Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-56f9d74cfd-2vtd9 Total loading time: 0.298 Render date: 2022-06-26T17:12:43.792Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

Moving beyond panaceas: a multi-tiered diagnostic approach for social-ecological analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 November 2010

ELINOR OSTROM*
Affiliation:
Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47408, USA
MICHAEL COX
Affiliation:
Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47408, USA
*
*Correspondence: Dr Elinor Ostrom Tel: +1 812 855 0441 Fax: +1 812 855 3150 assistant's e-mail: stodd@indiana.edu

Summary

Disturbances to key aspects of ecological systems, including biodiversity loss, climate change, pollution and natural resource degradation, have become a major concern to many policy analysts. Instead of learning from the study of biological complexity however, social scientists tend to recommend simple panaceas, particularly government or private ownership, as ‘the’ way to solve these problems. This paper reviews and assesses potential solutions for such overly simplified institutional prescriptions, referred to here as the ‘panacea problem’. In contrast to these simple prescriptions, recent research efforts are now illustrating the diversity of institutions around the world related to environmental conservation. The complexity of working institutions, however, presents a challenge to scholars who equate scientific knowledge with relatively simple models that predict optimal performance if specific institutional arrangements are in place. Dealing with this complexity has led to the development of frameworks as meta-theoretical tools. The institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework has been used over the last three decades as a foundation for a focused analysis of how institutions affect human incentives, actions and outcomes. Building on this foundation, the social-ecological systems (SES) framework has recently enabled researchers to begin the development of a common language that crosses social and ecological disciplines to analyse how interactions among a variety of factors affect outcomes. Such a framework may be able to facilitate a diagnostic approach that will help future analysts overcome the panacea problem. Using a common framework to diagnose the source, and possible amelioration, of poor outcomes for ecological and human systems enables a much finer understanding of these complex systems than has so far been obtained, and provides a basis for comparisons among many systems and ultimately more responsible policy prescriptions.

Type
THEMATIC ISSUE: Interdisciplinary Progress in Environmental Science & Management
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agrawal, A. (2003) Sustainable governance of common-pool resources: context, methods, and politics. Annual Review of Anthropology 32: 234262.Google Scholar
Agrawal, A. (2005) Environmentality: Technologies of Government and the Making of Subjects. Durham, NC, USA: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Agrawal, A., Chhatre, A. & Hardin, R. (2008) Changing governance of the world's forests. Science 320: 14601462.Google Scholar
Alchian, A. & Demsetz, H. (1973) The property right paradigm. Journal of Economic History 33 (1): 1627.Google Scholar
Anderies, J.M., Janssen, M. & Ostrom, E. (2004) A framework to analyze the robustness of social-ecological systems from an institutional perspective. Ecology and Society 9 (1): 18.Google Scholar
Andersson, K., Gibson, C. & Lehoucq, F. (2006) Municipal politics and forest governance: comparative analysis of decentralization in Bolivia and Guatemala. World Development 34 (3): 576595.Google Scholar
Armitage, D., Berkes, F. & Doubleday, N., eds (2007) Adaptive Co-Management: Collaboration, Learning and Multi-Level Governance. Vancouver, Canada: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Banana, A.Y. & Gombya-Ssembajjwe, W. (2000) Successful forest management: the importance of security of tenure and rule enforcement in Ugandan forests. In: People and Forests: Communities, Institutions, and Governance, ed. Gibson, C.C., McKean, M.A. & Ostrom, E., pp. 8798. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Banana, A.Y., Vogt, N., Bahati, J. & Gombya-Ssembajjwe, W. (2007) Decentralized governance and ecological health: why local institutions fail to moderate deforestation in Mpigi District of Uganda. Scientific Research and Essays 2 (10): 434445.Google Scholar
Barrett, C.B., Brandon, K., Gibson, C. & Gjertsen, H. (2001) Conserving tropical biodiversity amid weak institutions. Bioscience 51: 497502.Google Scholar
Batistella, M., Robeson, S. & Moran, E.F. (2003) Settlement design, forest fragmentation, and landscape change in Rondônia, Amazônia. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 69 (7): 805812.Google Scholar
Berkes, F. (2002) Cross-scale institutional linkages: perspectives from the bottom up. In: The Drama of the Commons, ed. Ostrom, E., Dietz, T., Dolšak, N., Stern, P.C., Stonich, S. & Weber, E.U., pp. 293322. Washington, DC, USA: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Berkes, F. (2007) Community-based conservation in a globalized world. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104 (39): 1518815193.Google Scholar
Berkes, F. & Folke, C. (1998) Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge, MA, USA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Berkes, F. & Turner, N.J. (2006) Knowledge, learning and the evolution of conservation practice for social-ecological system resilience. Human Ecology 34 (4): 479494.Google Scholar
Blaikie, P. (2006) Is small really beautiful? Community-based natural resource management in Malawi and Botswana. World Development 34 (11): 19421957.Google Scholar
Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Pimbert, M., Farvar, M.T., Kothari, A. & Renard, Y. (2007) Sharing Power: Learning-By-Doing in Co-Management of Natural Resources. London, UK: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Brander, J.A. & Scott Taylor, M. (1998) Open access renewable resources: trade and trade policy in a two-country model. Journal of International Economics 44: 181209.Google Scholar
Bray, D.B. (2010) Capitalism meets common-property. Americas Quarterly Winter: 30–35.Google Scholar
Brock, W.A. & Carpenter, S.R. (2007) Panaceas and diversification of environmental policy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104 (39): 1520615211.Google Scholar
Bromley, D., Feeny, D., McKean, M., Peters, P., Gilles, J., Oakerson, R., Runge, C.F. & Thomson, J., eds. (1992) Making the Commons Work: Theory, Practice, and Policy. San Francisco, CA, USA: ICS Press.Google Scholar
Brunckhorst, D.J. (2010) Using context in novel community-based natural resource management: landscapes of property, policy and place. Environmental Conservation 37 (1): 1622.Google Scholar
Brunckhorst, D., Coop, P. & Reeve, I. (2006) ‘Eco-civic’ optimisation: a nested framework for planning and managing landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 72 (5): 117134.Google Scholar
Brunckhorst, D., Reeve, I., Morley, P. & Bock, K. (2008) Strategic spatial governance: deriving social–ecological frameworks for managing landscapes and regions. In: Landscape Analysis and Visualisation: Spatial Models for Natural Resource Management and Planning, ed. Pettit, C., Cartwright, W., Bishop, I., Lowell, K., Pullar, D. & Duncan, D., pp. 253276. Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
Brunson, M.W. & Huntsinger, L. (2008) Ranching as a conservation strategy: can old ranchers save the new west? Rangeland Ecology and Management 61 (2): 137147.Google Scholar
Campbell, B.M., Gordon, I.J., Luckert, M.K., Petheram, L. & Vetter, S. (2006) In search of optimal stocking regimes in semi-arid grazing lands: one size does not fit all. Ecological Economics 60 (1): 7585.Google Scholar
Canadell, J.G. & Raupach, M.R. (2008) Managing forests for climate change mitigation. Science 320: 14561457.Google Scholar
Carlsson, L. & Berkes, F. (2005) Co-management: concepts and methodological implications. Journal of Environmental Management 75: 6576.Google Scholar
Cash, D.W, Clark, W.C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N.M., Eckley, N., Guston, D.H., Jager, J. & Mitchell, R.B. (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100 (14): 80868091.Google Scholar
Chapin, F.S., Matson, P.A. & Mooney, H.A. (2002) Principles of Terrestrial Ecosystem Ecology. New York, NY, USA: Springer.Google Scholar
Chhatre, A. & Agrawal, A. (2008) Forest commons and local enforcement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105 (36): 1328613291.Google Scholar
Cleaver, F. (1999) Paradoxes of participation: questioning participatory approaches to development. Journal of International Development 11: 597612.Google Scholar
Cleaver, F. (2000) Moral ecological rationality, institutions and the management of common property resources. Development and Change 31 (2): 361383.Google Scholar
Coleman, E. (2009) Institutional factors affecting ecological outcomes in forest management. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 28 (1): 122146.Google Scholar
Coleman, E. & Steed, B. (2009) Monitoring and sanctioning in the commons: an application to forestry. Ecological Economics 68 (7): 21062113.Google Scholar
Cooper, J., Bernstein, J. & Claasen, R. (2005) Overview of agri-environmental programmes in the European Union and the United States. Farm Policy Journal 2:3141.Google Scholar
Cox, M. (2008) Balancing accuracy and meaning in common-pool resource theory. Ecology and Society 13 (2): 44.Google Scholar
Cox, M. (2010) Exploring the dynamics of social-ecological systems: the case of the Taos valley acequias. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, Indiana, USA.Google Scholar
Cox, M., Arnold, B. & Villamayor-Tomas, S. (2010) A review of design principles for community-based natural resource management. Ecology and Society (in press).Google Scholar
Dallmeier, F. & Comiskey, J.A. (1998) Forest Biodiversity in North, Central and South America, and the Caribbean: Research and Monitoring. Paris, France: UNESCO.Google Scholar
Dasgupta, P. & Heal, G.M. (1979) Economic Theory and Exhaustible Resources. Cambridge, MA, USA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Degnbol, P., Gislason, H., Hanna, S., Jentoft, S., Raakjær, J., Nielsen, Sverdrup-Jensen S. & Clyde Wilson, D. (2006) Painting the floor with a hammer: technical fixes in fisheries management. Marine Policy 30: 534543.Google Scholar
Dietz, T., Ostrom, E. & Stern, P.C. (2003) The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302 (5652): 19071912.Google Scholar
Dressler, W., Büscher, B., Schoon, M., Brockington, D., Hayes, T., Kull, C.A., McCarthy, J. & Shrestha, K. (2010) From hope to crisis and back again? A critical history of the global CBNRM narrative. Environmental Conservation 37 (1): 515.Google Scholar
Evans, P. (2004) Development as institutional change: the pitfalls of monocropping and the potentials of deliberation. Studies in Comparative International Development 38 (4): 3052.Google Scholar
Fairfax, S.K., Gwin, L., King, M.A., Raymond, L. & Watt, L.A. (2005) The Limits of Land Acquisition as a Conservation Strategy, 1780–2004. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
FAO (2010) Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010. Rome, Italy: FAO.Google Scholar
Feeny, D., Berkes, F., McCay, B.J. & Acheson, J.M. (1990) The tragedy of the commons: twenty-two years later. Human Ecology 18 (1): 119.Google Scholar
George, A.L. & Bennett, A. (2005) Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ghate, R. & Nagendra, H. (2005) Role of monitoring in institutional performance: forest management in Maharashtra, India. Conservation and Society 3 (2): 509532.Google Scholar
Gibson, C.C., McKean, M.A. & Ostrom, E., eds. (2000) People and Forests: Communities, Institutions, and Governance. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gibson, C.C., Williams, J.T. & Ostrom, E. (2005) Local enforcement and better forests. World Development 33 (2): 273284.Google Scholar
Hackel, J.D. (1999) Community conservation and the future of Africa's wildlife. Conservation Biology 13 (4): 726734.Google Scholar
Hanna, S. & Munasinghe, M. (1995) Property Rights in a Social and Ecological Context; Case Studies and Design Principles. Washington, DC, USA: The Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics and The World Bank.Google Scholar
Hardin, G. (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162 (3859): 12431248.Google Scholar
Hayek, F. (1945) The use of knowledge in society. American Economic Review 35 (4): 519530.Google Scholar
Hayes, T. (2006) Parks, people, and forest protection: an institutional assessment of the effectiveness of protected areas. World Development 34 (12): 20642075.Google Scholar
Hill, R., Williams, K J., Pert, P.L., Robinson, C.J., Dale, A.P., Westcott, D.A., Grace, R.A. & O'Malley, T. (2010) Adaptive community-based biodiversity conservation in Australia's tropical rainforests. Environmental Conservation 37 (1): 7382.Google Scholar
Johnson, K., Swanson, F., Herring, M. & Greene, S. (1999) Bioregional Assessments: Science at the Crossroads of Management and Policy. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press.Google Scholar
Korten, D.C. (1980) Community organization and rural development: a learning process approach. Public Administration Review 40 (5): 480511.Google Scholar
Lam, W.-F. (1998) Governing Irrigation Systems in Nepal: Institutions, Infrastructure, and Collective Action. San Francisco, CA, USA: ICS Press.Google Scholar
Levin, S.A. (1992) The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73: 19431967.Google Scholar
Levin, S.A. (1999) Fragile Dominion: Complexity and the Commons. Cambridge, MA, USA: Perseus Books.Google Scholar
Lovejoy, T.E. (2006) Protected areas: a prism for a changing world. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21: 329333.Google Scholar
Lubell, M. (2005) Public learning and grassroots cooperation. In: Adaptive Governance and Water Conflict: New Institutions for Collaborative Planning, ed. Scholz, J.T. & Stiftel, B., pp. 174184. Washington, DC, USA: Resources for the Future Press.Google Scholar
Marshall, G. (2005) Economics for Collaborative Environmental Management: Renegotiating the Commons. London, UK: Earthscan.Google Scholar
McGinnis, M. (1999) Polycentricity and Local Public Economies: Readings from the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis. Ann Arbor, MI, USA: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
McGinnis, M. (2010) Building a programme for institutional analysis of social-ecological systems: a review of revisions to the SES framework. Working Paper. Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA.Google Scholar
Meinzen-Dick, R. (2007) Beyond panaceas in water institutions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104 (39): 1520015206.Google Scholar
Moller, H., Berkes, F., Lyver, P.O. & Kislalioglu, M. (2004) Combining science and traditional ecological knowledge: monitoring populations for co-management. Ecology and Society 9 (3): 2.Google Scholar
Murphree, M.W. (2002) Protected areas and the commons. Common Property Resource Digest 60: 13.Google Scholar
Netting, R.M. (1972) Of men and meadows: strategies of alpine land use. Anthropological Quarterly 45: 132144.Google Scholar
NRC (1986) Proceedings of the Conference on Common Property Resource Management. Washington, DC, USA: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
NRC (2002) The Drama of the Commons. Washington, DC, USA: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1986) An agenda for the study of institutions. Public Choice 48 (1): 325.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2005) Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2007 a). Institutional rational choice: an assessment of the institutional analysis and development framework. In: Theories of the Policy Process, 2nd edition, ed. Sabatier, P.A., pp. 2164. Boulder, CO, USA: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2007 b) A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104 (39): 1518115187.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325: 419422.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. & Nagendra, H. (2006) Insights on linking forests, trees, and people from the air, on the ground, and in the laboratory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103 (51): 1922419231.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. & Parks, R.B. (1999) Neither gargantua nor the land of lilliputs: conjectures on mixed systems of metropolitan organization. In: Polycentricity and Local Public Economies: Readings from the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, ed. McGinnis, M., pp. 284305. Ann Arbor, MI, USA: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E., Gardner, R. & Walker, J. (1994) Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources. Ann Arbor, MI, USA: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E., Janssen, M. & Anderies, M.A. (2007) Going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104 (39): 1517615178.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E., Parks, R.B. & Whitaker, G.P. (1978) Patterns of Metropolitan Policing. Cambridge, MA, USA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
Ostrom, V. (1999 a) Polycentricity (Part 1). In: Polycentricity and Local Public Economies: Readings from the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, ed. McGinnis, M., pp. 5274. Ann Arbor, MI, USA: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, V. (1999 b) Polycentricity (Part 2). In: Polycentricity and Local Public Economies: Readings from the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, ed. McGinnis, M., pp. 119138. Ann Arbor, MI, USA: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Pagdee, A., Kim, Y. & Daugherty, P.J. (2006) What makes community forest management successful: a meta-study from community forests throughout the world. Society and Natural Resources 19 (1): 3352.Google Scholar
Poteete, A.R. & Ostrom, E. (2004) Heterogeneity, group size and collective action: the role of institutions in forest management. Development and Change 35 (3): 437461.Google Scholar
Poteete, A.R., Janssen, M. & Ostrom, E. (2010) Working Together: Collective Action, the Commons, and Multiple Methods in Practice. Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ragin, C.C. (1987) The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA, USA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ragin, C.C. (2000) Fuzzy Set Social Science. Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ragin, C.C. (2008) Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rose, C. (2002) Common property, regulatory property, and environmental protection: comparing community-based management to tradable environmental allowances. In: The Drama of the Commons, ed. Ostrom, E., Dietz, T., Dolšak, N., Stern, P.C., Stonich, S. & Weber, E., pp. 233258. Washington, DC, USA: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Rudel, T.K. (2008) Meta-analysis of case studies: a method for studying regional and global climate change. Global Environmental Change 18 (1): 1825.Google Scholar
Sandström, C. (2009) Institutional dimensions of comanagement: Participation, power and process. Society and Natural Resources 22: 230244Google Scholar
Satria, A., Matsuda, Y. & Sano, M. (2006) Questioning community based coral reef management systems: case study of Awig-Awig in Gili Indah, Indonesia. Environment, Development and Sustainability 8: 99118.Google Scholar
Schlager, E. (1990) Model specification and policy analysis: the governance of coastal fisheries. PhD dissertation, Indiana University, USA.Google Scholar
Schlager, E. (2007) A comparison of frameworks, theories, and models of policy processes. In: Theories of the Policy Process, 2nd edition, ed. Sabatier, P.A., pp. 293320. Boulder, CO, USA: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Schlager, E. & Ostrom, E. (1992) Property-regimes and natural resources: a conceptual analysis. Land Economics 68 (3): 249262.Google Scholar
Scholz, J.T. & Wang, C-L. (2006) Cooptation or transformation? Local policy networks and federal regulatory enforcement. American Journal of Political Science 50 (1): 8197.Google Scholar
Schoon, M. & Cox, M. (2010) Understanding disturbances and responses in social-ecological systems. Society and Natural Resources. In press.Google Scholar
Scott, J. (1998) Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition have Failed. New Haven, CT, USA: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Shackleton, C. & Shackleton, S. (2004) The importance of non-timber forest products in rural livelihood security and as safety nets: a review of evidence from South Africa. South African Journal of Science 100: 658664.Google Scholar
Shanmugaratnam, N. (1996) Nationalisation, privatisation, and the dilemmas of common property management in western Rajasthan. Journal of Development Studies 33: 163187.Google Scholar
Shivakoti, G.P. & Ostrom, E., eds. (2002) Improving Irrigation Governance and Management in Nepal. San Francisco, CA, USA: ICS Press.Google Scholar
St Martin, K., McCay, B.J., Murray, G., Johnson, T. & Oles, B. (2007) Communities, knowledge and fisheries of the future. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues 7 (2/3): 221239.Google Scholar
Stavins, R.N. (2008) Addressing climate change with a comprehensive U.S. cap-and-trade system. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 24 (2): 298321.Google Scholar
Steins, N.A. & Edwards, V.M. (1999) Collective action on common pool resource management: the contribution of a social constructivist perspective to existing theory. Society and Natural Resources 12: 539557.Google Scholar
Tang, S.Y. (1992) Institutions and Collective Action: Self-Governance in Irrigation. San Francisco, CA, USA: ICS Press.Google Scholar
Terborgh, J. (1999) Requiem for Nature. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press.Google Scholar
Trawick, P.B. (2001) Successfully governing the commons: principles of social organization in an Andean irrigation system. Human Ecology 29 (1): 125.Google Scholar
Tucker, C.M. (2008) Changing Forests: Collective Action, Common Property, and Coffee in Honduras. New York, NY, USA: Springer.Google Scholar
Walker, B. & Salt, D. (2006) Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Ecosystems and People in a Changing World. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press.Google Scholar
Webb, E. & Shivakoti, G.P., eds. (2008) Decentralization, Forests and Rural Communities: Policy Outcomes in South and Southeast Asia. New Delhi, India: Sage India.Google Scholar
Weimer, D.L. & Vining, A.R. (2005) Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice. 4th edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Western, D. & Wright, R.M. (1994) The background to community-based conservation. In: Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-Based Conservation, ed. Western, D. & Wright, R.M., pp. 114. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press.Google Scholar
Wollenberg, E., Merino, L., Agrawal, A. & Ostrom, E. (2007) Fourteen years of monitoring community-managed forests: learning from IFRI's experience. International Forestry Review 9 (2): 670684.Google Scholar
Young, O. (2002) The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay, and Scale. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
304
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Moving beyond panaceas: a multi-tiered diagnostic approach for social-ecological analysis
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Moving beyond panaceas: a multi-tiered diagnostic approach for social-ecological analysis
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Moving beyond panaceas: a multi-tiered diagnostic approach for social-ecological analysis
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *