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

Abstract

Governance is one of the most important factors for ensuring effective environmental management and conservation actions. Yet, there is still a relative paucity of comprehensive and practicable guidance that can be used to frame the evaluation, design, and analysis of systems of environmental governance. This conceptual review and synthesis article seeks to addresses this problem through resituating the broad body of governance literature into a practical framework for environmental governance. Our framework builds on a rich history of governance scholarship to propose that environmental governance has four general aims or objectives – to be effective, to be equitable, to be responsive, and to be robust. Each of these four objectives need to be considered simultaneously across the institutional, structural, and procedural elements of environmental governance. Through a review of the literature, we developed a set of attributes for each of these objectives and relate these to the overall capacity, functioning, and performance of environmental governance. Our aim is to provide a practical and adaptable framework that can be applied to the design, evaluation, and analysis of environmental governance in different social and political contexts, to diverse environmental problems and modes of governance, and at a range of scales.

Full text

Received: 7 November 2017 Revised: 6 June 2018 Accepted: 1 July 2018
DOI: 10.1111/conl.12600
REVIEW
Environmental governance: A practical framework to guide
design, evaluation, and analysis
Nathan J. Bennett1,2,3 Terre Satterfield1
1Institute for Resources, Environment, and
Sustainability, University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6T 1Z4
2Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, Univer-
sity of British Columbia, Canada, Vancouver,
BC, Canada, V6T 1Z4
3Center for Ocean Solutions, Stanford Univer-
sity, Stanford, CA, USA
Correspondence
Nathan Bennett, Universityof Br itish
Columbia, AERL Building, 429–2202 Main
Mall, Vancouver, BC Canada V6T 1Z4.
Email: nathan.bennett@ubc.ca
Funding information
Liber Ero Fellowship Program; OceanCanada
Partnership; Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council of Canada, Grant/Award
Numbers: SSHRC IDG #430-2014-00569,
SSHRC IG #F12-04439
Editor
Andrew Knight
Abstract
Governance is one of the most important factors for ensuring effective environmental
management and conservation actions. Yet, there is still a relative paucity of com-
prehensive and practicable guidance that can be used to frame the evaluation, design,
and analysis of systems of environmental governance. This conceptual review and
synthesis article seeks to addresses this problem through resituating the broad body
of governance literature into a practical framework for environmental governance.
Our framework builds on a rich history of governance scholarship to propose that
environmental governance has four general aims or objectives – to be effective, to be
equitable, to be responsive, and to be robust. Each of these four objectives need to
be considered simultaneously across the institutional, structural, and procedural ele-
ments of environmental governance. Through a review of the literature, we developed
a set of attributes for each of these objectives and relate these to the overall capacity,
functioning, and performance of environmental governance. Our aim is to provide
a practical and adaptable framework that can be applied to the design, evaluation,
and analysis of environmental governance in different social and political contexts, to
diverse environmental problems and modes of governance, and at a range of scales.
KEYWORDS
conservation, effective governance, environmental governance, environmental management, equitable gov-
ernance, responsive governance, robust governance
1INTRODUCTION
While environmental problems are often viewed as having
technical, managerial, or behavioral dimensions, increasing
attention has been paid to environmental governance as an
overarching means to address these complexities. Indeed,
interest in environmental governance has led to research at
all scales from the local to the global and focused on issues
such as resource scarcity and conflicts, allocation and access,
and biodiversity conservation in forest, agricultural, freshwa-
ter, marine, and even atmospheric systems. One broad and
enduring insight from this research is that governance is one
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original
work is properly cited.
© 2018 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
of the most important factors in enabling or undermining the
effectiveness of conservation and environmental management
(Armitage, de Loë, & Plummer, 2012; Lockwood, Davidson,
Curtis, Stratford, & Griffith, 2010; Ostrom, 1999). Yet, we
argue that there is still a relative paucity of comprehensive and
practicable guidance that can be used to frame the evaluation,
design, and analysis of systems of environmental governance.
This is a bold claim to make regarding a field that is as broad
as it is deep. This is especially so as the academic literature on
environmental governance has produced a plethora of gover-
nance theories and analytical frameworks. For example, envi-
ronmental governance scholars have developed theory in the
Conservation Letters. 2018;e12600. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/conl 1of13
https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12600

2of13 BENNETT AND SATTERFIELD
areas of common-pool resource governance (Agrawal, 2003;
Ostrom, 1999), adaptive governance (Armitage, Berkes, &
Doubleday, 2010; Brunner, 2005; Folke et al., 2005), antici-
patory governance (Boyd, Nykvist, Borgström, & Stacewicz,
2015), institutional governance (Adger, Brown, & Tompkins,
2005; Paavola, 2007), good governance (Graham, Amos, &
Plumtree, 2003; Lockwood et al., 2010), and global environ-
mental governance (O'Neill, 2009; Young, 1997) to name but
a few subfields. A prevailing sentiment across these litera-
tures is that of “good” governance – or that the evaluation of
environmental governance is inherently normative. Our par-
ticular aim then is to garner from these diverse areas of the-
ory to characterize key features of governance (i.e., objectives
and attributes) that can be applied to the design, evaluation,
and analysis of environmental governance. We do so while
accepting that it is beyond the scope of this article to provide
a detailed review of this extensive theoretical literature.
Several notable challenges to the uptake and application of
insights from governance scholarship are evident and need
to be addressed if this body of work is to improve conser-
vation and environmental management. First, the field as a
whole can be quite theoretical, and thus seem overwhelm-
ing and inaccessible to many policymakers, managers, prac-
titioners, and scientists from other fields who might wish to
apply governance concepts, theories, or frameworks to help
ameliorate real-world environmental problems. Second, there
is often a lack of conceptual and analytical clarity about the
difference between governance and management in much of
the recent applied research on the topic (Lockwood, 2010).
Third, many of the past studies that focus on evaluating or
analyzing environmental governance often focus on a lim-
ited set of features rather than considering the wider array of
governance objectives and related attributes (Table 1). This
may be due to the adherence by different researchers to dif-
ferent governance theories (e.g., adaptive governance, good
governance) or frameworks (e.g., the social-ecological sys-
tems framework) and the application of the specific factors
or particular indicators that they propose. While there is sig-
nificant overlap, lack of integration across governance theo-
ries has meant that a more comprehensive analytical frame-
work is still needed. Finally, past research has often focused
on normative or procedural considerations (e.g., participation,
recognition, access to justice) rather than substantive concerns
(e.g., ecological and social outcomes) related to different gov-
ernance regimes. This has meant that the links between gov-
ernance capacity, functioning, and performance are often not
clear – though some recent empirical research has emerged to
examine and clarify the links between governance inputs and
processes and social and ecological outcomes (Bodin, 2017;
Cohen, Evans, & Mills, 2012; Plummer, Baird et al., 2017).
This conceptual review and synthesis article seeks to
address these problems through resituating the broad body
of governance literature – including the languages, terms,
methods, and metrics – to provide a much needed comprehen-
sive and practical framework and a common lexicon for future
engagements. Our aim is to provide a framework that can be
adapted and applied to the design, evaluation, and analysis of
the capacity, functioning, and performance of environmental
governance in diverse contexts and at a range of scales.
2TOWARD A COMPREHENSIVE
AND PRACTICAL FRAMEWORK
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
GOVERNANCE
2.1 Methods
Our first step was to reduce the complexity of the main ana-
lytical elements, objectives, and related attributes that per-
tain to environmental governance while still being compre-
hensive (Figure 1). When developing the framework, we first
reviewed the literature to ascertain clear definitions and con-
ceptualizations of the analytical elements (i.e., institutions,
structures, and processes) of governance (see below). We
then reviewed the academic literature on environmental gov-
ernance to develop a comprehensive list of considerations
(alternately termed principles, attributes, or indicators of gov-
ernance by different authors) associated with the capacity,
functioning, and performance of governance. As our aim was
to be comprehensive, we reviewed the literature until the-
matic saturation was achieved – that is, no new themes were
emerging. To develop a summary list of attributes and objec-
tives from this long list, we combined commensurate terms
into a set of 19 attributes, which we checked against the lit-
erature to ensure comprehensive thematic coverage. Finally,
we assigned these attributes to four overarching categories
that encompass the general aims or objectives of environmen-
tal governance. In so doing, we sought to evaluate and con-
struct each category according to guidance on designing clear
and appropriate attributes and objectives. That is, we ensured
they were: distinct, comprehensive, direct, operational, under-
standable and unambiguous (Keeney, 2007; Keeney & Gre-
gory, 2005). A summary of this review of the literature is in
Table 1 with supporting references provided throughout the
text, whereas a more succinct representation of the primary
objectives and attributes as they relate to the elements of gov-
ernance is in the framework in Figure 1.
2.2 Definition and conceptual elements of
environmental governance
Governance is generally defined as the institutions, struc-
tures, and processes that determine who makes decisions,
how and for whom decisions are made, whether, how and what
actions are taken and by whom and to what effect (Graham
et al., 2003; Lockwood et al., 2010). An important conceptual

BENNETT AND SATTERFIELD 3of13
TABLE 1 Objectives, attributes, characteristics, outputs and outcomes of environmental governance
Objectives
Attributes
(Qualities or
Capacities)
General Characteristics or
Inputs (Capacity)
Idealized Outputs
(Functioning)
Idealized Outcomes
(Performance)
Effective Supports
maintenance of
system integrity
and functioning.
Direction Scope, goals and aims are
comprehensive, clearly
articulated and
communicated to
stakeholders. Clear
boundaries on action
and scope exist.
Defines what effective
action encompasses and
sets milestones for
achieving success.
•Improvementin
ecosystem functioning.
• Greater biodiversity or
species.
• Increases in
productivity of system
or provisioning of
ecosystem services.
• Better environmental
health.
Coordination The roles, functions, and
mandates of different
governments, agencies
and organizations are
coordinated. A
coordinating body or
unit is present.
Produces system of rules
for use, mechanisms for
exclusion, management
actions and spatial
coverage that are
complementary and
adequate to achieve
objectives. Provides a
forum for discussion,
debate, negotiating and
resolving trade-offs.
Capacity Capacity, skills and
resources are sufficient
and are being actively
developed. Capable and
visionary leadership is
present. Mechanisms
are present to resolve
conflicts between
groups.
Enables successful
decision-making and the
initiation, organization,
implementation and
evaluation of actions.
Informed Planning and
management decisions
and actions are informed
by best available
information and
integration of a diversity
of knowledge types and
systems.
Increases the likelihood
that management
actions will lead to
effective outcomes.
Accountable Procedures are present to
hold governors
accountable for
performance of system.
Mechanisms are in place
to ensure that means and
rationales for making
decisions are
transparent.
Ensures that governors
act on mandated
decisions and that
effective actions are
being taken.
Efficient Efficacy guides decisions
regarding management
actions and deployment
of resources. Time
requirements of actors
are reasonable.
Economic costs and
actions taken are
commensurate with
productivity of system.
Maximizes the
productivity of
management actions
while minimizing the
wasteful use of available
resources.
continued

4of13 BENNETT AND SATTERFIELD
TABLE 1 Continued
Objectives
Attributes
(qualities or
capacities)
General characteristics or
inputs (capacity)
Idealized outputs
(functioning)
Idealized Outcomes
(performance)
Equitable
Employs inclusive
processes and
produces fair
outcomes.
Recognition Policies and processes
ensure acknowledgement
of, respect for and
incorporation of diverse
perspectives, values,
cultures and rights. Views
of marginalized and
vulnerable groups are
considered.
Facilitates socially
acceptable governance and
perceptions of legitimacy.
Aids in the design of
management actions that
are appropriate to the
social context.
• Inclusion in
decision-making
processes.
•Improved
socio-economic
outcomes.
• Increases in quality of
life or wellbeing.
• More fair distribution
of wealth.
• Better access to justice
and protection of rights.
Participation Spaces and processes to
enable participation and
collective choice are
present. Structures that
ensure the representation
and engagement of
different stakeholder
groups are in place.
Contributes to just power
relations and
decision-making
processes. Leads to plans
and actions that represent
the interests of different
groups. Allows parties to
democratically debate
decisions and maintain
dignity.
Fair Mechanisms are in place to
ensure socio-economic
costs and benefits are just
and fairly distributed.
Rights and responsibilities
are shared and assigned
fairly. Unequal
circumstances are
considered.
Ensures a fair balance of
costs and benefits accrue
to different groups.
Just Laws and policies are
present to protect local
rights and mechanisms
ensure that groups have
access to justice.
Ensures rights (e.g., title,
historical tenure, access,
use, management) are not
undermined and that
reparations or
compensation are made
for past damages.
Responsive
Enables
adaptation to
diverse contexts
and changing
conditions.
Learning Monitoring, evaluation,
reflections and
communication of
performance is
institutionalized.
Processes and platforms
are in place to co-produce
knowledge and enhance
social and institutional
memory.
Ensures that information is
produced, documented,
shared and informs
decision-making.
• Enables the resilience
of resource.
• Enables the resilience
of local communities.
• More adaptable
institutions to changing
conditions.
• More flexible
institutions that can be
alteredtoworkin
different contexts.
Anticipatory Long-term planning and
foresight thinking are
institutionalized. Known
and unknown risks and
opportunities are
considered, analyzed and
planned for.
Produces plans and steps to
prepare and prevent
consequences of
unexpected risks.
Enhances knowledge,
capacity and flexibility for
disturbance.
Continued

BENNETT AND SATTERFIELD 5of13
TABLE 1 Continued
Objectives
Attributes
(qualities or
capacities)
General characteristics or
inputs (capacity) Idealized outputs (functioning)
Idealized Outcomes
(performance)
Adaptive Spaces for reflection and
deliberation are
institutionalized. Processes
exist to revisit and evolve
policies, institutions and
adapt actions.
Ensures that management
plans and actions are being
actively adapted to reflect
changing social-ecological
contexts and new
knowledge.
Innovative Innovation and
experimentation is
encouraged and success and
failures are monitored. A
higher risk tolerance is
embodied.
Allows change to be seen as
an opportunity. Enables
new and more effective
ideas and actions to emerge.
Flexible Policies exist that recognize
the need to downscale
environmental management
and conservation models to
fit local realities. Efforts are
taken to understand and
document about the diverse
contexts where policies are
applied and to deliberate on
necessary adjustments.
Enables governance systems
and management models to
be adjusted to better fit with
local social, cultural,
political, economic and
environmental contexts.
Robust Ensures
functioning
institutions persist,
maintain
performance and
cope with
perturbations and
crises.
Legitimate A collective vision shapes
policies and guides actions
at all scales. Institutional
legitimacy is conferred
(e.g., in policy) and
perceived (e.g., by
constituents). Governors act
with integrity and
consistency. Institutions are
transparent.
Ascertains that there is
support from above and that
there is a supportive
constituency.
• Institutions are
strengthened and well
supported.
• Institutional
performance and
functioning is more or
less consistent.
• Institutions persist over
time.
Connected Networks of organizations
and actors are strongly
linked vertically and
horizontally. Bridging
organizations are present.
Processes are in place to
support network
development, to develop
social relations and to
support mutual learning.
Helps to bridge between and
across scales. Creates
supportive community,
produces social capital,
fosters respect and trust and
builds social memory.
Encourages
communication,
information exchange,
enables diffusion of
innovations, and facilitates
collaboration.
Nested Tasks are assigned to
appropriate levels.
Decision-making authority
and responsibility are
conferred to the lowest level
possible. Self-organization
is encouraged and
supported. Authority and
responsibility is supported
by adequate state or other
outside support (legal
recognition, political will,
time commitment) and
oversight.
Empowers appropriate entity
to take necessary action.
Allows also for shaping and
adapting institutions and
decision-making processes
to different local
sub-contexts (social
circumstances, governance,
ecologies) within larger
system.
Continued

6of13 BENNETT AND SATTERFIELD
TABLE 1 Continued
Objectives
Attributes
(qualities or
capacities)
General characteristics or
inputs (capacity) Idealized outputs (functioning)
Idealized Outcomes
(performance)
Polycentric Decision-making and action
taking centers in multiple
places, across jurisdictions
and at multiple scales
interact and cohere towards
a common goal. Institutions
are present that are diverse
and redundant - that serve
similar purposes and have
overlapping jurisdictions
and functions.
Helps to buffer against
change in one location.
Ensures that the governance
system does not collapse
when faced with adversity
or crises.
distinction needs to be made between governance and man-
agement: the latter refers to the resources, plans, and actions
that result from the functioning of governance (Lockwood,
2010). The aim of environmental governance, in particular, is
to manage individual behaviors or collective actions in pur-
suance of public environmental goods and related societal
outcomes (Armitage et al., 2012; Termeer, Dewulf, & Van
Lieshout, 2010). To comprehend environmental governance
is to understand how decisions related to the environment
are made and whether resultant policies and processes lead
to environmentally and socially sustainable outcomes. The
analysis of environmental governance focuses on the capac-
ity, functioning, and/or performance of the institutional, struc-
tural, and procedural elements of governance (Figure 1)
Drawing first on early work by North (1990), we further
define institutions as both the formal (e.g., constitutions, laws,
policies, tenure systems) and informal rules (e.g., cultural
context, social norms, prevailing power structures) that shape
human interactions (e.g., in the form of decision-making
structures and processes) and that guide, support, or constrain
human or management actions. The term structures refers
to the formalized bodies or entities (e.g., decision-making
arrangements, comanagement bodies) and organizations
(e.g., levels of government, private sector organizations, civil
society organizations) as well as informal networks of actors
and organizations that embody governance capacities (e.g.,
efficiency, participation) and perform different functions
(e.g., producing rules and decisions, enabling management
actions). Governance processes, which are the means for
realizing the functions and the performance of governance,
include articulation of institutional mandates, negotiation of
values, conflict resolution, law making, policy formation,
diffusion of information, and application of policy. These pro-
cesses, then, play an important role in both decision-making
and the implementation of those decisions. Environmental
governance structures and processes can come together in dif-
ferent ways – for example, governance can be driven from the
top by governments or private individuals or actors, from the
bottom by local communities, or via shared decision-making
and authority through formal comanagement arrangements
or informal networks of actors and organizations. Moreover,
the institutional, structural, and procedural elements of
governance are understood to occur at various scales from
local to global, to interact across scales, and to have an effect
on the capacity, performance, and outcomes of environmental
governance (North, 1990; Young, 1997).
2.3 Objectives and attributes for
environmental governance
Previous governance scholarship and frameworks tend to pri-
oritize or even neglect certain fundamental objectives of
environmental governance. It is not surprising, for example,
that the literatures on adaptive and anticipatory governance
emphasize features that enable responsive-ness, such as learn-
ing, innovation, foresight, and adaptation (Armitage et al.,
2010; Boyd et al., 2015). Good governance frameworks, on
the other hand, focus heavily on normative concerns related
to equity, such as participation, fairness and justice, as well
as transparency and legitimacy, but tend to give less attention
to effectiveness (Graham et al., 2003; Lockwood, 2010). The
research applying institutional and network governance the-
ories have tended to concentrate on institutional robustness
(Cudney-Bueno & Basurto, 2009; Morrison, 2017) and the
functional effectiveness of governance at practices and pro-
cesses such as knowledge sharing or collaboration (Cárcamo,
Garay-Flühmann, & Gaymer, 2014; Wyborn, 2015a). Prob-
lematically, across much the environmental governance liter-
ature, effectiveness at achieving ecological outcomes is often
assumed or relegated to discussions of management.
Some authors have put forward various proposals for
more integrative sets of governance objectives. For example,
Adger et al. (2002) proposed that four broad integrated and
indivisible criteria be taken into account in environmental

BENNETT AND SATTERFIELD 7of13
governance and decision-making: efficiency, effectiveness,
equity, and legitimacy. Recent literature on protected areas
governance use evaluative indicators under the broad but
vague categories of quality, diversity, and vitality (Borrini-
Feyerabend & Hill, 2015). Alternately, while not focused on
the environment, North (2010) suggests that economic change
depends on having societal institutions that are productive,
stable, fair, broadly accepted, and flexible. There are numer-
ous other proposals. Yet, we felt there was no framework or set
of objectives that adequately captured the entirety of poten-
tial aims and attributes of governance, nor that was easily
applied to diverse contexts, problems, scales, and types of
governance.
Thus, our framework builds on a rich history of gover-
nance scholarship but proposes a different set of overarch-
ing objectives supported by a more comprehensive set of
attributes. Our literature review and categorization suggests
that environmental governance has four generalizable and dis-
tinct objectives – to be effective, to be equitable, to be respon-
sive, and to be robust – that ought to be considered simultane-
ously across institutional, structural, and procedural elements
(Figure 1). We define the four objectives as follows: (1) effec-
tive governance supports the maintenance of system integrity
and functioning; (2) equitable governance employs inclusive
processes and produces fair outcomes; (3) responsive gov-
ernance enables adaptation to diverse contexts and chang-
ing conditions; and (4) robust governance ensures that func-
tioning institutions persist, maintain performance, and cope
with perturbations and crises. Below, we briefly review the
attributes that correspond with each objective (see Table 1 for
a summary).
2.3.1 Effective environmental governance
A central objective of environmental governance is main-
taining or improving the ability of environmental sys-
tems to function and to produce ecosystem services
through the persistence of species, habitats or biodi-
versity (see Figure 1). Attributes of the first objective
–effective environmental governance – include: direc-
tion, coordination, capacity, informed, accountable, and
efficient. Clear direction is provided through preci-
sion in the articulation of vision, goals, aims, and the
establishment of clear boundaries on action and scope
(Graham et al., 2003; Lockwood et al., 2010; Wyborn,
2015b). This establishes what effective action encompasses
and sets milestones for achieving success. Coordination of the
roles, functions, and mandates of different governments and
organizations, perhaps through a coordinating body or coman-
agement unit, helps instead to establish systems of rules,
ensure the adequacy of management actions, and resolve
trade-offs (Abe, Brown, Ajao, & Donkor, 2016; Wyborn,
2015a). The presence and active development of capacity,
including skills (e.g., leadership, conflict resolution) and
resources (e.g., financial, infrastructure), enables the initiation
of planning processes and implementation of management
actions (Armitage et al., 2010; Lockwood et al., 2010;
Wyborn, 2015b). When planning and management decisions
are informed by the best available knowledge – which includes
diverse and integrated knowledge types (natural and social)
and of systems (scientific, local, and indigenous) – this can
increase the likelihood of effective outcomes (Charnley et al.,
2017; Tengö, Brondizio, Elmqvist, Malmer, & Spierenburg,
2014). Clear mechanisms to hold governors accountable
can help to ensure that mandated decisions are followed and
effective actions are being taken (Lockwood, 2010; Lock-
wood et al., 2010; Secco, Da Re, Pettenella, & Gatto, 2014).
Transparency, in communicating the means and rationales for
decisions and the outcomes of potential future or past actions,
makes accountability possible. Efficient governance requires
that time requirements of actors are reasonable, that efficacy
guides the choice of management actions and deployment
of public resources, and that costs and actions are com-
mensurate with system productivity (Ostrom, 1990; Secco
et al., 2014).
2.3.2 Equitable environmental governance
Second, to achieve the objective of being socially equitable,
environmental governance should engage decision-making
processes and produce socioeconomic outcomes that might
be characterized as: inclusive, participatory, fair, and just.
Equitable environmental governance begins with policies
and processes that recognize, respect, and are inclusive of the
perspectives, knowledge systems, values, cultures, and rights
of diverse stakeholders (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2015;
Lockwood et al., 2010; McDermott, Mahanty, & Schreck-
enberg, 2013), including the views of groups who are often
marginalized (e.g., women, indigenous peoples, or minority
groups) or vulnerable (e.g., impoverished communities).
Effective participation requires context and scale-specific
spaces, processes, and structures to enable inclusion, repre-
sentation, and engagement of stakeholder groups in collective
decision-making processes (Lockwood, 2010; Reed, 2008).
This facilitates the sharing of power, democratically debated
decisions, maintenance of dignity, and the creation of rep-
resentative plans and actions. Power- and benefit-sharing
mechanisms can help ensure that the socioeconomic benefits
and burdens of conservation and environmental manage-
ment are distributed in a fair manner, and that rights and
responsibilities are shared and assigned commensurate to
circumstances (Bennett, Teh et al., 2017; Pascual et al., 2014;
Zafra-Calvo et al., 2017). Finally, equitable governance is
safeguarded when laws and policies are present to protect
local rights and tenure, ensure that consent is freely given,
and groups have access to justice to defend against incursions

8of13 BENNETT AND SATTERFIELD
FIGURE 1 A practical framework for understanding the objectives, attributes, and elements of environmental governance
or facilitate reparations and/or compensation for past wrongs
(Bennett, Teh et al., 2017; FAO, 2012).
2.3.3 Responsive environmental governance
Third, the objective of being responsive ensures that
environmental governance is adaptable both to changing
environmental and social conditions and to diverse con-
texts. Responsive environmental governance arrangements
exemplify: learning, anticipation, adaptability, innovation,
and flexibility. Institutional and social learning is realized
through ongoing monitoring and evaluation, communication,
and reflection on the social and ecological performance of
environmental governance (Armitage & Plummer, 2011).
Collective memory, and consequently the ability to effectively
manage and adapt to change, is enhanced through practices
such as documentation and sharing of lessons learned,
knowledge coproduction, and developing communities of
practice (Berkes & Turner, 2006; Maida & Beck, 2016). The
knowledge and capacity to address disturbances can also
be improved through the institutionalization of anticipation
or foresight, including consideration, analysis, and plan-
ning for the consequences of both chronic and acute risks
(Boyd et al., 2015; Tschakert & Dietrich, 2010). Adaptive
environmental governance is enabled by institutionalized
spaces for dialogue, reflection and deliberation, and clear
processes and steps to ensure that policies, institutions, and
management actions are periodically revisited and actively
updated or changed when required (Armitage et al., 2010;
Dietz, Ostrom, & Stern, 2003). A culture of innovation,
coupled with a higher risk tolerance, encourages experimen-
tation with new ideas and the monitoring and documentation

BENNETT AND SATTERFIELD 9of13
of successes and failures to enable effective manage-
ment actions to emerge (Chaffin et al., 2016; Dietz et al.,
2003). Rather than promoting one-size-fits-all approaches,
flexibility in institutions and policies allows for the
calibrating of environmental management and conserva-
tion models to diverse local realities (Epstein et al., 2015;
Gaymer et al., 2014). This requires that efforts are made
to understand and document the social, cultural, political,
economic. and environmental contexts where interventions
are being implemented and to deliberate on necessary
adjustments to idealized models.
2.3.4 Robust environmental governance
The final objective of environmental governance is to be
robust – that is, functioning institutions – persist over time,
maintain performance, and cope with perturbations and
crises. Robust environmental governance institutions are
legitimate, connected, nested, and polycentric. Legitimate
institutions are guided by a collective vision, conferred with
formal legitimacy (e.g., through law or policy) and perceived
to be legitimate by constituents and stakeholders (Lockwood,
2010; Lockwood et al., 2010). This ensures both strong
political justification and local support. Robust networks of
institutions and actors are structurally connected horizontally
and vertically, often enabled by bridging organizations, and
characterized by positive social relations (e.g., trust and social
capital; Bodin, 2017; Bodin & Crona, 2009; Folke, Hahn,
Olsson, & Norberg, 2005). Functional networks facilitate
collaboration, knowledge and information exchange. and dif-
fusion of innovations (Barnes, Lynham, Kalberg, & Leung,
2016; Blythe et al., 2017; Cohen et al., 2012). In nested
governance, decision-making authority, responsibility, and
tasks are devolved to the lowest-possible and most adminis-
tratively appropriate level, which enables the proper entity to
self-organize, make decisions, and take actions (Lebel et al.,
2006; Marshall, 2007; Ostrom, 1990). Responsibility and
authority at lower scales need to be matched with adequate
support and oversight from higher levels. Polycentric systems
of governance have semiautonomous decision-making and
action-taking centers in multiple locations, across jurisdic-
tions, and at multiple scales that interact and cohere toward
a common goal (Carlisle & Gruby, 2017; Ostrom, 2010).
Polycentricity, through providing institutional diversity and
redundancy in purpose and function, helps to buffer against
change and avoid institutional collapse when faced with
adversity (Morrison, 2017).
3DISCUSSION
3.1 Summary
In this article, we present a framework that aims to be both
practical and comprehensive for environmental governance
that might be applied to diverse contexts, problems, and
scales. For example, it might be adapted and applied to exam-
ine or evaluate the governance of a locally managed com-
munity forest, a national system of marine protected areas, a
transboundary fishery or efforts to conserve biodiversity and
ecosystem services at regional or global scales (Díaz et al.,
2015). However, we are neither naïve to the challenges of
environmental governance nor the potential limitations of this
framework. First, the ability of the governance system (struc-
tures, institutions, and processes) to achieve desired objec-
tives – whether this is in a fishery, a marine protected area,
a watershed, a forest, an agricultural landscape, or other sys-
tem – is also determined by the complexity of the context and
the problem being addressed (Bavinck, Chuenpagdee, Jentoft,
Kooiman, 2013). Governance systems that are more respon-
sive – that emphasize learning, anticipation, adaptation, inno-
vation, and fit – may be better able to address this complexity
(Armitage et al., 2010; Epstein et al., 2015). Second, issues
related to power and politics can challenge or undermine the
functioning and performance of any system of environmental
governance. For example, some actors or groups might have
greater access to or influence over decision-making or pol-
icy creation processes with repercussions for both social and
environmental performance (Boonstra, 2016). The ability of
environmental governance to handle power rests, in part, in
how well governance structures, institutions, and processes
fulfill the objective of equity, which can facilitate recogni-
tion of diverse groups and worldviews, inclusion of stake-
holders in decision-making, fairness in the allocation of costs
and benefits, and access to justice when principles are vio-
lated. Third, as all ecological systems and social contexts
are unique, systems of environmental governance need to be
locally grounded. Indeed, the framework that we offer is not
intended as a “one-size-fits-all” approach, but rather a guide to
be adapted to fit diverse realities and governance challenges.
Finally, we recognize that the depth of treatment given to each
attribute is somewhat limited by the scope and length of the
article. There are certainly more sophisticated treatments of
each of these considerations in the literature, to which those
engaging with these ideas should turn if they desire more
information. Local perspectives on these considerations may
be different yet. We definitely encourage building on and from
the foundation of objectives and attributes provided by the
framework.
Our particular goal is a framework that advances gover-
nance in several ways. First, our aim is to provide clarity
on the elements of governance and so a useful reference for
future research that seeks to characterize systems of environ-
mental governance. Second, we provide a broader and more
comprehensive set of attributes than has any particular theory
or framework alone – which will provide a useful reference
for the design of indicators for evaluation of environmental
governance. Third, we suggest that future evaluations of

10 of 13 BENNETT AND SATTERFIELD
environmental governance need to better address the four
general objectives that we propose here – (1) to be effective,
(2) to be equitable, (3) to be responsive, and (4) to be robust
– across the institutional, structural, and procedural elements
of governance. We suggest that it is important to engage with
all four objectives simultaneously as there can be interactions
– both synergies and trade-offs – between them. For example,
equity (in decision-making processes or outcomes) can
support perceptions of legitimacy and thus the robustness
of institutions (Bennett, 2016; Ostrom, 1999; Turner et al.,
2016). Similarly, effectiveness relies on the responsiveness of
institutions to changing environmental and social conditions
(Weeks & Jupiter, 2013) and the flexibility of environmental
governance models to fit or match diverse contexts (Epstein
et al., 2015; Sarkki, Rantala, & Karjalainen, 2015). On
the other hand, when too much emphasis is placed on one
objective over others in systems of environmental gover-
nance, unintentional trade-offs and negative consequences
can follow. For example, when primary importance is placed
on environmental effectiveness over equity, this might have
unintended social consequences and negative feedbacks for
ecosystems (Larrosa, Carrasco, & Milner-Gulland, 2016).
Institutions that are ineffective or inequitable might also
persist when robustness is not balanced with features that
enable responsive, equitable, and effective environmental
governance. Thus, research on and the practice of envi-
ronmental governance needs to address the four objectives
simultaneously – while also seeking to better understand
the relationships between and how to achieve balance across
objectives. From a practical standpoint, the common lexicon
that we offer will be helpful for those seeking to develop
guidance on all dimensions of governance, and also assist in
the design of indicators for evaluating that governance.
3.2 Application of the framework for design,
evaluation, or analysis
In sum, the novelty of this framework is in the merging of the
diversity of governance frameworks and recommended fea-
tures into a more comprehensive offering to guide: (1) design,
(2) evaluation, and (3) analysis of environmental governance.
First, many studies often treat governance as the context
within which environmental management occurs or as some-
thing that emerges from sociopolitical contexts rather than
as something that can be produced, shaped or designed. We
propose that this framework can be a useful reference for
the development of guiding principles or recommendations
for different environmental issues (e.g., marine conservation,
fisheries management, terrestrial protected areas, water gover-
nance, wildlife management, and forestry). For example, the
lead author of this article used the general framework pro-
posed here as the basis for a collaboration with several NGOs
and government agencies to design governance objectives and
principles for a system of marine reserves in the Gulf of Cal-
ifornia of Mexico (Bennett, Lasch-Thaler et al., 2017). While
this process is still underway, one important lesson learned to
date was that this is not meant to be a blueprint per se, but the
framework can be usefully adapted and applied to the design
of governance in different social and political contexts.
Second, since all policies should be seen as experi-
ments that require continual monitoring and adaptation
(Armitage et al., 2008), indicators have become an important
part of learning and reflection. In this article, we stopped
short of developing indicators for the different objectives and
attributes. This is because the application of the framework for
monitoring and evaluation of environmental governance will
require adaptation to fit the objectives of different initiatives,
calibration to the normative expectations of the setting, and
the development of problem and scale-specific indicators. It is
also important to ensure that the indicators developed address,
as relevant, both: (1) the institutional, structural, and procedu-
ral elements of environmental governance and (2) the capacity
(inputs), functioning (outputs), and performance (outcomes)
associated with each governance attribute and objective
(Hockings, Stolton, Leverington, Dudley, & Courrau,
2006; Lockwood, 2010). We recommend that indicators for
evaluating environmental governance be developed in col-
laboration with stakeholders to ensure that they correspond
with local norms and increase their legitimacy and salience
(Hicks et al., 2016; Keeney & Gregory, 2005).
Third, there has been increasing attention to analyzing the
impact of different attributes and elements of governance
on social and ecological outcomes to develop generalizable
lessons aimed at improving conservation in a variety of con-
texts (Ban et al., 2017; Cinner et al., 2016; Mascia et al.,
2017). Additional efforts are needed to better understand these
cause-effect relationships between governance and social and
ecological performance (Biesbroek, Dupuis, & Wellstead,
2017; Plummer, Dzyundzyak et al., 2017). To move this body
of research forward, there is a need to engage: (1) clearer
conceptualizations of the difference between governance and
management and (2) more comprehensive sets of features and
indicators than might be drawn from a single area of gover-
nance theory. We hope that the framework we present here
provides one such comprehensive reference set of objectives
and attributes from which to draw in future research.
4CONCLUSION
To conclude, we recognize the importance of governance in
environmental management and conservation and reiterate
the need for greater attention to understanding the myriad
systems of environmental governance. The framework that
we provide here might be applied to better understand
environmental governance in different social contexts, for

BENNETT AND SATTERFIELD 11 of 13
diverse ecological issues and at a range of scales. Evalu-
ations and deliberations guided by the framework might
also support efforts to design and improve the capacity,
functioning, and performance of environmental governance
systems. However, we emphasize that there are no panaceas
and there will inevitably be a continual process of learning
and regeneration for any particular system of environmental
governance. In presenting this framework, we hope to support
such efforts – be that by governments, NGOs, private actors,
local communities, researchers, or collaborative networks
– to analyze, evaluate, and create more effective, equitable,
responsive, and robust environmental governance.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported in part by funding from the
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
(SSHRC IDG Grant No. 430-2014-00569 and SSHRC Insight
Grant No. F12-04439). NJB acknowledges the support of the
Liber Ero and Banting Postdoctoral Fellowship Programs, the
Ocean Canada Partnership, and the Community Conservation
Research Network. The authors would also like to acknowl-
edge the substantial improvements that were made to the
manuscript as a result of the thorough and professional com-
ments provided by several anonymous reviewers.
ORCID
Nathan J. Bennett http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4852-3401
REFERENCES
Abe, J., Brown, B., Ajao, E. A., & Donkor, S. (2016). Local to regional
polycentric levels of governance of the Guinea current large marine
ecosystem. Environmental Development,17, 287–295.
Adger, W. N., Brown, K., Fairbrass, J., Jordan, A., Paavola, J., &
Rosendo, S. (2002). Governance for sustainability: Towards a
“thick” understanding of environmental decision making (No. 02–
04). CSERGE Working Paper EDM.
Adger, W. N., Brown, K., & Tompkins, E. L. (2005). The political econ-
omy of cross-scale networks in resource co-management. Ecology
and Society,10, online.
Agrawal, A. (2003). Sustainable governance of common-pool
resources: Context, methods, and politics. Annual Review of
Anthropology,32, 243–262. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/
abs/10.1146/annurev.anthro.32.061002.093112
Armitage, D., & Plummer, R. (2011). Adapting and transforming: Gov-
ernance for navigating change. In D. Armitage & R. Plummer (Eds.),
Adaptive capacity and environmental governance (pp. 287–302).
Springer Series on Environmental Management. Berlin, Heidelberg:
Springer.
Armitage, D., Plummer, R., Berkes, F., Arthur, R. I., Charles, A.,
Davidson-Hunt, I. J., …Wollenberg, E. K. (2008). Adaptive co-
management for social–ecological complexity. Frontiers in Ecology
and the Environment,7, 95–102.
Armitage, D., Berkes, F., & Doubleday, N. (2010). Adaptive co-
management: Collaboration, learning, and multi-level governance.
Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.
Armitage, D., de Loë, R., & Plummer, R. (2012). Environmental gov-
ernance and its implications for conservation practice. Conservation
Letters,5, 245–255.
Ban, N. C., Davies, T. E., Aguilera, S. E., Brooks, C., Cox, M., Epstein,
G., …Nenadovic, M. (2017). Social and ecological effectiveness of
large marine protected areas. Global Environmental Change,43, 82–
91.
Barnes, M. L., Lynham, J., Kalberg, K., & Leung, P. (2016). Social
networks and environmental outcomes. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences,113, 6466–6471.
Bavinck, M., Chuenpagdee, R., Jentoft, S., Kooiman, J. (Eds.). (2013).
Governability of fisheries and aquaculture. Dordrecht: MARE Pub-
lication Series. Springer Netherlands.
Bennett, N. J. (2016). Using perceptions as evidence to improve conser-
vation and environmental management. Conservation Biology,30,
582–592.
Bennett, N. J., Lasch-Thaler, C., Mancha-Cisneros, M. M., Suárez-
Castillo, A. N., Walther-Mendoza, M., Vázquez-Vera, L., &
Espinosa-Romero, M. J. (2017). Integración de consideraciones
socio-económicas y de gobernanza en el diseño y manejo de las
zonas de recuperación en el Golfo de California, México.La
Paz, Mexico: The Nature Conservancy/Comunidad y Biodiversidad
A.C.
Bennett, N. J., Teh, L., Ota, Y., Christie, P., Ayers, A., Day, J. C., …
Satterfield, T. (2017). An appeal for a code of conduct for marine
conservation. Marine Policy,81, 411–418.
Berkes, F., & Turner, N. (2006). Knowledge, learning and the evolu-
tion of conservation practice for social-ecological system resilience.
Human Ecology,34, 479–494.
Biesbroek, R., Dupuis, J., & Wellstead, A. (2017). Explaining through
causal mechanisms: Resilience and governance of social–ecological
systems. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability,28,
64–70.
Blythe, J., Sulu, R., Harohau, D., Weeks, R., Schwarz, A. -M., Mills,
D., & Phillips, M. (2017). Social dynamics shaping the diffusion of
sustainable aquaculture innovations in the Solomon Islands. Sustain-
ability,9, 126.
Bodin, Ö. (2017). Collaborative environmental governance: Achiev-
ing collective action in social-ecological systems. Science,357,
eaan1114.
Bodin, Ö., & Crona, B. I. (2009). The role of social networks in natu-
ral resource governance: What relational patterns make a difference?
Global Environmental Change,19, 366–374.
Boonstra, W. J. (2016). Conceptualizing power to study social-
ecological interactions. Ecology and Society,21(1), 21.
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07966-210121
Borrini-Feyerabend, G. & Hill, R. (2015). Governance for the
conservation of nature. In: Worboys, G.L., Lockwood, M.,
Kothari, A., Feary, S. & Pulsford, I. eds. Protected Area Gov-
ernance and Management. (pp. 169–206). ANU Press, Canberra,
Australia.
Borrini-Feyerabend, G., & Hill, R. (2015). Governance for the conser-
vation of nature. Prot. Area Gov. Manag., 169–206.

12 of 13 BENNETT AND SATTERFIELD
Boyd, E., Nykvist, B., Borgström, S., & Stacewicz, I. A. (2015).
Anticipatory governance for social-ecological resilience. Ambio,44,
149–161.
Brunner, R. D. (2005). Adaptive governance: Integrating science, policy,
and decision making. New York: Columbia University Press.
Cárcamo, P. F., Garay-Flühmann, R., & Gaymer, C. F. (2014). Col-
laboration and knowledge networks in coastal resources manage-
ment: How critical stakeholders interact for multiple-use marine pro-
tected area implementation. Ocean & Coastal Management,91,5–
16.
Carlisle, K., & Gruby, R. L. (2017). Polycentric systems of gover-
nance: A theoretical model for the commons. Policy Study Journal,in
press. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/psj.12212/abstract.
Chaffin, B. C., Garmestani, A. S., Gunderson, L. H., Benson, M. H.,
Angeler, D. G., Arnold, C. A. (Tony), …Allen, C. R. (2016). Trans-
formative environmental governance. Annual Review of Environment
and Resources,41, 399–423.
Charnley, S., Carothers, C., Satterfield, T., Levine, A., Poe, M. R., Nor-
man, K., …St. Martin, K. (2017). Evaluating the best available social
science for natural resource management decision-making. Environ-
mental Science & Policy,73, 80–88.
Cinner, J. E., Huchery, C., MacNeil, M. A., Graham, N. A. J., McClana-
han, T. R., Maina, J., …Mouillot, D. (2016). Bright spots among the
world's coral reefs. Nature, advance online publication.
Cohen, P. J., Evans, L. S., & Mills, M. (2012). Social networks support-
ing governance of coastal ecosystems in Solomon Islands. Conserva-
tion Letters,5, 376–386.
Cudney-Bueno, R., & Basurto, X. (2009). Lack of cross-scale linkages
reduces robustness of community-based fisheries management. Plos
One,4, e6253.
Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Carabias, J., Joly, C., Lonsdale, M., Ash, N., Lar-
igauderie, A. Adhikari …Zlatanova, D. (2015). The IPBES concep-
tual framework — connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability, Open Issue, 14, 1–16.
Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., & Stern, P. C. (2003). The struggle to govern the
commons. Science,302, 1907–1912.
Epstein, G., Pittman, J., Alexander, S. M., Berdej, S., Dyck, T., Kreit-
mair, U., …Armitage, D. (2015). Institutional fit and the sustainabil-
ity of social–ecological systems. Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability,14, 34–40.
FAO. (2012). Voluntary guidelines on the responsible governance of
tenure of land, fisheries and forests in the context of national food
security. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations.
Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive gover-
nance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment
and Resources,30, 441–473.
Gaymer, C. F., Stadel, A. V., Ban, N. C., Cárcamo, P. F., Ierna, J.,
& Lieberknecht, L. M. (2014). Merging top-down and bottom-up
approaches in marine protected areas planning: Experiences from
around the globe. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater
Ecosystems,24, 128–144.
Graham, J., Amos, B., & Plumtree, T. (2003). Governance principles for
protected areas in the 21st century. Ottawa, ON: Institute on Gover-
nance, Parks Canada, and CIDA.
Hicks,C.C.,Levine,A.,Agrawal,A.,Basurto,X.,Breslow,S.J.,
Carothers, C., …Levin, P. S. (2016). Engage key social concepts for
sustainability. Science,352, 38–40.
Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Leverington, F., Dudley, N., & Courrau, J.
(2006). Evaluating effectiveness: A framework for assessing the man-
agement effectiveness of protected areas (2nd ed.). Gland, Switzer-
land: IUCN.
Keeney, R. L. (2007). Developing objectives and attributes. In: Edwards,
W., Jr, R.F.M. & Winterfeldt, D. von. eds. Advances in Decision Anal-
ysis: From Foundations to Applications. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK, pp. 104-128.
Keeney, R. L., & Gregory, R. S. (2005). Selecting attributes to measure
the achievement of objectives. Operations Research,53, 1–11.
Larrosa, C., Carrasco, L. R., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2016). Unintended
feedbacks: Challenges and opportunities for improving conservation
effectiveness. Conservation Letters,9, 316–326.
Lebel, L., Anderies, J. M., Campbell, B., Folke, C., Hatfield-Dodds, S.,
Hughes, T. P., & Wilson, J. (2006). Governance and the capacity to
manage resilience in regional social-ecological systems. Ecology and
Society,11, online.
Lockwood, M. (2010). Good governance for terrestrial protected areas: A
framework, principles and performance outcomes. Journal of Envi-
ronmental Management,91, 754–766.
Lockwood, M., Davidson, J., Curtis, A., Stratford, E., & Griffith, R.
(2010). Governance principles for natural resource management.
Society and Natural Resources,23, 986–1001.
Maida, C. A., & Beck, S. (2016). Towards communities of practice in
global sustainability. Anthropology in Action,23, 1–5.
Marshall, G. (2007). Nesting, subsidiarity, and community-based envi-
ronmental governance beyond the local scale. International Journal
of the Commons,2, 75–97.
Mascia,M.B.,Fox,H.E.,Glew,L.,Ahmadia,G.N.,Agrawal,A.,
Barnes, M., …White, A. T. (2017). A novel framework for analyz-
ing conservation impacts: Evaluation, theory, and marine protected
areas. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,1399, 93–115.
McDermott, M., Mahanty, S., & Schreckenberg, K. (2013). Examining
equity: A multidimensional framework for assessing equity in pay-
ments for ecosystem services. Environmental Science & Policy,33,
416–427.
Morrison, T. H. (2017). Evolving polycentric governance of the Great
Barrier Reef. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,114,
E3013–E3021.
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic per-
formance. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
North, D. C. (2010). Understanding the process of economic change.
Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
O'Neill, K. (2009). The Environment and international relations.Cam-
bridge University Press, New York, NY.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions
for collective action. Oxford, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ostrom, E. (1999). Coping with tragedies of the commons. Annual
Review of Political Science,2, 493–535.
Ostrom, E. (2010). Polycentric systems for coping with collective action
and global environmental change. Global Environmental Change,
20th Anniversary Special Issue, 20, 550–557.

BENNETT AND SATTERFIELD 13 of 13
Paavola, J. (2007). Institutions and environmental governance: A recon-
ceptualization. Ecological Economics,63, 93–103.
Pascual, U., Phelps, J., Garmendia, E., Brown, K., Corbera, E., Martin,
A., …Muradian, R. (2014). Social equity matters in payments for
ecosystem services. Bioscience,64, 1027–1036.
Plummer, R., Baird, J., Dzyundzyak, A., Armitage, D., Bodin, Ö., &
Schultz, L. (2017). Is adaptive co-management delivering? Exam-
ining relationships between collaboration, learning and outcomes in
UNESCO biosphere reserves. Ecological Economics,140, 79–88.
Plummer, R., Dzyundzyak, A., Baird, J., Bodin, Ö., Armitage, D., &
Schultz, L. (2017). How do environmental governance processes
shape evaluation of outcomes by stakeholders? A causal pathways
approach. Plos One,12, e0185375.
Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental
management: A literature review. Biological Conservation,141,
2417–2431.
Sarkki, S., Rantala, L., & Karjalainen, T. P. (2015). Fit between conser-
vation instruments and local social systems: Cases of co-management
and payments for ecosystem services. Change and Adaptation in
Socio-Ecological Systems,2, 59-78.
Secco, L., Da Re, R., Pettenella, D. M., & Gatto, P. (2014). Why and how
to measure forest governance at local level: A set of indicators. For-
est Policy and Economics, Assessing forest governance - analytical
concepts and their application, 49, 57–71.
Tengö, M., Brondizio, E. S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P., & Spierenburg,
M. (2014). Connecting Diverse Knowledge Systems for Enhanced
Ecosystem Governance: The Multiple Evidence Base Approach.
Ambio,43, 579–591.
Termeer, C., Dewulf, A., & Van Lieshout, M. (2010). Disentangling
scale approaches in governance research: Comparing monocentric,
multilevel, and adaptive governance. Ecology and Society,15, 29.
Tschakert, P., & Dietrich, K. A. (2010). Anticipatory learning for climate
change adaptation and resilience. Ecology and Society,15, 11.
Turner, R. A., Addison, J., Arias, A., Bergseth, B. J., Marshall, N. A.,
Morrison, T. H., & Tobin, R. C. (2016). Trust, confidence, and equity
affect the legitimacy of natural resource governance. Ecology and
Society,21(3), 18. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08542-210318
Weeks, R., & Jupiter, S. D. (2013). Adaptive comanagement of a marine
protected area network in Fiji. Conservation Biology,27, 1234–
1244.
Wyborn, C. (2015a). Cross-scale linkages in connectivity conservation:
Adaptive governance challenges in spatially distributed networks.
Environmental Policy and Governance,25, 1–15.
Wyborn, C. A. (2015b). Connecting knowledge with action
through coproductive capacities: Adaptive governance and
connectivity conservation. Ecology and Society,20(1), 11.
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06510-200111
Young, O. R. (1997). Global governance: Drawing insights from the
environmental experience. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Zafra-Calvo, N., Pascual, U., Brockington, D., Coolsaet, B., Cortes-
Vazquez, J. A., Gross-Camp, N., …Burgess, N. D. (2017). Towards
an indicator system to assess equitable management in protected
areas. Biological Conservation,211, 134–141.
How to cite this article: Bennett NJ, Satterfield
T. Environmental governance: A practical frame-
work to guide design, evaluation and analysis.
Conservation Letters. 2018;e12600. https://doi.org/
10.1111/conl.12600