Environmental Governance: A Practical Framework To Guide Design .
Received: 7 November 2017Revised: 6 June 2018Accepted: 1 July 2018DOI: 10.1111/conl.12600REVIEWEnvironmental governance: A practical framework to guidedesign, evaluation, and analysisNathan J. Bennett1,2,3Terre Satterfield11 Institute for Resources, Environment, andSustainability, University of British Columbia,Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6T 1Z42 Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, Univer-sity of British Columbia, Canada, Vancouver,BC, Canada, V6T 1Z43 Center for Ocean Solutions, Stanford Univer-sity, Stanford, CA, USAAbstractGovernance is one of the most important factors for ensuring effective environmentalmanagement and conservation actions. Yet, there is still a relative paucity of comprehensive and practicable guidance that can be used to frame the evaluation, design,and analysis of systems of environmental governance. This conceptual review andsynthesis article seeks to addresses this problem through resituating the broad bodyCorrespondenceNathan Bennett, University of BritishColumbia, AERL Building, 429–2202 MainMall, Vancouver, BC Canada V6T 1Z4.Email: nathan.bennett@ubc.caof governance literature into a practical framework for environmental governance.Our framework builds on a rich history of governance scholarship to propose thatFunding informationLiber Ero Fellowship Program; OceanCanadaPartnership; Social Sciences and HumanitiesResearch Council of Canada, Grant/AwardNumbers: SSHRC IDG #430-2014-00569,SSHRC IG #F12-04439be considered simultaneously across the institutional, structural, and procedural elements of environmental governance. Through a review of the literature, we developedEditorAndrew Knightenvironmental governance has four general aims or objectives – to be effective, to beequitable, to be responsive, and to be robust. Each of these four objectives need toa set of attributes for each of these objectives and relate these to the overall capacity,functioning, and performance of environmental governance. Our aim is to providea practical and adaptable framework that can be applied to the design, evaluation,and analysis of environmental governance in different social and political contexts, todiverse environmental problems and modes of governance, and at a range of scales.KEYWORDSconservation, effective governance, environmental governance, environmental management, equitable governance, responsive governance, robust governance1I N T RO D U C T I O NWhile environmental problems are often viewed as havingtechnical, managerial, or behavioral dimensions, increasingattention has been paid to environmental governance as anoverarching means to address these complexities. Indeed,interest in environmental governance has led to research atall scales from the local to the global and focused on issuessuch as resource scarcity and conflicts, allocation and access,and biodiversity conservation in forest, agricultural, freshwater, marine, and even atmospheric systems. One broad andenduring insight from this research is that governance is oneof the most important factors in enabling or undermining theeffectiveness of conservation and environmental management(Armitage, de Loë, & Plummer, 2012; Lockwood, Davidson,Curtis, Stratford, & Griffith, 2010; Ostrom, 1999). Yet, weargue that there is still a relative paucity of comprehensive andpracticable guidance that can be used to frame the evaluation,design, and analysis of systems of environmental governance.This is a bold claim to make regarding a field that is as broadas it is deep. This is especially so as the academic literature onenvironmental governance has produced a plethora of governance theories and analytical frameworks. For example, environmental governance scholars have developed theory in theThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the originalwork is properly cited. 2018 The Authors. Conservation Letters published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Conservation Letters. yonlinelibrary.com/journal/conl1 of 13
BENNETT AND SATTERFIELD2 of 13areas of common-pool resource governance (Agrawal, 2003;Ostrom, 1999), adaptive governance (Armitage, Berkes, &Doubleday, 2010; Brunner, 2005; Folke et al., 2005), anticipatory governance (Boyd, Nykvist, Borgström, & Stacewicz,2015), institutional governance (Adger, Brown, & Tompkins,2005; Paavola, 2007), good governance (Graham, Amos, &Plumtree, 2003; Lockwood et al., 2010), and global environmental governance (O'Neill, 2009; Young, 1997) to name buta few subfields. A prevailing sentiment across these literatures is that of “good” governance – or that the evaluation ofenvironmental governance is inherently normative. Our particular aim then is to garner from these diverse areas of theory to characterize key features of governance (i.e., objectivesand attributes) that can be applied to the design, evaluation,and analysis of environmental governance. We do so whileaccepting that it is beyond the scope of this article to providea detailed review of this extensive theoretical literature.Several notable challenges to the uptake and application ofinsights from governance scholarship are evident and needto be addressed if this body of work is to improve conservation and environmental management. First, the field as awhole can be quite theoretical, and thus seem overwhelming and inaccessible to many policymakers, managers, practitioners, and scientists from other fields who might wish toapply governance concepts, theories, or frameworks to helpameliorate real-world environmental problems. Second, thereis often a lack of conceptual and analytical clarity about thedifference between governance and management in much ofthe recent applied research on the topic (Lockwood, 2010).Third, many of the past studies that focus on evaluating oranalyzing environmental governance often focus on a limited set of features rather than considering the wider array ofgovernance objectives and related attributes (Table 1). Thismay be due to the adherence by different researchers to different governance theories (e.g., adaptive governance, goodgovernance) or frameworks (e.g., the social-ecological systems framework) and the application of the specific factorsor particular indicators that they propose. While there is significant overlap, lack of integration across governance theories has meant that a more comprehensive analytical framework is still needed. Finally, past research has often focusedon normative or procedural considerations (e.g., participation,recognition, access to justice) rather than substantive concerns(e.g., ecological and social outcomes) related to different governance regimes. This has meant that the links between governance capacity, functioning, and performance are often notclear – though some recent empirical research has emerged toexamine and clarify the links between governance inputs andprocesses and social and ecological outcomes (Bodin, 2017;Cohen, Evans, & Mills, 2012; Plummer, Baird et al., 2017).This conceptual review and synthesis article seeks toaddress these problems through resituating the broad bodyof governance literature – including the languages, terms,methods, and metrics – to provide a much needed comprehensive and practical framework and a common lexicon for futureengagements. Our aim is to provide a framework that can beadapted and applied to the design, evaluation, and analysis ofthe capacity, functioning, and performance of environmentalgovernance in diverse contexts and at a range of scales.2 TOWARD A CO M P REH ENS IV EA N D P R AC T I CA L FR A M E WO R KFOR E N V I RON M E N TA LG OVERNANCE2.1MethodsOur first step was to reduce the complexity of the main analytical elements, objectives, and related attributes that pertain to environmental governance while still being comprehensive (Figure 1). When developing the framework, we firstreviewed the literature to ascertain clear definitions and conceptualizations of the analytical elements (i.e., institutions,structures, and processes) of governance (see below). Wethen reviewed the academic literature on environmental governance to develop a comprehensive list of considerations(alternately termed principles, attributes, or indicators of governance by different authors) associated with the capacity,functioning, and performance of governance. As our aim wasto be comprehensive, we reviewed the literature until thematic saturation was achieved – that is, no new themes wereemerging. To develop a summary list of attributes and objectives from this long list, we combined commensurate termsinto a set of 19 attributes, which we checked against the literature to ensure comprehensive thematic coverage. Finally,we assigned these attributes to four overarching categoriesthat encompass the general aims or objectives of environmental governance. In so doing, we sought to evaluate and construct each category according to guidance on designing clearand appropriate attributes and objectives. That is, we ensuredthey were: distinct, comprehensive, direct, operational, understandable and unambiguous (Keeney, 2007; Keeney & Gregory, 2005). A summary of this review of the literature is inTable 1 with supporting references provided throughout thetext, whereas a more succinct representation of the primaryobjectives and attributes as they relate to the elements of governance is in the framework in Figure 1.2.2 Definition and conceptual elements ofenvironmental governanceGovernance is generally defined as the institutions, structures, and processes that determine who makes decisions,how and for whom decisions are made, whether, how and whatactions are taken and by whom and to what effect (Grahamet al., 2003; Lockwood et al., 2010). An important conceptual
BENNETT AND SATTERFIELDTABLE 13 of 13Objectives, attributes, characteristics, outputs and outcomes of environmental governanceObjectivesEffective Supportsmaintenance ofsystem integrityand functioning.Attributes(Qualities orCapacities)General Characteristics orInputs (Capacity)Idealized Outputs(Functioning)Idealized Outcomes(Performance)DirectionScope, goals and aims arecomprehensive, clearlyarticulated andcommunicated tostakeholders. Clearboundaries on actionand scope exist.Defines what effectiveaction encompasses andsets milestones forachieving success. Improvement inecosystem functioning. Greater biodiversity orspecies. Increases inproductivity of systemor provisioning ofecosystem services. Better environmentalhealth.CoordinationThe roles, functions, andmandates of differentgovernments, agenciesand organizations arecoordinated. Acoordinating body orunit is present.CapacityCapacity, skills andresources are sufficientand are being activelydeveloped. Capable andvisionary leadership ispresent. Mechanismsare present to resolveconflicts betweengroups.Planning andmanagement decisionsand actions are informedby best availableinformation andintegration of a diversityof knowledge types andsystems.Procedures are present tohold governorsaccountable forperformance of system.Mechanisms are in placeto ensure that means andrationales for makingdecisions aretransparent.Efficacy guides decisionsregarding managementactions and deploymentof resources. Timerequirements of actorsare reasonable.Economic costs andactions taken arecommensurate withproductivity of system.Produces system of rulesfor use, mechanisms forexclusion, managementactions and spatialcoverage that arecomplementary andadequate to achieveobjectives. Provides aforum for discussion,debate, negotiating andresolving trade-offs.Enables successfuldecision-making and theinitiation, organization,implementation andevaluation of actions.InformedAccountableEfficientIncreases the likelihoodthat managementactions will lead toeffective outcomes.Ensures that governorsact on mandateddecisions and thateffective actions arebeing taken.Maximizes theproductivity ofmanagement actionswhile minimizing thewasteful use of availableresources.continued
BENNETT AND SATTERFIELD4 of 13TABLE 1ContinuedObjectivesEquitableEmploys inclusiveprocesses andproduces fairoutcomes.Attributes(qualities orcapacities)General characteristics orinputs (capacity)Idealized outputs(functioning)Idealized Outcomes(performance)RecognitionPolicies and processesensure acknowledgementof, respect for andincorporation of diverseperspectives, values,cultures and rights. Viewsof marginalized andvulnerable groups areconsidered.Facilitates sociallyacceptable governance andperceptions of legitimacy.Aids in the design ofmanagement actions thatare appropriate to thesocial context. Inclusion indecision-makingprocesses. Improvedsocio-economicoutcomes. Increases in quality oflife or wellbeing. More fair distributionof wealth. Better access to justiceand protection of rights.ParticipationSpaces and processes toenable participation andcollective choice arepresent. Structures thatensure the representationand engagement ofdifferent stakeholdergroups are in place.FairMechanisms are in place toensure socio-economiccosts and benefits are justand fairly distributed.Rights and responsibilitiesare shared and assignedfairly. Unequalcircumstances areconsidered.Laws and policies arepresent to protect localrights and mechanismsensure that groups haveaccess to justice.Contributes to just powerrelations anddecision-makingprocesses. Leads to plansand actions that representthe interests of differentgroups. Allows parties todemocratically debatedecisions and maintaindignity.Ensures a fair balance ofcosts and benefits accrueto different groups.JustResponsiveEnablesadaptation todiverse contextsand changingconditions.LearningMonitoring, evaluation,reflections andcommunication ofperformance isinstitutionalized.Processes and platformsare in place to co-produceknowledge and enhancesocial and institutionalmemory.AnticipatoryLong-term planning andforesight thinking areinstitutionalized. Knownand unknown risks andopportunities areconsidered, analyzed andplanned for.Ensures rights (e.g., title,historical tenure, access,use, management) are notundermined and thatreparations orcompensation are madefor past damages.Ensures that information isproduced, documented,shared and informsdecision-making. Enables the resilienceof resource. Enables the resilienceof local communities. More adaptableinstitutions to changingconditions. More flexibleinstitutions that can bealtered to work indifferent contexts.Produces plans and steps toprepare and preventconsequences ofunexpected risks.Enhances knowledge,capacity and flexibility fordisturbance.Continued
BENNETT AND SATTERFIELDTABLE 15 of 13ContinuedObjectivesAttributes(qualities orcapacities)AdaptiveInnovativeFlexibleRobust Ensuresfunctioninginstitutions persist,maintainperformance andcope withperturbations andcrises.LegitimateConnectedNestedGeneral characteristics orinputs (capacity)Spaces for reflection anddeliberation areinstitutionalized. Processesexist to revisit and evolvepolicies, institutions andadapt actions.Innovation andexperimentation isencouraged and success andfailures are monitored. Ahigher risk tolerance isembodied.Policies exist that recognizethe need to downscaleenvironmental managementand conservation models tofit local realities. Efforts aretaken to understand anddocument about the diversecontexts where policies areapplied and to deliberate onnecessary adjustments.A collective vision shapespolicies and guides actionsat all scales. Institutionallegitimacy is conferred(e.g., in policy) andperceived (e.g., byconstituents). Governors actwith integrity andconsistency. Institutions aretransparent.Networks of organizationsand actors are stronglylinked vertically andhorizontally. Bridgingorganizations are present.Processes are in place tosupport networkdevelopment, to developsocial relations and tosupport mutual learning.Tasks are assigned toappropriate levels.Decision-making authorityand responsibility areconferred to the lowest levelpossible. Self-organizationis encouraged andsupported. Authority andresponsibility is supportedby adequate state or otheroutside support (legalrecognition, political will,time commitment) andoversight.Idealized outputs (functioning)Idealized Outcomes(performance)Ensures that managementplans and actions are beingactively adapted to reflectchanging social-ecologicalcontexts and newknowledge.Allows change to be seen asan opportunity. Enablesnew and more effectiveideas and actions to emerge.Enables governance systemsand management models tobe adjusted to better fit withlocal social, cultural,political, economic andenvironmental contexts.Ascertains that there issupport from above and thatthere is a supportiveconstituency. Institutions arestrengthened and wellsupported. Institutionalperformance andfunctioning is more orless consistent. Institutions persist overtime.Helps to bridge between andacross scales. Createssupportive community,produces social capital,fosters respect and trust andbuilds social memory.Encouragescommunication,information exchange,enables diffusion ofinnovations, and facilitatescollaboration.Empowers appropriate entityto take necessary action.Allows also for shaping andadapting institutions anddecision-making processesto different localsub-contexts (socialcircumstances, governance,ecologies) within largersystem.Continued
BENNETT AND SATTERFIELD6 of 13TABLE 1ObjectivesContinuedAttributes(qualities orcapacities)PolycentricGeneral characteristics orinputs (capacity)Idealized outputs (functioning)Decision-making and actiontaking centers in multipleplaces, across jurisdictionsand at multiple scalesinteract and cohere towardsa common goal. Institutionsare present that are diverseand redundant - that servesimilar purposes and haveoverlapping jurisdictionsand functions.distinction needs to be made between governance and management: the latter refers to the resources, plans, and actionsthat result from the functioning of governance (Lockwood,2010). The aim of environmental governance, in particular, isto manage individual behaviors or collective actions in pursuance of public environmental goods and related societaloutcomes (Armitage et al., 2012; Termeer, Dewulf, & VanLieshout, 2010). To comprehend environmental governanceis to understand how decisions related to the environmentare made and whether resultant policies and processes leadto environmentally and socially sustainable outcomes. Theanalysis of environmental governance focuses on the capacity, functioning, and/or performance of the institutional, structural, and procedural elements of governance (Figure 1)Drawing first on early work by North (1990), we furtherdefine institutions as both the formal (e.g., constitutions, laws,policies, tenure systems) and informal rules (e.g., culturalcontext, social norms, prevailing power structures) that shapehuman interactions (e.g., in the form of decision-makingstructures and processes) and that guide, support, or constrainhuman or management actions. The term structures refersto the formalized bodies or entities (e.g., decision-makingarrangements, comanagement bodies) and organizations(e.g., levels of government, private sector organizations, civilsociety organizations) as well as informal networks of actorsand organizations that embody governance capacities (e.g.,efficiency, participation) and perform different functions(e.g., producing rules and decisions, enabling managementactions). Governance processes, which are the means forrealizing the functions and the performance of governance,include articulation of institutional mandates, negotiation ofvalues, conflict resolution, law making, policy formation,diffusion of information, and application of policy. These processes, then, play an important role in both decision-makingand the implementation of those decisions. Environmentalgovernance structures and processes can come together in different ways – for example, governance can be driven from theIdealized Outcomes(performance)Helps to buffer againstchange in one location.Ensures that the governancesystem does not collapsewhen faced with adversityor crises.top by governments or private individuals or actors, from thebottom by local communities, or via shared decision-makingand authority through formal comanagement arrangementsor informal networks of actors and organizations. Moreover,the institutional, structural, and procedural elements ofgovernance are understood to occur at various scales fromlocal to global, to interact across scales, and to have an effecton the capacity, performance, and outcomes of environmentalgovernance (North, 1990; Young, 1997).2.3 Objectives and attributes forenvironmental governancePrevious governance scholarship and frameworks tend to prioritize or even neglect certain fundamental objectives ofenvironmental governance. It is not surprising, for example,that the literatures on adaptive and anticipatory governanceemphasize features that enable responsive-ness, such as learning, innovation, foresight, and adaptation (Armitage et al.,2010; Boyd et al., 2015). Good governance frameworks, onthe other hand, focus heavily on normative concerns relatedto equity, such as participation, fairness and justice, as wellas transparency and legitimacy, but tend to give less attentionto effectiveness (Graham et al., 2003; Lockwood, 2010). Theresearch applying institutional and network governance theories have tended to concentrate on institutional robustness(Cudney-Bueno & Basurto, 2009; Morrison, 2017) and thefunctional effectiveness of governance at practices and processes such as knowledge sharing or collaboration (Cárcamo,Garay-Flühmann, & Gaymer, 2014; Wyborn, 2015a). Problematically, across much the environmental governance literature, effectiveness at achieving ecological outcomes is oftenassumed or relegated to discussions of management.Some authors have put forward various proposals formore integrative sets of governance objectives. For example,Adger et al. (2002) proposed that four broad integrated andindivisible criteria be taken into account in environmental
BENNETT AND SATTERFIELDgovernance and decision-making: efficiency, effectiveness,equity, and legitimacy. Recent literature on protected areasgovernance use evaluative indicators under the broad butvague categories of quality, diversity, and vitality (BorriniFeyerabend & Hill, 2015). Alternately, while not focused onthe environment, North (2010) suggests that economic changedepends on having societal institutions that are productive,stable, fair, broadly accepted, and flexible. There are numerous other proposals. Yet, we felt there was no framework or setof objectives that adequately captured the entirety of potential aims and attributes of governance, nor that was easilyapplied to diverse contexts, problems, scales, and types ofgovernance.Thus, our framework builds on a rich history of governance scholarship but proposes a different set of overarching objectives supported by a more comprehensive set ofattributes. Our literature review and categorization suggeststhat environmental governance has four generalizable and distinct objectives – to be effective, to be equitable, to be responsive, and to be robust – that ought to be considered simultaneously across institutional, structural, and procedural elements(Figure 1). We define the four objectives as follows: (1) effective governance supports the maintenance of system integrityand functioning; (2) equitable governance employs inclusiveprocesses and produces fair outcomes; (3) responsive governance enables adaptation to diverse contexts and changing conditions; and (4) robust governance ensures that functioning institutions persist, maintain performance, and copewith perturbations and crises. Below, we briefly review theattributes that correspond with each objective (see Table 1 fora summary).2.3.1Effective environmental governanceA central objective of environmental governance is maintaining or improving the ability of environmental systems to function and to produce ecosystem servicesthrough the persistence of species, habitats or biodiversity (see Figure 1). Attributes of the first objective– effective environmental governance – include: direction, coordination, capacity, informed, accountable, andefficient. Clear direction is provided through precision in the articulation of vision, goals, aims, and theestablishment of clear boundaries on action and scope(Graham et al., 2003; Lockwood et al., 2010; Wyborn,2015b). This establishes what effective action encompassesand sets milestones for achieving success. Coordination of theroles, functions, and mandates of different governments andorganizations, perhaps through a coordinating body or comanagement unit, helps instead to establish systems of rules,ensure the adequacy of management actions, and resolvetrade-offs (Abe, Brown, Ajao, & Donkor, 2016; Wyborn,2015a). The presence and active development of capacity,7 of 13including skills (e.g., leadership, conflict resolution) andresources (e.g., financial, infrastructure), enables the initiationof planning processes and implementation of managementactions (Armitage et al., 2010; Lockwood et al., 2010;Wyborn, 2015b). When planning and management decisionsare informed by the best available knowledge – which includesdiverse and integrated knowledge types (natural and social)and of systems (scientific, local, and indigenous) – this canincrease the likelihood of effective outcomes (Charnley et al.,2017; Tengö, Brondizio, Elmqvist, Malmer, & Spierenburg,2014). Clear mechanisms to hold governors accountablecan help to ensure that mandated decisions are followed andeffective actions are being taken (Lockwood, 2010; Lockwood et al., 2010; Secco, Da Re, Pettenella, & Gatto, 2014).Transparency, in communicating the means and rationales fordecisions and the outcomes of potential future or past actions,makes accountability possible. Efficient governance requiresthat time requirements of actors are reasonable, that efficacyguides the choice of management actions and deploymentof public resources, and that costs and actions are commensurate with system productivity (Ostrom, 1990; Seccoet al., 2014).2.3.2Equitable environmental governanceSecond, to achieve the objective of being socially equitable,environmental governance should engage decision-makingprocesses and produce socioeconomic outcomes that mightbe characterized as: inclusive, participatory, fair, and just.Equitable environmental governance begins with policiesand processes that recognize, respect, and are inclusive of theperspectives, knowledge systems, values, cultures, and rightsof diverse stakeholders (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2015;Lockwood et al., 2010; McDermott, Mahanty, & Schreckenberg, 2013), including the views of groups who are oftenmarginalized (e.g., women, indigenous peoples, or minoritygroups) or vulnerable (e.g., impoverished communities).Effective participation requires context and scale-specificspaces, processes, and structures to enable inclusion, representation, and engagement of stakeholder groups in collectivedecision-making processes (Lockwood, 2010; Reed, 2008).This facilitates the sharing of power, democratically debateddecisions, maintenance of dignity, and the creation of representative plans and actions. Power- and benefit-sharingmechanisms can help ensure that the socioeconomic benefitsand burdens of conservation and environmental management are distributed in a fair manner, and that rights andresponsibilities are shared and assigned commensurate tocircumstances (Bennett, Teh et al., 2017; Pascual et al., 2014;Zafra-Calvo et al., 2017). Finally, equitable governance issafeguarded when laws and policies are present to protectlocal rights and tenure, ensure that consent is freely given,and groups have access to justice to defend against incursions
BENNETT AND SATTERFIELD8 of 13FIGURE 1A practical framework for understanding the objectives, attributes, and elements of environmental governanceor facilitate reparations and/or compensation for past wrongs(Bennett, Teh et al., 2017; FAO, 2012).2.3.3Responsive environmental governanceThird, the objective of being responsive ensures thatenvironmental governance is adaptable both to changingenvironmental and social conditions and to diverse contexts. Responsive environmental governance arrangementsexemplify: learning, anticipation, adaptability, innovation,and flexibility. Institutional and social learning is realizedthrough ongoing monitoring and evaluation, communication,and reflection on the social and ecological performance ofenvironmental governance (Armitage & Plummer, 2011).Collective memory, and consequently the ability to effectivelymanage and adapt to change, is enhanced through practicessuch as documentation and sharing of lessons learned,knowledge coproduction, and developing communities ofpractice (Berkes & Turner, 2006; Maida & Beck, 2016). Theknowledge and capacity to address disturbances can alsobe improved through the institutionalization of anticipationor foresight, including consideration, analysis, and planning for the consequences of both chronic and acute risks(Boyd et al., 2015; Tschakert & Dietrich, 2010). Adaptiveenvironmental governance is enabled by institutionalizedspaces for dialogue, reflection and deliberation, and clearprocesses and steps to ensure that policies, institutions, andmanagement actions are periodically revisited and activelyupdated or changed when required (Armitage et al., 2010;Dietz, Ostrom, & Stern, 2003). A culture of innovation,coupled with a higher risk tolerance, encourages experimentation with new ideas and the monitoring and documentation
BENNETT AND SATTERFIELDof successes and failures to enable effective management actions to emerge (Chaffin et al., 2016; Dietz et al.,2003). Rather than promoting one-size-fits-all approaches,flexibility in institutions and policies allows for thecalibrating of environmental management and conservation models to diverse local realities (Epstein et al., 2015;Gaymer e
and analysis of systems of environmental governance. This conceptual review and synthesis article seeks to addresses this problem through resituating the broad body of governance literature into a practical framework for environmental governance. Our framework builds on a rich history of governance scholarship to propose that
We propose the Big Data Governance Framework to facilitate successful implementation in this study. Big Data governance framework presents additional criteria from existing data governance focused on data quality level. The Big Data governance framework focuses on timely, reliable, meaningful, and sufficient data services.
IoT, discuss how IoT operations can be governed and what is needed, including the roles and responsibilities involved in IoT governance, and describe a proposed governance framework implementation as well as the future challenges facing IoT governance. This paper is intended to showcase how IoT governance can be implemented.
PART III Globalism, liberalism, and governance 191 9 Governance in a globalizing world 193 ROBERT O. KEOHANE AND JOSEPH S. NYE JR., 2000 Defining globalism 193 Globalization and levels of governance 202 Globalization and domestic governance 204 The governance of globalism: regimes, networks, norms 208 Conclusions: globalism and governance 214
This section of the FHWA Data Governance Plan provides the organizational framework for how Data Governance will be managed within the Agency. 1.1 IntroductIon This document is intended to provide a brief introduction to Data Governance and how it will be implemented within the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The Data Governance Plan
Objectives of the ISSA Guidelines on Good Governance 10 Definition of Good Governance 11 Governance Framework for Social Security Institutions 13 Structure of the ISSA Guidelines on Good Governance 15 Acknowledgements 16 A. Good Governance Guidelines for the Board and Management 17 A.1. Principles and Guidelines for the Board 18 A.1.1.
National Model Clinical Governance Framework i Contents Foreword ii Summary iii Introduction 1 Corporate (organisational) governance of health service organisations 3 Key concepts 3 Responsibilities of governing bodies for corporate governance 3 Clinical governance and the National
model to a practical model. Governance model alone will not allow us to bridge the gap between control requirements, technical issues and business risks. As a result, we introduce a new Cloud governance framework using the processes on the new Cloud governance model. 1 INTRODUCTION Cloud Comp
English Language Arts: Grade 2 READING Guiding Principle: Students read a wide range of fiction, nonfiction, classic, and contemporary works, to build an understanding of texts, of themselves, and of the cultures of the United States and the world; to acquire new information; to respond to the needs and demands of society and the workplace .
