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 1 Institute for Resources, Environment, and Abstract Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6T 1Z4 Governance is one of the most important factors for ensuring effective environmental 2Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, Univer- management and conservation actions. Yet, there is still a relative paucity of com- sity of British Columbia, Canada, Vancouver, prehensive and practicable guidance that can be used to frame the evaluation, design, BC, Canada, V6T 1Z4 and analysis of systems of environmental governance. This conceptual review and 3Center for Ocean Solutions, Stanford Univer- sity, Stanford, CA, USA synthesis article seeks to addresses this problem through resituating the broad body Correspondence of governance literature into a practical framework for environmental governance. Nathan Bennett, University of British Our framework builds on a rich history of governance scholarship to propose that Columbia, AERL Building, 429–2202 Main environmental governance has four general aims or objectives – to be effective, to be Mall, Vancouver, BC Canada V6T 1Z4. Email: [email protected] equitable, to be responsive, and to be robust. Each of these four objectives need to Funding information be considered simultaneously across the institutional, structural, and procedural ele- Liber Ero Fellowship Program; OceanCanada ments of environmental governance. Through a review of the literature, we developed Partnership; Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Grant/Award a set of attributes for each of these objectives and relate these to the overall capacity, Numbers: SSHRC IDG #430-2014-00569, functioning, and performance of environmental governance. Our aim is to provide SSHRC IG #F12-04439 a practical and adaptable framework that can be applied to the design, evaluation, Editor and analysis of environmental governance in different social and political contexts, to Andrew Knight 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 1 INTRODUCTION of the most important factors in enabling or undermining the effectiveness of conservation and environmental management While environmental problems are often viewed as having (Armitage, de Loë, & Plummer, 2012; Lockwood, Davidson, technical, managerial, or behavioral dimensions, increasing Curtis, Stratford, & Griffith, 2010; Ostrom, 1999). Yet, we attention has been paid to environmental governance as an argue that there is still a relative paucity of comprehensive and overarching means to address these complexities. Indeed, practicable guidance that can be used to frame the evaluation, interest in environmental governance has led to research at design, and analysis of systems of environmental governance. all scales from the local to the global and focused on issues This is a bold claim to make regarding a field that is as broad such as resource scarcity and conflicts, allocation and access, as it is deep. This is especially so as the academic literature on and biodiversity conservation in forest, agricultural, freshwa- environmental governance has produced a plethora of gover- ter, marine, and even atmospheric systems. One broad and nance theories and analytical frameworks. For example, envi- enduring insight from this research is that governance is one ronmental governance scholars have developed theory in the 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. 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; methods, and metrics – to provide a much needed comprehen- Ostrom, 1999), adaptive governance (Armitage, Berkes, & sive and practical framework and a common lexicon for future Doubleday, 2010; Brunner, 2005; Folke et al., 2005), antici- engagements. Our aim is to provide a framework that can be patory governance (Boyd, Nykvist, Borgström, & Stacewicz, adapted and applied to the design, evaluation, and analysis of 2015), institutional governance (Adger, Brown, & Tompkins, the capacity, functioning, and performance of environmental 2005; Paavola, 2007), good governance (Graham, Amos, & governance in diverse contexts and at a range of scales. 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- 2 TOWARD A COMPREHENSIVE tures is that of “good” governance – or that the evaluation of AND PRACTICAL FRAMEWORK environmental governance is inherently normative. Our par- FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ticular aim then is to garner from these diverse areas of the- GOVERNANCE ory to characterize key features of governance (i.e., objectives and attributes) that can be applied to the design, evaluation, 2.1 Methods and analysis of environmental governance. We do so while Our first step was to reduce the complexity of the main ana- accepting that it is beyond the scope of this article to provide lytical elements, objectives, and related attributes that per- a detailed review of this extensive theoretical literature. tain to environmental governance while still being compre- Several notable challenges to the uptake and application of hensive (Figure 1). When developing the framework, we first insights from governance scholarship are evident and need reviewed the literature to ascertain clear definitions and con- to be addressed if this body of work is to improve conser- ceptualizations of the analytical elements (i.e., institutions, vation and environmental management. First, the field as a structures, and processes) of governance (see below). We whole can be quite theoretical, and thus seem overwhelm- then reviewed the academic literature on environmental gov- ing and inaccessible to many policymakers, managers, prac- ernance to develop a comprehensive list of considerations titioners, and scientists from other fields who might wish to (alternately termed principles, attributes, or indicators of gov- apply governance concepts, theories, or frameworks to help ernance by different authors) associated with the capacity, ameliorate real-world environmental problems. Second, there functioning, and performance of governance. As our aim was is often a lack of conceptual and analytical clarity about the to be comprehensive, we reviewed the literature until the- difference between governance and management in much of matic saturation was achieved – that is, no new themes were the recent applied research on the topic (Lockwood, 2010). emerging. To develop a summary list of attributes and objec- Third, many of the past studies that focus on evaluating or tives from this long list, we combined commensurate terms analyzing environmental governance often focus on a lim- into a set of 19 attributes, which we checked against the lit- ited set of features rather than considering the wider array of erature to ensure comprehensive thematic coverage. Finally, governance objectives and related attributes (Table 1). This we assigned these attributes to four overarching categories may be due to the adherence by different researchers to dif- that encompass the general aims or objectives of environmen- ferent governance theories (e.g., adaptive governance, good tal governance. In so doing, we sought to evaluate and con- governance) or frameworks (e.g., the social-ecological sys- struct each category according to guidance on designing clear tems framework) and the application of the specific factors and appropriate attributes and objectives. That is, we ensured or particular indicators that they propose. While there is sig- they were: distinct, comprehensive, direct, operational, under- nificant overlap, lack of integration across governance theo- standable and unambiguous (Keeney, 2007; Keeney & Gre- ries has meant that a more comprehensive analytical frame- gory, 2005). A summary of this review of the literature is in work is still needed. Finally, past research has often focused Table 1 with supporting references provided throughout the on normative or procedural considerations (e.g., participation, text, whereas a more succinct representation of the primary recognition, access to justice) rather than substantive concerns objectives and attributes as they relate to the elements of gov- (e.g., ecological and social outcomes) related to different gov- ernance is in the framework in Figure 1. 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 2.2 Definition and conceptual elements of examine and clarify the links between governance inputs and environmental governance processes and social and ecological outcomes (Bodin, 2017; Governance is generally defined as the institutions, struc- Cohen, Evans, & Mills, 2012; Plummer, Baird et al., 2017). tures, and processes