Environmental Governance Models for Wetland Management. A Global Review

Abstract

Objective: To conduct a review of the current state of knowledge regarding environmental governance models for wetland management at both global and national levels.

Materials and methods: Regarding the different modes of environmental governance, which were studied using bibliographic search systems such as Google Scholar, Scopus, and ScienceDirect, four (4) modes of environmental governance in wetlands were identified (i.e., hierarchical governance, privatizing governance, co-governance, and self-governance) in application contexts such as coastal wetlands, urban wetlands, and rural wetlands.

Bibliographic Search Systems. To locate the bibliographic documents for this article concerning environmental governance models for global wetland management over a ten-year period (2011–2021), several documentary sources were utilized (Guirao-Goris et al., 2008). The databases employed for the identification and selection of literature to be included in this study (Miguel & Solana, 2010) were Google Scholar, Scopus, and ScienceDirect.

Bibliographic Analysis Systems. The bibliographic analysis system was developed in three stages and was based on the use of a citation frequency index to organize (Zafra-Mejía et al., 2017) the information on environmental governance models implemented in wetlands worldwide. This index was structured into quartiles (Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4), with values ranging between 0.0 and 1.0. Q1 represents the quartile with the highest citation frequency, and Q4 represents the lowest.

In the first stage, the top 50 documents were selected based on citation frequency, using the keywords "Governance" and "Wetlands" as the primary thematic descriptors across the three consulted databases for the years 2011 to 2021. The second stage involved a search filter focused on the governance modes identified in urban wetlands. Keywords such as "Hierarchical wetland governance," "Closed co-governance wetland," "Open co-governance wetland," and "Self-governance or community governance wetland" were used. In the third stage, the application of governance models within urban, rural, and coastal contexts was analyzed, utilizing keywords like "Urban wetland governance," "Coastal wetland governance," and "Rural wetland governance."

Statistical Analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using descriptive tools such as graphs, pie charts, and maps within Microsoft Excel software. Specifically, these tools were used to display the temporal and geographical distribution of the articles and to identify correlations between governance modes and their application contexts.

Results: Description of International Trends Regarding Environmental Governance Models. Based on the search conducted with general descriptors for environmental governance models, 61,532 documents were identified across the three selected databases (Google Scholar, Taylor and Francis, ScienceDirect). [Note: A discrepancy exists here; the Methods section listed Google Scholar, Scopus, and ScienceDirect as the databases used]. Notably, the database yielding the highest number of documents was Taylor and Francis, with 24,227 documents, followed by Google Scholar (19,196) and ScienceDirect (18,109).

Analysis of Environmental Governance Models in Wetlands. In the second stage of the literature review, the primary environmental governance models were identified. The search results showed a clear trend concerning the quartiles in which the governance models were situated. The main models identified were as follows:

• Hierarchical Governance (Q3): This model displays an average index of 0.25. It is characterized by significant government control over non-governmental actors, who are subordinate to governmental decisions. This governance model is more formal and typically encounters less resistance during policy implementation.
• Privatizing Governance (Q3): With an average index of 0.38, this model involves decentralization, privatization, and the outsourcing of services, thereby shifting power to private actors and limiting public sector participation.
• Co-governance (Q3): Exhibiting an average index of 0.30, this model is characterized by cooperation between governmental and non-governmental actors, who must collaborate to achieve mutual benefits.
• Self-governance or Community Governance (Q4): This model, with an average index of 0.24, is defined by community-based decision-making, face-to-face accountability, and the active participation of civil society members.

Percentage Distribution of Environmental Governance Models in Wetlands

1. The results revealed that the most common governance models were:
2. Privatizing governance in wetlands (36%).
3. Hierarchical governance in wetlands (26%).
4. Self-governance or community governance in wetlands (20%).
5. Co-governance in wetlands (18%).
   These percentages indicate that privatizing governance is the most frequently utilized approach, although the hierarchical model remains significant.

Application Contexts of Environmental Governance Models in Wetlands. The 50 selected articles showed that the most frequent application contexts were:

• Urban wetland governance: 20 articles.
• Rural wetland governance: 19 articles.
• Coastal wetland governance: 11 articles.
  In consequence, metropolitan areas, experiencing rapid urban growth, have significantly impacted wetland management, particularly highlighting the relevance of governance models within urban contexts.

Environmental Governance Models Associated with Application Contexts

The comparison of governance models across different contexts yielded the following findings:

• Privatizing governance was the most prominent, especially in coastal wetlands, with a total of 8 articles focusing on this model in that setting.
• Hierarchical governance had a stronger presence in urban wetlands, accounting for 10 documents.
• Co-governance was primarily featured in urban wetlands, with 4 articles.
• Self-governance also had its strongest presence in urban wetlands, with 4 documents.

Geographic Distribution of Selected Articles by Environmental Governance Model

The 50 documents studied demonstrated a varied geographic distribution, with research originating from countries including Canada (3), the United States (6), India (2), the Netherlands (1), China (2), South Africa (2), England (3), Nigeria (4), Australia (1), Peru (2), Colombia (6), and Mexico (6), among others.

Conclusions: Environmental governance models for the sustainable management of wetlands exhibit considerable diversity. Four main modes of governance were identified (privatizing, self-governance, co-governance, and hierarchical), which vary in their applicability depending on the specific geographic and socio-political context. Privatizing governance emerged as the most widely used model, followed by hierarchical governance, co-governance, and self-governance. This reflects a global scenario characterized by the coexistence of multiple governance models in the management of wetlands globally.