Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

Institutional navigation for polycentric sustainability governance

Nature Sustainability volume 4, pages 664–671 (2021)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Sustainability in the Anthropocene requires social cooperation and learning against a backdrop of increasingly complex, polycentric governance. Here, we introduce an institutional navigation framework emphasizing how individuals pursue their policy goals within polycentric sustainability governance. We illustrate the utility of the framework by exploring how actors navigate institutional complexity to increase collective welfare and adaptive capacity in California’s San Francisco Bay, in contrast with protecting self-interest and constraining adaptive capacity on Queensland’s Great Barrier Reef. Our analysis provides: (1) a normative perspective on how institutional navigation may or may not support sustainability; (2) initial theoretical hypotheses about understudied strategies used by policy actors to advance or constrain sustainability; and (3) some practical ideas for policy actors seeking to strategically achieve complex sustainability goals in polycentric systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: An actor-centred framework for navigating polycentric governance.
Fig. 2: Flooding at the SFB ferry dock during a 2020 king tide event.
Fig. 3: Bleached coral of the GBR in 2016.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jordan, A. J. et al. Emergence of polycentric climate governance and its future prospects. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 977–982 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Galaz, V., Crona, B., Österblom, H., Olsson, P. & Folke, C. Polycentric systems and interacting planetary boundaries—emerging governance of climate change–ocean acidification–marine biodiversity. Ecol. Econ. 81, 21–32 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ostrom, E. Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Glob. Environ. Change 20, 550–557 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cash, D. W. et al. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 8086–8091 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. DeWitte, S. N., Kurth, M. H., Allen, C. R. & Linkov, I. Disease epidemics: lessons for resilience in an increasingly connected world. J. Public Health 39, 254–257 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Lieberman, E. S. The perils of polycentric governance of infectious disease in South Africa. Soc. Sci. Med. 73, 676–684 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Morin, J.-F., Dür, A. & Lechner, L. Mapping the trade and environment nexus: insights from a new data set. Glob. Environ. Politics 18, 122–139 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Frank, A. B. et al. Dealing with femtorisks in international relations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 17356–17362 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Dietz, T., Ostrom, E. & Stern, P. C. The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302, 1907–1912 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Berkes, F., Colding, J. & Folke, C. Navigating Social–Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2008).

  11. Olsson, P., Folke, C. & Hughes, T. P. Navigating the transition to ecosystem-based management of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 9489–9494 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Lubell, M. Governing institutional complexity: the ecology of games framework. Policy Stud. J. 41, 537–559 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Biggs, R., Schlüter, M. & Schoon, M. L. Principles for Building Resilience: Sustaining Ecosystem Services in Social–Ecological Systems (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2015).

  14. Steffen, W. et al. Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 8252–8259 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Berardo, R. & Lubell, M.Understanding what shapes a polycentric governance system. Public Adm. Rev. 76, 738–751 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cole, D. H. Advantages of a polycentric approach to climate change policy. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 114–118 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Morrison, T. H. et al. The black box of power in polycentric environmental governance. Glob. Environ. Change 57, 101934 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Aligica, P. D. & Tarko, V. Polycentricity: from Polanyi to Ostrom, and beyond. Governance 25, 237–262 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Pralle, S. B. Venue shopping, political strategy, and policy change: the internationalization of Canadian forest advocacy. J. Public Policy 23, 233–260 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Mintrom, M.Policy entrepreneurs and the diffusion of innovation. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 41, 738–770 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Scharpf, F. W. Games Real Actors Play: Actor-Centered Institutionalism in Policy Research (Westview Press, 1997).

  22. Jordan, A., Huitema, D., Van Asselt, H. & Forster, J. Governing Climate Change: Polycentricity in Action? (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2018).

  23. Herrfahrdt-Pähle, E. et al. Sustainability transformations: socio-political shocks as opportunities for governance transitions. Glob. Environ. Change 63, 102097 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. North, D. C. Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990).

  25. Ostrom, E. Governing the Commons (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990).

  26. Anderies, J. M., Janssen, M. A. & Ostrom, E. A framework to analyze the robustness of social–ecological systems from an institutional perspective. Ecol. Soc. 9, 18 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ostrom, E. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social–ecological systems. Science 325, 419–422 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Baumgartner, Frank. R. & Jones, B. D. Agendas and Instability in American Politics (Univ. Chicago Press, 2009).

  29. Fischer, M. & Leifeld, P. Policy forums: why do they exist and what are they used for? Policy Sci. 48, 363–382 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Sabatier, P. A. & Jenkins-Smith, H. Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach (Westview, 1993).

  31. Lubell, M. The Governance Gap: Climate Adaptation and Sea-Level Rise in the San Francisco Bay Area (Univ. California, Davis, 2017).

  32. Lubell, M., Robins, G. & Wang, P. Network structure and institutional complexity in an ecology of water management games. Ecol. Soc. 19, 23 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Morrison, T. H. et al. Political dynamics and governance of World Heritage ecosystems. Nat. Sustain. 3, 947–955 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Morrison, T. H. Evolving polycentric governance of the Great Barrier Reef. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, E3013–E3021 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Gray, S. et al. Purpose, processes, partnerships, and products: four Ps to advance participatory socio-environmental modeling. Ecol. Appl. 28, 46–61 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Cairney, P. The Politics of Evidence-Based Policy Making (Springer, 2016).

  37. Gormley, W. T. Regulatory issue networks in a federal system. Polity 18, 595–620 (1986).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Young, O. R. Political leadership and regime formation: on the development of institutions in international society. Int. Organ. 45, 281–308 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Henry, A. D., Lubell, M. & McCoy, M. Belief systems and social capital as drivers of policy network structure: the case of California regional planning. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 21, 419–444 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Robins, G., Bates, L. & Pattison, P. Network governance and environmental management: conflict and cooperation. Public Adm. 89, 1293–1313 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Berardo, R. & Scholz, J. T. Self-organizing policy networks: risk, partner selection, and cooperation in estuaries. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 54, 632–649 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Silvia, C. Picking the team: a preliminary experimental study of the activation of collaborative network members. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 28, 120–137 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Axelrod, R. The Evolution of Cooperation (Basic Books, 1984).

  44. Lyon, F. Trust, networks and norms: the creation of social capital in agricultural economies in Ghana. World Dev. 28, 663–681 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Hardin, R. The street-level epistemology of trust. Polit. Soc. 21, 505–529 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Levi, M. & Stoker, L. Political trust and trustworthiness. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 3, 475–507 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Berardo, R. Bridging and bonding capital in two‐mode collaboration networks. Policy Stud. J. 42, 197–225 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Wesselink, A., Paavola, J., Fritsch, O. & Renn, O. Rationales for public participation in environmental policy and governance: practitioners’ perspectives. Environ. Plan. A 43, 2688–2704 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Mewhirter, J., Lubell, M. & Berardo, R. Institutional externalities and actor performance in polycentric governance systems. Environ. Policy Gov. 28, 295–307 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Bednar, J. & Page, S. Can game(s) theory explain culture? The emergence of cultural behavior within multiple games. Ration. Soc. 19, 65–97 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Termeer, C. J. & Dewulf, A. A small wins framework to overcome the evaluation paradox of governing wicked problems. Policy Soc. 38, 298–314 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Gurerk, O., Irlenbusch, B. & Rockenbach, B. The competitive advantage of sanctioning institutions. Science 312, 108–111 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Wurzel, R. K., Liefferink, D. & Torney, D. Pioneers, Leaders and Followers in Multilevel and Polycentric Climate Governance (Routledge, 2019).

  54. Lubell, M., Mewhirter, J. M., Berardo, R. & Scholz, J. T. Transaction costs and the perceived effectiveness of complex institutional systems. Public Adm. Rev. 77, 668–680 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Institutional Rational Choice: An Assessment of the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework (Westview Press, 2007).

  56. Lubell, M. Collaborative environmental institutions: all talk and no action? J. Policy Anal. Manag. 23, 549–573 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Morrison, T. H. et al. Advancing coral reef governance into the Anthropocene. One Earth 2, 64–74 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Newig, J. Symbolic environmental legislation and societal self-deception. Environ. Polit. 16, 276–296 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Morrison, T. H. in Contested Country—Local and Regional Natural Resources Management in Australia 227–240 (CSIRO Publishing, 2009).

  60. Bell, J. et al. Maps, laws and planning policy: working with biophysical and spatial uncertainty in the case of sea level rise. Environ. Sci. Policy 44, 247–257 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the US National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC) under funding received from the US National Science Foundation DBI-1639145, ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies (ARC CoE CRS) under funding received from the Australian Research Council CE-140100020 and National Science Foundation Critical Resilient Interdependent Infrastructure Systems and Processes grant number 1541056.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA

    Mark Lubell

  2. ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia

    Tiffany H. Morrison

Authors
  1. Mark Lubell
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tiffany H. Morrison
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

M.L. co-wrote the article and conducted the case study research in SFB. T.H.M. co-wrote the article and conducted the case study research in the GBR. Both authors contributed equally to writing and editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark Lubell.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Sustainability thanks Paul Cairney and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lubell, M., Morrison, T.H. Institutional navigation for polycentric sustainability governance. Nat Sustain 4, 664–671 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00707-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00707-5

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Anthropocene