Strategy

Strategy

Compositionism in Measuring Environmental Governance: A Comparative Analysis

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors
Sayedeh Alemohammad 1
Majid Ramezani Mehrian 2
Naghmeh Mobaghaee Dinan 3
1 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Governance, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2 Department of Environmental Studies, the Institute for Research and Development in the Humanities (SAMT), Tehran, Iran.
3 Department of Environmental Economics, Education, and Policy, the Institute of Environmental Science, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
10.22034/rahbord.2024.468609.1692
Abstract
Conceptual models are essential for understanding complex environmental issues and the management practices that drive either the degradation or recovery of landscapes. These models are crucial when measuring environmental governance. This research aims to analyze the characteristics of such models and propose a more comprehensive conceptual framework. The methodology includes a targeted review of sources, a comparative analysis of model content, and synthesis. The qualitative content analysis of these models is based on their fundamental characteristics, such as the main components, key relationships, primary focus, and key insights. Additionally, a quantitative analysis of the models was conducted by examining word frequency to assess their general emphasis. The study presents a proposed conceptual model with nine dimensions: driving forces, activities, pressures, structure, function, ecosystem services and disservices, advantages and disadvantages, value and human well-being, and responses (strategies and actions). This cyclic model supports the timely diagnosis of issues, their location, mapping of actors and stakeholders, providing feedback to policymakers, proposing appropriate management responses, and ensuring accountability. Without such integrated frameworks, management research lacking a thorough understanding of the cumulative consequences of multiple uncoordinated actions will be limited to a narrow scope and fail to improve environmental conditions. Recognizing how human activities impact the flow of ecosystem services can facilitate the adjustment, reduction, or reversal of negative trends and help establish appropriate metrics for measuring governance.
Keywords
Landscape
Ecosystem Services
Value
Measuring governance
Content Analysis

Subjects

  • Alemohammad, S., Omidifar, R., Yousefvand, S., & Ramezani Mehrian, M. (2023). Comparative Analysis of Approaches to Protected Area Governance and the Evolution Process of Landscape Conservation. Strategy, 32(2), 307-330. doi: 10.22034/rahbord.2023.417486.1598
  • Alemohammad, S., Yavari, A. R., Salehi, S., & Zebardast, L. (2014). Using the Strategic Environmental Assessment for Compilation Polices of Sustainable Development Plan in Lake Urmia. Journal of Environmental Studies, 40(3), 645-667. doi: 10.22059/jes.2014.52211
  • Alemohammad, S., Yavari, A. R., Malek-Mohammadi, B., Salehi, E., & Amiri, M. J. (2022). Landscape conservation and protected areas (case of Dena, Iran). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 194(2), 54. doi:1007/s10661-021-09696-6
  • Alemohammad, S., Yavari, A. R., Malek mohammadi, B., Salehi, E., & Amiri, M. J. (2020). Participatory Mapping of Community Use Zone in Dena District Adjacent to Dena Preserved Area. Geography and Environmental Sustainability, 10(1), 53-68. doi: 10.22126/ges.2020.4750.215
  • Allen, W. (2022). Using a DPSIR framework to support good natural resource management and policy. Learning for Sustainability, March 10. (Online – open access): https://learningforsustainability.net/post/extended-dpsir/
  • Aqdas, M. (2019). Measuring Governance-Developing Governance Framework. Available at SSRN 3389500.
  • Armatas, C. A., Campbell, R. M., Watson, A. E., Borrie, W. T., Christensen, N., & Venn, T. J. (2018). An integrated approach to valuation and tradeoff analysis of ecosystem services for national forest decision-making. Ecosystem services, 33, 1-18.
  • Assis, J. C., Hohlenwerger, C., Metzger, J. P., Rhodes, J. R., Duarte, G. T., da Silva, R. A., & Ribeiro, M. C. (2023). Linking landscape structure and ecosystem service flow. Ecosystem Services, 62, 101535.
  • Azevedo, A., Guerra, A., & Martins, I. (2024). Seamounts ecological modelling: A comprehensive review and assessment of modelling suitability to emergent challenges. Ocean & Coastal Management, 251, 107050.
  • Balvanera, P., Quijas, S., Karp, D. S., Ash, N., Bennett, E. M., Boumans, R., & Walz, A. (2017). Ecosystem services. The GEO handbook on biodiversity observation networks, 39-78.
  • Bradley, P. & S. Yee. Using the DPSIR Framework to Develop a Conceptual Model: Technical Support Document. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-15/154, 2015.
  • Brunet, L. (2024) Transposing emotions to conserve nature? The positive politics of the metrics of ecosystem services, Science as Culture, 33, pp. 1–25.
  • Buffam, I., Hagemann, F. A., Emilsson, T., Gamstetter, D., Pálsdóttir, A. M., Randrup, T. B., & Ode Sang, Å. (2022). Priorities and barriers for urban ecosystem service provision: A comparison of stakeholder perspectives from three cities. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 4, 838971.
  • Cairney, P. (2013). Standing on the shoulders of giants: how do we combine the insights of multiple theories in public policy studies?. Policy studies journal, 41(1), 1-21.
  • Chan, K.M.A.; Balvanera, P.; Benessaiah, K.; Chapman, M.; Diaz, S.; Gomez-Baggethun, E.; Gould, R.; Hannahs, N.; Jax, K.; Klain, S. Opinion: Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 1462–1465. [CrossRef]
  • Chan, K. M. A., Gould, R. K. and Pascual, U. (2018) Editorial overview: Relational values: what are they, and what’s the fuss about?, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35, pp. A1–A7.
  • Casanova, D., & Price, L. (2018). Moving towards sustainable policy and practice–a five level framework for online learning sustainability. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology/La revue canadienne de l’apprentissage et de la technologie, 44(3).
  • De Groot R, Fisher B, Christie M, Aronson J, Braat L, Gowdy J. (2010) Integrating the ecological and economic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation. In: Kumar P (ed.) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations, London: Earthscan, 9–40.
  • Edwards, P. N. (2017) Knowledge infrastructures for the Anthropocene, The Anthropocene Review, 4, 34–43.
  • Elliott, M., Burdon, D., Atkins, J. P., Borja, A., Cormier, R., De Jonge, V. N., & Turner, R. K. (2017). “And DPSIR begat DAPSI (W) R (M)!”-a unifying framework for marine environmental management. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 118(1-2), 27-40.
  • Elliott, M., & O’Higgins, T. G. (2020). From DPSIR the DAPSI (W) R (M) Emerges a Butterfly–‘protecting the natural stuff and delivering the human stuff’. Ecosystem-based management, ecosystem services and aquatic biodiversity: Theory, tools and applications, 61-86.
  • Fischer, A., Eastwood, A., 2016. Coproduction of ecosystem services as human nature interactions-An analytical framework. Land Use Policy 52, 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.12.004.
  • Fedele, G., Locatelli, B., & Djoudi, H. (2017). Mechanisms mediating the contribution of ecosystem services to human well-being and resilience. Ecosystem services, 28, 43-54.
  • Fedele, G., Urech, Z.L., Rehnus, M., Sorg, J.-P., 2011. Impact of Women’s Harvest Practices on Pandanus guillaumetii in Madagascar’s Lowland Rainforests. Bot. 65, 158–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12231-011-9157-0.
  • Felipe-Lucia, M.R., Martín-López, B., Lavorel, S., Berraquero-Díaz, L., Escalera-Reyes, , Comín, F.A., 2015. Ecosystem services flows: why stakeholders’ power relationships matter. PLoS ONE 10, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0132232.
  • Ghosh, R. (2024) Data-driven governance and performances of accountability: Critical reflections from US agri-environmental policy, Science as Culture, 33.
  • Gorddard, R., Colloff, M.J., Wise, R.M., Ware, D., Dunlop, M., 2016. Values, rules and knowledge: adaptation as change in the decision context. Environ. Sci. Policy 57, 60–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.12.004.
  • Gupta, J., Scholtens, J., Perch, L., Dankelman, I., Seager, J., Sánder, F., & Kempf, I. (2020). Re-imagining the driver–pressure–state–impact–response framework from an equity and inclusive development perspective. Sustainability Science, 15, 503-520.
  • Gunathilaka, M. L., Halwatura, D., Manawadu, L., & Munasinghe, D. (2022). Application of Satellite Remote Sensing and DAPSI (W) R (M) Framework as a Tool to Assess Land Use Impacts on Urban Lakes in Sri Lanka. Environment and Urbanization ASIA, 13(2), 218-231.
  • Ha, N. T., Benedikter, S., & Kapp, G. (2022). A value chain approach to forest landscape restoration: insights from Vietnam’s production-driven forest restoration. Forest and Society, 6(1), 311-334.
  • Haines-Young RH and Potschin M (2010) The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being In: Raffaelli D and Frid C (eds) Ecosystem Ecology: A New Synthesis. BES Ecological Reviews Series, CUP. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 110–139.
  • Hartter, J., Solomon, J., Ryan, S.J., Jacobson, S.K., Goldman, A., 2014. Contrasting perceptions of ecosystem services of an African forest park. Conserv. 41, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892914000071.
  • Hausknost, D., Grima, N., Singh, S., 2017. The political dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): cascade or stairway? Ecol. Econ., 109–118
  • Ho, C. I., Liao, T. Y., Huang, S. C., & Chen, H. M. (2015). Beyond environmental concerns: using means–end chains to explore the personal psychological values and motivations of leisure/recreational cyclists. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 23(2), 234-254.
  • Horcea-Milcu, A.I., Leventon, J., Hanspach, J., Fischer, J., 2015. Disaggregated contributions of ecosystem services to human well-being in low-intensity Reg. Environ. Change 117–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016- 0926-2.
  • Hung Anh, L., & Schneider, P. (2020). A DPSIR assessment on ecosystem services challenges in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam: coping with the impacts of sand mining. Sustainability, 12(22), 9323.
  • Ito, M. (2017). Nature’s Rights: A New Paradigm for Environmental Protection’. The Ecologist.
  • Jorge-Romero, G., Elliott, M., & Defeo, O. (2022). Managing beyond ecosystem limits at the land-sea interface: The case of sandy beaches. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 181, 113838.
  • Klein, L. (2017). Standing on the shoulders of giants. Journal of Organisational Transformation & Social Change, 14(2), 99-100.
  • Lee, H., & Lautenbach, S. (2016). A quantitative review of relationships between ecosystem services. Ecological Indicators, 66, 340-351.
  • Liehr, S.; Röhrig, J.; Mehring, M.; Kluge, T. How the Social-Ecological Systems Concept Can Guide Transdisciplinary Research and Implementation: AddressingWater Challenges in Central Northern Namibia.Sustainability 2017. accepted.
  • Locatelli, B., Imbach, P., Wunder, S., 2013. Synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem services in Costa Rica. Conserv. 41, 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892913000234.
  • Loconto, A., Prudham, S., & Wolf, S. (2024). Environmental governance through metrics: guest introduction. Science as Culture, 33(1), 1-15.
  • Lovecraft, A. L., & Meek, C. L. (2019). Arctic coastal systems: Evaluating the DAPSI (W) R (M) framework. Coasts and Estuaries, 671-686.
  • Maes, J., Liquete, C., Teller, A., Erhard, M., 2016. An indicator framework for assessing ecosystem services in support of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Ecosyst. 17, 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.10.023.
  • Malito, D. (2015). The difficulty of measuring Governance and Stateness. Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Research Paper No. RSCAS, 38.
  • Mehring, M., Zajonz, U., & Hummel, D. (2017). Social-ecological dynamics of ecosystem services: Livelihoods and the functional relation between ecosystem service supply and demand—Evidence from Socotra archipelago, Yemen and the Sahel region, West Africa. Sustainability, 9(7), 1037.
  • Meyfroidt, P., 2013. Environmental cognitions, land change and social-ecological feedbacks: local case studies of forest transition in Vietnam. Human Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-012-9560-x.
  • Molina, R., Di Paola, G., Manno, G., Panicciari, A., Anfuso, G., & Cooper, A. (2023). A DAPSI (W) R (M) framework approach to characterization of environmental issues in touristic coastal systems. An example from Southern Spain. Ocean & Coastal Management, 244, 106797.
  • Nassl, M., & Löffler, J. (2015). Ecosystem services in coupled social–ecological systems: Closing the cycle of service provision and societal feedback. Ambio, 44(8), 737-749.
  • Nost, E. (2024) The tool didn’t make decisions for US’: Metrics and the performance of accountability in environmental governance, Science as Culture, 33.
  • Palomo, I., Felipe-Lucia, M.R., Bennett, E.M., Martín-López, B., Pascual, U., 2016. Disentangling the pathways and effects of ecosystem service co-production. Ecol. Res. 54, 245–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aecr.2015.09.003.
  • Patrício, J., Elliott, M., Mazik, K., Papadopoulou, K. N., & Smith, C. J. (2016). DPSIR—two decades of trying to develop a unifying framework for marine environmental management?. Frontiers in Marine Science, 3, 177.
  • Pimentel, A. K. O., Farias, L. A., Nakayama, C. R., Leite, C. B. B., Duarte, C. G., & Leite, L. O. D. C. (2024). Maslow and the Environment: Integrating the Social Representation and the Theory of Needs. Ambiente & Sociedade, 27, e00147.
  • Potschin, M. B., & Haines-Young, R. H. (2011). Ecosystem services: Exploring a geographical perspective. Progress in physical geography, 35(5), 575-594.
  • Potschin-Young, M., Haines-Young, R., Gorg, C., Heink, U., Jax, K., and Schleyer, C. (2018). Understanding the role of conceptual frameworks: reading the ecosystem service cascade. Ecosyst. Serv. 29, 428–440. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.015
  • Purvis, B., Mao, Y., & Robinson, D. (2019). Three pillars of sustainability: in search of conceptual origins. Sustainability science, 14, 681-695.
  • Ran, P., Hu, S., Frazier, A. E., Yang, S., Song, X., & Qu, S. (2023). The dynamic relationships between landscape structure and ecosystem services: An empirical analysis from the Wuhan metropolitan area, China. Journal of Environmental Management, 325, 116575.
  • Soleymani Roozbahani, M., Soleymani Roozbahani, M., & Bagheri, A. (2023). A Review of Environmental Priorities in Iran's Governance Instruments. Strategy, 32(2), 241-272. doi: 10.22034/rahbord.2023.423943.1614
  • Sönmez, F. Ö. (2019). A conceptual model for a metric based framework for the monitoring of information security tasks’ efficiency. Procedia Computer Science, 160, 181-188.
  • Triantafillou, P., & Lewis, J. M. (2024). Introduction to the Handbook on Measuring Governance. In Handbook on Measuring Governance (pp. 1-13). Edward Elgar Publishing.
  • Von Döhren, P., & Haase, D. (2023). Ecosystem Services for Planning Post-Mining Landscapes Using the DPSIR Framework. Land, 12(5), 1077.
  • Von Haaren, C., Lovett, A. A., & Albert, C. (2019). Landscape planning and ecosystem services: the sum is more than the parts. Landscape Planning with Ecosystem Services: Theories and Methods for Application in Europe, 3-9.
  • Wang, Z., Fu, B., Zhang, L., Wu, X., & Li, Y. (2022). Ecosystem service assessments across cascade levels: typology and an evidence map. Ecosystem Services, 57, 101472.
  • Wolf, S. A. and Arnold, N. (2023) Accountability in the anthropocene, Environmental Policy and Governance, 33(6), 579–582.
  • Zhang, C., Li, J., & Zhou, Z. (2022). Ecosystem service cascade: Concept, review, application and prospect. Ecological Indicators, 137, 108766.

  • Receive Date 20 July 2024
  • Revise Date 04 September 2024
  • Accept Date 12 October 2024