Environmental Management (2019) 63:200–214

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1123-5

How Does Socio-institutional Diversity Affect Collaborative

Governance of Social–Ecological Systems in Practice?
Julia Baird1 Ryan Plummer2 Lisen Schultz3 Derek Armitage4 Örjan Bodin3
● ● ● ●

Received: 19 July 2017 / Accepted: 31 October 2018 / Published online: 13 November 2018
© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract
Social and institutional diversity (“diversity” hereafter) are important dimensions in collaborative environmental governance,
but lack empirical assessment. In this paper, we examine three aspects of diversity hypothesized in the literature as being
important in collaborative forms of environmental governance—the presence of diverse actors, diverse perspectives, and
diverse institutions. The presence of these aspects and formative conjectures were empirically considered using a mixed
methods approach in four biosphere reserves in Sweden and Canada. We found that the diversity of actors involved and
domains of authority varied among cases, that stakeholder perspectives were highly diverse in all cases, and that institutional
1234567890();,:
1234567890();,:

variety (in terms of strategies, norms, and rules) was evident in all cases, but differed among them. Empirical support from
the cases further affirms that diversity contributes to the ability to engage with a broader set of issues and challenges;
diversity contributes to novel approaches to solving problems within the governance group; and diversity contributes to the
flexibility of the group involved in governance in terms of addressing challenges. One conjecture, that diversity decreases the
efficiency of governance in decision-making and responding to issues, was not supported by the data. However, our analysis
indicates that there might be a trade-off between diversity and efficiency. The findings highlight differences in the ways in
which diversity is conceptualized in the literature and on the ground, emphasizing the pragmatic advantages of actively
seeking diversity in terms of competencies and capacities.
Keywords Biosphere reserves Bridging organizations Diversity Resilience Collaborative environmental governance
● ● ● ●

Introduction Ideas about diversity in these early studies were initially

challenged by May (1974) and led to a problem of long-
Decision-makers in the environmental domain have long standing interest to ecologists known as the
been familiar with the issue of diversity, given its promi- “diversity–stability debate” (see McCann 2000 for a review
nence in ecology. For example, Odum (1953) and Elton and synthesis). However, these tensions and debates have
(1958) found that population density in diverse terrestrial not been as clearly addressed in a social context, and par-
communities was less susceptible to extreme fluctuations. ticularly not in the context of environmental governance. As
Stirling (2007) has noted, the concept of diversity is pro-
minent in disparate disciplines and at the forefront of policy
* Julia Baird discussions, but remains contested, undefined, and analyti-
[email protected] cally neglected. This study offers a first attempt to deal with
1
this “messiness” by providing needed empirical insights
Assistant Professor, Environmental Sustainability Research Centre
into aspects of diversity and their effects.
and the Department of Geography and Tourism Studies, Brock
University, St. Catharines, ON L2S 3A1, Canada Social and institutional diversity (“diversity” hereafter)
2 are important but under evaluated dimensions in environ-
Professor and Director, Environmental Sustainability Research
Centre, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON L2S 3A1, Canada mental governance. At its core, diversity can be described in
3 terms of variety (how many different elements), balance
Researcher, Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University,
Stockholm, SE 106 91, Sweden (how many of each element), and disparity (how different
4 the elements are from one another) (Stirling 2007). We
Environmental Change and Governance Group, School of
Environment, Resources and Sustainability, University of define diversity in this context in terms of a variety of
Waterloo, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada organizational forms (e.g., community organizations,
Environmental Management (2019) 63:200–214 201

government departments, and nongovernmental organiza- governance literature; (2) to identify where we see aspects
tions) with overlapping domains of authority that provide of diversity in collaborative environmental governance (i.e.,
for a diversity of responses as well as functional redun- diverse actors, diverse perspectives, and diverse institu-
dancy, thereby facilitating natural resource management tions) in empirical cases; and (3) to challenge our con-
under changing conditions (Ostrom 2005). Institutional jectures in relation to the empirical cases. We emphasize
diversity, i.e., a diversity of strategies, norms, and rules, is that it is unclear from the literature how aspects of diversity
important, as it provides a multitude of options for decision- manifest and combine. A multiple case-study approach
makers in contrast to blue-print solutions or panaceas structures the research, with data being collected using a
(Evans 2004; Ostrom 2005; Dietz et al. 2003). A diversity social–ecological inventory (SEI) technique (Schultz et al.
of management approaches can support learning and 2007) in four cases of collaborative environmental gov-
understanding of the best ways to manage social–ecological ernance in which organizations explicitly stress the impor-
systems, thereby facilitating adaptation to changes over time tance of diversity, two Swedish and two Canadian
(Walters and Holling 1990). Finally, engaging user groups UNESCO biosphere reserves (BRs).
with diverse perspectives and knowledge is important, in
order to improve the overall understanding of the
social–ecological system (Norgaard and Baer 2005; Biggs Aspects of Diversity in Environmental
et al. 2009). Governance and Some Formative
Multiple governance approaches highlight the impor- Conjectures about Their Effects
tance of diversity. Adaptive governance (defined as “a range
of interactions between actors, networks, organizations, and Diversity is an important and topical issue in a wide variety
institutions emerging in pursuit of a desired state for of systems. In addition to being a main focus in ecology, the
social–ecological systems” (Chaffin et al. 2014: online)) concept of diversity is prominent in many disciplines (e.g.,
emphasizes a variety of entities (individuals, agencies, and physical sciences, life sciences, policy studies, and science
institutions) connecting across levels to broaden response and technology policy), largely due to its ubiquitous root as
options (Folke et al. 2005; Norberg et al. 2008). Polycentric “…an attribute of any system whose elements may be
governance (defined as having multiple centers of power apportioned into categories” (Leonard and Jones 1989;
rather than one (Huitema et al. 2009)) emphasizes the Stirling 2007, p. 208). The concept of diversity has been
importance of institutional diversity to solve collective brought into the realm of contemporary environmental
action problems, as highlighted by Ostrom (e.g., Ostrom decision-making by scholars studying collaboration, insti-
2005, 2010). Environmental governance (defined as the “set tutions, and social–ecological systems (e.g., Ostrom 2005;
of regulatory processes, mechanisms and organizations Ansell and Gash 2008; Norberg et al. 2008). In synthesizing
through which political actors influence environmental this knowledge, we draw attention to three key aspects of
actions and outcomes” (Lemos and Agrawal 2006, p. 298)) diversity identified to matter in collaborative environmental
focuses on actor and interest representation in decision- governance under conditions of complexity and uncertainty:
making processes, as well as diversity in mechanisms and diverse actors; diverse perspectives; and diverse institutions.
strategies themselves (e.g., Lemos and Agrawal 2006). Elaboration upon each below leads to conjectures as to their
Despite these marked increases in attention, clear tensions potential effects, and these provide the basis for examina-
exist between diversity and matters of decision-making tion in multiple empirical cases in this research.
efficiency and effectiveness (e.g., Folke et al. 2005; Hui- As an approach to decision-making in the domain of the
tema et al. 2009). While diversity is an undoubtedly environment and natural resources, collaboration is well
important ingredient to enhance resilience in complex sys- established (e.g., Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000; Plummer
tems and uncertain conditions, there are trade-offs asso- and FitzGibbon 2004; Ansell and Gash 2008). Gray (1989,
ciated with different types of diversity (Nelson et al. 2011; p. 5) captures the essence of the idea: “collaboration is a
Sandström et al. 2014). process through which parties who see different aspects of a
This research examines diversity in collaborative problem can constructively explore their differences and
approaches to environmental governance. We hereafter search for solutions that go beyond their own limited vision
refer to this as collaborative environmental governance, but of what is possible”. Collaboration is based on the simple
wish to highlight that our broad focus is deliberate as the adages that “two heads are better than one: and that one by
intent with this research is to contribute across different itself is simply not good enough!”. While once primarily
schools of thoughts and frameworks where the value of concerned with resolving differences, the scope of colla-
collaboration is emphasized. There are three main objec- boration has expanded to encompass the full gamut of cir-
tives of this study: (1) to build conjectures about diversity cumstances involving multiple parties in the environmental
and its effects from the collaborative environmental domain. For example, McAllister et al. (2015) draw
202 Environmental Management (2019) 63:200–214

attention to the task of coordination, where actors typically perspectives is also important to improve the understanding
agree on what they want to accomplish, but where they need of social–ecological dynamics (Norgaard and Baer 2005;
to make a collective effort to ensure that everyone’s activ- Biggs et al. 2009). Including a variety of perspectives
ities are carried out in concert. (disparity) also has been argued to support the generation of
novelty (Brodbeck et al. 2002; Cuppen 2012), but more so
Diverse Actors if there is balance between perspectives.
Conjecture 2: Diverse perspectives contribute to novel
Collaborative environmental governance stresses on the approaches to solving problems within the BR governance
involvement of diverse actors. Our interest is collaboration group.
spanning state and non-state actors, as implied in much of
the literature with the very term collaborative governance Diverse Institutions
(Ansell and Gash 2008). The term stakeholder is often used
in this regard and encompasses individuals and groups, as Institutional diversity (i.e., a diversity of strategies, norms,
well as state and non-state actors (Ansell and Gash 2008). and rules) is important, as it provides a multitude of options
Stakeholders can have shared, differing, or opposing inter- for decision-makers in contrast to blue-print solutions or
ests (Lax and Sebenius 1986) and stakeholder analysis panaceas (Dietz et al. 2003; Evans 2004; Ostrom 2005).
provides a systematic process by which actors can be Huitema et al. (2009) observe that this type of diversity is
identified for involvement in decision-making (see Reed itself normatively valuable—a moral ideal that offers con-
2008 for a summary). Diversity of actor types has been siderable advantages when addressing problems character-
shown to have various effects. Koontz and Johnson (2004) ized by uncertainty and complexity. Ostrom (1990, 2010)
found that broader inclusion of stakeholders supported emphasizes the benefits of governance with overlapping
watershed groups’ capacity to identify and prioritize issues. domains in collective action and natural resources man-
Collaboration between diverse stakeholders has led to agement, while Dietz et al. (2003) draw attention to general
innovative solutions to problems (Innes and Booher 2003; principles of robust governance institutions—analytical
Österblom and Bodin 2012). At the same time, within deliberation, nesting, and institutional variety. However, a
natural resource management organizations, there seems to diversity of actors with overlapping authority may also
be a tension between involving a diversity of societal actors reduce system efficiency and increase the risk of system
and accommodating a diversity of objectives, and achieving stagnation (Lietaer et al. 2010; Ulanowicz et al. 2009). High
tangible outcomes with limited resources (Schultz and redundancy in management organizations tends to increase
Lundholm 2010; Sandström et al. 2014). the administrative costs, interdepartmental power struggles,
Conjecture 1: Diverse actors contribute to the ability to and contradictory regulations (Jentoft et al. 2009). In their
engage with a broader set of issues and challenges in the critical appraisal of polycentric governance, Huitema et al.
BR. (2009) argue that on one hand, such systems are to be better
able to cope with change and are more resilient because
Diverse Perspectives matters with different geographic scope can be dealt with at
particular scales, they are less vulnerable to failure due to
The importance of diverse perspectives is highlighted for a redundancy and overlap, and numerous units permit
myriad of reasons. Bäckstrand (2006, p. 472) identifies experimentation with new approaches and learning. At the
sustainability as an arena for innovative governance same time, these systems may lose economies of scale,
experiments and sets out an ideal model of stakeholder confront challenges with collective decision-making and
democracy, emphasizing the “… representation of more high transaction costs, and diminish democratic account-
varied and differentiated perspectives…”. The democratic ability when dispersed.
rights of stakeholders to participate in environmental Conjecture 3: Institutional diversity decreases the effi-
decision-making is put forward as a normative argument ciency of BR governance in decision-making and
(e.g., Reed 2008; Sabatier et al. 2005; Huitema et al. 2009). responding to issues.
Questions about legitimacy have accompanied the emer-
gence of new modes/models of environmental governance Diversity and Flexibility
(Glasbergen et al. 2007; Baird et al. 2014). These questions
hinge on the model of democracy being considered (Baird Diversity in social–ecological systems provides options for
et al. 2014), with the movement toward collaborative gov- responding to change and disturbance (Ellis 2000; Low
ernance necessitating an accompanying shift in approaches et al. 2003; Ostrom 2005; Stirling 2007; Chapin et al. 2009;
to legitimacy (van Buuren et al. 2012; Birnbaum et al. Naeem et al. 2009). But diversity per se does not contribute
2015). Additionally, engaging user groups with diverse to flexibility. Rather, it is particular aspects of diversity that
Environmental Management (2019) 63:200–214 203

are key. A key aspect is response diversity, i.e., the variation diversity on collaborative environmental governance. These
in responses to a particular disturbance among actors or include the extent to which diversity contributes to the
species performing a particular function or role in a system ability for engaging with a broader set of issues and chal-
(Elmqvist et al. 2003). Response diversity increases the lenges; decreases efficiency in decision-making and
likelihood that some actors can continue their activities also responding; adds flexibility in how challenges are addres-
during disturbances. In combination, response diversity and sed; and, enhances novelty in approaches to solving
functional redundancy enhance flexibility (Nyström 2006; problems.
Walker et al. 2009). In governance contexts, a variety of
organizational forms (e.g., community organizations, gov-
ernment departments, and nongovernmental organizations) Methods
with overlapping domains of authority provide for a
diversity of responses as well as functional redundancy, Cases
thereby facilitating natural resource management under
changing conditions (Ostrom 2005; Bodin and Österblom A multiple case-study approach was used (Yin 2009). BRs
2013). Functional redundancy—defined as overlapping were selected for the cases under study as they are neces-
functionality (or balance by Stirling (2007))—is another sarily sites of collaborative governance in practice
important aspect of diversity (in social systems: Low et al. (UNESCO 1996; Schultz and Lundholm 2010). While
2003; Stirling 2007; Walker et al. 2009; in ecosystems: many types of multiparty collaboration exist which link
Nyström 2006; Stirling 2007; Rockström et al. 2009). individuals, organizations, and institutions (Brown 1991;
Conjecture 4: Diversity contributes to the flexibility of Westley and Vredenburg 1991), BRs are ideal sites to
the group involved in BR governance in terms of how investigate diversity because of their role as a bridging
challenges are addressed. organization (e.g., Olsson et al. 2007; Schultz 2009; Schultz
Maintaining diversity and flexibility is a key principle for et al. 2015). A bridging organization is a term introduced by
building resilience of social–ecological systems (Biggs et al. Brown (1991, p. 5) to convey an entity which can “span the
2012; Kotschy et al. 2015). In this context, adaptive gov- social gaps among organizations and constituencies to
ernance draws upon the idea of polycentric institutional enable coordinated actions”. Selected sites had an active
arrangements and stresses the dynamic cross-scale interac- governance process involving actors from at least two levels
tions and multilevel linkages as collaboration among of decision-making and their guiding vision included both
diverse stakeholders who operate at different levels (con- social and ecological aspects. To maximize comparability
sistent with collaborative environmental governance) (Folke and minimize external variability (Yin 2009), we selected
et al. 2005; Cash et al. 2006; Armitage et al. 2009). Such four BRss of similar size in high-income countries of the
arrangements are important for responding to ecosystem northern hemisphere—Georgian Bay (GB) and Frontenac
dynamics at various scales and draw attention to the delicate Arch (FA) in Canada and Kristianstads Vattenrike (KV) and
nature of diversity as vertical links may enhance adaptive Östra Vätterbranterna (ÖV) in Sweden (Table 1).
governance when institutions at lower levels gain strength
from their nested position, but also stifle it when higher Data Collection
levels undermine informal local systems or inhibit the col-
laborative capacity of the network (Folke et al. 2005). A mixed methods approach was used to collect data
Tensions are often evident between perceived efficiency and (Creswell 2009). Data collection instruments included a SEI
the capacity for navigating change as “such flexible insti- tool, in-depth interviews, and a questionnaire. Each instru-
tutional arrangements have been judged as inefficient ment, the data collected from it, and the analyses under-
because they look messy and are nonhierarchical in struc- taken are described below.
ture, but they help provide a repertoire of general design The SEI, developed by Schultz et al. (2007), is an inte-
principles that can be drawn on by resource users at mul- grative and dynamic process that involves mapping and
tiple levels to aid in the crafting of new institutions that interviewing actors involved in ecosystem management to
cope with changing situations” (Folke et al. 2005, p. 460). capture interactions between humans and the ecosystem
In summary, several aspects of diversity matter in col- (see Schultz et al. 2011). BR managers were contacted and
laborative environmental governance: the actors involved asked to develop lists of those involved in the governance
(individuals and representatives of organizations) and their of each BR (the “core group”). This core group of actors
domains of authority; the perspectives they bring to the was invited to participate in a semi-structured interview.
process; and, institutional variety and flexibility. While Thirty interviews were conducted in the GB, 19 in FA, 41 in
empirical research is limited, scholarship offers formative KV, and 26 in ÖV. Data describing motivations for invol-
conjectures about some of the effects of social–institutional vement in BR governance were collected from this
204 Environmental Management (2019) 63:200–214

instrument based on a question directly asking for this

Municipal organization supported by a consultation council

Sixteen employees working with the BR (including staff at

Cultural landscape, including the city Kristianstad, with
information from all respondents. Responses related to

the Naturum visitor center). Volunteers (e.g., biosphere

of 30 members representing organizations in the area.
motivations (Table 2) were first read for general under-

grazed wetlands, sandy grasslands, lakes and rivers,

standing and then deductively coded as focused on biodi-
versity conservation, sustainable development, or both of

deciduous broadleaf forest, and the coast.

these (UNESCO 1996; Creswell 2009). A second round of
inductive coding identified themes emerging from each BR.
A questionnaire was administered to the core group of
actors engaged in BR governance to collect data related to
Kristianstads Vattenrike

respondents’ affiliations (related to the actors involved and

their domains of authority—see Table 2). Nineteen ques-
tionnaire responses were collected in GB, 18 in FA, 25 in

ambassadors)
KV, and 17 in ÖV. Respondent affiliation data were
1044 km2
70,000

imported into SPSS (IBM Inc.) and deductively coded

2005

Have additional staff when there is project funding. One full-time employee at the municipality, and according to a pre-determined list of stakeholder types and
profit nongovernmental organization. Supported
deciduous broadleaf forest, three smaller cities,

another four people are employed part-time at levels (Table 2). The questionnaire also queried respon-
Not-for-profit nongovernmental organization, one Partnership between municipality and not-for-
Lake Vättern, including traditional farmland,
Mosaic cultural landscape on the slopes by

dents’ perceptions of outcomes from BR governance using

the secretariat. Volunteers (e.g., biosphere
with two half-time employees, volunteer based. Supported by a board of directors by a board of 17 members, representing

quantitative, Likert-type questions. The specific questions

organizations and individual actors.

included in this analysis relate to outcomes that may interact

with diversity (either positively or negatively) based on the
literature: engaging in a broader range of issues; efficiency;
novelty; and, flexibility. Respondents were asked to indicate
Östra Vätterbranterna

to what extent they felt that BR governance had resulted in

ambassadors).

these outcomes. These data were imported into SPSS 24

and the lake.

(IBM Inc.).
1055 km2
40,000

In-depth interviews were conducted with the BR man-

2012

ager in each case, except in GB and ÖV, where two co-

managers were interviewed. The respondents provided
reflections on governance of the BRs, including factors that
nongovernmental organization paid executive director but otherwise entirely

led to success and the ways in which they overcame chal-

lenges. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed
Forest, water, streams, and wetlands.

(20 people) from across the region.

verbatim. Transcripts were uploaded into NVivo 10 (QSR

International). Interviews were read in their entirety for
general understanding and then relevant passages were
deductively coded for all indicators of diversity and strate-
gies to encourage diversity (Table 2).
Frontenac Arch

2700 km2

Analysis
80,000
2002

In relation to the second objective—to determine where and

to what degree aspects of diversity were present in the cases
Freshwater archipelago of

—identification of indicators, measures, and analyses were

two administrators, and
6000 (25 times during

carried out in relation to the three aspects of diversity and how

they were conceptualized in the literature. Thus, in some
30,000 islands.
Georgian Bay

Not-for-profit

cases, measures of diversity only were used, and in others, an

volunteers.
Area and ecosystems 3470 km2
summer)

index incorporating diversity and redundancy was applied.

2004

We recognize that redundancy is a nuanced concept that we

Table 1 Case studies

use a coarse level of analysis for and identify this both as a

governance has been

limitation of the study and as a future research direction. The

Designation year
(length of time

methods used are shown in Table 2 and described below.

Organization
collaborative

Population

To measure actor diversity, a diversity index was cal-

in place)

in focus

culated for its indicators: stakeholder type and stakeholder

level. Diversity of participating actors and domains of
Environmental Management (2019) 63:200–214 205

authority was considered in terms of the types of stake-

Motivations (identified as conservation focussed, sustainable development focussed, or Proportional diversity measure and qualitative
holders involved (government actors, NGO/NFPs, private
businesses/land owners, and others) and the levels of
decision-making represented (sub-BR, BR, regional,
national, and international levels). The diversity index

Interpretation of qualitative data

(following the approach of Simpson (1949)) accounts for
both diversity and redundancy as described above (equa-
tion). Briefly, the frequency of each category of stakeholder
Stakeholder type (identified as government, NGO/NFP, private business/landowner, or Diversity index (H)

Diversity index (H)

types and stakeholder levels, respectively, were entered into

a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. The sum of squares of
proportions of categories for the two indicators were cal-
Measures

culated and provide a measure of the probability that two

data

respondents chosen at random would be from the same

category, with possible values ranging from 1/total number
of types or levels to +1.
Stakeholder level/scale (identified as sub-BR, BR, regional, national, or international)

X
H¼ p2i ;

where pi is the proportion of all actors that belongs to

category i.
Diversity of stakeholder perspectives (focus on the
Strategies, norms, and rules mobilized to address BR issues

diversity of perspectives with regard to biodiversity con-

servation and sustainable development) was analyzed by
calculating a proportional measure of its indicator, moti-
vations, by dividing the number of categories of motivations
represented in each BR by the total number of categories.
This resulted in a value between 0 and 1, where 1 = max-
imum diversity. Also reported were proportions of moti-
BR biosphere reserve, NGO nongovernmental organization, NFP not-for-profit organization

vations. The two or three most common themes emerging

from responses to the interview question about motivation
were identified by frequency and described.
Evidence of institutional diversity (e.g., instances where
a diversity of strategies, norms, and/or rules were used to
address an issue) was identified from qualitative data from
in-depth interviews. Reports were generated based on the
Indicators

corresponding code applied to the text during coding. Pas-

other)

sages from all four BRs were compared and thematic

both)

similarities and differences among BRs were identified,

Table 2 Aspects of diversity, indicators, and measures

summarized, and described.

The third objective of the study was to probe the for-
Diverse actors: actors involved and domains of

mative conjectures in relation to the cases. The four con-

jectures are:
Diverse institutions: institutional variety

C1: Diversity of actors contributes to the ability to

engage with a broader set of issues and challenges in the
Diverse perspectives: stakeholders

BR.
C2: Diversity of perspectives contributes to novel
approaches to solving problems within the BR governance
group.
Aspects of diversity

C3: Institutional diversity decreases the efficiency of BR

governance in decision-making and responding to issues.
C4: Diversity contributes to the flexibility of the group
authority

involved in BR governance in terms of how challenges are

addressed.
206 Environmental Management (2019) 63:200–214

This objective was fulfilled by examining the association Table 3 Diversity index values for indicators of actors involved and
domains of authority aspect of diversity
between aspects of diversity and BR outcomes. First, means
and standard deviations were generated for outcome ques- Diversity index (H)
tions for each BR and compared using the nonparametric Indicators GB (n = FA (n = KV (n = ÖV (n =
Kruskal–Wallis test. Then, qualitative data from the in- 22) 14) 24) 19)
depth interviews related to all aspects of diversity were
Stakeholder type 0.94 0.93 0.94 0.94
reviewed using a series of four questions to interrogate the
Stakeholder level 0.64 0.81 0.69 0.86
data and engage in explanation building (Yin 2009)
between aspects of diversity and its effects: (1) Is there The number of respondents is shown for each BR in parentheses
evidence/examples where an aspect(s) of diversity enhances
(positive) BR governance? (2) Is there evidence/examples diversity and a relatively similar distribution of types among
where an aspect(s) diversity causes challenge(s) (negative) BRs.
to BR governance? (3) Are there examples/evidence of The four BRs exhibited varying levels of diversity and
interactions between the three aspects of diversity? (4) Are redundancy in relation to stakeholder levels (Table 3). FA
there examples/evidence of tensions or trade-offs between and ÖV’s diversity index values (H) were higher than the
aspects of diversity and outcomes? Explanation building of other BRs mainly due to a stronger representation of the
the effects of diversity in each of the cases involved using national level in these sites. There is close to no interna-
participants’ perceptions of outcomes from the collaborative tional representation in BR governance in these four sites,
governance process, making connections to evidence of while all have representation from the other levels except
diversity, and drawing upon qualitative sources of infor- GB, leading to its lower diversity index value. While four of
mation to make those connections. Results and interpreta- five levels were represented in KV, the distribution of sta-
tion are presented as a reflection of this process. A single keholders among those levels was very uneven, leading to
explanation relevant to all cases was built based on the the lower diversity index value (Table 3). However, there
qualitative and quantitative diversity and outcome data by was no clear pattern in terms of a relationship between the
developing initial statement-based conjectures based on two diversity indicators (that for stakeholder type and sta-
existing theory (identified above in relation to aspects of keholder level) for the four BRs.
diversity), examining the conjectures for fit with the data, There were many individuals that did not report an
and modifying the statements until the data from all cases affiliation with a specific organization, or reported that their
supported the final explanation (Yin 2009). organization was the BR. This is important to note from an
analytical perspective, as these individuals fell in the cate-
gory of “other” and represented a substantial portion of the
Results and Discussion respondents. Accordingly, while it is useful to identify the
types and diversity of stakeholders involved, organizational
Each case was explored for diversity using the aforemen- type does not fully capture that diversity. Together with
tioned methods and analytical techniques. Evidence exhib- other measures of diversity (e.g., motivations as measured
ited in the cases is presented in this section, organized in in this study, and perhaps skill sets and level of authority,
relation to the second and third objectives of the research. which was not measured), a fuller understanding of diver-
First, evidence of the three aspects of diversity being sity of stakeholder type is possible.
investigated in the cases is provided. Second, results per-
taining to the effects of diversity are presented and dis- Diversity of Perspectives
cussed. This entails the stakeholders’ perceptions of
outcomes relating to diversity as well as assessing the Diversity of the perspectives held by stakeholders was
coincidence of the conjecture about the effects of diversity considered in terms of motivations of the core group of
in relation to the evidence from the empirical cases. actors to become engaged in BR governance. In all BRs,
both motivations (biodiversity conservation and sustainable
Where and to What Degree Are Aspects of Diversity development) were represented (i.e., all diversity measures
Exhibited (Objective 2)? equaled 1), and a substantial percentage of respondents
(between 20% in GB and 35% in FA) indicated through
Actor Diversity their responses that their motivation for involvement in the
BR was related to both biodiversity conservation and sus-
All stakeholder types were represented in all four BRs and tainable development.
the diversity index values (Table 3) reflected the high Within the broad categories of biodiversity conservation
and sustainable development, there were several themes that
Environmental Management (2019) 63:200–214 207

emerged from the SEI interviews. In FA, much of the focus to achieve larger and more long-lasting effects. Rules and
of motivations was on building connections, promoting norms deployed include the opportunity to apply for gov-
stakeholder interests (with the BR seen as a good vehicle for ernment funding to support rural development and the
this), and the opportunity to work with people who shared Swedish Right of public access to nature.
their concerns and pride for the region. In GB, stakeholders In the Canadian BRs, the FA highlighted a range of
expressed alignment with the values/mandate of the BR strategies they have used to work toward their goals,
(e.g., the ability of the BR to integrate conservation and including supporting discussions among other organiza-
sustainable development) and several stated that the BR was tions, e.g., in support of building a local food network and
open and willing to engage on a range of issues. In KV, an arts network (facilitation strategy), actively promoting
many were engaged to maintain the unique natural values of the BR through community social events (direct engage-
the area. Other common motivations were to stay informed ment strategy), and a focus on mapping in the region which
about what is going on in the region, learn from other actors provides the BR with the financial resources to sustain
in the area, and to represent their respective organization in themselves. In GB, a co-manager explained the overarching
decision-making. In ÖV, many engaged to influence deci- strategy of the BR and how it has evolved over time. He
sion-making, but also because it is interesting, exciting, and shared that, after about a year of discussions among board
fun, because they care for the place and its natural values, members, accomplishing the BRs vision could and would
and because they agree with the holistic concept and occur in relation to accepting the strategies of a wide range
approach of the BR. Several stakeholders mentioned that of stakeholders in the region: “it really allowed us to market
they appreciate the collaborative platform, and engage to more widely the designation as being something that
make sure that diverse interests are represented. everybody in the community should own and can own
because it’s really about all of us trying to improve how we
Institutional Diversity do our business”. He also emphasized that diverse norms
associated with engaging a variety of groups in the region
Qualitative data from the in-depth interviews were used to can be challenging. For example, there is the local gov-
identify institutional variety—the diversity of strategies, ernment, that tends to present a broad but vague vision of
norms, and rules that BRs mobilize to support conservation what they want, the business owners who want autonomy
and foster sustainable development in their respective areas. over their operations, and environmental groups that push
An example from each BR is presented to illustrate this an advocacy approach to projects; diverse communication
aspect of diversity. In KV, the sandy grasslands project strategies are required in order to communicate effectively
aimed to restore habitats for flora and fauna, while sup- with these groups.
porting recreational and esthetic values of these areas. To
achieve these goals, the BR has used a variety of strategies, What Are the Effects of Diversity and Probing
including beginning small to set a good example, using Conjectures (Objective 3)?
face-to-face meetings to establish trust with key actors, and
combining local knowledge and ecological research to Stakeholders perceived that positive outcomes occurred as a
identify biodiversity values and effective management result of collaborative governance (Table 4). Mean values
practices. They have also mobilized a variety of rules to and standard deviations are presented for each BR for all
support the project goals, including the opportunity to outcomes for comparative purposes; however, mean ranks
establish legally binding agreements between land owners were used in calculating the nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis
and the county board administration for biodiversity con- test statistic. Responses in general were positive, the mean
servation. In ÖV, the example given was a project doc- responses to all perceived outcome questions were greater
umenting ecological change, which engaged citizens in than “3”, or “agree” on a five-point scale from “strongly
finding the place documented in a historical photo and disagree” to “strongly agree”. The responses among BRs
taking a photo from today. The aim was to bring people out did not vary significantly for most outcomes, except for the
in the landscape and raise awareness about ecological ability to engage with a broader set of issues and challenges
change. The project was initiated when a local outdoor within the BR, which was rated higher in Canadian than in
sports association contacted the BR to find a shared project, Swedish BRs. The distribution of responses (using standard
and it was eventually funded by the county board admin- deviations) for each outcome was not significantly different
istration and led by a university student, who developed a among BRs. While not statistically significant, the respon-
map, a mobile application, and a publication of all the ses from ÖV were generally lower than the other BRs. This
photos contributed by the public. Strategies included con- can partly be explained by the relative newness of the BR,
necting the idea of supporting outdoor recreation to raising the strong history of conflict among stakeholders in the
awareness of the broader landscape and engaging the public region, and a shift in governance after the BR designation,
208 Environmental Management (2019) 63:200–214

from initially being a grassroots-led process to now being

H(3) = 14.39, p < 0.01

managed by the municipality in collaboration with the

Greater efficiency of the group involved in BR governance and management in decision-making and responding to 3.75 (0.58) 3.50 (1.00) 3.86 (0.79) 3.13 (0.83) H(3) = 7.11, p > 0.05

Greater flexibility of the group involved in BR governance and management with how challenges are addressed 3.76 (0.56) 3.50 (0.80) 3.76 (0.66) 3.20 (0.86) H(3) = 5.87, p > 0.05
3.67 (0.62) 3.81 (0.98) 3.64 (0.86) 3.06 (0.88) H(3) = 4.53, p > 0.05
Kruskal–Wallis test
NGO. The fieldwork for this research was conducted 1 year

Mann–Whitney U tests conducted for perceived outcomes that showed a significant difference in the Kruskal–Wallis test. Superscript letters denote significant differences among BRs
after ÖV received its designation, leaving little time for the
actual effects of BR governance to be perceived.
While evidence of diversity revealed some minor dif-
statistic

ferences in relation to stakeholder levels represented,

strength across the three aspects of diversity was generally
exhibited in each of the cases. When considering diversity
(0.57)

in relation to perceived outcomes, we concentrate on the

3.21c
ÖV

way in which governance is enacted in the BRs. Accord-

ingly, we make some connections between BR governance
and the specific attributes of it that diversity is considered to
3.67bc
(0.73)

influence (e.g., Koontz and Johnson 2004; Norberg et al.

KV

2008; Walker et al. 2009; Cuppen 2012). Each conjecture is

discussed in turn in relation to the findings.
4.08ab
(0.79)
FA

Challenging the Conjectures

Conjecture 1: Actor diversity contributes to the ability to

(0.58)
4.11a

engage with a broader set of issues and challenges in the

Please indicate the extent to which you feel the process of collaborative management and governance has resulted GB

BR.
Diverse and broad membership has led to successes in
An ability to engage with a broader set of issues and challenges within the BR (i.e., increasing the scope and

collaborative governance (Koontz and Johnson 2004) where

the aim is to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of
Novel approaches to solving problems within the group involved in BR governance and management
Table 4 Perceived outcomes (means and standard deviations) from governance that relate to diversity

issues that results in better decisions (Wondolleck and

Yaffee 2000). The results of actor diversity indicated that
diversity was generally high in all BRs, and respondents in
all BRs agreed that collaborative governance led to an
ability to engage with a broader set of issues and challenges
within the BR. The strength of agreement with the statement
was generally greater in Canadian BRs than in Swedish BRs
(Table 4), with ÖV having the lowest score. There is no one
measure of diversity that provides an indication of why
respondents in the Canadian BRs agreed more strongly with
the statement; however, there are some contextual differ-
ences between the two countries in terms of the nature of
government involvement, specifically related to the orga-
nizational structure of the BRs (government-led vs. grass-
roots-led) that may provide a partial reason (Table 1). In
ÖV, for example, the group involved had recently expanded
to include more diversity (in terms of gender, age, geo-
graphical representation, and representation of sectors),
potentially bringing in new expectations on the BR that had
not yet been met at the time of our research. However, the
BR manager described several occasions where the broader
network had resulted in new initiatives that would otherwise
not have been undertaken, such as the photo project
described in the previous section. In KV, the collaborative
governance process has been clearly guided by a well-
mandate)a

defined overarching scope, which has not changed over the

issues

years (although specific projects come and go). But follow-

in

a
Environmental Management (2019) 63:200–214 209

up interviews would need to be conducted to clarify the problems (Table 4). All BRs exhibited institutional diver-
underlying reasons for lower agreement with the statement. sity, and this aspect of diversity is particularly important in
While the qualitative data cannot explain the generally relation to novelty as it provides decision-makers with a
higher scores of Canadian BRs, it can help illuminate the range of options, rather than one particular approach used
contributions of diversity to identifying and dealing with a across the board (Dietz et al. 2003; Evans 2004; Ostrom
broad range of issues and challenges. In FA, the manager 2005). There was no clear relationship between the level of
noted that there is value in having diverse perspectives on various aspects of diversity (index or ratio) and perceptions
the board, as they present ideas (e.g., tourism focus) that of this outcome, but several references to novelty were
otherwise might not be pursued. He explained his motiva- made in the in-depth interviews. For example, in FA, the
tion for taking on the managerial role in the BR: “It maybe manager noted that there was value in having diverse per-
was apparent to me that conservation [the focus of the BR to spectives on the board because they present ideas that
that point] wasn’t really quite broad enough and for the otherwise might not be pursued. In ÖV, the manager
mandate from UNESCO was really four pillars and the described the learning that comes from engaging with the
ultimate goals of education and support for sustainable diversity of perspectives in the BR: “I really feel that in
community development.” In GB, the co-managers noted these meetings that we have, everyone is there, and we all
that the diversity of issues and challenges was dependent, at learn so much from each other. We really do not work in
least in part, on the ideas and issues that were presented to isolated silos here.” This is similar to the findings of Innes
them by the community. They have endeavored to be and Booher (2006) where authentic dialog among diverse
neutral and non-advocacy, and this has provided a better stakeholders generated novel approaches to decision-
understanding of what their role is in the region and how making. In GB, a lot of focus was put on partnerships
they can provide support to other organizations. It is a and building partnerships that represent different regions
matter of “We all need to improve, we all have ways that we and scales to achieve goals: “So, this idea of working at a
can improve…coming to resolution on that has helped us large geographic scale, a larger political scale, looking at
because I think we’re able to become much more of a partnerships that make a lot of sense from a provincial
community-based or broad-spectrum community-based perspective and even internationally when we’re promoting
organization that has the credibility…” (Co-manager, GB). the bay as a destination for tourism, we have two UNESCO
BRs appear to be acutely aware of the challenges and biosphere reserves flanking the bay and we have similar
benefits of diverse stakeholder representation and GB in conservation issues and so, we can learn a lot from our
particular has identified a strategy to mitigate the chal- partners” (GB stakeholder). Identifying learning opportu-
lenges. The non-advocacy role they identified for them- nities, while not associated with problem-solving per se, it
selves is consistent with Koontz and Johnson’s (2004) is an indicator that BRs understand and value diversity for
finding that watershed groups with diverse representation the potential for novelty it provides. This finding supports
tend to not be appropriate for advocacy work and are cog- the work of Brodbeck et al. (2002), who found that more
nizant of it. diverse groups engaged in decision-making shared more
Wide participation of stakeholders in governance is information with one another and made better decisions. It
promoted by many scholars (Ansell and Gash 2008) but also connects to the central tenets of adaptive governance,
Koontz and Johnson (2004) highlight that such widespread that diversity creates opportunities for learning from others
involvement can have substantial costs and can also cause and from system feedbacks (Folke et al. 2005).
problems, suggesting instead that there is a limit to the The diverse mandate BRs are tasked with, i.e., addres-
degree of stakeholder participation warranted in collabora- sing both biodiversity conservation and sustainable devel-
tive governance. We found no evidence that diversity, in opment (UNESCO 1996) is reflected in the diversity of
terms of our broad measures, has a negative impact on the stakeholder perspectives, types, levels, and activities, and it
ability to engage with a broader set of issues and challenges is clear that bringing together diverse stakeholders provides
(however, we acknowledge that the fact that all cases were opportunities for novelty. In particular, BR managers
similar in terms of effects prevented us from asserting any emphasized the benefits of diversity in terms of pragmatic
such potential impact). considerations (e.g., competencies, capacities, and funding)
Conjecture 2: Diversity contributes to novel approaches to enable action. Based on the qualitative evidence and a
to solving problems within the BR governance group. lack of indication of a negative relationship from the
Diversity is considered a positive contributor to novelty quantitative data, our findings support the conjecture that
in collaborative governance (Brodbeck et al. 2002; Booher diversity contributes to novelty in collaborative governance.
and Innes 2006; Stirling 2007; Cuppen 2012). Stakeholders Conjecture 3: Diversity decreases the efficiency of BR
in all four BRs generally felt that collaborative governance governance in decision-making and responding to issues.
contributed to identifying novel approaches to solving
210 Environmental Management (2019) 63:200–214

The literature linking diversity and efficiency notes that result of a diverse mandate and stakeholder perspectives,
there are often tensions between them (Walker et al. 2006; and that there may be tradeoffs associated with diverse
Norberg et al. 2008). For example, Norberg et al. (2008) actors and domains of authority (i.e., polycentric govern-
note that too much diversity can decrease efficiency. ance). It is possible that BRs have successfully managed
However, there are instances where aspects of diversity may diversity to avoid the costs of too much of it (Norberg et al.
contribute to efficiency (Low et al. 2003). A statement from 2008) and the potential downfalls of too little diversity
the GB in-depth interview with a co-manager spoke to the (Ulanowicz et al. 2009) and have found a “happy medium”
difficulty in achieving both in the context of being in balancing diversity and efficiency through acting as
approached by many stakeholders with a wide variety of bridging organizations.
concerns and ideas: “I really worry about spreading our- Based on the evidence from this study, we cannot con-
selves too thin and I would rather focus on a few core areas clusively state that diversity does indeed decrease effi-
with depth than take on what we’re doing let’s say, now.” ciency, but our qualitative analysis indicates that there may
Another example of how the BRs viewed the relationship be important trade-offs, particularly in relation to respond-
between diversity, redundancy, and efficiency is summar- ing to diverse issues. Research in this area has noted that
ized by a co-manager in GB. The manager explained that in indeed, there are trade-offs between efficiency and resi-
the early days of the BR, they were “figuring out who’s lience (Walker et al. 2006; Brede and de Vries 2009) and
doing what on the landscape and trying to reduce duplica- that diversity supports resilience (Low et al. 2003; Walker
tion, increase efficiency of funds and use of funds, just that et al. 2006). We, therefore, revise the conjecture to: too
whole partnership and collaboration side of things. And much diversity may decrease the efficiency of BR govern-
they were effective at the time…and there were sort of these ance in decision-making and responding to issues.
subgroups that kind of got created and they went off and Conjecture 4: Diversity contributes to the flexibility of
started doing their work.” A third example from GB illus- the group involved in BR governance in terms of how
trates the difficulty in bringing together diverse and con- challenges are addressed.
flicting perspectives for collaborative governance, the Diversity is considered to be beneficial for flexibility in
respondent noted that this was a difficult and time- governance (Ellis 2000; Low et al. 2003; Ostrom 2005;
consuming task. In ÖV, an example where diversity of Stirling 2007; Chapin et al. 2009; Naeem et al. 2009). The
perspectives posed a particular challenge was in the dis- measures of perceived outcomes confirmed that stake-
agreement of how to deal with mining prospects in the BR. holders believed that collaborative governance led to greater
Here, some conservation activists in the area expected the flexibility to address challenges. There was no clear rela-
BR to take a firm stance against the mine, whereas the BR tionship between the level of diversity for specific indicators
manager felt their role should rather be to facilitate dialog to and perceived flexibility, where there were differences
increase knowledge and explore the potential of more sus- among BRs. Few BR managers explicitly discussed flex-
tainable solutions. The manager also acknowledged the ibility in the in-depth interviews, however, there were
more general challenge of bringing diverse perspectives allusions to its benefits, for example, one stakeholder in FA
together as the BR organization grows. “The larger your described the BR as “a big family that has lots of different
project, and the more people you engage, the more you need resources because a lot of different organizations have a lot
to work to bring everyone together so that you pull in the of different strengths. And, so, to pull from those strengths
same direction instead of diverging in all directions. We then work together really helps you accomplish the task”. A
have struggled to manage that for a while now. (---) Of further reference in FA was related specifically to flexibility
course we want to broaden the biosphere work, but we must of funding opportunities: “I believe strong partnerships
not lose our role. We can't be everything but need to find within a number of organizations within the region are key
our niche.” now, we cannot be supported solo so the more partnerships
However, the BRs see themselves as bridging organiza- we make the more opportunities there are that we can help
tions, bringing together diverse stakeholders in a range of each other out when there are shortfalls based on funding
configurations to engage in specific projects. For example, cuts or any sort of financial restraints that are placed on
the FA manager called the BR the “wiring in the walls” that organizations…I believe partnerships with all levels of park
connects organizations and individuals, and the ÖV man- organizations that are having financial constraints as well…
ager talked about the niche “in-between”. these sorts of partnerships can help logistically and I think
Measures of perceived efficiency in decision-making and motivationally also.” (FA stakeholder). In ÖV, a stake-
responding to issues (Table 4) do not indicate that the holder explained how his grassroots approach added flex-
aspects of diversity measured in the BRs have had a ibility to addressing the upcoming challenges in relation to
negative influence. However, respondents in some BRs the more bureaucratic approaches of authorities: “I have
acknowledge that efficiency may be more difficult as a never had a budget for doing stuff—first you plan what you
Environmental Management (2019) 63:200–214 211

want to do, then you see how to get the funds, and if you failed efforts to engage in collaborative environmental
don’t get the funds, you do it anyways, using volunteers. governance may yield new insights into diversity and
But if you are at a county board administration, you first relationships to outcomes, and represent potentially impor-
need to make the budget, and lots of things fail because it tant future research directions.
becomes too expensive and bureaucratic.” The BR manager
described the challenge of balancing these approaches, and
aligning biosphere work with municipality strategies while Conclusions
building on local engagement.
Whereas redundancy is often stressed in scholarship Diversity is an important consideration in collaborative
(e.g., Rosenfeld 2002; Elmqvist et al. 2003; Stirling 2007), environmental governance. Aspects of diversity theorized to
it was rarely mentioned by our respondents. We anticipate matter in the context of social–ecological systems include:
that this may be due to a lack of explicit focus on redun- who is involved and their domains of authority; the per-
dancy in data collection instruments. However, in each of spectives individuals bring to the decision-making process;
the cases, awareness was evident of limited time capacity of and, institutional variety. On the basis of our empirical
volunteers and organizations with overlapping mandates. investigation into these aspects and their effects in two
Attempting to have one representative per interest group Swedish and two Canadian UNESCO BRs, along with the
was identified as a challenge—attempting to secure multiple analytical process of explanation building undertaken, we
individuals who can compensate for one another would not developed and probed preliminary conjectures about how
be feasible. diversity matters in collaborative environmental govern-
Based on the evidence from this study, we note that of ance. Evidence from the cases affirms the positive impact of
particular benefit to flexibility appears to be the access to diversity in relation to the ability for engaging with a
diverse resources when needed. This is consistent with a broader set of issues and challenges (C1), but also suggests
key benefit of diversity: a pool of resources, or available that caution should be exercised as the breadth of issues and
options for adaptation, that provide flexibility (Stirling challenges associated with governance may cause potential
2007; Chapin et al. 2009). Chapin et al. (2009) expand on problems. Evidence was inconclusive as to diversity
this to identify that the available options are only the decreasing efficiency in decision-making and responding to
beginning: stakeholders can increase them by learning, issues (C3), with indications of trade-offs being particularly
experimenting, and innovating. important. Diversity was found to contribute to the flex-
Finally, we wish to make a few comments about our ibility in how challenges are addressed (C4), particularly in
results. Our research design partly contributed to limited accessing diverse resources when required. Novelty in
variability across the cases (we deliberately selected cases to approaches to solving problems was enhanced by diversity
be “successful” both in terms of perceived governance (C2), with the qualitative evidence from the cases furnish-
outcomes, but also in being able to stimulate collaboration ing a deeper understanding of innovation stemming from a
across a diversity of actors, see in-depth argumentation in variety of actors with different perspectives coming
Plummer et al. (2017)). Hence, the quantitative results together.
mostly confirm what we expected, i.e., that all four BRs The empirical investigation of BRs illuminated addi-
would score fairly high on perceived outcomes, and that tional aspects of diversity that matter to collaborative
they would display fairly high levels of various aspects of environmental governance of social–ecological systems not
diversity. Thus, this part of the results can be seen mostly as evident in our synthesis of this scholarship (see Section 2).
a confirmation of our expectations, albeit still being of value While the benefits of bringing together diverse individuals
since the analysis could have shown them being incorrect and institutions may often be implicit, the participants in our
and/or inconsistent. However, the qualitative analysis study explicitly emphasized pragmatic advantages of
revealed interesting variability among the cases, and it actively seeking diversity of competencies and capacities
allowed us to elaborate and challenge conjectures about the (e.g., knowledge, access to land, funding, and skills) to
effects of diversity on collaborative environmental govern- enable action. It is noteworthy that the network around each
ance (we use the word challenge instead of test since a more BR is partly designed and partly emergent, and people are
formalized test would require more cases). The qualitative invited to participate (and choose to participate) for a range
analysis also provided us with opportunities to start of reasons, including the specific contributions they bring to
“unpacking” the conjectures both empirically and con- the process as individuals or as representatives of organi-
ceptually. In sum, we assert that both the qualitative and zations. This configuration leaves diversity and redundancy
quantitative analyses, in concert, provided important (at a coarse level in terms of overlapping representation) in
insights while exploring the conjectures. Studying varying part up to the individuals who choose to participate. The
arrangements (e.g., grassroots-led vs. government-led) and open and emergent nature of this particular type of
212 Environmental Management (2019) 63:200–214

collaborative environmental governance distinguishes it Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical
from others that mandate representation. For example, standards.
Heikkila and Gerlak (2005) describe multiple cases of large-
Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual
scale collaborative institutions and decision-making struc-
participants included in the study.
tures in terms of appointees and prescribed representatives.
Furthermore, the interviewees did not directly link types of
diversity and specific aspects of governance (flexibility,
References
novelty, and efficiency)—rather such benefits were related
to the process as a whole, in which diversity is just one Ansell C, Gash A (2008) Collaborative governance in theory and
element. In other words, without a good collaborative pro- practice. J Public Adm Res Theory 18:543–571
cess for encouraging socio-institutional diversity, diversity Armitage D et al. (2009) Adaptive co-management for social-
ecological complexity. Front Ecol Environ 2:95–102
will most likely not bring the benefits suggested by the
Bäckstrand K (2006) Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable
literature. development: rethinking legitimacy, accountability, and effec-
Diversity matters to the collaborative governance of tiveness. Environ Policy Gov 16:290–306
social–ecological systems and our research underscores its Baird J, Velaniškis J, Plummer R, FitzGibbon J (2014) Political
legitimacy and collaborative water governance. Int J Water Gov
complicated nature. Continued efforts to interrogate con-
2:1
jectures about diversity and redundancy through empirical Biggs R, Carpenter SR, Brock WA (2009) Spurious certainty: how
research are needed as they will enrich knowledge of pur- ignoring measurement error and environmental heterogeneity
ported relationships in terms of effects as well as expand the may contribute to environmental controversies. BioScience
59:65–76
breadth of aspects needing consideration. Diversity is
Biggs R, Schlüter M, Biggs D, Bohensky EL, BurnSilver S, Cundill G,
recognized to have costs and benefits (Schultz and Lund- Dakos V, Daw TM, Evans LS, Kotschy K, Leitch AM, Meek C,
holm 2010; Nelson et al. 2011). While it was beyond the Quinlan A, Raudsepp-Hearne C, Robards MD, Schoon ML,
scope of this study, the matter of trade-offs arose in relation Schultz L, West PC (2012) Toward principles for enhancing the
resilience of ecosystem services. Annu Rev Environ Resour
to efficiency. More research is needed in this area to
37:421–448
understand what aspects of diversity most influence effi- Birnbaum S, Bodin Ö, Sandström A (2015) Tracing the sources of
ciency, what the tradeoffs are, and if, and where, thresholds legitimacy: the impact of deliberation in participatory natural
exist where diversity shifts from a positive attribute to one resource management Policy Sci 48:443–461
Bodin Ö, Österblom H (2013) International fisheries regime effec-
that has detrimental effects on efficiency. Bringing together
tiveness—activities and resources of key actors in the Southern
stakeholders that span multiple types and levels in the form Ocean Glob Environ Change 23:948–956
of polycentric institutional arrangements is ultimately Booher DE, Innes JE (2006) Complexity and adaptive policy systems:
argued to contribute to resilience (Folke et al. 2005; Cash CALFED as an emergent form of governance for sustainable
management of contested resources. In Proceedings of the 50th
et al. 2006; Armitage et al. 2009). Determining the precise
Annual Meeting of the ISSS-2006, Sonoma, CA, USA.
part(s) of diversity remains an open question. Answering it Brede M, de Vries BJM (2009) Networks that optimize a trade-off
requires future research on the interplay between/among between efficiency and dynamical resilience. Phys Lett A
aspects of diversity and interactions between effects. 373:3910–3914
Brodbeck FC, Kerschreiter R, Mojzisch A, Frey D, Schulz-Hardt S
(2002) The dissemination of critical, unshared information in
Acknowledgments This research was funded by Vetenskapsrådet, the
decision-making groups: the effects of pre-discussion dissent. Eur
Swedish Research Council, grant 2012-5498. We also acknowledge
J Soc Psychol 32:35–56
funding by MISTRA through a core grant to Stockholm Resilience
Brown D (1991) Bridging organizations and sustainable development.
Centre. Participation by the managers and others from the Frontenac
Hum Relat 44:807–831
Arch, Georgian Bay, Kristianstads Vattenrike, and Östra Vätter-
Cash D, Adger WN, Berkes F, Garden P, Lebel L, Olsson P, Pritchard
branterna Biosphere Reserves is gratefully acknowledged. Our thanks
L, Young O (2006) Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance
are also extended to our colleague, Beatrice Crona, for her insights in
and information in a multilevel world. Ecol Soc 11:2
conceptualizing the project. Finally, we wish to acknowledge Flor de
Chaffin BC, Gosnell H, Cosens BA (2014) A decade of adaptive
Luna Estrada, Malena Heinrup, Katrina Krievins, and Kerrie Pickering
governance scholarship: synthesis and future directions. Ecol Soc
for their research assistance.
19(3):56
Chapin FS, Kofinas GP, Folke C (eds) (2009) Principles of ecosystem
Compliance with Ethical Standards stewardship: resilience-based natural resource management in a
changing world. Springer Science & Business Media, New York,
Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of NY
interest. Creswell JW (2009) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed methods approaches. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Cuppen E (2012) Diversity and constructive conflict in stakeholder
Ethical Approval All procedures performed in studies involving
dialogue: considerations for design and methods. Policy Sci
human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of
45:23–46
the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964
Environmental Management (2019) 63:200–214 213

Dietz T, Ostrom E, Stern PC (2003) The struggle to govern the Nelson MC, Hegmon M, Kulow SR, Peeples MA, Kintigh KW,
commons. Science 302:1907–1912 Kinzig AP (2011) Resisting diversity: a long-term archaeological
Ellis F (2000) Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries. study. Ecol Soc 16:25
Oxford University Press, New York, NY Norberg J, Wilson J, Walker B, Ostrom E (2008) Diversity and resi-
Elmqvist T, Folke C, Nyström M, Peterson G, Bengtsson J, Walker B, lience of social-ecological systems. In: Norberg J, Cumming G
Norberg J (2003) Response diversity, ecosystem change, and (eds) Complexity theory for a sustainable future. Columbia
resilience. Front Ecol Environ 1(9):488–494 University Press, New York, NY, p 46–79
Elton CS (1958) The ecology of invasions by animals and plants. Norgaard RB, Baer P (2005) Collectively seeing complex systems: the
University of Chicago Press, Chicago nature of the problem. BioScience 55:953–960
Evans P (2004) Development as institutional change: the pitfalls of Nyström M (2006) Redundancy and response diversity of functional
monocropping and the potentials of deliberation. Stud Comp Int groups: implications for the resilience of coral reefs. AMBIO J
Dev 38:30–52 Hum Environ 35:30–35
Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, Norberg J (2005) Adaptive governance of Odum EP (1953) Fundamentals of ecology. Saunders, Philadelphia
social-ecological systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30:441–473 Olsson P, Folke C, Galaz V, Hahn T, Schultz L (2007) Enhancing the
Glasbergen P, Birmann F, Mol APJ (2007) Partnerships, governance fit through adaptive co-management: creating and maintaining
and sustainable development. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham bridging functions for matching scales in the Kristianstads Vat-
Gray B (1989) Collaborating: finding common ground for multiparty tenrike Biosphere Reserve, Sweden. Ecol Soc 12:1
problems. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco Österblom H, Bodin Ö (2012) Global cooperation among diverse
Heikkila T, Gerlak AK (2005) The formation of large‐scale colla- organizations to reduce illegal fishing in the Southern Ocean
borative resource management institutions: clarifying the roles of Conserv Biol 26:638–648
stakeholders, science, and institutions. Policy Stud J 33:583–612 Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions
Huitema D, Mostert E, Egas W, Moellenkamp S, Pahl-Wostl C, Yalcin for collective action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
R (2009) Adaptive water governance: assessing the institutional Ostrom E (2005) Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton
prescriptions of adaptive (co-)management from a governance University Press, New Jersey
perspective and defining a research agenda. Ecol Soc 14:26 Ostrom E (2010) Beyond markets and states: polycentric governance
Innes J, Booher D (2003) Collaborative policy-making: governance of complex economic systems. Am Econ Rev 100:641–72
through dialogue. In: Maarten AH, Wagenaar H (eds) Delib- Plummer R, Baird J, Dzyundzyak A, Armitage D, Bodin Ö, Schultz L
erative policy analysis: understanding governance in the network (2017) Is adaptive co-management delivering? Examining rela-
society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 33–59 tionships between collaboration, learning and outcomes in
Jentoft S, Bavinck M, Johnson DS, Thomson KT (2009) Fisheries co- UNESCO Biosphere Reserves Ecol Econ 140:79–88
management and legal pluralism: how an analytical problem Plummer R, FitzGibbon J (2004) Co-management of natural resources:
becomes an institutional one. Hum Organ 68:27–38 a proposed framework. Environ Manag 33:876–885
Koontz TM, Johnson EM (2004) One size does not fit all: matching Reed MS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental man-
breadth of stakeholder participation to watershed group accom- agement: a literature review. Biol Conserv 141:2417–2431
plishments. Policy Sci 37:185–204 Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Foley J (2009) A safe operating
Kotschy K, Biggs R, Daw T, Folke C, West P (2015) Principle 1 - space for humanity. Nature 461(7263):472–475
maintain diversity and redundancy. In: Biggs R, Schluter M, Rosenfeld JS (2002) Functional redundancy in ecology and con-
Schoon ML (eds) Principles for building resilience. Cambridge servation. Oikos 98:156–162
University Press, Cambridge, p 50–79 Sabatier PA, Focht W, Lubell M, Trachtenberg Z, Vedlitz A, Matlock
Lax DA, Sebenius JK (1986) The manager as negotiator: bargaining M (2005) Collaborative approaches to watershed management.
for cooperation and competitive gain. The Free Press, New York, In: Sabatier PA, Focht W, Lubell M, Trachtenberg Z, Vedlitz A,
NY Matlock M (eds) Swimming upstream: collaborative approaches
Lemos MC, Agrawal A (2006) Environmental governance. Annu Rev to watershed management. The MIT Press, Cambridge, p 3–21
Environ Res 31:297–325 Sandström A, Crona B, Bodin Ö (2014) Legitimacy in co-manage-
Leonard R, Jones GT (1989) Quantifying diversity in archaeology. ment: the impact of pre-existing structures, social networks and
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge governance strategies Environ Policy Gov 24:60–76
Lietaer B, Ulanowicz RE, Goerner SJ, McLaren N (2010) Is our Schultz L (2009) Nurturing resilience in social-ecological systems:
monetary structure a systemic cause for financial instability? lessons learned from bridging organizations. Dissertation,
Evidence and remedies from nature. J Future Stud 14:89–108 Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
Low B, Ostrom E, Simon C, Wilson J (2003) Redundancy and Schultz L, Duit A, Folke C (2011) Participation, adaptive co-man-
diversity: do they influence optimal management? In: Berkes F, agement, and management performance in the world network of
Colding J, Folke C (eds) Navigating social-ecological systems: biosphere reserves. World Dev 39:662–671
building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge Uni- Schultz L, Folke C, Olsson P (2007) Enhancing ecosystem manage-
versity Press, New York, NY, p 83–114 ment through social-ecological inventories: lessons from Kris-
May RM (1974) Stability and complexity in model ecosystems. tianstads Vattenrike, Sweden. Environ Conserv 34:140–152
Princeton University Press, Princeton Schultz L, Folke C, Österblom H, Olsson P (2015) Adaptive gov-
McAllister RRJ, Taylor BM, Harman BP (2015) Partnership networks ernance, ecosystem management, and natural capital. Proc Natl
for urban development: how structure is shaped by risk. Policy Acad Sci USA 112:7369–7374
Stud J 43:379–398 Schultz L, Lundholm C (2010) Learning for resilience? Exploring
McCann KS (2000) The diversity-stability debate. Nature learning opportunities in biosphere reserves. Environ Educ Res
405:228–233 16:645–663
Naeem S, Bunker DE, Hector A, Loreau M, Perrings C (eds) (2009) Simpson EH (1949) Measurement of diversity. Nature 163:688
Biodiversity, ecosystem functioning, and human wellbeing: an Stirling A (2007) A general framework for analysing diversity in
ecological and economic perspective. Oxford University Press, science, technology and society. J R Soc Interface 4:707–19
Oxford
214 Environmental Management (2019) 63:200–214

Ulanowicz RE, Goerner SJ, Lietaer B, Gomez R (2009) Quantifying understanding resilience in social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc
sustainability: resilience, efficiency and the return of information 11:13
theory. Ecol Complex 6:27–36 Walters CJ, Holling CS (1990) Large-scale management experiments
UNESCO (1996) Biosphere Reserves: The Seville Strategy and the and learning by doing. Ecology 71:2060–2068
Statutory Framework. UNESCO, Paris Westley F, Vredenburg H (1991) Strategic bridging: the collaboration
van Buuren A, Klijn EH, Edelenbos J (2012) Democratic legitimacy of between environmentalists and business in the marketing of green
new forms of water management in the Netherlands. Int J Water products. J Appl Behav Sci 27:65–90
Res Dev 28:629–645 Wondolleck JM, Yaffee SL (2000) Making collaboration work: les-
Walker BH, Abel N, Anderies JM, Ryan P (2009) Resilience, adapt- sons from innovation in natural resource management. Island
ability, and transformability in the Goulburn-Broken Catchment, Press, Washington
Australia. Ecol Soc 14:12 Yin RK (2009) Case study research: design and methods, 4th edn.
Walker B, Gunderson L, Kinzig A, Folke C, Carpenter S, Schultz L SAGE Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks
(2006) A handful of heuristics and some propositions for