Glenwick (eds.), Methodological Approaches to Community-Based Research, pp. 51–68. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Carlsson, I., and Ramphal, S., eds. (1995). Our Global Neighbourhood: The Report of the Commission on Global Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cash, D. W., Adger, W. N., Berkes, F., et al. (2006). Scale and cross-scale dynamics: Governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecology and Society, 11(2). Cash D. W., Clark, W. C., Alcock, F., et al. (2003). Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 100(14), 8086–91. Cashmore, M., Richardson, T., Rozema, J., and Lyhne, I. (2015). Environmental governance through guidance: The ‘making up’ of expert practitioners. Geoforum, 62, 84–95. Cashore, B. (2002). Legitimacy and the privatization of environmental governance: How non–state market–driven (NSMD) governance systems gain rule–making authority. Governance, 15(4), 503–29. Castán Broto, V., and Bulkeley, H. (2013). A survey of urban climate change experiments in 100 cities. Global Environmental Change, 23(1), 92–102. Certomà, C. (2015). Expanding the ‘dark side of planning’: Governmentality and biopolitics in urban garden planning. Planning Theory, 14(1), 23–43. Chan, S., Brandi, C., and Bauer, S. (2016). The new impacts of the implementation of climate change response measures. Review of European Comparative and International Environmental Law, 25(2), 238–47. Chan, S., and Pattberg, P. (2008). Private rule-making and the politics of accountability: Analyzing global forest governance. Global Environmental Politics, 8(3), 103–21. Chan, S., van Asselt, H., Hale, T., et al. (2015). Reinvigorating international climate policy: A comprehensive framework for effective nonstate action. Global Policy, 6 (4), 466–73. Chapin, M. (2004). A challenge to conservationists. Can we protect natural habitats without abusing the people who live in them? World Watch, 17, 7–31.

234

References

Chappin, M. M. H., Vermeulen, W. J. V., Meeus, M. T. H., and Hekkert, M. P. (2009). Enhancing our understanding of the role of environmental policy in environmental innovation: Adoption explained by the accumulation of policy instruments and agent-based factors. Environmental Science and Policy, 12(7), 934–47. Cheng, A. S., Gerlak, A. K., Dale, L., and Mattor, K. (2015). Examining the adaptability of collaborative governance associated with publicly managed ecosystems over time: Insights from the Front Range Roundtable, Colorado, USA. Ecology and Society, 20 (1), 35. Chhatre, A., and Agrawal, A. (2009). Trade-offs and synergies between carbon storage and livelihood benefits from forest commons. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 106(42), 17667–70. Clapp, J. (1998). The privatization of global environmental governance: ISO 14000 and the developing world. Global Governance, 4, 295–316. Clapp, J., and Fuchs, D. A., eds. (2009). Corporate Power in Global Agrifood Governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Clapp, J., and Helleiner, E. (2012). Troubled futures? The global food crisis and the politics of agricultural derivatives regulation. Review of International Political Economy, 19(2), 181–207. Clare, S., Krogman, N., and Caine, K. J. (2013). The “balance discourse”: A case study of power and wetland management. Geoforum, 49, 40–9. Coffey, A., and Atkinson, P. (1996). Making Sense of Qualitative Data. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Cohen, R. L. (1987). Distributive justice: Theory and research. Social Justice Research, 1 (1), 19–40. Colander, D., Goldberg, M., Haas, A., et al. (2009). The financial crisis and the systemic failure of the economics profession. Critical Review, 21(2–3), 249–67. Coleman, J. A. (1997). Authority, power, leadership: Sociological understandings. New Theology Review, 10(3), 31–44. Colgan, J. D., and Van de Graaf, T. (2015). Mechanisms of informal governance: Evidence from the IEA. Journal of International Relations and Development, 18(4), 455–81. Considine, M. (2002) The end of the line? Accountable governance in the age of networks, partnerships, and joined-up services. Governance, 15(1), 21–40. Conway, D., Barnett, J., Betsill, M. M., Lebel, L., and Seto, K. C. (2014). Global environmental change: Taking stock at a time of transition. Global Environmental Change, 25, 1–4. Cook, H. F., Benson. D., Inman, A., Jordan, A., and Smith, L. (2012). Catchment management groups in England and Wales: Extent, roles and influences. Water and Environment Journal, 26(1), 47–55. Cooke, B., and Kothari, U., eds. (2007). Participation: The New Tyranny? 4th ed. London, UK: Zed Books. Coolsaet, B., and Pitseys, J. (2015). Fair and equitable negotiations? African influence and the international access and benefit-sharing regime. Global Environmental Politics, 15 (2), 38–56. Corbera, E., and Jover, N. (2012). The undelivered promises of the Clean Development Mechanism: Insights from three projects in Mexico. Carbon Management, 3(1), 39–54. Corbera, E., and Schroeder, H. (2011). Governing and Implementing REDD+. Environmental Science & Policy, 14(2), 89–99. Crawford, B., Kasmidi, M., Korompis, F., and Pollnac, R. B. (2006). Factors influencing progress in establishing community-based marine protected areas in Indonesia. Coastal Management, 34(1), 39–64.

References

235

Dahl, R. A. (1957). The concept of power. Behavioral Science, 2(3), 201–15. Dauvergne, P., and Clapp, J. (2016). Researching global environmental politics in the 21st century. Global Environmental Politics, 16(1), 1–12. Davidson, S. L., and de Loë, R. C. (2016). The changing role of ENGOs in water governance: Institutional entrepreneurs? Environmental Management, 57(1), 62–78. Defeo, O., Castrejon, M., Perez-Castaneda, R., et al. (2016). Co-management in Latin American small-scale shellfisheries: Assessment from long-term case studies. Fish and Fisheries, 17(1), 176–92. de Jong, A. A., Runhaar, H. A., Runhaar, P. R., Kolhoff, A. J., and Driessen, P. P. (2012). Promoting system-level learning from project-level lessons: An analysis of donor-driven ‘indirect’ learning about EIA systems in Ghana and the Maldives. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 33(1), 23–31. de la Plaza Esteban, C., Visseren-Hamakers, I. J., and de Jong, W. (2014). The legitimacy of certification standards in climate change governance. Sustainable Development, 22(6), 420–32. Dellas, E., Pattberg, P., and Betsill, M. M. (2011). Agency in earth system governance: Refining a research agenda. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 11(1), 85–98. de Loë, R. C., Murray, D., and Brisbois, M. C. (2016). Perspectives of natural resource sector firms on collaborative approaches to governance for water. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135, 1117–28. Demirag, I., Dubnick, M., and Khadaroo, M. A. (2004). Framework for examining accountability and value for money in the UK’s Private Finance Initiative. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 15, 63–76. den Hond, F., de Bakker, F. G. A., and Doh, J. (2015). What prompts companies to collaboration with NGOs? Recent evidence from the Netherlands. Business & Society, 54(2), 187–228. Dentoni, D., Bitzer, V., and Schouten, G. (2018). Harnessing wicked problems in multi-stakeholder partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 150, 333–56. Di Lucia, L., and Kronsell, A. (2010). The willing, the unwilling and the unable – explaining implementation of the EU Biofuels Directive. Journal of European Public Policy, 17 (4), 545–63. Dimento, J. (2015). Laudato si’. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 57, 9–11. Dingwerth, K. (2005). The democratic legitimacy of public-private rule making: What can we learn from the World Commission on Dams?” Global Governance, 11(1), 65–83. Dingwerth, K. (2007). The New Transnationalism: Transnational Governance and Democratic Legitimacy, Houndmills, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Dingwerth, K., and Pattberg, P. (2009). World politics and organizational fields: The case of transnational sustainability governance. European Journal of International Relations, 15 (4), 707–43. Djalante, R., Thomalla, F., Sinapoy, M. S., and Carnegie, M. (2012). Building resilience to natural hazards in Indonesia: Progress and challenges in implementing the Hyogo Framework for Action. Natural Hazards, 62(3), 779–803. Dombrowski, K. (2010). Filling the gap? An analysis of non-governmental organizations responses to participation and representation deficits in global climate governance. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 10(4), 397–416. Dore, J., and Lebel, L. (2010). Deliberation and scale in Mekong region water governance. Environmental Management, 46(1), 60–80.

236

References

Dryzek, J. S. (2016). Institutions for the Anthropocene: Governance in a changing earth system. British Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 937–56. Dryzek, J. S., and Pickering, J. (2018). The Politics of the Anthropocene. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dryzek, J. S., and Stevenson, H. (2011). Global democracy and earth system governance. Ecological Economics. 70(11), 1865–74. Dryzek, J. S., and Tucker, A. (2008). Deliberative innovation to different effect: Consensus conferences in Denmark, France, and the United States. Public Administration Review, 68(5), 864–76. Dunlop, T., and Corbera, E. (2016). Incentivizing REDD+: How developing countries are laying the groundwork for benefit-sharing. Environmental Science & Policy, 63, 44–54. Durant, R. F., Fiorino, D. J., and O’Leary, R. (2016). Environmental Governance Reconsidered: Challenges, Choices, and Opportunities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Duyck, S. (2015). Promoting the principles of the Aarhus Convention in international forums: The case of the UN Climate Change Regime. Review of European Comparative and International Environmental Law, 24(2), 123–38. Dzebo, A., and Stripple, J. (2015). Transnational adaptation governance: An emerging fourth era of adaptation. Global Environmental Change, 35, 423–35. Earth System Governance Project. (2018a). Earth System Governance. Science and Implementation Plan of the Earth System Governance Project. Utrecht, the Netherlands. Earth System Governance Project. (2018b). Earth System Governance Network Information. Version, June 2018. Eberlein, B., Abbott, K. W., Black, J., Meidinger, E., and Wood, S. (2014). Transnational business governance interactions: Conceptualization and framework for analysis. Regulation & Governance, 8, 1–21. Edwards, P. N. (2010). A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data, and the Politics of Global Warming. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Eimer, T. R. (2014). Philosopher-kings in real life: The epistemic community on biodiversity in Brazil and India. Global Society, 28(2), 131–50. Eisenstadt, S. N. (1989). Structure and history: Introductory observations. International Political Science Review, 10(2), 99–110. Ellison, S. F., and Wallace, M. P. (2014). Diversity, social goods provision, and performance in the firm. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 23(2), 465–81. Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for a relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 103(2), 281–317. Engel-Di Mauro, S. (2009). Seeing the local in the global: Political ecologies, world-systems, and the question of scale. Geoforum, 40(1), 116–25. Evans, J. P. (2012). Environmental Governance. London: Routledge. Falkner, R. (2003). Private environmental governance and international relations: Exploring the links. Global Environmental Politics, 3(2), 72–87. Falkner, R. (2012). Business and global climate governance: A neo-pluralist perspective. In M. Ougaard and A. Leander (eds.), Business and Global Governance, pp. 115–33. London: Routledge. Falkner, R., and Buzan, R. (2017). The emergence of environmental stewardship as a primary institution of global international society. European Journal of International Relations, 25(1), 1–25. Faubion, J. D., ed. (1994). Michael Foucault, Power: The Essential Works of Foucault 1954–1984. London: Penguin Books. Feinberg, M., and Willer, R. (2013). The moral roots of environmental attitudes. Psychological Science, 24(1), 56–62.

References

237

Feitelson, E., and Fischhendler, I. (2009). Spaces of water governance: The case of Israel and its neighbors. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 99(4), 728–45. Few, R., Brown, K., and Tompkins, E. L. (2011). Public participation and climate change adaptation: Avoiding the illusion of inclusion. Climate Policy, 7(1), 46–59. Finnemore, M., and Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization, 52(4), 887–917. Fischer, F. (2000). Citizens, Experts, and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge, London: Duke University Press. Fischer, M., and Leifeld, P. (2015). Policy forums: Why do they exist and what are they used for? Policy Sciences, 48(3), 363–82. Fleiss J. L. (1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin, 76(5), 378–82. Fligstein, N., and McAdam, D. (2012). A Theory of Fields. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Florini, A., ed. (2007). The Right to Know: Transparency for an Open World, New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Foley, J. A., DeFries, R., Asner, G. P., et al. (2005). Global consequences of land use. Science, 309(5734), 570–4. Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., and Norberg, J. (2004). Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 441–73. Forsyth, T. (2004). Critical Political Ecology: The Politics of Environmental Science. New York, NY: Routledge. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977. New York, NY: Random House. Foucault, M. (2000). The subject and power. In J. D. Faubion (ed.), Power: Essential Works of Foucault 1954–1984, Vol. III, pp. 326–48. London: Penguin Books. Francis, P. (2015). Laudato si: On Care for our Common Home. Vatican City: Our Sunday Visitor. Freed, S., Dujon, V., Granek, E. F., and Mouhhidine, J. (2016). Enhancing small-scale fisheries management through community engagement and multi-community partnerships: Comoros case study. Marine Policy, 63, 81–91. Fuchs, D., Kalfagianni, A., and Havinga, T. (2011). Actors in private food governance: The legitimacy of retail standards and multistakeholder initiatives with civil society participation. Agriculture and Human Values, 28(3), 353–67. Fujisaki, T., Hyakumura, K., Henry, S., and Cadman, T. (2016). Does REDD+ Ensure sectoral coordination and stakeholder participation? A comparative analysis of REDD+ national governance structures in countries of Asia-Pacific Region. Forests, 7 (9), 1–17. Fukuyama, F. (2014). Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy. New York, NY: Macmillan. Gabrielsson, S., and Ramasar, V. (2013). Widows: Agents of change in a climate of water uncertainty. Journal of Cleaner Production, 60, 34–42. Galaz, V. (2014). Global Environmental Governance, Technology and Politics: The Anthropocene Gap. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Galaz, V., Biermann, F., Crona, B., et al. (2012a). ‘Planetary boundaries’—exploring the challenges for global environmental governance. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4(1), 80–7. Galaz, V., Biermann, F., Folke, C., Nilsson, M., and Olsson, P. (2012). Global environmental governance and planetary boundaries: An introduction. Ecological Economics, 81, 1–3.

238

References

Galaz, V., Österblom, H., Bodin, Ö., and Crona, B. (2016). Global networks and global change-Induced tipping points. International Environmental Agreements, 16(2), 189–221. Gallemore, C., Di Gregorio, M., Moeliono, M., Brockhaus, M., and Prasti H. R. D. (2015). Transaction costs, power, and multi-level forest governance in Indonesia. Ecological Economics, 114, 168–79. Gallemore, C., and Jespersen, K. (2016). Transnational markets for sustainable development governance: The case of REDD+. World Development, 86, 79–94. Gallemore, C., and Munroe, D. K. (2013). Centralization in the global avoided deforestation collaboration network. Global Environmental Change, 23, 1199–1210. Geden, O. (2016). The Paris Agreement and the inherent inconsistency of climate policymaking. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 7(6), 790–7. Geertz, C. (1973). Thick Description: Towards an Interpretive Theory of Culture, In C. Geertz (ed.), The Interpretation of Cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books. Gehring, T., Oberthur, S., and Muehleck, M. (2013). European Union actorness in International institutions: Why the EU is recognized as an actor in some international institutions, but not in others. Journal of Common Market Studies, 51(5), 849–65. Gelcich, S., Hughes, T. P., Olsson, P., et al. (2010). Navigating transformations in governance of Chilean marine coastal resources. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 107(39), 16794–99. Gellers, J. C. (2016). Crowdsourcing global governance: Sustainable development goals, civil society, and the pursuit of democratic legitimacy. International Environmental Agreements-Politics Law and Economics, 16(3), 415–32. Gerhardinger, L. C., Godoy, E. A., and Jones, P. J. (2009). Local ecological knowledge and the management of marine protected areas in Brazil. Ocean and Coastal Management, 3 (4), 154–65. Gerhardinger, L. C., Godoy, E. A. S., Jones, P. J. S., Sales, G., and Ferreira, B. P. (2011). Marine protected dramas: The flaws of the Brazilian national system of marine protected areas. Environmental Management, 47(4), 630–43. Gerlak, A. K., and Heikkila, T. (2011). Building a theory of learning in collaboratives: Evidence from the Everglades Restoration Program. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(4), 619–44. Gero, A., Fletcher, S., Rumsey, M., et al. (2014). Disasters and climate change in the Pacific: Adaptive capacity of humanitarian response organizations. Climate and Development, 7(1), 35–46. Gibson, C. C., Ostrom, E., and Ahn, T. (2000). The concept of scale and the human dimensions of global change: A survey. Ecological Economics, 32(2), 217–39. Giddens, A. (1992). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkley: University of California Press. Gilbert, D. U., Rasche, A., and Waddock, S. (2011). Accountability in a global economy: The emergence of international accountability standards. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21 (1), 23–44. Gill, S., and Cutler, C. (2014). New Constitutionalism and World Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gilmour, A., Walkerden, G., and Scandol, J. (1999). Adaptive management of the water cycle on the urban fringe: Three Australian case studies. Conservation Ecology, 3(1), www.consecol.org/vol3/iss1/art11/ Giri, K., and Darnhofer, I. (2010). Nepali women using community forestry as a platform for social change. Society & Natural Resources, 23(12), 1216–29.

References

239

Glaser, B. (2017). Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York, NY: Routledge. Godfrey Paul, C., Merrill C. B., and Hansen J. M. (2008). The relationship between corporate social responsibility and shareholder value: An empirical test of the risk management hypothesis. Strategic Management Journal, 30(4), 425–45. Goertz, G., and Mahoney, J. (2012). A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative Research in the Social Sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Goldthau, A., and Keating, M. F., eds. (2018). Handbook of the International Political Economy of Energy and Natural Resources. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Gómez-Baggethun, E., Reyes-García, V., Olsson, P., and Montes, C. (2012). Traditional ecological knowledge and community resilience to environmental extremes: A case study in Doñana, SW Spain. Global Environmental Change, 22(3), 640–50. Gordon, D. J. (2016a). Lament for a network? Cities and networked climate governance in Canada. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 34(3), 529–45. Gordon, D. J. (2016b). The politics of accountability in networked urban climate governance. Global Environmental Politics, 16(2), 82–100. Gough, Ian. (2017). Heat, Greed and Human Need: Climate Change, Capitalism and Sustainable Wellbeing. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Grant, D., Jorgenson, A., and Longhofer, W. (2018). Pathways to carbon pollution: The interactive effects of global, political, and organizational factors on power plants’ CO 2 emissions. Sociological Science, 5, 58–92. Grant, R. W., and Keohane, R. O. (2005). Accountability and abuses of power in world politics. American Political Science Review, 99(1), 29–43. Green, J. F. (2014). Rethinking Private Authority: Agents and Entrepreneurs in Global Environmental Governance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Grothmann, T., Grecksch, K., Winges, M., and Siebenhuener, B. (2013). Assessing institutional capacities to adapt to climate change: Integrating psychological dimensions in the adaptive capacity wheel. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 13(12), 3369–84. Gruby, R. L. (2017). Macropolitics of Micronesia: Toward a critical theory of regional environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics, 17(4), 9–27. Grugel, J. (2002). Democracy without Borders: Transnationalisation and Conditionality in New Democracies. London: Routledge Press. Gulbrandsen, L. H. (2008). Accountability arrangements in non-state standards organizations: Instrumental design and imitation. Organization, 15(4), 563–83. Gulbrandsen, L. H., and Auld, G. (2016). Contested accountability logics in evolving nonstate certification for fisheries sustainability. Global Environmental Politics, 16 (2),42–60. Gunderson, L., and Light, S. S. (2006). Adaptive management and adaptive governance in the Everglades ecosystem. Policy Sciences, 39, 323–34. Gunningham, N. A., Kagan R., and Thornton, D. (2006). Social license and environmental protection: Why businesses go beyond compliance. Law & Social Inquiry, 29(2), 307–41. Gupta, A. (2008). Transparency under scrutiny: Information disclosure in global environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics, 8(2), 1–7. Gupta, A. (2010). Transparency in global environmental governance: A coming of age? Global Environmental Politics, 10(3), 1–9. Gupta, A. (2011). An evolving science-society contract in India: The search for legitimacy in anticipatory risk governance. Food Policy, 36(6), 736–41.

240

References

Gupta, A., Andresen, S., Siebenhüner, B., and Biermann, F. (2012). Science networks. In P. Pattberg and F. Biermann (eds.), Global Environmental Governance Reconsidered, pp. 69–94. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Gupta, A., Pistorius, T., and Vijge, M. J. (2016). Managing fragmentation in global environmental governance: The REDD + Partnership as bridge organization. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 16, 355–74. Gupta, J. (2008). Global change: Analysing scale and scaling in environmental governance. In O. R. Young, L. A. King, and H. Schroeder (eds.), Institutions and Environmental Change: Principal Findings, Applications, and Research Frontiers, pp. 227–58. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Gupta, J., Termeer, C., Klostermann, J., et al. (2010). The adaptive capacity wheel: A method to assess the inherent characteristics of institutions to enable the adaptive capacity of society. Environmental Science & Policy, 13(6), 459–71. Guston, D. H. (2001). Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An introduction. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 26(4), 399–408. Haas, P. M. (2004). When does power listen to truth? A constructivist approach to the policy process. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(4), 569–92. Haas, P. M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1–35. Hafner-Burton, E. M., Kahler, M., and Montgomery, A. H. (2009). Network analysis for international relations. International Organization, 63(3), 559–92. Hage, M., Leroy, P., and Petersen, A. C. (2010). Stakeholder participation in environmental knowledge production. Futures, 42(3), 254–64. Hagerman, S., Witter, R., Corson, C., et al. (2012). On the coattails of climate? Opportunities and threats of a warming earth for biodiversity conservation. Global Environmental Change, 22(3), 724–35. Hahn, T. (2011). Self-organized governance networks for ecosystem management: Who is accountable? Ecology and Society, 16(2), www.ecologyandsociety.org /vol16/iss2/art18 Hahn, T., Olsson, P., Folke, C., and Johansson, K. (2006). Trust-building, knowledge generation and organizational innovations: The role of a bridging organization for adaptive comanagement of a wetland landscape around Kristianstad, Sweden. Human Ecology, 34(4), 573–92. Hajer, M. A. (2009). Authoritative Governance: Policy Making in the Age of Mediatization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hale, T. and Held, D., eds. (2011). Handbook of Transnational Governance: Institutions and Innovations. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Hale, T., Held, D., and Young, K. (2013). Gridlock: Why Global Cooperation Is Failing When We Need It Most. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Hale, T., and Mauzerall, D. L. (2004). Thinking globally and acting locally: Can the Johannesburg partnerships coordinate action on sustainable development? The Journal of Environment & Development, 13(3), 220–39. Hale, T., and Roger, C. (2014). Orchestration and transnational climate governance. Review of International Organizations, 9, 59–82. Hall, P. A. (2010). Historical institutionalism in rationalist and sociological perspective. In J. Mahoney and K. Thelen (eds.), Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power, pp. 204–23. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hallgren, K. A. (2012). Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: An overview and tutorial. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 8(1), 23–34. Harvey, D. (2003). The New Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

References

241

Heikkila, T., and Gerlak, A. K. (2013). Building a conceptual approach to collective learning: Lessons for public policy scholars. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3), 484–512. Heikkila, T., and Gerlak, A. K. (2019). Working on Learning: How the institutional rules of environmental governance matter. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management,62(1), 106–23. Held, D. (1991). Democracy, the nation-state and the global system. In I. Shapiro and C. Hacker-Cordón (eds.), Economy and Society, 20(2), 138–72. Held, D. (1999). The transformation of political community: Rethinking democracy in the context of globalization. In I. Shapiro, C. Hacker-Cordón, and R. Hardin (eds.), Democracy’s Edges, pp. 84–111. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Heubaum, H., and Biermann, F. (2015). Integrating global energy and climate governance: The changing role of the International Energy Agency. Energy Policy, 87, 229–39. Heuer, M. (2012). Sustainability governance across time and space: Connecting environmental stewardship in the firm with the global community. Business Strategy and the Environment, 21, 86–97. Hobson, K., and Niemeyer, S. (2011). Public responses to climate change: The role of deliberation in building capacity for adaptive action. Global Environmental Change, 21 (3), 957–71. Homer-Dixon, T., Maynard, J. L., Mildenberger, M., et al. (2013). A complex systems approach to the study of ideology: Cognitive-affective structures and the dynamics of belief systems. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 1(1), 337–63. Hsu, A., Widerberg, O., Weinfurter, A., et al. (2018). Bridging the Emissions Gap: The Role of Non-State and Subnational Actors. The Emissions Gap Report 2018. A UN Environment Synthesis Report. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme. Huitema, D., and Meijerink, S. V., eds. (2009). Water Policy Entrepreneurs: A Research Companion to Water Transitions Around the Globe, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Huitema, D., and Meijerink, S. V. (2010). Realizing water transitions: The role of policy entrepreneurs in water policy change. Ecology and Society, 15(2), 26. Hultman, N. E., Malone, E. L., Runci, P., Carlock, G., and Anderson, K. L. (2012). Factors in low-carbon energy transformations: Comparing nuclear and bioenergy in Brazil, Sweden, and the United States. Energy Policy, 40, 131–46. Hurd, I. (1999). Legitimacy and authority in international politics. International Organization, 53(2), 379–408. Hurlbert, M. (2014). Adaptive institutional design in agri-environmental programs. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 6(2), 145–65. Hurlbert, M., Corkal, D. R., Warren, J., and Diaz, H. (2009). Climate change and water governance in Saskatchewan, Canada. International Journal of Climate Change Strategy and Management, 1(2), 118–32. Ignatow, G. (2011). What has globalization done to developing countries’ public libraries? International Sociology, 26(6), 746–68. Inoue, C. Y. A., and Moreira, P. F. (2016). Many worlds, many nature(s), one planet: Indigenous knowledge in the Anthropocene. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 59(2), http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0034-7329201600 IPCC. (2018). Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C. Incheon, South Korea. Jacobs, K., Lebel, L., Buizer, J., et al. (2016). Linking knowledge with action in the pursuit of sustainable water-resources management. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the USA, 113(17), 4591–6.

242

References

Jacobson, M. Z., Delucchi, M. A., Bauer, Z. A., et al. (2017). 100% clean and renewable wind, water, and sunlight all-sector energy roadmaps for 139 countries of the world. Joule, 1(1), 108–21. Jamali, D. (2010). MNCs and international accountability standards through an institutional lens: Evidence of symbolic conformity or decoupling. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 617–40. Jasanoff, S. (2004). States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and the Social Order. New York, NY: Routledge. Jedd, T., and Bixler, R. P. (2015). Accountability in networked governance: Learning from a case of landscape-scale forest conservation. Environmental Policy and Governance, 25 (3), 172–87. Jinnah, S. (2010). Overlap management in the World Trade Organization: Secretariat influence on trade-environment politics. Global Environmental Politics, 10(2), 54–79. Jinnah, S. (2011). Marketing linkages: Secretariat governance of the climate-biodiversity interface. Global Environmental Politics, 11(3), 23–43. Jinnah, S., and Lindsay, A. (2015). Secretariat influence on overlap management politics in North America: NAFTA and the commission for environmental cooperation. Review of Policy Research, 32(1), 124–45. Jodoin, S., Duyck, S., and Lofts, K. (2015). Public participation and climate governance: An introduction. Review of European Comparative & International Environmental Law, 24(2), 117–22. Jordan, A., and Huitema, D. (2014a). Innovations in climate policy: The politics of invention, diffusion, and evaluation. Environmental Politics, 23, 715–34. Jordan, A., and Huitema, D. (2014b). Policy innovation in a changing climate: Sources, patterns and effects. Global Environmental Change, 29, 387–94. Jordan, A. J., Huitema, D., van Asselt, H., and Forster, J. (2018). Governing Climate Change: Polycentricity in Action? Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Joyce, M. (2013). Picking the best intercoder reliability statistic for your digital activism content analysis, on the Digital Activism Research Project webpage: http://digitalactivism.org/2013/05/picking-the-best-intercoder-reliability-statistic-for-your-digitalactivism-content-analysis/ Kabiri, N. (2016). Public participation, land use and climate change governance in Thailand. Land Use Policy, 52, 511–17. Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., et al. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2(10), 732. Kalfagianni, A., and Pattberg, P. (2013). Participation and inclusiveness in private rule setting organisations: Does it really matter for effectiveness? Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 26(3), 231–50. Kampelmann, S., Van Hollebeke, S., and Vandergert, P. (2016). Stuck in the middle with you: The role of bridging organisations in urban regeneration. Ecological Economics, 129, 82–93. Kanie, N., Betsill, M. M., Zondervan, R., Biermann, F., and Young, O. R. (2012). A charter moment: Restructuring governance for sustainability. Public Administration and Development, 32, 292–304. Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S. I., and McGee, J. (2013). Legitimacy in an era of fragmentation: The case of global climate governance. Global Environmental Politics, 13(3), 56–78. Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S. I., and van Asselt, H. (2009). Introduction: Exploring and explaining the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 9(3), 195–211.

References

243

Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S. I., and Vihma, A. (2009). Comparing the legitimacy and effectiveness of global hard and soft law: An analytical framework. Regulation and Governance, 3(4), 400–20. Kelly, P. M., and Adger, W. N. (2000). Theory and practice in assessing vulnerability to climate change and facilitating adaptation.Climatic Change, 47(4), 325–52. Keohane, R. O. (2003). Global governance and democratic accountability. In D. Held and M. Koenig-Archibugi (eds.), Taming Globalization: Frontier of Governance, pp. 130–59. Cambridge: Polity Press. Keohane, R. O., and Victor, D. G. (2011). The regime complex for climate change. Perspectives on Politics, 9, 7–23. Kim, R. E. (2013). The emergent network structure of the multilateral environmental agreement system. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 980–91. Kingdon, J. W. (2014). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Klinsky, S., Roberts, T., Huq, S., et al. (2016). Why equity is fundamental in climate change policy research. Global Environmental Change, 44, 170–3. Kluvánková-Oravská, T., Chobotova, V., and Smolkova, E. (2013). The challenges of policy convergence: The Europeanization of biodiversity governance in an enlarging EU. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 31(3), 401–13. Koivurova, T., Kokko, K., Duyck, S., Sellheim, N., and Stepien, A. (2012). The present and future competence of the European Union in the Arctic. Polar Record, 48(247), 361–71. Kolhoff, A. J., Driessen, P. P. J., and Runhaar, H. A. C. (2013). An analysis framework for characterizing and explaining development of EIA legislation in developing countries-Illustrated for Georgia, Ghana and Yemen. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 38, 1–15. Kolhoff, A. J., Runhaar, H. A., Gugushvili, T., et al. (2016). The influence of actor capacities on EIA system performance in low and middle income countries: Cases from Georgia and Ghana. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 57, 167–77. Kramarz, T. (2016). World bank partnerships and the promise of democratic governance. Environmental Policy and Governance, 26(1), 3–15. Kramarz, T., and Momani, B. (2013). The World Bank as knowledge bank: Analyzing the limits of a legitimate global knowledge actor. Review of Policy Research, 30(4), 409–31. Kramarz, T., and Park, S. (2016). Accountability in global environmental governance: A meaningful tool for action? Global Environmental Politics, 16(2), 1–21. Kratochwil, F. V. (1989). Rules, Norms, and Decisions: On the Conditions of Practical and Legal Reasoning in International Relations and Domestic Affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Reliability in content analysis: Some common misconceptions and recommendations. Human Communication Research, 30, 411–33. Krook, M. L., and True, J. (2012). Rethinking the life cycles of international norms: The United Nations and the global promotion of gender equality. European Journal of International Affairs, 18(1), 103–27. Kuhn, T. (1962). Theory of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Kunseler, E. M., Tuinstra, W., Vasileiadou, E., and Petersen, A. C. (2015). The reflective futures practitioner: Balancing salience, credibility and legitimacy in generating foresight knowledge with stakeholders. Futures, 66, 1–12. Kuyper, J. W. (2014). Global democratization and international regime complexity. European Journal of International Relations, 20(3), 620–46.

244

References

Kuzdas, C., Wiek, A., Warner, B., Vignola, R., and Morataya, R. (2014). Sustainability appraisal of water governance regimes: The case of Guanacaste, Costa Rica. Environmental Management, 54(2), 205–22. Larson, S., Alexander, K. S., Djalante, R., and Kirono, D. G. C. (2013). The added value of understanding informal social networks in an adaptive capacity assessment: Explorations of an urban water management system in Indonesia. Water Resources Management, 27 (13), 4425–41. Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., and Leca, B. (2009). Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leach, M. (2013). Democracy in the Anthropocene? Science and sustainable development goals at the UN. Huffington Post, 27. Leach, M., Scoones, I., and Wynne, B. (2005). Science and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement, 2nd ed., 2 vols. London: Zed Books. Leach, W. D. (2006). Collaborative public management and democracy: Evidence from western watershed partnerships. Public Administration Review, 66, 100–10. Lebel, L. (2006). The politics of scale in environmental assessment. In W. V. Reid, F. Berkes, T. Wilbanks, and D. Capistrando (eds.), Bridging Scales and Knowledge Systems: Concepts and Applications in Ecosystem Assessment, pp. 37–57. Washington, DC: Island Press. Lebel, L., Grothmann, T., and Siebenhüner, B. (2010a). The role of social learning in adaptiveness: Insights from water management. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 10(4), 333–53. Lebel, L., Wattana, S., and Talerngsri, P. (2015). Assessments of ecosystem services and human well-being in Thailand build and create demand for coproductive capacity. Ecology and Society, 20(1), http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06527-200112 Lebel, L., Xu, J., Bastakoti, R. C., and Lamba, A. (2010b). Pursuits of adaptiveness in the shared rivers of Monsoon Asia. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 10(4), 355–75. Lebel, P., Sriyasak, P., Kallayanamitra, C., Duangsuwan, C., and Lebel, L. (2016). Learning about climate-related risks: Decisions of Northern Thailand fish farmers in a role-playing simulation game. Regional Environmental Change, 16(5), 1481–94. Ledford, H. (2015). How to solve the world’s biggest problems. Nature, 525(7569), 308–11. Lee, S. Y., Primavera, J. H., Dahdouh-Guebas, F., et al. (2014). Ecological role and services of tropical mangrove ecosystems: A reassessment. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 23(7), 726–43. Lemos, M. C., and Agrawal, A. (2006). Environmental governance. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 31, 297–325. Lesage, D., and Van de Graaf, T. (2013). Thriving in complexity? The OECD system’s role in energy and taxation. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, 19(1), 83–92. Lesage, D., Van de Graaf, T., and Westphal, K. (2009). The G8’s role in global energy governance since the 2005 Gleneagles summit. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, 15(2), 259–77. Leventon, J. (2015). Explaining implementation deficits through multi-level governance in the EU’s new member states: EU limits for arsenic in drinking water in Hungary. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 58(7), 1137–53. Leventon, J., Dyer, J. C., and Van Alstine, J. D. (2015). The private sector in climate governance: Opportunities for climate compatible development through multilevel industry-government engagement. Journal of Cleaner Production, 102, 316–23.

References

245

Leventon, J., Kalaba, F. K., Dyer, J. C., Stringer, L. C., and Dougill, A. J. (2014). Delivering community benefits through REDD+: Lessons from joint forest management in Zambia. Forest Policy and Economics, 44, 10–17. Levin, K., Cashore, B., Bernstein, S., and Auld, G. (2012). Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: Constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change. Policy Sciences, 45(2), 123–52. Levy, D. L., and Newell, P. J., eds. (2005). The Business of Global Environmental Governance, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Liu, J., Dietz, T., Carpenter, S. R., et al. (2007). Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science, 317(5844), 1513–16. Liu, L., Matsuno, S., Zhang, B., Liu, B., and Young, O. R. (2013). Local governance on climate mitigation: A comparative study of China and Japan. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 31, 475–89. Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., and Bracken, C. C. (2002). Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research, 28(4), 587–604. Loorbach, D., Frantzeskaki, N., and Avelino, F. (2017). Sustainability transitions research: Transforming science and practice for societal change. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 42, 599–626. Lövbrand, E., Stripple, J., and Wiman, B. (2009). Earth System governmentality: Reflections on science in the Anthropocene. Global Environmental Change, 19(1), 7–13. Lukes, S. (2005). Power: A Radical View, 2nd ed. Houndmills, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Luks, F., and Siebenhüner, B. (2007). Transdisciplinarity for social learning? The contribution of the German socio-ecological research initiative to sustainability governance. Ecological economics, 63(2–3), 418–26. Lund, E. (2013). Who is driving? Public and private agency in the implementation of the CDM. Carbon Management, 4(1), 57–68. Mace, G. M., Barrett, M., Burgess, N. D., et al. (2018). Aiming higher to bend the curve of biodiversity loss. Nature Sustainability, 1(9), 448–51. Mahoney, J., and Thelen, K., eds. (2010). Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Martinez-Alier, J. (2014). The environmentalism of the poor. Geoforum, 54, 239–41. Mason, M. (2008). The governance of transnational environmental harm: Addressing new modes of accountability/responsibility. Global Environmental Politics, 8(3), 8–24. Mathur, V. N., Afionis, S., Paavola, J., Dougill, A. J., and Stringer, L. C. (2014). Experiences of host communities with carbon market projects: Towards multi-level climate justice. Climate Policy, 14(1), 42–62. Mattor, K., Betsill, M. M., Huber-Stearns, H., et al. (2014). Transdisciplinary research on environmental governance: A view from the inside. Environmental Science & Policy, 42, 90–100. Mauerhofer, V., Kim, R. E., and Stevens, C. (2015). When implementation works: A comparison of Ramsar Convention implementation in different continents. Environmental Science & Policy, 51, 95–105. May, J. R., and Daly, E. (2015). Global Environmental Constitutionalism. London: Cambridge University Press. Mazzucato, M. (2017). Mission-oriented innovation policy: Challenges and opportunities, UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose Working Paper. London: University College London.

246

References

McCarthy, J. (2005). Scale, sovereignty, and strategy in environmental governance. Antipode, 37(4), 731–53. McDermott, C. L., Coad, L., Helfgott, A., and Schroeder, H. (2012). Operationalizing social safeguards in REDD+: Actors, interests and ideas. Environmental Science and Policy 21, 63–72. McKehnie, R. (1996). Insiders and outsiders identifying experts on home ground. In B. Wynne and A. Irwin (eds.), Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology, pp. 126–51. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Mees, H., and Driessen, P. (2019). A framework for assessing the accountability of local governance arrangements for adaptation to climate change. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 62(4), 671–91. Mees, H. L. P., Driessen, P. P. J., and Runhaar, H. A. C. (2014). Legitimate adaptive flood risk governance beyond the dikes: The cases of Hamburg, Helsinki and Rotterdam. Regional Environmental Change, 14(2), 671–82. Meijerink, S. V., and Huitema, D. (2010). Policy entrepreneurs and change strategies: Lessons from sixteen case studies of water transitions around the globe. Ecology and Society, 15, 268. Meissner, R., and Ramasar, V. (2015). Governance and politics in the upper Limpopo River Basin, South Africa. Geo Journal, 80(5), 689–709. Menga, F., and Mirumachi, N. (2016). Fostering Tajik hydraulic development: Examining the role of soft power in the case of the Rogun Dam. Water Alternatives, 9(2), 373–88. Merme, V., Ahlers, R., and Gupta, J. (2014). Private equity, public affair: Hydropower financing in the Mekong Basin. Global Environmental Change, 24, 20–9. Mert, A. (2014). Hybrid governance mechanisms as political instruments: The case of sustainability partnerships. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law, and Economics, 14(3), 225–44. Milkoreit, M. (2015a). Hot deontology and cold consequentialism: An empirical exploration of ethical reasoning among climate change negotiators. Climatic Change, 130(3), 397–409. Milkoreit, M. (2015b). Science and climate change diplomacy: Cognitive limits and the need to reinvent science communication. In L. S. Davis and R. G. Patman (eds.), Science Diplomacy: New Day or False Dawn?, pp. 109–31. Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific Publishing. Milkoreit, M. (2016). The promise of climate fiction: Imagination, storytelling, and the politics of the future. In P. Wapner and H. Elver (eds.), Reimagining Climate Change, pp. 171–91. Oxford: Routledge. Milkoreit, M. (2017). Mindmade Politics: The Cognitive Roots of International Climate Governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Milkoreit, M., and Haapala, K. (2019). The global stocktake: Design lessons for a new review and ambition mechanism in the international climate regime. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 19(1), 89–106. Milkoreit, M., Moore, M. L., Schoon, M., and Meek, C. L. (2015). Resilience scientists as change-makers-growing the middle ground between science and advocacy? Environmental Science and Policy, 53, 87–95. Miller, C. A. (2007). Democratization, international knowledge institutions, and global governance. Governance, 20(2), 325–57. Miller, C. A., and Edwards, P. N., eds. (2001). Changing the Atmosphere: Expert Knowledge and Environmental Governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

References

247

Minas, S. (2015). The rise of transnational networks in climate change governance: A study in hybridity. Transnational Law Institute Think! 05/2015, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/ papers.cfm?abstract_id=2698561## Mirumachi, N., and Torriti, J. (2012). The use of public participation and economic appraisal for public involvement in large-scale hydropower projects: Case study of the Nam Theun 2 Hydropower Project. Energy Policy, 47, 125–32. Mirumachi, N., and Van Wyk, E. (2010). Cooperation at different scales: Challenges for local and international water resource governance in South Africa. Geographical Journal, 176(1), 25–38. Mitchell, R. B. (2018). International Environmental Agreements Database Project (Version 2018.1). Available at: http://iea.uoregon.edu Moore, M. L., Tjornbo, O., Enfors, E., et al. (2014). Studying the complexity of change: Toward an analytical framework for understanding deliberate social-ecological transformations. Ecology and Society, 19, DOI:10.5751/ES-06966-190454 Morin, J. F. (2010). The two-level game of transnational networks: The case of the access to medicines campaign. International Interactions, 36(4), 309–34. Morin, J. F. (2014). Paradigm shift in the global IP regime: The agency of academics. Review of International Political Economy, 21(2), 275–309. Morrison, T. H., Adger, W. N., Brown, K., Lemos, M. C., Huitema, D., and Hughes, T. P. (2017). Mitigation and adaptation in polycentric systems: Sources of power in the pursuit of collective goals. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 8(5), 479. Morriss, P. (1987). Power: A Philosophical Analysis, Manchester: Manchester University Press. Moser, S. C. (2010). Communicating climate change: History, challenges, process and future directions. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1(1), 31–53. Mounk, Y. (2016). How political science gets politics wrong. The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 30. Mukhtarov, F., Brock, A., Janssen, S., and Guignier, A. (2013). Actors and strategies in translating global conservation narratives to Vietnam: An agency perspective. Policy and Society, 32(2), 113–24. Mukhtarov, F., and Gerlak, A. K. (2013). River basin organizations in the global water discourse: An exploration of agency and strategy. Global Governance, 19(2), 307–26. Mulyani, M., and Jepson, P. (2015). Social learning through a REDD+ ‘village agreement’: Insights from the KFCP in Indonesia. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 56(1), 79–95. Munaretto, S., and Huitema, D. (2012). Adaptive comanagement in the Venice lagoon? An analysis of current water and environmental management practices and prospects for change. Ecology and Society, 17(2), 19. Naess, L. O., Newell, P., Newsham, A., et al. (2015). Climate policy meets national development contexts: Insights from Kenya and Mozambique. Global Environmental Change, 35, 534–44. Nanz, P., and Steffek, J. (2004). Global governance, participation and the public sphere. Government and Opposition, 39(2), 314–35. Nasiritousi, N., Hjerpe, M., and Bäckstrand, K (2016). Normative arguments for non-state actor participation in international policymaking processes: Functionalism, neocorporatism or democratic pluralism? European Journal of International Relations, 22(4), 920–43. Nasiritousi, N., Hjerpe, M., and Linner, B. O. (2016). The roles of non-state actors in climate change governance: Understanding agency through governance profiles. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law, and Economics, 16(1), 109–26.

248

References

Nayak, P., Armitage, D., and Andrachuk, M. (2016). Power and politics of social-ecological regime shifts in the Chilika lagoon, India and Tam Giang lagoon, Vietnam. Regional Environmental Change, 16(2), 325–39. Nerini, F. F., Tomei, J., To, L. S., et al. (2018). Mapping synergies and trade-offs between energy and the Sustainable Development Goals. Nature Energy, 3(1), 10. Neumann, R. P. (2009). Political ecology: Theorizing scale. Progress in Human Geography, 33(3), 398–406. Newell, P. (2008a). Civil society, corporate accountability and the politics of climate change. Global Environmental Politics, 8(3), 122–53. Newell, P. (2008b). The political economy of global environmental governance. Review of International Studies, 34, 507–29. Newell, P. (2012). Globalization and the Environment: Capitalism, Ecology and Power, Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Newell, P., Bulkeley, H., Turner, K., Shaw, C., Caney, S., Shove, E., and Pidgeon, N. (2015). Governance traps in climate change politics: Re-framing the debate in terms of responsibilities and rights. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 6(6), 535–40. Newell, P., Pattberg, P., and Schroeder, H. (2012). Multiactor governance and the environment. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37, 365–87. Newell, P., Phillips, J., and Purohit, P. (2011). The political economy of clean development in India: CDM and beyond. IDS Bulletin, 42(3), 89–96. Newton, P., Agrawal, A., and Wollenberg, L. (2013). Enhancing the sustainability of commodity supply chains in tropical forest and agricultural landscapes. Global Environmental Change, 23, 1761–72. Newton, P., Miller, D. C., Byenkya, M. A. A., and Agrawal, A. (2016). Who are forest-dependent people? A taxonomy to aid livelihood and land use decision-making in forested regions. Land Use Policy, 57, 388–95. Nisbet, M. C. (2009). Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 51(2), 12–23. Obani, P., and Gupta, J. (2016). Human right to sanitation in the legal and non-legal literature: The need for greater synergy. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 3(5), 678–91. Obani, P., and Ogbodo, S. G. (2013). Strengthening the national institutional framework for environmental migration through sustainable development. Hong Kong Law Journal, 43 (3), 897–916. O’Brien, K. (2012). Global environmental change II: From adaptation to deliberate transformation. Progress in Human Geography, 36, 667–76. Ogier, E. M., Davidson, J., Fidelman, P., et al. (2016). Fisheries management approaches as platforms for climate change adaptation: Comparing theory and practice in Australian fisheries. Marine Policy, 71, 82–93. Okereke, C., Bulkeley, H., and Schroeder, H. (2009). Conceptualizing climate governance beyond the international regime. Global Environmental Politics, 9 (1), 58–78. Okereke, C., and Coventry, P. (2016). Climate justice and the International regime: Before, during, and after Paris. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 7 (6), 834–51. Olsson, P., Folke, C., and Hughes, T. P. (2008). Navigating the transition to ecosystem-based management of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 105(28), 9489–94.

References

249

Olsson, P., Galaz, V., and Boonstra, W. J. (2014). Sustainability transformations: A resilience perspective. Ecology and Society, 19(4), http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES06799-190401 Olsson, P., Gunderson, L. H., Carpenter, S. R., et al. (2006). Shooting the rapids: Navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 11 (1), www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art18/ Olsson, L., and Jerneck, A. (2010). Farmers fighting climate change—from victims to agents in subsistence livelihoods. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1 (3), 363–73. O’Neill, K., Balsiger, J., and VanDeveer, S.D. (2004). Actors, norms, and impact: Recent international cooperation theory and the influence of the agent-structure debate. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 149–75. Orsini, A. (2012). Business as a regulatory leader for risk governance? The compact initiative for liability and redress under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Environmental Politics, 21(6), 960–79. Orsini, A. (2013). Multi-forum non-state actors: Navigating the regime complexes for forestry and genetic resources. Global Environmental Politics, 13(3), 34–55. Orsini, A., Morin, J. F., and Young, O. R. (2013). Regime complexes: A buzz, a boom, or a boost for global governance? Global Governance, 19, 27–39. Oscarson, D. B., and Calhoun, A. J. (2007). Developing vernal pool conservation plans at the local level using citizen-scientists. Wetlands, 27(1), 80–95. Österblom, H., and Folke, C. (2015). Globalization, marine regime shifts and the Soviet Union. Philosophical Transactions B, 370(1659), https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb .2013.0278 Österblom, H., Jouffray, J.-B., Folke, C., et al. (2015). Transnational corporations as ‘keystone actors’ in marine ecosystems. PLoS ONE, 10(5). https://doi.org/10.1371/jour nal.pone.0127533 Österblom, H., and Sumaila, U. R. (2011). Toothfish crises, actor diversity and the emergence of compliance mechanisms in the Southern Ocean. Global Environmental Change, 21, 972–82. Paavola, J. (2007). Institutions and environmental governance: A reconceptualization. Ecological Economics, 63(1), 93–103. Paavola, J., Gouldson, A., and Kluvánková-Oravská, T. (2009). Interplay of actors, scales, frameworks and regimes in the governance of biodiversity. Environmental Policy and Governance, 19(3), 148–58. Pahl-Wostl, C. (2009). A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environmental Change, 19, 354–65. Pahl-Wostl, C., Lebel, L., Knieper, C., and Nikitina, E. (2012). From applying panaceas to mastering complexity: Toward adaptive water governance in river basins. Environmental Science & Policy, 23, 24–34. Paloniemi, R., Apostolopoulou, E., Cent, J., et al. (2015). Public participation and environmental justice in biodiversity governance in Finland, Greece, Poland and the UK. Environmental Policy and Governance, 25(5), 330–42. Paloniemi, R., Apostolopoulou, E., Primmer, E., et al. (2012). Biodiversity conservation across scales: Lessons from a science-policy dialogue. Nature Conservation-Bulgaria, 2, 7–19. Papa, M., and Gleason, N. W. (2012). Major emerging powers in sustainable development diplomacy: Assessing their leadership potential. Global Environmental Change, 22, 915–24.

250

References

Papadopoulos, Y. (2003). Cooperative forms of governance: Problems of democratic accountability in complex environments. European Journal of Political Research, 42 (4), 473–501. Papadopoulos, Y. (2007). Problems of democratic accountability in network and multilevel governance. European Law Journal, 13(4), 469–86. Papadopoulos, Y. (2014). Accountability and multi-level governance: More accountability, less democracy? In D. Curtin, P. Mair, and Y. Papadopoulos (eds.), Accountability and European Governance, pp. 112–31. London: Routledge. Park, S. E., Marshall, N. A., Jakku, E., et al. (2012). Informing adaptation responses to climate change through theories of transformation. Global Environmental Change, 22, 115–26. Partzsch, L., and Ziegler, R. (2011). Social entrepreneurs as change agents: A case study on power and authority in the water sector. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 11(1), 63–83. Pattberg, P. (2005). The institutionalization of private governance: How business and nonprofit organizations agree on transnational rules, Governance, 18(4), 589–610. Pattberg, P. (2012). How climate change became a business risk: Analyzing nonstate agency in global climate politics. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 30(4), 613–26. Pattberg, P. H., Biermann, F., Chan, S., and Mert, A., eds. (2012). Public-Private Partnerships for Sustainable Development: Emergence, Influence and Legitimacy, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Pattberg, P., and Stripple, J. (2008). Beyond the public and private divide: Remapping transnational climate governance in the 21st century. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 8(4), 367–88. Pattberg, P., and Widerberg, O. (2015). Theorising global environmental governance: Key findings and future questions. Millennium-Journal of International Studies, 43(2), 684–705. Patterson, J., Schulz, K., Vervoort, J., et al. (2017). Exploring the governance and politics of transformations towards sustainability. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 24, 1–16. Pavese, C. B., and Torney, D. (2012). The contribution of the European Union to global climate change governance: Explaining the conditions for EU actorness. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 55, 125–43. Payne, R. A., and Samhat, N. H. (2012). Democratizing Global Politics: Discourse Norms, International Regimes, and Political Community. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Pelling, M. (2011). Adaptation to Climate Change: From Resilience to Transformation. New York, NY: Routledge. Persha, L., Agrawal, A., and Chhatre, A. (2011). Social and ecological synergy: Local rulemaking, forest livelihoods, and biodiversity conservation. Science, 331(6024), 1606–8. Pfeiffer, E., and Leentvaar, J. (2013). Knowledge leads, policy follows? Two speeds of collaboration in river basin management. Water Policy, 15, 282–99. Phillips, P. W. B., Castle, D., and Smyth, S. J. (2015). Biotechnology, Agriculture and Development. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Pickering, J., Skovgaard, J., Kim, S., et al. (2015). Acting on climate finance pledges: Inter-agency dynamics and relationships with aid in contributor states. World Development, 68, 149–62. Pierson, P. (2003). Big, slow-moving, and . . . invisible. In J. Mahoney and D. Rueschemeyer (eds.), Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, pp. 177–207. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

References

251

Pierson, P. (2004). Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the 21st Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Pittman, J., Armitage, D., Alexander, S., and Campbell, D. (2015). Governance fit for climate change in a Caribbean coastal-marine context. Marine Policy, 51, 486–98. Plummer, R., Armitage, D., and de Loë, R. C. (2013), Adaptive comanagement and its relationship to environmental governance. Ecology and Society, 18(1), 21. Prno, J., Bradshaw, B., Wandel, J., et al. (2011). Community vulnerability to climate change in the context of other exposure-sensitivities in Kugluktuk, Nunavut. Polar Research, 30 (1), 7363. Qi, Y., and Zhang, L. (2014). Local environmental enforcement constrained by central– local relations in China. Environmental Policy and Governance, 24(3), 216–32. Radaelli, C. M. (2003). The Open Method of Coordination: A New Governance Architecture for the European Union? Stockholm: Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies. Rasche, A. (2009.) Toward a model to compare and analyze accountability standards: The case of the UN Global Compact. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 16(4), 192–205. Raymond, C. M., Fazey, I., Reed, M. S., et al. (2010). Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 91 (8), 1766–77. Rayner, T., and Jordan, A. (2013). The European Union: The polycentric climate policy leader? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 4(2), 75–90. Reid, W. V., Chen, D., Goldfarb, L., et al. (2010). Earth system science for global sustainability: Grand challenges. Science, 330(6006), 916–17. Renaud, F. G., Dun, O., Warner, K., and Bogardi, J. (2011). A decision framework for environmentally induced migration. International Migration, 49, e5–e29. Rindefjäll, T., Lund, E., and Stripple, J. (2011). Wine, fruit, and emission reductions: The CDM as development strategy in Chile. International Environmental Agreements, 11(1), 7–22. Robinson, L. W., and Berkes, F. (2011). Multi-level participation for building adaptive capacity: Formal agency-community interactions in northern Kenya. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions, 21(4), 1185–94. Robinson, L. W., and Makupa, E. (2015). Using analysis of governance to unpack community-based conservation: A case study from Tanzania. Environmental Management, 56(5), 1214–27. Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., et al. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472. Rocle, N., and Salles, D. (2018). Pioneers but not guinea pigs: Experimenting with climate change adaptation in French coastal areas. Policy Sciences, 51(2), 231–47. Roig-Tierno, N., Gonzalez-Cruz, T. F., and Llopis-Martinez, J. (2017). An overview of qualitative comparative analysis: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 2(1), 15–23. Rosenau, J. N. (2002). NGOs and fragmented authority in globalizing space. In Y. H. Ferguson and R. J. B. Jones (eds.), Political Space: Frontiers of Change and Governance in a Globalizing World, pp. 261–80. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Rosenau, J. N. (2007). Governing the ungovernable: The challenge of a global disaggregation of authority. Regulation & Governance, 1(1), 88–97. Rosenau, J. N., and Czempiel, E.O. (1992). Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

252

References

Rosenberg, J. (2017). More than a question of agency: Privatized project implementation, accountabilities, and global environmental governance. Review of Policy Research, 34 (1), 10–30. Rosenbloom, D., Berton, H., and Meadowcroft, J. (2016). Framing the sun: A discursive approach to understanding multi-dimensional interactions within socio-technical transitions through the case of solar electricity in Ontario, Canada. Research Policy, 45(6), 1275–90. Rosendal, K., and Andresen, S. (2016). Realizing access and benefit sharing from use of genetic resources between diverging international regimes: The scope for leadership. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 16(4), 579–96. Rozema, J. G., Bond, A. J., Cashmore, M., and Chilvers, J. (2012). An investigation of environmental and sustainability discourses associated with the substantive purposes of environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 33(1), 80–90. Rozema, J. G., Cashmore, M., Bond, A. J., and Chilvers, J. (2015). Respatialization and local protest strategy formation: Investigating high-speed rail megaproject development in the UK. Geoforum, 59, 98–108. Runhaar, H. (2009). Putting SEA in context: A discourse perspective on how SEA contributes to decision-making. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 29(3), 200–9. Ryngaert, C. (2016). Non-State Actor Dynamics in International Law: From Law-Takers to Law-Makers. London: Routledge Press. Sacchi, S., Riva, P., Brambilla, M., and Grasso, M. (2014). Moral reasoning and climate change mitigation: The deontological reaction toward the market-based approach. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 252–61. Saldaña, J. (2016). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Sand, P. H. (2004). Sovereignty bounded: Public trusteeship for common pool resources? Global Environmental Politics, 4(1), 47–71. Sanz, M., Siebel, M. A., Ahlers, R., and Gupta, J. (2016). New approaches to cleaner production: Applying the Sasi method to micro-tanneries in Colombia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 963–71. Sayer, A. (2011). Why Things Matter to People: Social Science, Values and Ethical Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G., and Baumann, D. (2006). Global rules and private actors: Toward a new role of the transnational corporation in global governance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16(4), 505–32. Schlosberg, D. (2004). Reconceiving environmental justice: Global movements and political theories. Environmental Politics, 13(3), 517–40. Schlosberg, D. (2009). Defining Environmental Justice: Theories, Movements, and Nature, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Schlosberg, D., Collins, L., and Niemeyer, S. (2017). Adaptation policy and community discourse: Risk, vulnerability, and just transformation. Environmental Politics, 26(3), 413–37. Schout, A., and Jordan, A. (2008). The European Union’s governance ambitions and its administrative capacities. Journal of European Public Policy, 15(7), 957–74. Schouten, G., and Glasbergen, P. (2012). Private multi-stakeholder governance in the agricultural market place: An analysis of legitimization processes of the roundtables on sustainable palm oil and responsible soy. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 15(B), 63–88.

References

253

Schouten, G., Leroy, P., and Glasbergen, P. (2012). On the deliberative capacity of private multi-stakeholder governance: The roundtables on responsible soy and sustainable palm oil. Ecological Economics, 83, 42–50. Schroeder, H. (2010). Agency in international climate negotiations: The case of indigenous peoples and avoided deforestation. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 10(4), 317–32. Schroeder, H., Burch, S., and Rayner, S. (2013). Novel multisector networks and entrepreneurship in urban climate governance. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 31(5), 761–8. Schroeder, H., and Lovell, H. (2012). The role of non-nation-state actors and side events in the international climate negotiations. Climate Policy, 12(1), 23–37. Schultz, L., Folke, C., Osterblom, H., and Olsson, P. (2015). Adaptive governance, ecosystem management, and natural capital. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 112(24), 7369–74. Schwaub, K. (2012). The end of capitalism – so what’s next? World Economic Forum. www.weforum.org/agenda/2012/04/the-end-of-capitalism-so-whats-next/ Scobie, M. (2017). Accountability in climate change governance and Caribbean SIDS. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 20(2), 769–87. Scolobig, A., Komendantova, N., Patt, A., et al. (2014). Multi-risk governance for natural hazards in Naples and Guadeloupe. Natural Hazards, 72(3), 1523–45. Scott, W. A. (1955). Reliability of content analysis: The case of nominal scale coding. Public Opinion Quarterly. 19(3), 321–5. Scudder, T. (1981). What it means to be dammed: The anthropology of large-scale development projects in the tropics and subtropics. Engineering and Science, 44(4), 9–15. Scudder, T. (1993). Development-induced relocation and refugee studies: 37 years of change and continuity among Zambia’s Gwembe Tonga. Journal of Refugee Studies, 6 (2), 123–52. Secretariat of the Convention on Bio Diversity. (2010). Global Biodiversity Outlook 3. Montreal: Convention on Biological Diversity. Seitzinger, S. P., Svedin, U., Crumley, C. L., et al. (2012). Planetary stewardship in an urbanizing world: Beyond city limits. Ambio, 41(8), 787–94. Sending, O. J., and Neumann, I. B. (2006). Governance to governmentality: Analyzing NGOs, states, and power. International Studies Quarterly, 50(3), 651–72. Seto, K. C., Davis, S. J., Mitchell, R. B., et al. (2016). Carbon lock-in: Types, causes, and policy implications. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 41, 425–52. Sherbin, L. (2017). New research: Diversity + inclusion = better decision making at work, Forbes. www.forbes.com/sites/eriklarson/2017/09/21/new-research-diversity-inclusion -better-decision-making-at-work/#106b39704cbf Shove, E. (2010). Beyond the ABC: Climate change policy and theories of social change. Environment and Planning, 42(6), 1273–85. Siebenhüner, B. (2005). The role of social learning on the road to sustainability. In J. N. Rosenau, E. U. von Weizsacker, and U. Petschow (eds.), pp. 86–99. Governance and Sustainability, Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf. Siebenhüner, B. (2008). Learning in international organizations in global environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics, 8(4), 92–116. Simpson, S., Brown, G., Peterson, A., and Johnstone, R. (2016). Stakeholder perspectives for coastal ecosystem services and influences on value integration in policy. Ocean and Coastal Management, 126, 9–21.

254

References

Slaughter, A. M. (2017). The Chessboard and the Web: Strategies of Connection in a Networked World. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Smith, S. (2002). The United States and the discipline of international relations: ‘Hegemonic country, hegemonic discipline.’ International Studies Review, 4(2), 67–85. Smits, M., and Middleton, C. (2014). New arenas of engagement at the water governance-climate finance nexus? An analysis of the boom and bust of hydropower CDM projects in Vietnam. Water Alternatives, 7(3), 561–83. Sofronova, E., Holley, C., and Nagarajan, V. (2014). Environmental non-governmental organizations and Russian environmental governance: Accountability, participation and collaboration. Transnational Environmental Law, 3(2), 341–71. South Centre. (1997). For a Strong and Democratic United Nations: A South Perspective on UN Reform. London: Zed Books. Sova, C. A., Helfgott, A., Chaudhury, A. S., et al. (2015a). Multi-level stakeholder influence mapping: Visualizing power relations across actor levels in Nepal’s agricultural climate change adaptation regime. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 28, 383–409. Sova, C., Vervoort, J., Thornton, T., et al. (2015b). Exploring farmer preference shaping in international agricultural climate change adaptation regimes. Environmental Science & Policy, 54, 463–74. Spagnuolo, F. (2011). Diversity and pluralism in earth system governance: Contemplating the role for global administrative law. Ecological Economics, 70 (11), 1875–81. Spiro, P. J. (1988). Taking foreign policy away from the Feds. The Washington Quarterly, 11(1), 191–203. Spiro, P. J. (1995). New global communities: Nongovernmental organizations in international decision making institutions. The Washington Quarterly, 18(1), 45–56. Spruijt, P., Knol, A. B., Vasileiadou, E., et al. (2014). Roles of scientists as policy advisers on complex issues: A literature review. Environmental Science & Policy, 40, 16–25. Steffek, J. (2004). Why IR needs legitimacy: A rejoinder. European Journal of International Relations, 10(3), 485–90. Steffek, J. (2010). Public accountability and the public sphere of international governance. Ethics & International Affairs, 24(1), 45–68. Steffek, J., and Ferretti, M. P. (2009) Accountability or “good decisions”? The competing goals of civil society participation in international governance. Global Society, 23(1), 37–57. Stephenson, M. O. Jr. (2011). Considering the relationships among social conflict, social imaginaries, resilience, and community-based organization leadership. Ecology and Society, 16, http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art34/ Sternlieb, F., Bixler, R. P., Huber-Stearns, H., and Huayhuaca, C. (2013). A question of fit: Reflections on boundaries, organizations and social-ecological systems. Journal of Environmental Management, 130, 117–25. Stevenson, H., and Dryzek, J. S. (2012). The discursive democratisation of global climate governance. Environmental Politics, 21(2), 189–210. Stoett, P., and Temby, O. (2015). Bilateral and trilateral natural resource and biodiversity governance in North America: Organizations, networks, and inclusion. Review of Policy Research, 32(1), 1–18. Strange, S. (1988). States and Markets. London: Pinter Publishers. Strange, S. (1982). Cave! hic dragones: A critique of regime analysis. International Organization, 36(2), 479–96.

References

255

Streeck, W., and Thelen, K. A., eds. (2005). Beyond Continuity: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Szulecki, K., Pattberg, P., and Biermann, F. (2011). Explaining variation in the effectiveness of transnational energy partnerships: Effectiveness of transnational energy partnerships. Governance, 24(4), 713–36. Taplin, R., and McGee, J. (2010). The Asia-Pacific Partnership: Implementation challenges and interplay with Kyoto. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1(1), 16–22. Taylor, A., Cocklin, C., and Brown, R. (2012). Fostering environmental champions: A process to build their capacity to drive change. Journal of Environmental Management, 98, 84–97. Taylor, P. L. (2012). Multiple forest activities, multiple purpose organizations: Organizing for complexity in a grassroots movement in Guatemala’s Petén. Forest Ecology and Management, 268, 29–38. Taylor, P. L., and Cheng, A. (2012). Environmental governance as embedded process: Managing change in two community-based forestry organizations. Human Organization, 71(1), 110–22. Termeer, C., Biesbroek, R., and Van den Brink, M. (2012). Institutions for adaptation to climate change: Comparing national adaptation strategies in Europe. European Political Science, 11(1), 41–53. Thaler, T. (2014). Developing partnership approaches for flood risk management: Implementation of inter-local co-operations in Austria. Water International, 39(7), 1018–29. Thaler, T., and Levin-Keitel, M. (2016). Multi-level stakeholder engagement in flood risk management—A question of roles and power: Lessons from England. Environmental Science & Policy, 55, 292–301. Thaler, T., and Priest, S. (2014). Partnership funding in flood risk management: New localism debate and policy in England. Area, 46(4), 418–25. Thelen, K. (2009). Institutional change in advanced political economies. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 47(3), 471–98. Thomson, I., Dey, C., and Russell, S. (2015). Activism, arenas and accounts in conflicts over tobacco control. Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal, 28 (5), 809–45. Tierney, K. (2012). Disaster governance: Social, political, and economic dimensions. The Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37, 341–63. Tiwari, P. C., and Joshi, B. (2015). Local and regional institutions and environmental governance in Hindu Kush Himalaya. Environmental Science & Policy, 49, 66–74. Toivonen, M., and Hyytinen, K. (2015). Future energy services: Empowering local communities and citizens. Foresight, 17, 349–64. Torfing, J., Peters, B. G., Pierre, J., and Sørensen, E. (2012). Interactive Governance: Advancing the Paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tortajada, C., and Biswas, A. K. (2018). Achieving universal access to clean water and sanitation in an era of water scarcity: Strengthening contributions from academia. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 34, 21–5. Turnhout, E., Neves, K., and De Lijster, E. (2014). ‘Measurementality’ in biodiversity governance: Knowledge, transparency, and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Environment and Planning A, 46(3), 581–97. Uittenbroek, C. J., Janssen-Jansen, L. B., and Runhaar, H. A. C. (2016). Stimuli for climate adaptation in cities: Insights from Philadelphia – An early adapter. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 8(1), 38–56.

256

References

Underdal, A., Hovi, J., Kallbekken, S., and Skodvin, T. (2012). Can conditional commitments break the climate change negotiations deadlock? International Political Science Review, 33(4), 475–93. Urpelainen, J., and Van de Graaf, T. (2015). The international renewable energy agency: A success story in institutional innovation? International Environmental Agreement: Politics, Law and Economics, 15(2), 159–77. van Asselt, H. (2016). The role of non-state actors in reviewing ambition, implementation, and compliance under the Paris agreement. Climate Law, 6(1–2), 91–108. van Asselt, H., Kanie, N., and Iguchi, M. (2009). Japan’s position in international climate policy: Navigating between Kyoto and the APP. International Environmental Agreements, 9(3), 319–36. Van Buuren, A., Driessen, P. P., van Rijswick, M., et al. (2013). Towards adaptive spatial planning for climate change: Balancing between robustness and flexibility. Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law, 10(1), 29–53. Van de Graaf, T. (2012). Obsolete or resurgent? The International Energy Agency in a changing global landscape. Energy Policy, 48, 233–41. Van de Graaf, T., and Lesage, D. (2009). The International Energy Agency after 35 years: Reform needs and institutional adaptability. The Review of International Organizations, 4, 293–317. van der Heijden, J. (2010). One task, a few approaches, many impacts: Private-sector involvement in Canadian building code enforcement. Canadian Public Administration, 53(3), 351–74. van der Heijden, J. (2015). The role of government in voluntary environmental programmes: A fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis. Public Administration, 93(3), 576–92. van Kerkhoff, L. E., and Lebel, L. (2015). Coproductive capacities: Rethinking science-governance relations in a diverse world. Ecology and Society, 20(1), 14. van Laerhoven, F. (2014). When is participatory local environmental governance likely to emerge? A study of collective action in participatory municipal environmental councils in Brazil. Environmental Policy and Governance, 24(2), 77–93. van Leeuwen, J. (2015). The regionalization of maritime governance: Towards a polycentric governance system for sustainable shipping in the European Union. Ocean & Coastal Management, 117, 23–31. van Stigt, R., Driessen, P. P. J., and Spit, T. J. (2016). Steering urban environmental quality in a multi-level governance context. How can devolution be the solution to pollution? Land Use Policy, 50, 268–76. van Tatenhove, J., Raakjae, J., van Leeuwen, J., and van Hoof, L. (2014). Regional cooperation for European seas: Governance models in support of the implementation of the MFSD. Marine Policy, 50, 364–72. Vasileiadou, E., Hisschemoller, M., Petersen, A. C., et al. (2014). Adaptation to extreme weather: Identifying different societal perspectives in the Netherlands. Regional Environmental Change, 14(1), 91–101. Vasileiadou, E., and Safarzńyska, K. (2010). Transitions: Taking complexity seriously. Futures, 42(10), 1176–86. Vasseur, L., Lafrance, L., Ansseau, C., et al. (1997). Advisory committee: A powerful tool for helping decision makers in environmental issues. Environmental Management, 21(3), 359–65. Vervoort, J., and Gupta, A. (2018). Anticipating climate futures in a 1.5 C era: The link between foresight and governance. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 31, 104–11.

References

257

Villamayor-Tomas, S., Fleischman, F. D., Ibarra, I. P., Thiel, A., and van Laerhoven, F. (2014). From Sandoz to salmon: Conceptualizing resource and institutional dynamics in the Rhine watershed through the SES framework. International Journal of the Commons, 8(2), 361–95. Vink, M. J., Dewulf, A., and Termeer, C. (2013). The role of knowledge and power in climate change adaptation. Ecology and Society, 18(4), 1–25. Viola, E., Franchini, M., and Ribeiro, T. L. (2012). Climate governance in an international system under conservative hegemony: The role of major powers. Revista Brasileira de Politica International, 55, 9–29. Visseren-Hamakers, I. J., Gupta, A., Herold, M., Peña-Claros, M., and Vijge, M. J. (2012). Will REDD+ work? The need for interdisciplinary research to address key challenges. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4(6), 590–6. Wallbott, L. (2014). Indigenous peoples in UN REDD+ negotiations: Importing power and lobbying for rights through discursive interplay management. Ecology and Society, 19 (1), 21. Wang, J., Brown, D. G., and Agrawal, A. (2013). Climate adaptation, local institutions, and rural livelihoods: A comparative study of herder communities in Mongolia and Inner Mongolia, China. Global Environmental Change, 23(6), 1673–83. Wapner, P. (1995). Politics beyond the state environmental activism and world civic politics, World Politics, 47(3), 311–40. Wardekker, J., Petersen, A., and van Der Sluijs, J. (2009). Ethics and public perception of climate change: Exploring the Christian voices in the US public debate. Global Environmental Change, 19(4), 512–21. Wassen, M. J., Runhaar, H., Barendregt, A., and Okruszko, T. (2011). Evaluating the role of participation in modeling studies for environmental planning. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 38(2), 338–58. Weber, M. (1925). Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, 2nd ed., 2 vols. Tübingen: Mohr. Weber, M., Driessen, P. P., and Runhaar, H. A. (2011). Drivers of and barriers to shifts in governance: Analysing noise policy in the Netherlands. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 13(2), 119–37. Weed, M. (2008). A potential method for the interpretive synthesis of qualitative research: Issues in the development of ‘meta-interpretation’. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(1), 13–28. Weible, C. M., and Sabatier, P. A., eds. (2017). Theories of the Policy Process, 4th ed. New York, NY: Westview Press. Welbers, K., Van Atteveldt, W., and Benoit, K. (2017). Text analysis in R. Communication Methods and Measures, 11(4), 245–65. Wendt, A. (1987). The agent-structure problem in international relations theory. International Organization, 41(3), 335–70. Wendt, A. (1999). Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Werners, S. E., Flachner, Z., Matczak, P., Falaleeva, M., and Leemans, R. (2009). Exploring earth system governance: A case study of floodplain management along the Tisza River in Hungary. Global Environmental Change, 19(4), 503–11. Westley, F., Olsson, P., Folke, C., et al. (2011). Tipping toward sustainability: Emerging pathways of transformation. Ambio, 40, 762–80. Westley, F. R., Tjornbo, O., Schultz, L., et al. (2013). A theory of transformative agency in linked social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 18(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.5751 /ES-05072-180327

258

References

Widerberg, O., and Stripple, J. (2016). The expanding field of cooperative initiatives for decarbonization: A review of five databases. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 7(4), 486–500. Widman, U. (2016). Exploring the role of public–private partnerships in forest protection. Sustainability, 8(5), 496. Willer, D., Lovaglia, M., and Markovsky, B. (1997). Power and influence: A theoretical bridge. Social Forces, 76(2), 571–603. Williams, R. H. (1999). Environmental justice in America and its politics of scale. Political Geography, 18(1), 49–73. Witter, R., Suiseeya, K. R. M., Gruby, R. L., Hitchner, S., Maclin, E. M., Bourque, M., and Brosius, J. P. (2015). Moments of influence in global environmental governance. Environmental Politics, 24(6), 894–912. World Commission on Dams, ed. (2000). Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision-Making. London: Earthscan. Wuisan, L., van Leeuwen, J., and van Koppen, C. K. (2012). Greening international shipping through private governance: A case study of the Clean Shipping Project. Marine Policy, 36, 165–73. Wyatt, S., Kessels, M., and van Laerhoven, F. (2015). Indigenous peoples’ expectations for forestry in New Brunswick: Are rights enough? Society & Natural Resources, 28(6), 625–40. Wyborn, C., and Dovers, S. (2014). Prescribing adaptiveness in agencies of the state. Global Environmental Change, 24, 5–7. Yengoh, G. T., Steen, K., Armah, F. A., and Ness, B. (2016). Factors of vulnerability: How large-scale land acquisitions take advantage of local and national weaknesses in Sierra Leone. Land Use Policy, 50, 328–40. Young, J. C., Butler, J. R., Jordan, A., and Watt, A. D. (2012). Less government intervention in biodiversity management: Risks and opportunities. Biodiversity and Conservation, 21 (4), 1095–100. Young, J. C., Jordan, A., Searle, K. R., et al. (2013). Framing scale in participatory biodiversity management may contribute to more sustainable solutions. Conservation Letters, 6(5), 333–40. Young, J. C., Searle, K., Butler, A., et al. (2016). The role of trust in the resolution of conservation conflicts. Biological Conservation, 195, 196–202. Young, O. R. (2016a). Governing the antipodes: International cooperation in Antarctica and the Arctic. Polar Record, 52(2), 230–8. Young, O. R. (2016b). On Environmental Governance: Sustainability, Efficiency, and Equity, London: Routledge. Young, O. R., Agrawal, A., King, L. A., et al. (1999/2005). Institutional Dimensions of Global Environmental Change (IDGEC) Science Plan. Bonn: IHDP Report Nos. 9, 16. Young, O. R., King, L. A., Schroeder, H., eds. (2008). Institutions and Environmental Change: Principal Findings, Applications, and Research Frontiers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Zeitoun, M., Mirumachi, N., and Warner, J. (2011). Transboundary water interaction II: The influence of ‘soft’ power. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 11(2), 159–78. Zhao, X., Li, H., Wu, L., and Qi, Y. (2014). Implementation of energy-saving policies in China: How local governments assisted industrial enterprises in achieving energy-saving targets. Energy Policy, 66, 170–84.

Index

Access and Allocation, 6, 23, 29, 71, 123, 127, 131, 132, 134, 142, 157 Accountability, 6, 23, 39, 78, 92, 102, 155–7, 159–60, 161, 162–4, 166, 172, 187 Adaptation, 126, 143, 147, 148, 149, 150–1, 161, 165, 174–5, 176 Adaptive capacity, 39, 91, 95, 170, 173 Adaptive co-management, 69, 82, 92, 148 Adaptiveness, 5, 6, 23, 31, 93, 129–30, 143–6, 148–9, 150–1, 152–3, 191 Africa, 31, 54, 59, 60, 103, 127, 133, 137 Agency (defined), 6–7, 8, 26, 27, 28–31, 37, 39, 40, 73, 92, 105, 132, 160, 184, 196, 199 Agent-structure, 75, 80, 121, 192 Anthropocene, 3, 107, 140, 144, 184, 189 Anthropology, 5, 13 Architecture, 6, 29, 66, 80, 97, 98, 99, 103–5, 157, 192 Asia, 54, 59, 113, 127, 148 Authority, 8–9, 20, 21, 25, 27–9, 31, 34, 36, 37, 65, 80, 87, 92, 124, 160, 190, 191 Boundary organization, 91, 115 Business, 35, 81, 87, 93, 189 Case studies, 47, 48, 174, 175, 178, 194 Cities, 32, 34, 148 Civil society organizations, 7, 32, 134, 170 Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), 28, 57, 81, 102, 125, 132 Climate change, 21, 34, 55–6, 58–9, 104, 110, 119, 134, 135, 151, 152, 153, 162, 167, 173 Collaborative governance, 78, 79, 115, 162, 186 Communities, 61, 115–16, 136, 141, 142, 160, 173, 178, 187 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 35, 125, 141, 175 Critical approaches, 20, 41–2, 50, 68, 69–70, 72 Development, 23, 59, 61, 131, 137, 140, 141, 173 Development studies, 13, 47, 110 Discourse, 66, 69, 117, 123, 125, 127, 140

Earth system governance (defined), 3, 6–8, 22, 25, 52, 53, 65, 69, 80, 82–3, 108, 118, 128, 130, 137, 156–7, 169, 171, 173, 176, 178, 187 Earth System Governance (ESG) Project, 4, 5, 6, 26, 38, 57, 60, 88, 169, 178, 191, 193, 196 Environmental governance (defined), 5, 7, 24, 39, 71, 107, 114, 120, 135, 184, 191 Equity, 6, 141, 190 ESG Science Plan (2009), 8–9, 11–13, 26, 39, 45, 50, 52, 66, 67, 88, 98, 99, 109, 111, 121, 126–7, 129, 144, 146, 152, 156, 169, 174, 177, 193–5 ESG Science Plan (2018), 50, 60, 61, 66, 71, 72, 95, 96, 105–7, 118, 128–30, 141, 152–4, 193 ESG-Agency Harvesting Database, 4, 10, 22 Europe, 54, 71, 102, 127, 129, 170, 175 Experts, 29, 79, 89–90, 124, 128, 195 Forests, 56–7, 59, 126, 134–5, 176, 177 Fresh water, 57, 59 Geography, 5, 7, 21, 22, 59, 110, 117, 158, 186 Global environmental governance, 9, 36, 40, 56, 72, 103–4, 105, 119, 123, 124, 144, 149, 159, 161, 178 Global environmental politics, 42, 44, 191 Global South, 24, 61, 142 Governmentality, 41, 44, 50, 70 Indigenous peoples, 57, 69–70, 81, 91, 102, 119, 125, 127, 134, 136, 175 Individuals, 8, 29, 93, 124, 136, 189 Influence, evaluation of, 24, 169, 173, 176, 186, 187–8 Interdisciplinary, 39, 178, 179, 194 Inter-governmental organizations (IGOs), 75–9, 81, 164 International relations, 5, 7, 41, 49, 110, 129, 130, 154 Justice, 70, 102, 135–6, 142, 183 distributive, 6, 42, 57, 66, 132, 141, 142 environmental, 41, 118, 127, 153 procedural, 57, 66, 132, 141

259

260 Knowledge co-production, 78, 90, 91, 95, 186 indigenous, 91–2 local, 91, 119, 134, 186 scientific, 65, 87 traditional, 29 Latin America, 54, 59, 60 Law, 68, 119, 122 Learning, 5, 82, 92, 93, 115, 177 Legal studies, 5, 110 Legitimacy, 28, 36–7, 41, 66, 70–1, 78, 92, 123, 125, 159, 161, 162, 172 Local government, 32, 115, 176 Methods case studies, 47, 48, 174–5, 178 mixed, 26, 46, 48, 175 qualitative, 46, 47, 109 quantitative, 26, 31, 46, 47, 49 synthetic, 46, 47 Middle East, 60, 127 Multi-level governance, 114, 115, 186, 187 Multi-national corporation, 8, 35, 140, 170 Municipal government, 32, 34, 67, 102 Networked governance, 78, 82, 83, 115 Networks policy, 123 science, 87 social, 170–1, 176, 178 transnational, 82, 93 Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), 8, 32, 35, 69, 78–9, 87, 93, 101–2, 128, 172, 190 North America, 54, 102 Oceania, 59, 121, 129 Orchestration, 22, 31, 83–4, 115 Participation, 70, 71, 78, 81, 82, 115, 135–6, 139, 141–2, 161, 163, 172, 178, 186–7 Participatory processes, 82, 90–1, 92, 93, 116, 139

Index Partnerships multi-stakeholder, 7 public-private, 7, 31 sustainability, 31 Policy studies, 10 Political ecology, 22, 117 Political economy, 47, 53, 69, 119, 191 Political science, 5, 7, 71, 73, 106, 110, 193 Polycentric governance, 149, 173 Polycentricity, 114, 173, 178 Power (defined), 21, 65–9, 70, 72, 104, 190–1 Public administration, 5, 110 Public policy, 154 Ramsar Convention, 114, 116, 138–9 REDD+, 47, 56, 59, 78, 81, 91, 103–4, 114, 116, 127, 134–6, 173 Reflexivity, 107, 117, 153–4, 195 Scale (defined), 5, 108–9, 115, 116–17 global, 53 local, 53 Science and Technology Studies, 71, 94 Scientists, 65, 66, 78, 87, 89–91, 185 Social-ecological systems, 113, 114, 148, 151 Sociology, 5, 13, 47, 71, 94, 106, 154 Stakeholder, 28, 90, 93, 131, 135, 141, 159–61, 162–3, 170–1, 178, 187, 195 State, role of the, 10, 28, 185, 188 Sustainability, 57, 85, 125, 149, 184, 189, 192, 195 Sustainable development, 8, 104, 119, 135, 140, 191, 192, 196 Theories agent-based, 20, 40, 42 critical theories, 20, 40, 41–2, 50, 68, 70, 72, 190 system dynamic theories, 20, 40, 41 Transdisciplinary, 179, 195 Transition, 49, 57, 98, 114, 150, 189 Transparency, 79, 90, 92, 163, 164, 172 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 70, 134, 149