Introduction
Simultaneously ensuring food security and biodiversity conservation poses a pivotal challenge for contemporary sustainability governance (Chappell and LaValle
2011). Food security involves the sufficient production and supply of nutritious and culturally preferred food, the physical and economic access to food, and its proper utilization by the population for a healthy and productive life (FAO
2014); whereas biodiversity refers to the variability among all living organisms from all sources; this includes diversity within and between species and their habitats (Convention on Biological Diversity
1992). A key feature of food security and biodiversity governance is that each sector is characterized by the complexity arising from many sub-sectors and policy domains (Chappell and LaValle
2011; Candel
2014), multiple actors with divergent interests and discourses on how to achieve the goals of each sector (Drimie and Ruysenaar
2010; Behnassi and Yaya
2011), and each sector is influenced by many interacting institutional and biophysical factors including multi-scale institutional interplay and power relations (Koc
2013; McKeon
2015).
Public policy in many countries treats food security and biodiversity conservation as separate goals. As a result, interventions target both sectors separately (Glamann et al.
2017), with one sector reinforcing or impeding the success of the other sector (Wittman et al.
2017). For instance, the productivist discourse aims to close yield gaps to improve food security may increase food availability, but it negatively influences biodiversity conservation (Mooney and Hunt
2009). Similarly, approaching biodiversity conservation from a strictly protected area model could enable biodiversity protection, but it can threaten the food security of local people (Naughton-Treves et al.
2005; Fischer et al.
2017). To minimize such trade-offs and improve synergy between the two sectors, integrating these policy sectors appears crucial (Tosun and Leininger
2017).
Increasingly, food security and biodiversity conservation are seen as closely interlinked (Tscharntke et al.
2012), suggesting that these goals can only be sustainably achieved simultaneously (Björklund et al.
2012; Fischer et al.
2017; Torquebiau et al.
2012). Their successful integration, in turn, requires a close fit between the means of governance—the governance system—and the characteristics of particular social-ecological systems (Guerrero et al.
2015). Therefore, strategies are required to govern the food security and biodiversity conservation sectors individually, as well as to address their complex interactions (Björklund et al.
2012; Brussaard et al.
2010; Ericksen et al.
2009).
In this paper, we explore key challenges encountered by governance systems to deliver integrated biodiversity and food security governance. We conceptualize governance as comprising the structures (stakeholders and their linkages), processes (of policy, plans, rules, and their enforcement), and policy content influencing food security and biodiversity conservation (Hill
2013; Mertens et al.
2015). Thus, in the context of this study, governance is understood through the lens of institutions as captured in policies, rules, and plans; as well as the organizations (or stakeholders) established and involved to implement these rules. Such institutions and actors are multilevel, operating across several interdependent tiers (e.g., national, regional, district, kebele, or municipality); and they include a broad range of stakeholders who interplay over multiple jurisdictions (Hooghe and Marks
2001). They are also multi-sectoral, including the policy sectors of food and biodiversity as well as having links with other sectors that influence these. In such complex systems of interacting stakeholders and interests, there are likely to be challenges around institutional interplay, defined as the way in which institutions and stakeholders interact with each other (Young
2002). Issues of interplay need to be considered between institutions on the same governance level (horizontal interplay) as well as between levels (vertical interplay) (Lebel et al.
2005; Paavola et al.
2009; Young
2002). Within each of the horizontal and vertical interplay categories, in situations that bring together multiple interests, there can also be intersectoral interplay between them (Leventon and Laudan
2017).
We focus on a case study in southwestern Ethiopia. Ethiopia hosts a rich but declining biodiversity (Schmitt et al.
2010; Tadesse et al.
2014) and shows high levels of food insecurity (Ethiopian Central Statistical Agency and World Food Programme
2014; Gove et al.
2008). The level of complexity of the governance system for addressing these topics is high, with a large number of stakeholders engaged over multiple governance levels (see e.g., Bergsten et al.
2019; Jiren et al.
2018). Other studies in global south contexts have shown that reduction of food insecurity and biodiversity loss can be hampered by weak institutions (Swiderska et al.
2008), institutional misfits (Bodin and Crona
2009; Brown
2003), divergent sectoral interests (Brown
2003; Guerrero et al.
2015), and a lack of policy coherence (Duit and Galaz
2008). Drawing on our case study, we aimed to: (1) identify problematic vertical interplay within food and biodiversity sector governance; (2) identify problematic horizontal interplay within food and biodiversity governance systems; and (3) identify problematic sectoral interplay between the food and biodiversity governance systems.
Our study contributes to the research on integrated and collaborative governance approaches to social-ecological systems, which—despite criticism regarding practicability and power relations (Bodin
2017)—has been widely regarded as contributing to improved sustainability outcomes (Bodin
2017; Johansson
2018). In particular, we contribute to two main issues that, so far, have remained under-addressed. First, most studies on governance challenges have focused on single sectors (e.g., on food security or biodiversity conservation) or particular governance levels (e.g., municipality or national levels), or a particular aspect of governance (e.g., structures, processes or policies) (Fanning et al.
2007; Sayer et al.
2013). Such fragmented approaches, however, can only partly explain the complex governance challenges emerging from multisectoral and multilevel governance issues (Epstein et al.
2015). Second, despite theoretical progress, detailed empirical studies that holistically assess different aspects of sustainability governance—structures, processes, and policy content—remain scarce (Visseren-Hamakers
2018).
To identify different types of governance challenges, we first introduce a framework of interplay challenges. This framework draws on existing literature to provide a basic classification for the types of governance challenges encountered as a result of horizontal, vertical and sectoral interplay. We then outline our methodology to demonstrate how we applied this framework to our case study in Ethiopia. In the methodology section, we also provide further details of the governance system, including the institutions and actors that we studied. The subsequent results section is structured according to the three objectives in order to demonstrate how vertical, horizontal and sectoral interplay each create governance challenges in our case study. We draw on these results to discuss the implications for improving biodiversity and food security synergies and outcomes in the study area, and for understanding sustainability governance more broadly.
Conceptual Framework—Identifying the Problematic Interplay
We conceptualized governance challenges as instances where institutional interplay is problematic for the delivery of food security and biodiversity synergies. Such problems foster conflicts, hamper potential synergies and affect the overall effectiveness of governance systems. As explained in the introduction, questions of interplay can be relevant within a single sector (food or biodiversity) or between sectors and can occur vertically between governance levels, or horizontally within a single level. This is summarized in Table
1 as three types of interplay; note that for simplicity, we do not consider vertical, between-sector interplay in our framework because most vertical relationships are among same-sector institutions, while most cross-sectoral challenges manifest as issues of horizontal interplay. Problems of institutional interplay refer to issues arising from institutional as well as stakeholder interactions in the process of setting policies, plans and strategies, implementation and evaluation (Gehring and Oberthür
2008; Young
2002), aiming at the delivery of specific, defined governance outcomes (Paavola et al.
2009; Young
2002). Such challenges are discussed in the literature on environmental governance under various labels (see e.g., Visseren-Hamakers
2018) and focus on various levels of institutional structures and stages of policymaking (Nilsson et al.
2012). Here, we refer to whether they are (i) about institutional structure (the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders); or alternatively (ii) about written policy outputs and instruments.
Table 1
Conceptual framework of six types of governance challenges
Administrative dimension | Internal (within food security or biodiversity) | External (between food security and biodiversity) |
Horizontal (within policy level or implementation level) | A1—Institutional structure A2—Policy output | C1—Institutional structure C2—Policy output |
Vertical (between policy level and implementation level) | B1—Institutional structure B2—Policy output | N/A |
In terms of institutional structure, we focus on the (mis)alignment of institutional and stakeholders’ functions with other institutions and stakeholders, and with the social and ecological characteristics of the system at hand (Duit and Galaz
2008; Folke et al.
2007; Young
2002). We examine whether stakeholders have conflicting or synergistic roles, responsibilities and powers with others. We also consider whether institutions and actors are capable and mandated to govern the functional interlinkages between food security and biodiversity. Notably, we addressed the specific links between food security and biodiversity stakeholders using network analysis in previous papers (Jiren et al.
2017; Jiren et al.
2018; Bergsten et al.
2019). While our past network analyzes yielded useful insights, they did not touch on whether stakeholder interactions were synergistic and constructive, or conflictual and negative to achieving positive outcomes. In contrast to the previous work, here we focus specifically on whether or not the interplay in institutional structure hinders synergies between food security and biodiversity outcomes.
In terms of challenges related to policy outputs, we define policy broadly to include strategies, plans, rules, proclamations, and directives relating to the governance of food security and biodiversity. Problematic interplay within policy outputs occurs when actual policy outputs are not compatible with each other or the related implementation practices or are contradictory to the problem the policy seeks to address (Nilsson et al.
2012). We refer to this phenomenon as policy incoherence. We extended existing notions of policy incoherence, conflict and contradiction between policy elements within a given domain (Candel and Biesbroek
2016; Nilsson et al.
2012), and identified policy incoherences between the sectors of food security and biodiversity conservation.
In summary, we thus considered problems of misaligned institutional structure and problems of incoherent policy output; within a given sector and between sectors; and within a given level of governance (horizontally) and across levels of governance (vertically). The resulting matrix of governance challenges thus considered is summarized in Table
1, and forms the basis of our analyzes in the case study.
Methodology
Study System
We focused on the governance of food security and biodiversity conservation in Jimma zone, Oromia regional state, southwestern Ethiopia. Jimma zone is located approximately 350 km southwest of Addis Ababa (Finfinne) and exhibits strong interactions of food security and biodiversity conservation (Ango et al.
2014). We used this zone as a way to anchor and narrow the focus of our research so that it was possible to explore the governance system through the five levels of Ethiopian governance: national/ federal, regional (state), zonal, woreda (district), and kebele (municipality) administration. Studying every stakeholder on every level for the whole of Ethiopia would be very difficult, given logistical, financial and time limitations; however, by connecting our analysis to a specific location, we were able to include virtually all relevant institutions and stakeholders who are directly involved in the governance of food security and biodiversity, and actors that were relevant to that location, while covering both sectors (food and biodiversity) across all levels of governance.
Jimma zone is an area where there is a great benefit to finding and governing, synergies for food security and biodiversity. The vast majority of people living within Jimma zone (90% of the 3.1 million inhabitants) are smallholder farmers who produce cereals and pulses as major food crops, and coffee (
Coffea arabica) and khat (
Catha edulis) as cash crops (Oromiya Bureau of Finance and Economic Development 2012). Many additional forest-based ecosystem services are also highly relevant for local livelihoods (Ango et al.
2014). In terms of food security, smallholders in Jimma zone are relatively better off than many people in the other drier parts of the country, but many are still moderately food insecure by international standards (Ethiopian Central Statistical Agency and World Food Programme
2014). Given the diversity of its agroecology, Jimma zone is a hotspot of biodiversity—it is the birthplace of coffee (
Coffea arabica) (Oromiya Bureau of Finance and Economic Development 2012), the last stronghold of Moist evergreen Afromontane forest (Oromiya Bureau of Finance and Economic Development 2012; Schmitt et al.
2010), and rich in flora and fauna (Hylander and Nemomissa
2008). However, driven by population pressure, agricultural land expansion, and challenges related to the governance system, food insecurity and accelerated biodiversity loss have been major problems in the area (Oromiya Bureau of Finance and Economic Development 2012).
For our particular study, we selected six kebeles in three focal woredas, namely Kuda Kufi and Bereha Werango kebeles from Gumay woreda, Kella Hareri, and Borcho Deka kebeles from Gera woreda, and Difo Mani and Gido Beri from Gumay woreda. Together, these locations spanned a large amount of the social-ecological variation in the study area such as forest cover and livelihood strategies. For instance, Kella Hareri and Borcho Deka kebeles have large forest areas and produce coffee, while people in Bereha Werango and Gido Beri kebeles predominantly produce food crops including maize, sorghum, and teff. In summary, our study thus considered the stakeholders related to food security and biodiversity conservation in six kebeles, three woredas, Jimma zone, Oromia Regional State, and the national level. For the sake of analysis, following the main mandate assigned at each of the administration levels, the five administration levels were further classified into two administrative dimensions, namely the policy level and the implementation level. The policy level involves stakeholders at the national and regional (state) levels, whereas the implementation level consists of the zonal, woreda (district), and kebele (municipality) administration levels.
Data Collection and Analysis
In order to identify problematic interplay, we collected narrative data from actors engaged in the governance of food security and biodiversity conservation, to understand their perceptions of connections and interplay within the system. To that end, we conducted semi-structured interviews with a representative of each stakeholder within the governance system. We used semi-structured interviews because it facilitates gathering in-depth and rich data on the different governance challenges perceived by individual stakeholders across different governance levels (Kvale and Brinkmann
2009; Ritchie et al.
2013). Because the scope of the study transcends two policy sectors, involves broad institutional interplay challenges across multiple governance levels, a semi-structured interview directly with the stakeholders creates an opportunity for probing and contextualization. We identified stakeholders through the snowball sampling technique (after Leventon et al.
2016; Reed et al.
2009). The use of snowball sampling facilitates nearly a complete enumeration of key stakeholders involved in the governance of food security and the biodiversity sector. We started at the very local level (with the community) and drew on existing knowledge and conversations with key informants to identify kebele level actors. In our semi-structured interviews, we asked for further actors that we should contact, being sure to ask at all levels and for both sectors. We first explained the purpose and scope of our study to the kebele administration and development agents, who then helped us to identify kebele level actors. Here and in all our interactions with actors, we clarified that the food security sector concerned all stakeholders and issues regarding production, access, utilization, and stability of access to food. Similarly, we explained that the biodiversity conservation sector involved actors and issues regarding farmland and forest biodiversity. We identified kebele level actors representing different wealth groups (rich and poor) and geography (geographical household clusters). We used existing official data from kebele offices for the classification into rich versus poor because this official classification of wealth includes contextualized livelihood and food security indicators. Official wealth classification in the area is based on an accounting of household assets such as land holdings, annual income, and food security status. Accordingly, we relied on the already existing official wealth classification to address the rich and poor sections of the community at the kebele level. Based on the listing of actors named by kebele level stakeholders, we identified woreda level stakeholders. We followed a similar procedure at all governance levels until no new actors were mentioned. In this way, we built up a near-complete “map” of the network of stakeholders engaged in the system and sought interviews with many of them. We identified a total of 244 stakeholders involved in the governance of food security and biodiversity conservation. Of these 244 stakeholders, 201 of them participated in this study. The remaining stakeholders, many of them multi-national organizations, declined participation citing limited direct involvement in the governance of food security and biodiversity conservation. We conducted 177 semi-structured interviews in total and 24 focus group discussions with members of the community. More information on the full governance network can be found in (Jiren et al.
2018); all interviewed stakeholders are listed in Table
S1.
We departed from our strategy of semi-structured interviews in order to also capture the narratives of local people in the study area. They are important actors within the governance system because of their ultimate role in producing and consuming food and managing the landscape. However, our interview strategy would not have allowed us to capture the diverse perspectives of communities. That means a semi-structured interview with only a few key actors would not make us understand in detail the collective opinions of the community about the governance challenges as well as their differences (Goss and Leinbach
1996; Ritchie et al. 2014). We, therefore, conducted 24 focus groups. These focus groups allowed us to explore opinions and narratives presented by groups representing different sections of communities, as outlined in Table
S2.
Respondents in both formats (interviews and focus groups) were asked questions around five main themes: (a) their roles and interest in the governance of food security, biodiversity and the intersection of both, (b) challenges associated with the governance of food security, (c) challenge associated with the governance of biodiversity, (d) challenges for the integrated governance of food security and biodiversity, and (e) the institutions with which they interacted in the governance of food security, biodiversity or both, at either the same governance level or with one level higher. Answers to the topic (e) were used for our snowball sample.
Consent was obtained from participants, and ethics approval was granted by Leuphana University, to audio record interviews and discussions. We transcribed the recordings (average duration: ~1 h) and field notes for all stakeholders. We then organized and entered the transcripts into the qualitative data analysis software NVivo version 11, for the coding of transcripts and subsequent qualitative content analysis (Ritchie et al.
2013; Bryman
2015). Here, we deductively created three separate nodes, one each for food security, biodiversity and one for the integrated governance of both. Next, we created sub-nodes under these primary nodes to identify whether challenges related to horizontal or vertical interplay. We then inductively created another layer of sub-sub-nodes based on the transcripts, in which governance challenges were classified into different themes, where we looked for commonalities and differences in the way in which respondents discussed and presented the challenges that they described to us. This inductive analysis allowed us to explore the six types of governance challenges (see Table
1) related to institutional structures and those that related to policy outputs across the types of interplay. To ensure the quality of coding and reliability in the coding process, intracoding agreement was used by repeatedly coding the transcripts by the same one author at different times and subsequently checked by two authors regarding consistency of codes, before final agreement was reached among the team of authors.
Discussion
In our study, we identified that sustainable governance of food security, biodiversity and their integration was often constrained by the challenges of horizontal and vertical interplay, within and between the two sectors. Key findings are summarized in Table
2. These interplay challenges are interrelated and affected not only single policy sectors but also, and often more severely so, the integrated governance of food security and biodiversity. In the following sections, we first discuss our key insights about vertical and horizontal interplay challenges with specific attention to the institutional structure and policy output challenges, followed by a discussion of means of overcoming these governance challenges with a focus on the study area and beyond.
Table 2
Summary of key governance challenges affecting food security and biodiversity conservation (also see Table
1)
Horizontal | A1—Institutional structure Overlapping of mandates leads to competition between organizations (food) No organizations covering some aspects of biodiversity (biodiversity) Conflicting interests of organizations within a single sector (both) A2—Policy output Conflicting techniques and priorities being pursued in the same locations (food) | C1—Institutional structure No institutional coordination between sectors Frequent restructuring and instability Lack of coordinating actors with skills to integrate C2—Policy output Prioritizing individual goals Opposing discourses and experiences of “biodiversity and sustainable development” vs. “growth and local livelihoods” Broader legal system influences relationships |
Vertical | B1—Institutional structure Inconsistent and changeable policies (food) Clash between policy intervention and local cultures and preferences (food) Lack of local level presence (biodiversity) Overlapping and conflicting jurisdictions (biodiversity) B2—Policy output Inconsistency between policy measures and legal responsibilities (biodiversity) Inconsistency between policy content and actual practice (biodiversity) | N/A |
In terms of challenges arising from the institutional structure, we found common challenges within each sector, between the sectors, and both horizontally and vertically through the governance system. Namely, we found that at some points in the system, there was an institutional gap, while at other points, there was a concentration of many institutions governing particular aspects of policy sectors (e.g., food production), while yet other aspects (e.g., food utilization, farmland biodiversity) lacked institutional support (A1 and A2). For food security governance, this implies that the existing governance and institutions focused on increasing food production as a leading strategy to ensure food security—the productivism discourse (Koc
2013; McKeon
2015), which pays little attention to the different dimensions of food security, including access, distribution, and equity dimensions. Even the existing strategies around the access and equity dimensions of food security in Ethiopia, such as the productive safety net program, received weak institutional attention in the study area, and these interventions were not mentioned by the stakeholders, including poorer members of the community. The limited institutional attention in the study area is partly because such programs dominantly target household-level emergency food assistance to the poorest in the drier parts of the country (Berhane et al.
2017). The partial focus on the productivism discourse by existing institutions not only influences biodiversity conservation (Mooney and Hunt
2009; Chappell and LaValle
2011), but also the distribution and equity dimensions of food security (Shaw
2007). Concerning biodiversity, institutional support was strong on those resources that generate immediate monetary benefits (A1). Consequently, while institutional redundancy causes a conflict of interest among the institutions around monetarily valuable resources (B1), important biodiversity resources such as farmland biodiversity were left largely unaddressed by institutions, thereby potentially exacerbating their degradation.
Similarly, although institutional flexibility consistent with social-ecological system dynamics is likely to be beneficial (Paavola et al.
2009), overly frequent change and institutional instability hampered cross-sectoral interactions in our case (C1). Institutional instability, i.e., both the frequent change in the mandates and forms of institutions and the frequent change in the bureaucracies (C1), renders the maintenance of cross-sector and cross-scale coordination of stakeholders difficult (Peters
1998). This institutional problem has also been found in other sectors, including water governance (Newig et al.
2016) and rural development and conservation (Mikulcak et al.
2013), and is often the result of the overall national governance regime. In a strongly hierarchical governance system such as in Ethiopia (Dejene
2003; Jiren et al.
2018), maintaining a good institutional structural fit for food security and biodiversity is inherently challenging due to a linear command pathway, which may not be able to capture the inherent complexity of the social-ecological system. Achieving individual as well as integrated goals of food security and biodiversity requires, among other things, institutions that foster collective action within and across sectors, promote institutional learning, and share resources (Berkes
2009; Leventon and Antypas
2012; Candel and Biesbroek
2016).
In terms of challenges arising from policy output, we found clashes in priorities, discourses and techniques within sectors, between sectors, vertically and horizontally (A2, B2, C2). Our findings revealed that food security and biodiversity conservation in southwestern Ethiopia were each characterized by contradictions in sector-specific policy instruments and that strong incoherencies existed in policy goals across sectors. More importantly, we indicated that internally, each policy sector struggled with contradictions in the instruments to achieve specific sectoral goals, such as incoherencies in proclamations and rules related to specific land uses. At a more general level, however, contradictions and incoherence were about fundamental conflicts in policy goals and strategies, e.g., conflicting discourses on the sequencing of development versus conservation. Such content-related challenges are widely acknowledged as major obstacles for sustainability governance and can severely hamper the sustainable achievement of development and conservation goals, and more so when it involves interactions among multiple policies (Brown
2003; Kalaba et al.
2014; Nilsson et al.
2012; Zerbe
2005).
Policy incoherence often stems from defects in institutional structure (Orsini et al.
2013; Nilsson et al.
2012) and leads to conflicting institutional goals (Paavola et al.
2009; Nilsson et al.
2012), thereby hampering the achievement of individual and integrated goals. In the context of food security, biodiversity, and their integration, it is important that a comprehensive approach that ensures participation or coordination of actors from multiple sectors and governance levels is used to maintain policy coherence (Paavola et al.
2009; Nilsson et al.
2012). Our framework presents these challenges separately, but it is important to recognize that they are related, and exacerbate each other. Incoherence in policy outputs can at least partly result from defects in governance structure (or vice versa)—for example, a hierarchical structure limits institutional interactions and encourages disciplinary approaches—as well as defects in governance process—such as failure to effectively pursue jointly agreed policy goals (Nilsson et al.
2012; Orsini et al.
2013). In our study, this is shown, for example, by the food and biodiversity sectors embodying different discourses, and thus structuring their activities differently. Consequently, policy incoherence can lead to governance fragmentation, conflicting institutional goals, and process incompatibility. Thus, it is essential to manage conflicts between policies, and maintain synergies not only between policy goals but also between policy instruments within and across sectors. Overcoming these challenges, and finding synergies between food security and biodiversity conservation in Ethiopia will therefore require simultaneous shifting of both the policy goals and the structures embedded within the governance system in order that they are more closely aligned, between and within sectors and levels of governance.
To address this challenge in Ethiopia, collaborative models of governance (Ansell and Gash
2007; Epstein et al.
2015; Johansson
2018) could enhance structural fit (Bodin
2017; Folke et al.
2005), promote the coordination of institutions and participation across interests and governance levels (Berkes and Ross
2013; Candel
2014), lead to improved coordination of institutional actions (Lubell
2004; Guerrero et al.
2015; Brondizio et al.
2016), and hence create greater coherence of policy contents (Nilsson et al.
2012). In our study area, multiple powerful institutions held structurally central positions and thus could improve coordination between institutions. In practice, however, actual coordination often remains insufficient. Reasons for this include power capture by some stakeholders (Jiren et al.
2018). In addition, in a traditional hierarchical governance system such as in Ethiopia (Dejene
2003; Jiren et al.
2018), maintaining a good fit between governance structures and social-ecological systems is inherently challenging due to a linear command pathway against the complexity of the social-ecological system, and limited room for institutional interaction and learning.
The power of our framework of interplay challenges is that it highlights specific types of problems where interventions can be targeted to increase synergies. For the governance of food security and biodiversity, we specifically showed the types of institutional structures and policy outputs challenges within and between the two sectors in a multi-level governance context (Table
2). Among the many benefits, such analyzes highlight places of intervention within and between the sectors such that interventions reduce trade-offs while increasing the harmonious achievement of the two goals. Each of the individual challenges identified is a complex problem. But being able to see that there is a clash between the discourses pursued by each sector (C2) at least allows for conversation and sharing around these discourses. Highlighting that there is a mismatch between the practices pursued by policies and the priorities and cultures of local people (B1) allows for discussion around how they could better match. Such sharing of worldviews would be the first step towards integration and collaboration (see e.g., Ojha et al.
2010; Allen et al.
2011). As recognized elsewhere (e.g., Ribot et al.
2006; Ostrom
2010; Emerson et al.
2012), our results thus encourage the use of participatory and interdisciplinary approaches to governance in social-ecological systems to overcome procedural and policy-related governance challenges. However, our framework adds a useful tool towards this goal by highlighting the points on which discussion, sharing, and solution-finding should be focused. We, therefore, offer our framework as relevant beyond our case study, to highlight the points of problematic interplay affecting multi-sector, multi-level governance systems. Our framework adds nuance and specificity to understanding how the relationships between sectors and levels are creating problems to synergistic or holistic governance.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.