Collaboration mobilises institutions with scale-dependent comparative advantage in landscape-scale biodiversity conservation

• Published in: Environmental science & policy 2015-08, Vol.51, p.267-277
• Main Authors: Hill, R., Davies, J., Bohnet, I.C., Robinson, C.J., Maclean, K., Pert, P.L.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Biodiversity; Boundaries; Comparative advantage (commerce); Cooperation; Ecosystems; Farmers; Fires; Government and politics; Knowledge-sharing; Peer review; Pests; Planning; Policies; Regulation; Resource management; Risk; Risk management; Risks; Scale; Social sciences; Social-ecological; Threats; Wildlife conservation
• ISSN: 1462-9011; 1873-6416
• DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2015.04.014

•Analyses four Australian case studies of landscape-scale biodiversity conservation.•Risks include institutional fragmentation, power imbalances, knowledge assymetries.•Collaboration actively manages risks through knowledge-sharing using tools such as boundary objects.•Collaboration mobilises diverse institutions that have scale-dependent comparative advantage. Landscape-scale approaches are emerging as central to ecosystem management and biodiversity conservation globally, triggering the requirement for collaboration between multiple actors and associated risks including knowledge asymmetries; institutional fragmentation; uncertainty; power imbalances; “invisible” slow-changing variables; and entrenched socio-economic inequities. While social science has elucidated some dimensions required for effective collaboration, little is known about how collaboration manages these risks, or of its effects on associated social-ecological linkages. Our analysis of four different Australian contexts of collaboration shows they mobilised institutions matched to addressing environmental threats, at diverse scales across regulatory and non-regulatory domains. The institutions mobilised included national regulatory controls on development that threatened habitat, incentives to farmers for practice-change, and mechanisms that increased resources for on-ground fire and pest management. Knowledge-sharing underpinned effective risk management and was facilitated through the use of boundary objects, enhanced multi-stakeholder peer review processes, interactive spatial platforms, and Aboriginal-driven planning. Institutions mobilised in these collaborations show scale-dependent comparative advantage for addressing environmental threats. The findings confirm the need to shift scientific attention away from theorising about the ideal-scale for governance. We argue instead for a focus on understanding how knowledge-sharing activities across multiple scales can more effectively connect environmental threats with the most capable institution to address these threats.