|
|
|
PDF
|
|
Type:
|
Conference Paper |
|
Author:
|
Nunan, Fiona; Menton, Mary; Schreckenberg, Kate; McDermott, Connie; Huxham, Mark |
|
Conference:
|
Workshop on the Ostrom Workshop 6 |
|
Location:
|
Indiana University, Bloomington |
|
Conf. Date:
|
June 19-21, 2019 |
|
Date:
|
2019 |
|
URI:
|
https://hdl.handle.net/10535/10482
|
|
Sector:
|
General & Multiple Resources |
|
Region:
|
|
|
Subject(s):
|
governance
|
|
Abstract:
|
"Many efforts to improve the sustainable management of renewable natural resources in low- and middle-income countries seek to achieve ‘win-win’ outcomes – improved ecosystem health and improved livelihoods. It is well established that achieving win-win outcomes is challenging; a host of variables affect the quality and performance of governance. This paper reports on research that sought to go beyond identifying factors that matter for effective governance to identify how governance mediates relationships between ecosystem services and human wellbeing. It did this through a systematic mapping of relevant literature and a subsequent rigorous review. Systematic mapping is a method used to describe and catalogue the available literature and evidence using systematic and transparent review processes. The analysis of the mapping focused on identifying which components of governance are studied, how much attention each geographical region and natural resource has received, finding that the literature is ‘clumped’ with some governance components, geographical areas and sectors well-studied while others have been poorly studied. The rigorous review analysed 190 papers in more detail, identifying recurring and key themes. The analysis found that there is very little literature that looks at governance, ecosystem health/services and poverty alleviation together in detail, with little evidence of interdisciplinary investigation. Much of the research instead focuses on either governance itself or governance and livelihoods or governance and ecosystem health/services. The analysis confirmed that there is little evidence of increased income resulting from community-based approaches to natural resource governance but there is evidence of empowerment that could lead to wider benefits and that ecosystem health has improved in some cases. The analysis identified a range of factors that contribute to this situation, including insufficient long-term support, lack of alternatives and power dynamics. Customary institutions remain critical for people to benefit from ecosystem services, though these are often constrained by government decisions."
|