Multi-Level Environmental Governance: Exploring the economic explanations

被引:27
作者
Paavola, Jouni [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Leeds, Sch Earth & Environm, Leeds LS2 9JT, W Yorkshire, England
基金
英国经济与社会研究理事会;
关键词
collective action; ecosystem services; institutions; multi-level environmental governance; transaction costs; ECOSYSTEM SERVICES; TRANSACTION-COSTS; STATE; BIODIVERSITY; LESSONS; ECOLOGY;
D O I
10.1002/eet.1698
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Multi-level environmental governance (MLEG) has become commonplace, yet few attempts have been made to explain in economic terms why it should have emerged. This article examines four economic explanations for MLEG. The first considers it as a solution for overcoming collective action challenges when a large number of actors are involved. The second explanation is that multiple levels of environmental governance may be needed to minimize governance costs. Thirdly, path dependence could explain MLEG. Fourthly, complex and multifunctional resource systems may generate ecosystem service flows that have benefit catchments of different size, and multi-level governance solutions may be needed to link providers and beneficiaries. While they are to a degree complementary, the analysis suggests that the multi-functionality explanation is the most nuanced one of them and offers the best diagnostic for governance challenges that an environmental resource system poses. (c) 2015 The Authors. Environmental Policy and Governance published by ERP Environment and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
引用
收藏
页码:143 / 154
页数:12
相关论文
共 71 条
[1]  
Agrawal A., 2002, Drama of the commons, P41, DOI DOI 10.17226/10287
[2]   Collaborative approaches to water management and planning: An institutional perspective [J].
Ananda, Jayanath ;
Proctor, Wendy .
ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 2013, 86 :97-106
[3]  
Arthur W. B., 1994, Increasing returns and path dependence in the economy
[4]   Ecology - Economic reasons for conserving wild nature [J].
Balmford, A ;
Bruner, A ;
Cooper, P ;
Costanza, R ;
Farber, S ;
Green, RE ;
Jenkins, M ;
Jefferiss, P ;
Jessamy, V ;
Madden, J ;
Munro, K ;
Myers, N ;
Naeem, S ;
Paavola, J ;
Rayment, M ;
Rosendo, S ;
Roughgarden, J ;
Trumper, K ;
Turner, RK .
SCIENCE, 2002, 297 (5583) :950-953
[5]  
Berkes F., 1992, Making the commons work: theory, practice, and policy., P161
[6]  
Biermann F., 2004, GLOBAL ENVIRON POLIT, V4, P1, DOI [DOI 10.1162/152638004773730185, 10.1162/152638004773730185]
[7]   On the 'efficient boundaries of the state': the contribution of transaction-costs economics to the analysis of decentralization and devolution in natural resource management [J].
Birner, R ;
Wittmer, H .
ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING C-GOVERNMENT AND POLICY, 2004, 22 (05) :667-685
[8]  
Blomquist WilliamA., 1992, Dividing the waters: Governing groundwater in southern California
[9]   Reforming the CDM for sustainable development: lessons learned and policy futures [J].
Boyd, Emily ;
Hultman, Nate ;
Roberts, J. Timmons ;
Corbera, Esteve ;
Cole, John ;
Bozmoski, Alex ;
Ebeling, Johannes ;
Tippman, Robert ;
Mann, Philip ;
Brown, Katrina ;
Liverman, Diana M. .
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & POLICY, 2009, 12 (07) :820-831
[10]  
Boyd J. W., 2005, Resources (Washington), P16