ArticleAmbio2022
Opening the black box between governance and management: A mechanism-based explanation of how governance affects the management of endangered species.
Article in Ambio, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Good governance is needed to foster good management of the environment. Yet, the link between environmental governance and environmental management has received very little research attention. This paper adopts a mechanism-based framework to unpack the link between the governance and management of species at risk or endangered species in a working landscape. Using species at risk management in the South of the Divide region of southwestern Saskatchewan as a case study, we identified four governance conditions connected by five mechanisms to produce management outcomes. The governance conditions include facilitative leadership, local autonomy, trust, and incentives. The five mechanisms include institutional disruption, institutional crafting and drift, brokerage or bridging, program uptake, and alleviation of fear of harm. We discuss how using a mechanism-based approach could help us better understand the processes within the governance system that trigger particular management outcomes. For example, in this case study, dissatisfied factors disrupt the existing governance arrangements and create new ones that reflect their desire for local autonomy. Local autonomy, in turn, creates an atmosphere for local actors to form coalitions and build trust; trust enhances program uptake and the co-design and co-implementation of incentives, which then alleviates land managers' fear of harm from participating in species at risk management. Our study also suggests that top-down institutions that create room for further institutional work can become acceptable at the local level and enhance endangered species management. We conclude that a mechanism-based explanation can be useful for opening the black box connecting environmental governance and management and offering valuable recommendations to guide policy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.