TY - JOUR

T1 - Fostering collective action through participation in natural resource and environmental management

T2 - An integrative and interpretative narrative review using the IAD, NAS and SES frameworks

AU - Ortiz-Riomalo, Juan Felipe

AU - Koessler, Ann Kathrin

AU - Engel, Stefanie

N1 - Funding Information: The evidence from case studies indicates that PPs have the potential to support the development of new institutional arrangements concerning the (individual and collective) use and management of natural resources and the environment (i.e. the focal AS). (Beierle, 2002; Beierle and Cayford, 2002; Koontz and Thomas, 2006; Reed, 2008; NRC, 2008; Newig and Fritsch, 2009; Fritsch and Newig, 2012; Newig et al., 2019; Jager et al., 2020) Processes that convene the relevant state and non-state actors to exchange sources of knowledge, information and perspectives in often informal institutional ASs can facilitate common understandings and agreements on suitable institutional arrangements (e.g.binding regulations, management plans or non-binding policy recommendations.) (ibid.).6 In turn, suitable method selection and deft facilitation should provide opportunities for participants to voice, understand, discuss and address each other's preferences and concerns (e.g. about policy trade-offs and distributive impacts) (NRC, 2008; Fritsch and Newig, 2012; Reed et al., 2014; Jager et al., 2020). Furthermore, the insights reviewed above indicate that organisers and sponsors should strive to guarantee equitable and effective access to primary, accurate social-ecological information (by, for instance, combining expert advice and peer testimonies). This information should help participants comprehend the benefits of co-operation and revise their understandings, beliefs and expectations (e.g. Vollan, 2008; NRC, 2008; Moreno-Sánchez and Maldonado, 2010; Chaudhuri, 2011; Saldarriaga-Isaza et al., 2015; Schill et al., 2016; Jager et al., 2020; Dannenberg and Gallier, 2020). Moreover, a fine selection of PMs should foster productive exchanges among participants in which they build shared understandings, expectations, preferences, explicit agreements and trust in favour of collective action (Ostrom et al., 1994; Ostrom, 1998, 2006, 2010c; Cardenas et al., 2004, 2011; NRC, 2008; Poteete et al., 2010; Pavitt, 2018; Koessler et al., 2021a). As noted above, providing just general information on the environmental challenge to be addressed and potential strategies to overcome it would be insufficient to effectively boost collective action (Ostrom, 1998; Lopez and Villamayor-Tomas, 2017; Pavitt, 2018; Koessler et al., 2021a).PIs can facilitate action situations (ASs) with the potential to influence the attributes of the relevant (a) governance system and (b) actors (boxes D. a and D. b, Section 4.1 and Section 4.2, respectively, in the main text). PIs can shape the prospects of collective action for desirable ecological, governance and social outcomes (box A) in environmental and natural resource management – i.e. in the focal AS and its associated relevant network of action situations (NAS) (boxes B and C, respectively). However, outcomes depend on how PIs' organisers and sponsors select, design and arrange participatory methods (PMs) and address and incorporate the relevant context (box E; Section 4.3 in the main text). Source: Own elaboration based on previous applications and representations of the IAD, NAS and SES frameworks (Ostrom, 2011; McGinnis, 2011b; McGinnis and Ostrom, 2014; Pahl-Wostl et al., 2010; Pahl-Wostl, 2015; Cole et al., 2019; Ortiz-Riomalo et al., 2020; 2022).By jointly reviewing the insights from these streams of research, this paper enriches and complements our understanding of the potential impacts of PIs, together with the underlying institutional and behavioural mechanisms that enable or hinder these potentials. In the conceptual framework, we integrated elements of the IAD, NAS and SES frameworks and contributions from the behavioural and institutional analysis of collective action. Along with the empirical insights from research on participatory governance, these insights help map out the potential (institutional and behavioural) impacts and mechanisms of PIs. In turn, the evidence from collective action experiments adds support, caveats and nuance to these general insights. It backs insights on the potential of participation to deliver (inputs for) suitable and legitimate institutional arrangements and to influence critical actors' attributes that condition the prospects for collective action. It also suggests that it is particularly vital to arrange PPs so that they nurture and sustain shared understandings, beliefs and preferences in favour of collective action at both the institutional and operational levels of choice and activity. Finally, it indicates that, if properly designed, implemented and supported, processes similar to those facilitated by PIs (e.g. collective decision-making and deliberation) can generate and sustain substantial changes in current institutional arrangements and levels of collective action in the focal AS. A causal relationship that research on participatory governance, primarily drawing on case studies, has not been able to establish so far neatly, and which the experimental evidence helps to illuminate further and clarify.The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:The corresponding author himself has supported and sometimes led the organisation of participatory processes for sustainable watershed management. Notwithstanding, none of the involved organisations participated in the conception and development of the submitted paper. The conclusions of the paper, though relevant for the types of processes in which the corresponding author himself has been involved, are strictly based on the evidence gathered and analysed for this paper. For the sake of transparency, however, the corresponding author discloses the details of his involvement in participatory processes. (For details of these participatory processes, see Ortiz-Riomalo et al., 2022) Between 2014 and 2016, together with Juan Camilo Cardenas (Universidad de los Andes, Colombia), he co-organised several multi-actor workshops in the basins of the rivers rising from the Santurbán páramo (Santander and Norte de Santander departments, Colombia). The Colombian Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development called for and supported the first workshops and activities in 2014. Likewise, the Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt and the corresponding regional environmental authorities (i.e. CDMB and Corponor) supported the realisation of these activities. PROMAC (GIZ, Colombia) and USAID (through its ABC - LA program) funded some subsequent workshops between 2015 and 2016. Between October 2018 and March 2019, the corresponding author and the second author of the paper provided pro bono support and advice to the Peruvian Ministry of Environment and Pro Ambiente II (GIZ) for a participatory process for watershed management in the Cañete River Watershed (Lima, Peru). The corresponding author co-organised the workshops that this process comprised. The MERESE - FIDA project and Pro Ambiente II cover the logistics and other costs. However, none of the persons and organisations mentioned influenced (or bear any responsibilities for) the views and arguments expressed in the paper.

PY - 2023/4/1

Y1 - 2023/4/1

N2 - Solving humanity's social-environmental challenges calls for collective action by relevant actors. Hence, involving these actors in the policy process has been deemed both necessary and promising. But how and to what extent can participatory policy interventions (PIs) foster collective action for sustainable environmental and natural resource management? Lab and lab-in-the-field experiments on co-operation in the context of collective action challenges (i.e. social dilemmas) and case study research on participatory processes both offer insights into this question but have hitherto mainly remained unconnected. This article reviews insights from these two streams of literature in tandem, synthesising and analysing them using the institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework in combination with the network of action situations (NAS) framework and the social-ecological systems (SES) framework. We thus perform an integrative and interpretative narrative review to draw a richer and more nuanced picture of PIs: their potential impacts, their (institutional and behavioural) mechanisms and challenges, and caveats and recommendations for their design and implementation. Our review shows that PIs can indeed foster collective action by (a) helping the relevant actors craft suitable and legitimate institutional arrangements and (b) addressing and/or influencing actors' attributes of relevance to collective action, namely their individual and shared understandings, beliefs and preferences. To fulfil this potential, the organisers and sponsors of PIs must address and link to the broader context through soundly designed and implemented processes. Complementary follow-up, enforcement and conflict resolution mechanisms are necessary to nurture, reassure and sustain understandings, beliefs and preferences that undergird trust-building and collective action. The conceptual framework developed for the review can help researchers and practitioners further assess these insights, disentangle PIs' mechanisms and impacts, and integrate the research and practice of participatory governance and collective action.

AB - Solving humanity's social-environmental challenges calls for collective action by relevant actors. Hence, involving these actors in the policy process has been deemed both necessary and promising. But how and to what extent can participatory policy interventions (PIs) foster collective action for sustainable environmental and natural resource management? Lab and lab-in-the-field experiments on co-operation in the context of collective action challenges (i.e. social dilemmas) and case study research on participatory processes both offer insights into this question but have hitherto mainly remained unconnected. This article reviews insights from these two streams of literature in tandem, synthesising and analysing them using the institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework in combination with the network of action situations (NAS) framework and the social-ecological systems (SES) framework. We thus perform an integrative and interpretative narrative review to draw a richer and more nuanced picture of PIs: their potential impacts, their (institutional and behavioural) mechanisms and challenges, and caveats and recommendations for their design and implementation. Our review shows that PIs can indeed foster collective action by (a) helping the relevant actors craft suitable and legitimate institutional arrangements and (b) addressing and/or influencing actors' attributes of relevance to collective action, namely their individual and shared understandings, beliefs and preferences. To fulfil this potential, the organisers and sponsors of PIs must address and link to the broader context through soundly designed and implemented processes. Complementary follow-up, enforcement and conflict resolution mechanisms are necessary to nurture, reassure and sustain understandings, beliefs and preferences that undergird trust-building and collective action. The conceptual framework developed for the review can help researchers and practitioners further assess these insights, disentangle PIs' mechanisms and impacts, and integrate the research and practice of participatory governance and collective action.

KW - Co-operation

KW - Collective action

KW - Natural resource management

KW - Participatory governance

KW - Social dilemmas

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85147250489&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.117184

DO - 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.117184

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85147250489

VL - 331

JO - Journal of Environmental Management

JF - Journal of Environmental Management

SN - 0301-4797

M1 - 117184

ER -