Dataset Information

Disentangling Puzzles of Spatial Scales and Participation in Environmental Governance-The Case of Governance Re-scaling Through the European Water Framework Directive.

ABSTRACT: This article attempts to shed new light on prevailing puzzles of spatial scales in multi-level, participatory governance as regards the democratic legitimacy and environmental effectiveness of governance systems. We focus on the governance re-scaling by the European Water Framework Directive, which introduced new governance scales (mandated river basin management) and demands consultation of citizens and encourages 'active involvement' of stakeholders. This allows to examine whether and how re-scaling through deliberate governance interventions impacts on democratic legitimacy and effective environmental policy delivery. To guide the enquiry, this article organizes existing-partly contradictory-claims on the relation of scale, democratic legitimacy, and environmental effectiveness into three clusters of mechanisms, integrating insights from multi-level governance, social-ecological systems, and public participation. We empirically examine Water Framework Directive implementation in a comparative case study of multi-level systems in the light of the suggested mechanisms. We compare two planning areas in Germany: North Rhine Westphalia and Lower Saxony. Findings suggest that the Water Framework Directive did have some impact on institutionalizing hydrological scales and participation. Local participation appears generally both more effective and legitimate than on higher levels, pointing to the need for yet more tailored multi-level governance approaches, depending on whether environmental knowledge or advocacy is sought. We find mixed results regarding the potential of participation to bridge spatial 'misfits' between ecological and administrative scales of governance, depending on the historical institutionalization of governance on ecological scales. Polycentricity, finally, appeared somewhat favorable in effectiveness terms with some distinct differences regarding polycentricity in planning vs. polycentricity in implementation.

SUBMITTER: Newig J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5085982 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:European Union Directive 2013/39/EU, which amended and updated the Water Framework Directive (WFD; 2000/60/EC) and its daughter directive (2008/105/EC), sets Environmental Quality Standards for biota (EQSbiota ) for a number of bioaccumulative chemicals. These chemicals pose a threat to both aquatic wildlife and human health via the consumption of contaminated prey or the intake of contaminated food originating from the aquatic environment. EU member states will need to establish programs to monitor the concentration of 11 priority substances in biota and assess compliance against these new standards for the classification of surface water bodies. An EU-wide guidance effectively addresses the implementation of EQSbiota . Flexibility is allowed in the choice of target species used for monitoring to account for both diversity of habitats and aquatic community composition across Europe. According to that guidance, the consistency and comparability of monitoring data across member states should be enhanced by adjusting the data on biota contaminant concentrations to a standard trophic level by use of the appropriate trophic magnification factor (TMF), a metric of contaminant biomagnification through the food web. In this context, the selection of a TMF value for a given substance is a critical issue, because this field-derived measure of trophic magnification can show variability related to the characteristics of ecosystems, the biology and ecology of organisms, the experimental design, and the statistical methods used for TMF calculation. This paper provides general practical advice and guidance for the selection or determination of TMFs for reliable application within the context of the WFD (i.e., adjustment of monitoring data and EQS derivation). Based on a series of quality attributes for TMFs, a decision tree is presented to help end users select a reasonable and relevant TMF. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2019;15:266-277. © 2018 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).

Project description:The aim of European water policy is to achieve good ecological status in all rivers, lakes, coastal and transitional waters by 2027. Currently, more than half of water bodies are in a degraded condition and nutrient enrichment is one of the main culprits. Therefore, there is a pressing need to establish reliable and comparable nutrient criteria that are consistent with good ecological status. This paper highlights the wide range of nutrient criteria currently in use by Member States of the European Union to support good ecological status and goes on to suggest that inappropriate criteria may be hindering the achievement of good status. Along with a comprehensive overview of nutrient criteria, we provide a critical analysis of the threshold concentrations and approaches by which these are set. We identify four essential issues: (1) Different nutrients (nitrogen and/or phosphorus) are used for different water categories in different countries. (2) The use of different nutrient fractions (total, dissolved inorganic) and statistical summary metrics (e.g., mean, percentiles, seasonal, annual) currently hampers comparability between countries, particularly for rivers, transitional and coastal waters. (3) Wide ranges in nutrient threshold values within shared water body types, in some cases showing more than a 10-fold difference in concentrations. (4) Different approaches used to set threshold nutrient concentrations to define the boundary between "good" and "moderate" ecological status. Expert judgement-based methods resulted in significantly higher (less stringent) good-moderate threshold values compared with data-driven approaches, highlighting the importance of consistent and rigorous approaches to criteria setting. We suggest that further development of nutrient criteria should be based on relationships between ecological status and nutrient concentrations, taking into account the need for comparability between different water categories, water body types within these categories, and countries.

Project description:AIM:Metacommunity theories attribute different relative degrees of importance to dispersal, environmental filtering, biotic interactions and stochastic processes in community assembly, but the role of spatial scale remains uncertain. Here we used two complementary statistical tools to test: (1) whether or not the patterns of community structure and environmental influences are consistent across resolutions; and (2) whether and how the joint use of two fundamentally different statistical approaches provides a complementary interpretation of results. LOCATION:Grassland plants in the French Alps. METHODS:We used two approaches across five spatial resolutions (ranging from 1 km × 1 km to 30 km × 30 km): variance partitioning, and analysis of metacommunity structure on the site-by-species incidence matrices. Both methods allow the testing of expected patterns resulting from environmental filtering, but variance partitioning allows the role of dispersal and environmental gradients to be studied, while analysis of the site-by-species metacommunity structure informs an understanding of how environmental filtering occurs and whether or not patterns differ from chance expectation. We also used spatial regressions on species richness to identify relevant environmental factors at each scale and to link results from the two approaches. RESULTS:Major environmental drivers of richness included growing degree-days, temperature, moisture and spatial or temporal heterogeneity. Variance partitioning pointed to an increase in the role of dispersal at coarser resolutions, while metacommunity structure analysis pointed to environmental filtering having an important role at all resolutions through a Clementsian assembly process (i.e. groups of species having similar range boundaries and co-occurring in similar environments). MAIN CONCLUSIONS:The combination of methods used here allows a better understanding of the forces structuring ecological communities than either one of them used separately. A key aspect in this complementarity is that variance partitioning can detect effects of dispersal whereas metacommunity structure analysis cannot. Moreover, the latter can distinguish between different forms of environmental filtering (e.g. individualistic versus group species responses to environmental gradients).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Health research has scientific, social and political impacts. To achieve such impacts, several institutions need to participate; however, health research funding institutions are seldom nominated in the literature as essential players. The attention they have received has so far focused mainly on their role in knowledge translation, informing policy-making and the need to organise health research systems. In this article, we will focus solely on the governance of national health research funding institutions. Our objectives are to identify the main functions of governance for such institutions and actionable governance functions. This research should be useful in several ways, including in highlighting, tracking and measuring the governance trends in a given funding institution, and to forestall low-level governance. METHODS:First, we reviewed existing frameworks in the grey literature, selecting seven relevant documents. Second, we developed an integrated framework for health research funding institution governance and management. Third, we extracted actionable information for governance by selecting a mix of North American, European and Asian institutions that had documentation available in English (e.g. annual report, legal status, strategy). RESULTS:The framework contains 13 functions - 5 dedicated to governance (intelligence acquisition, resourcing and instrumentation, relationships management, accountability and performance, and strategy formulation), 3 dedicated to management (priority-setting, financing and knowledge transfer), and 5 dedicated to transversal logics that apply to both governance and management (ethics, transparency, capacity reinforcement, monitoring and evaluation, and public engagement). CONCLUSIONS:Herein, we provide a conceptual contribution for scholars in the field of governance and health research as well as a practical contribution, with actionable functions for high-level managers in charge of the governance of health research funding institutions.

Dataset Information

Disentangling Puzzles of Spatial Scales and Participation in Environmental Governance-The Case of Governance Re-scaling Through the European Water Framework Directive.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets