Search

We are in a period of unprecedented growth in conservation philanthropy. How will this influx of private funding affect conservation agendas? Inspired by a collaborative research co-design process, this paper addresses questions about how foundations influence conservation agendas in the places they work. We draw from a case study of the world's largest philanthropic funder of marine conservation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and their 20 years of investment in marine conservation in Palau and Fiji. Conservation practitioners in both countries universally agreed that the Packard Foundation had a significant and positive influence on the agenda, which they attribute to both how the foundation worked and what they chose to fund. Specifically, our study reveals how the Packard Foundation shaped conservation agendas in Palau and Fiji in partnership with its grantees through a grant-making process characterized by relationship building, collaborative decision making, convening and promoting of collective action, flexibility, and long-term funding. Packard's approach was often identified as unique, and contrasted with numerous other donors, including foundations and other types of donors, who use a more top-down approach. By describing a relative success story in how philanthropic foundations can work with conservation practitioners to co-design a shared conservation agenda, our work provides timely guidance for donors and practitioners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Environmental governance scholars have overlooked philanthropic foundations as influential non‐state actors. This omission, along with the continued growth in funding from private foundations for conservation issues, presents important questions about what foundations do in governance spaces. To address this gap, we examine The David and Lucile Packard Foundation's involvement in Fiji and Palau in the context of the Foundation's "Western Pacific Program"—a series of coastal and marine‐related investments made from 1998 to 2020. We describe and analyze six governance roles that the Packard Foundation contributed to: funding, influencing agendas, capacity‐building, convening and coordinating, facilitating knowledge, and rule‐making and regulation. In documenting the Packard Foundation's governance roles, we provide scholars and practitioners a conceptual framework to more systematically and strategically think about foundations as more than funders. This research helps move the conversation around conservation philanthropy beyond binary conceptions of "good" versus "bad," and, instead, toward deeper considerations about what foundations currently do within governance systems, how they engage with diverse practitioners, as well as what they can and should do to advance conservation goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Philanthropic foundations play increasingly prominent roles in the environmental arena, yet remain largely under the radar of environmental governance scholars. We build on the small body of existing research on foundations in environmental governance to outline a research agenda on foundations as agents of environmental governance. The agenda identifies current understandings, debates, and research gaps related to three themes: 1) the roles foundations perform in environmental governance, 2) the outcomes of environmental philanthropy, and 3) the sources of foundation legitimacy. We call for more systematic and empirical research using diverse theoretical perspectives and methodological approaches. This research agenda will contribute to literature on agency in environmental governance by providing a more comprehensive picture of who governs the environment and how. Coming at a time when foundations are facing growing public scrutiny, it can also inform contemporary debates and offer practical insights for effective and equitable environmental philanthropy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Large‐scale marine protected areas (LSMPAs) have proliferated in recent years, now accounting for most of the world's MPA coverage. However, little is known about LSMPA outcomes and the factors that affect them. Here we argue that policy interactions—the cumulative effect of co‐existing policies for an issue and/or geographical area—can play a critical, but under‐recognized, role in influencing LSMPA design and outcomes. We analyze interactions between national LSMPAs within Palau and Kiribati, and regional fisheries management established by the Nauru Agreement to show how policy actors can account for policy interactions in LSMPA design, and to demonstrate the profound influence that policy interactions can have on the economic and conservation outcomes of LSMPAS. We draw on our analysis to distill lessons for our case studies and LSMPAs globally. We emphasize that policy interactions are dynamic and malleable: they should be proactively managed to stimulate synergy and address conflict. Understanding and managing policy interactions is complex and context‐specific, requiring dedicated resources, cross‐sectoral coordination, and sophisticated scientific and practical policy expertise. To avoid undesirable consequences and capitalize on opportunities to secure multiple benefits, we recommend that policy actors systematically evaluate, monitor, and adapt to policy interactions throughout LSMPA design and implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although increasingly common in the academy, collaboration is not yet the norm in human geography. Drawing on insights from ten years of experience with collaborative event ethnography (CEE), we argue that strong approaches to collaborative fieldwork offer rich opportunities for human geography. CEE involves teams of researchers conducting fieldwork together at large international events, collaborating on all aspects of the research process from research design to analysis and writing. This paper considers the benefits and challenges of CEE. Some of the benefits associated with strong collaborative fieldwork include: robust, collective interpretation of embodied data that makes room for difference; intellectual and social support for individual researchers; professional development and mentoring; and adaptability. Challenges encompass: Collectively interpreting data produced through individual, embodied experiences; managing team dynamics related to seniority, gender, and disciplinary training; meeting professional and institutional expectations and norms; valuing and recognizing individual contributions; and ensuring sufficient funding to support team preparation, data collection, and analysis. Strong collaborative approaches to fieldwork, like CEE, can cultivate slow scholarship and innovative knowledge production. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Polycentricity is a fundamental concept in commons scholarship that connotes a complex form of governance with multiple centers of semiautonomous decision making. If the decision‐making centers take each other into account in competitive and cooperative relationships and have recourse to conflict resolution mechanisms, they may be regarded as a polycentric governance system. In the context of natural resource governance, commons scholars have ascribed a number of advantages to polycentric governance systems, most notably enhanced adaptive capacity, provision of good institutional fit for natural resource systems, and mitigation of risk on account of redundant governance actors and institutions. Despite the popularity of the concept, systematic development of polycentricity, including its posited advantages, is lacking in the commons literature. To build greater clarity and specificity around the concept, we develop a theoretical model of a polycentric governance system with a focus on the features necessary or conducive for achieving the functioning predicted by commons scholars. The model is comprised of attributes, which constitute the definitional elements, and enabling conditions, which specify additional institutional features for achieving functionality in the commons. The model we propose takes the concept a step further toward specificity without sacrificing the generality necessary for contextual application and further development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Large marine protected areas (LMPAs) are a high-profile trend in global marine conservation. Although the social sciences have become well integrated into marine protected area research and practice, human dimensions considerations have not been an early priority in the development of many LMPAs. This article argues that because LMPAs exhibit unique characteristics in form, function, and/or conceptualization, they warrant a distinct social science research agenda. We outline an agenda for social science research on and for LMPAs in four related themes: scoping of human dimensions, governance, politics, and social and economic outcomes. The article is informed by interviews, participant observation at the 2014 World Parks Congress, a literature review and the authors' research experiences. LMPAs are at an early stage in what promises to be a globally significant, long-term project of ocean conservation and governance. There is a timely opportunity to translate relevant insights from decades of social science research to LMPAs and generate new knowledge, where necessary, to give them their best chance at biological and social success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]