Conceptual and analytical diversity of environmental governance in Latin America: A systematic review

Conceptual and analytical diversity of environmental governance in Latin America: A systematic review | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Conceptual and analytical diversity of environmental governance in Latin America: A systematic review Gabriela De la Mora-De la Mora This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-1573427/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 7 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract The analysis of environmental governance and the analytical frameworks used to study this concept in Latin America show that the term is diffuse and polysemic. The term governance refers to democratic societies that theoretically encourage the plural participation of actors in decision-making to solve public or collective socioenvironmental problems. However, in Latin America, there is a broad social perception of a democratic deficit that affects the socioenvironmental sphere. The objective of this work is to determine the main trends in studies on environmental governance in Latin America, the most commonly used analytical frameworks and the predominant approaches in order to characterize the scientific and political uses of the concept. A systematic literature review is carried out on databases in English and Spanish, and 140 articles that consider environmental governance using various analytical frameworks are analyzed. The main finding is the predominance of a critical perspective on the effectiveness of environmental governance, as well as the associated institutional components and social organizations, because the democratic practices that should support it are questionable. Systematic review Environmental governance Analytical frameworks Sustainability Latin America Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Introduction The concept of governance is a polysemic and diffuse construction that generically refers to various complex public and social problems, including environmental ones. This term, at least theoretically, refers to the plural participation in decision-making of social actors (individual and collective) directly and indirectly involved in the enjoyment, use, and management of natural resources and territories. Various academic communities in the social sciences (development studies, economics, geography, international relations, planning, political science, public administration, and sociology) use the term to conceptualize abstract analyses associated with coordination and social organization and find patterns of governance in corporate, public and global affairs (Bevir 2013) for the study and formulation of public policies (Porras 2019; Aguilar 2006). The study of governance includes laws, regulations, discursive debates, negotiations, mediation, conflict resolution, elections, public consultations, protests and other decision-making processes of a political nature (politics is understood here as everything concerning the polis , that is, the wide diversity of social relationships that occur in a specific context (Bobbio et al. 1983:960)). The polysemy of governance in its broadest sense crosses the concept of politics (the political, politics, policies) as well as regulation and management (Hufty 2016; Lange et al. 2013). As Lebel et al. (2006) noted, governance is not the exclusive competence of the state through the government but allows reflection on complex societies owing to the existence of a plurality of social subjects with duties and rights, capable of participating in the formulation and solution of common and public problems. Their participation includes generating, refuting and modifying diverse public policies and policy instruments. This perspective allows us to recognize that public affairs are multidimensional and diverse, which is why they exceed the capacities of governments to solve them (Aguilar 2016; Zurbiggen 2011). This phenomenon ideally occurs in societies with democratic governments capable of adopting and promoting dialogue, consensus, empowerment, collaboration, coordination and plural participation (Aguilar 2006; Létourneau 2009; Bevir 2013; Hufty 2016; Aguilar 2016) to promote coresponsibility in solving social and common problems. The controversy generated by the concept of governance is associated with its instrumentalization by international financial organizations, such as the World Bank, when implanting "good governance " [1] principles with a "transforming" purpose in global South societies (Aguilar 2006; Zurbiggen 2011; Hufty 2016). Bevir (2013) argues from a modernist perspective, linked to rational choice theories and new institutionalism, that current governance reflects two waves of public sector reforms that have spread throughout the world since the 1980s. Neoliberals promoted the first wave in favor of market policies and state thinning under the assumption that the efficient provision of public services could be encouraged by commodification and privatization. The second wave was initiated in the 1990s by institutionalists and social democrats who argued that neoliberalism, far from making the public sector more efficient, fragmented the state by creating networks as an alternative to hierarchies and markets. The difficulty in directing the shifting alliances associated with the provision of services previously provided by the bureaucratic state emerged as a new problem for the state. In Latin America, behind good governance lies a neoliberal state model that coincides with the transition from authoritarian to democratic governments in several countries. These phenomena occurred in the 1980s after the growing social mobilizations against authoritarian and totalitarian regimes that began in the 1960s. There are different types of democracies and practices that produce varied sets of effects. De Sousa (2010) mentions that democracies can be participatory, representative and communal. For Schmitter and Karl (1991), democracy refers to respect for civic rights, that is, respect for the "rule of law" in the broadest sense of the term. Latin America is the most unequal region in the world (CEPAL 2016), and as a result of the pandemic, great economic setbacks have accentuated poverty and inequity (Latinbarómetro 2021). The societies of the region generally express a chronically low level of dissatisfaction with democracy (Foa et al. 2020); for example, in 2018, this level reached 72% (Latinbarómetro 2021). At the same time, this region has the greatest biocultural and biodiversity wealth on Earth (Toledo et al. 2019). In such an unequal and exclusive world, it is difficult to exercise and promote governance conceived from a participatory, plural, inclusive and coordinated—in short, democratic—perspective. Hence, it is important to know whether these issues are questioned and how (part of) the scientific literature reports and studies the concept of environmental governance in Latin America. This study aims to investigate the basis of the analytical frameworks and approaches formulated from the objectives and results reported in studies that refer to the subject and have been published in both Anglo-Saxon and Latin American scientific databases. Through a systematic review of the literature, it analyses the main trends in studies on environmental governance in Latin America and the analytical frameworks and approaches most used, allowing us to characterize the concept from scientific and political points of view. Additionally, it addresses the main challenges of environmental governance in Latin America. [1] Good governance refers to transparency and effectiveness in three fundamental areas: 1) methods of election, control and replacement of rulers (institutional stability); 2) government capacity to manage resources and apply policies (regulatory framework and government effectiveness); and 3) respect for citizens (transparency, participation and guarantee of the rule of law) (World Bank 2005: 3-7 quoted in Zurbiggen 2011). Materials And Methods To carry out the systematic review of the scientific literature on environmental governance in Latin America and to analyze the main trends based on the analytical frameworks and approaches, the criteria described by Moher et al. (2009) for the Protocol of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) are used. Four scientific databases are reviewed, all of which are recognized for high quality standards and leadership in the publication of multidisciplinary studies. The queries were performed in May and August 2021. Two of the databases, Elsevier Geobase and Clarivate Analytics Web of Science, list mainly articles in English. The search syntax was [environmental governance] and {framework} and [Latin America] in all fields (title, abstract, keywords). Scientific databases that publish articles in Spanish, including Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO) and the Hispanic American Periodicals Index (HAPI), were also consulted. The search syntax was [environmental governance] in all fields (title, abstract, keywords). The search pattern used in the Elsevier and Clarivate databases was not followed because the databases in Spanish are less sophisticated and precise, so when the sum of the terms {framework} and [latin america] was entered, there were zero results. However, it is essential to include information from Latin American databases because the journals and articles published in them are not reported in the English databases; they belong to different worlds [2] . In all cases, only information from published journal articles and book chapters was systematized and analyzed. Subsequently, an Excel database was created to integrate references from the four databases, and the matching and available fields were standardized for all cases. First, the fields from Geobase and Web of Science were homologated. Subsequently, the same procedure was applied to the HAPI and SciELO fields, and the English and Spanish references were later integrated into a single database. The information was ordered based on title and author(s) to verify that the articles were on the topic of interest and were not duplicated. Once all the information was integrated, a second, more careful review of the complete references was performed, paying special attention to the abstract content. The process of inclusion/exclusion was executed, and the following diagram details the process of selecting the 140 articles that met the review criteria by explicitly referring to some type of environmental governance and the analytical frameworks used for it (see Diagram 1: Process of exclusion-inclusion). After the titles and abstracts were carefully reviewed, new fields were added to the database to systematize relevant information on the methodologies used; explicitly stated definition(s) of governance; analytical and theoretical frameworks used; topics referred to; references to geographic areas and countries of Latin America; and objectives and main results reported in the studies. Generally, an important variety of frameworks used, definitions of governance, methods and topics analyzed was found (see Table 1: Variables and contents). Table 1: Variables and contents N VARIABLES CONTENTS 1 Analytical frameworks Analysis of environmental and development public policies; Good living; Conflicts linked to the use, management and distribution of natural resources; Ecological democracy; Political ecology; Socioenvironmental evaluation; Management of natural resources, ecosystems and territories; Community management of ecosystems and territories; Environmental governance as plural participation mechanism; Justice and environmental rights; Legal and institutional frameworks for sustainable management of resources and ecosystems; Institutional frameworks for ecosystem management (SES-Ostrom); Socioecological systems, sustainable development and sustainability; others (multiple stakeholders, interdisciplinary approaches, integration of various frameworks, theory state formation, decision-making, new public management) 2 Governance types Governance of specific ecosystems; Environmental governance; Environmental community governance; Governance on specific topics; Multilevel governance; International governance; Institutional governance; Collaborative governance; Good governance; Participatory governance; Governance for sustainability; Territorial governance; Regional sustainable governance; Local governance; Complex governance; Decentralized environmental governance; Regional governance; Multiactor governance; Market governance; Bottom-up governance; Counter-neoliberal ecosystem governance; Urban environmental governance Combination of various types of governance 3 Themes Ecosystems: Coastal, marine and fishing; Forest; Water; Volcanoes Sectors: Agriculture; Energy; Ecotourism and Tourism; Mining Systems: Sustainable economic and commercial; Socioecological; urban Topics : Climate change; Conservation; Pollution; Disasters and risks 4 Scales Regional and national (case studies) 5 Temporality Year of publication 6 Methodologies Discourse analysis; Scenario analysis; Public policy analysis; Documentary analysis; Spatial analysis and GIS; Application of analytical framework; Key informant interviews; Comparative study; Case study; Systematic review; Ethnography; Measurement and evaluation (generation of indices and indicators); Participatory methods; Fieldwork 6 Objectives The objectives reported in the summaries were systematized Approaches 7 Results The results reported in the abstracts were systematized From the review of the objectives and results reported in the abstracts, the articles were coded based on coincident information called Approaches, the meanings of which are explained below. In total, there are seven approaches (see Table 2: Approaches and their meanings). Table 2: Approaches and their meanings N CODE MEANING 1 Critical analysis Linked to decision-making, actions, mechanisms, strategies and governance structures that do not always or necessarily contribute to environmental justice or a transition toward sustainability 2 Methodological proposals The creation, application, improvement or transformation of methodological proposals to improve the operation of current environmental governance 3 Criteria identification Strategies, actions and forms of effective or ineffective operation of environmental governance 4 Recommendations to modify public policies Related to environmental governance and sustainability (may include legal frameworks) 5 Proposal construction Related to local governance mechanisms, instruments and strategies to achieve sustainability that also seek to avoid power asymmetries 6 Expressions of collective action The social mobilization and participation of minorities, including gender issues, to achieve in-depth transformations at the socioenvironmental level and in the dominant development models that affect socioecosystems. 7 Future scenario prediction Environmental governance based on current development schemes Once the new fields were entered into the database and coded, descriptive quantitative and qualitative analyses were carried out, and the data were segmented from the analytical frameworks explicitly reported in the studies. Dynamic tables were created in Excel for each variable described in Table 1 to depict the major trends present in the studies. Subsequently, the information was analyzed qualitatively and the most important trends were considered. The objectives and results of the studies were contrasted, which allowed the information to be systematized and codified into the seven approaches described above. Only the cases that reported information by relating two different variables were considered in the analysis; hence, the total number varies according to the variables and their relationships (see Annex 1: Summary Table). Theoretical framework Theoretical frameworks are the corpus of concepts that refer to different levels of articulated abstractions and guide the way in which reality is apprehended and processes and phenomena are explained (Sautu et al. 2006). A theory predicts the behavior of certain elements, actors or objects; in the case of environmental governance, it is a conceptual framework that provides insight into what is desirable for societies and ecosystems (Létourneau 2009). The conceptual framework implies a vision of society, the place that people occupy in it and the characteristics assumed by relationships between the whole and the parts (Sautu et al. 2006). Theory encompasses a wide range of ideas, concepts, formulations and statements that support a wide variety of methodological procedures designed to respond to specific research objectives (deduced and supported from a theory) and are also useful in obtaining empirical evidence (Sautu et al. 2006). Theories, objectives and problems raised in and among disciplines allow various methodological responses with specific epistemological foundations to be formulated (Sautu et al. 2006). In the study of environmental governance, whatever the role of explicit theories, the understanding of governance and its linkage with the environment will have effects on concrete decision-making processes and on the understanding of social life and different collective action forms, organizations and social relations generated around socioenvironmental issues (Létourneau 2006). Part of the governance literature discusses laws, rules, and norms that coordinate people's actions in ways that give rise to formal and informal organizations. Another considers the changing nature of politics, that is, the consequences for organizational and public actions manifested through the management of natural resources or nature and the emergence of markets and networks as alternatives to bureaucratic and hierarchical governance. New politics is extraordinarily diverse partly because people draw on different traditions to interpret and resist these narratives and knowledge (Bevir 2013). Environmental governance and the analytical frameworks used in Latin America highlight a set of practices associated with the formulation of formal and informal norms and legal institutional frameworks. Various social organizations form at multiple scales and levels, including specific experiences of cooperation and dialogue that ideally refer to sustainability as well as conflicts and ruptures associated with social and ecosystem degradation caused by the decision-making and implementation of “development” policies that are socially and ecologically predatory. Like many other social sciences concepts, sustainability and governance are terms under construction, so they can become ambiguous and diffuse as they undergo the maturation process (Kemp et al. 2005). For example, sustainability is, at its root, a hybrid term that links normative bases (intra- and intergenerational justice) with systemic foundations (mechanisms of human-nature interaction or processes in socioecological systems). Social deliberation and negotiation also belong to sustainable development, as do social and environmental justice (Burger and Christen 2011). Some issues are usually associated with environmental governance because they are either present or absent in decision-making processes related to socioecosystems. Examples are the existence or absence of transparency mechanisms (Libert and Trench 2016; Dulal et al. 2012, Schweizer et al. 2021), accountability (Bredariol and D’Avignon 2018; Roncagliolo 2013; Eakin et al. 2011; Pieck 2013), participation mechanisms (Lehmann et al., 2015; Ratner et al. 2017; Zinsstag et al. 2016), interactions and relationships with different agents (Bredariol and D’Avignon 2018; Doria et al. 2020; Mathez-Stiefel et al. 2017; Fürst et al. 2014), coordination (Esquivel et al. 2014; Izquierdo-Tort 2020; Bezerra et al. 2021; Chan et al. 2018), cooperation (Franchini et al. 2017; Kuzdas et al. 2014; Sattler et al., 2016), rule of law (Contreras-Hermosilla 2011), decentralization (Libert and Trench 2016; Zinsstag et al. 2016; Juteau-Martineau et al. 2014; Roncagliolo 2013), profit sharing (Evans et al. 2014; Childs 2014; Taylor 2005), legitimacy (Libert and Trench 2016; Brenner and Vargas 2010), environmental citizenship and respect for rights (Dulal et al. 2012; Pieck 2013; Duarte-Abadia et al. 2015; Graziano et al. 2015; Burrier 2016), leadership (Kuzdas et al. 2014; Kuzdas et al. 2016; Coleman and Mwangi 2014; London et al. 2017), collective or common goals or objectives (Kuzdas et al. 2014; Bezerra et al. 2021), environmental justice (De Marchi et al. 2017; Grasa 2020; Stoltenborg and Boelens 2016), context relevance and the impossibility of transferring solutions to other, similarly complex problems (Sattler et al. 2016). Trends in environmental governance studies and the analytical frameworks they use for analyses in Latin America indicate that although the issues listed above are important, they do not work as theory supposes or as they would in the democratic societies in which the governance concept originates and develops, as well as the accompanying political and public actions. [2] The information reported in databases with the greatest impact, fundamentally meaning English research publications, tends to differ from that reported in Latin American and Ibero-American databases since the relevance and impact are greater in the former for several reasons. The comparative systematization of information in English vs. Spanish scientific databases requires significant technical work to match formats and search terms; databases (such as Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar and Elsevier) tend to have more precise and powerful search engines (which include multiple fields and the possibility of carrying out rapid graphical analysis regardless of whether the supporting documents are accessible), and it is possible to connect and relate information among companies; and generally, the articles are not available for public consultation unless the authors have paid for open access. In contrast, search engines in Latin America and Ibero-America (such as Redalyc, SciELO, and HAPI) are less precise, but they do allow full consultation and access to scientific articles. Results 1. Descriptive analysis of trends in studies on environmental governance in Latin America The 94 studies use various analytical frameworks linked to the understanding of socioecological systems, sustainable development and sustainability (18); environmental governance as a mechanism for plural participation (13); legal and institutional frameworks for the sustainable management of natural resources and ecosystems (11); natural resources, ecosystems and territory management (9); others (referring to multiple stakeholders, interdisciplinary approaches, integration of various frameworks, theory state formation, decision-making, and new public management) (7); justice and environmental rights (7); environmental and development public policies (7); institutional frameworks for ecosystem management (SES-Ostrom) (6); community management of ecosystems and territories (5); political ecology (4); ecological democracy (2); conflicts linked to the use, management and distribution of natural resources (2); good living (2); and socioenvironmental evaluation (1). In many cases, information about the analytical frameworks used is not included in the abstract (46) (Figure 1: Analytical Frameworks). The polysemy of the term environmental governance is shown by the 23 explicit references found in the reviewed socioenvironmental studies (see Annex 1: Summary Table). The most commonly used types of governance are the governance of specific ecosystems (16 cases, including analyses of ecosystems in general as well as water and forest ecosystems, etc.); a combination of 2 or 3 different types of governance (11); environmental governance (8); community governance (7); governance on specific issues (6 in total, associated with climate change, conservation, risks, health, the use of plastics and energy issues); international and multilevel governance (6 each); good governance, collaborative governance and institutional governance (4 each); participatory and prosustainability governance (3 cases each); complex, territorial, regionally sustainable, local and environmental decentralized governance (2 each); and regional, multistakeholder, market, bottom-up, counter-neoliberal ecosystems and urban environmental governance (1 each) (Figure 2: Governance Types). Regarding the themes (ecosystems, systems, sectors and topics), the most studied ecosystems are the water ones (28), followed by the topic of conservation (23), forest ecosystems (20), climate change (10), the agricultural sector (8), the energy sector (8), coastal, marine and fishing ecosystems (7), others (7, such as land tenure, territorial planning and zoning, human and environmental health, human development, environment and global environmental policy, alternative paradigms development); the mining sector (5), sustainable economic and commercial systems (4), ecotourism and tourism sector (4), urban systems (3), socioecological systems (3), pollution (2), volcanoes (1) and disasters and risks (1). (Figure 3: Themes (ecosystems, systems, sectors and topics) The studies report information on different geographic scales, for example, at the regional level for Latin America (43 cases) and Latin America and the Caribbean (5) as well as other regions: Asia (20), Africa (19), Europe (14) and North America (2) (Figure 4: Regions Reported). They analyze cases in 20 Latin American countries. The most studied countries are Mexico (27), Brazil (25), Colombia (13), Peru (9), Ecuador (9), Chile (8), Costa Rica (7), Argentina (7), Bolivia (4), Uruguay (3), Guatemala (3), the Dominican Republic (2), Nicaragua (2), Honduras (2), Saint Lucia (1), Puerto Rico (1), Panama (1), El Salvador (1), Cuba (1), and the Netherlands Antilles (1). (Figure 5: Number of cases reported in Latin American Countries) Regarding the timing of studies on environmental governance and analytical frameworks, the first publication appeared in 1995. From 2010 to 2021, there was a sustained increase in the number of publications, with 2018 having the highest number of articles (17) (see Annex 1: Summary Table). Studies generally use combined methods, the most common being documentary analysis (44), case studies (29), interviews with key informants (27), discourse analysis (19), measurement and evaluation (19), comparative studies (11), fieldwork (12), public policy analysis (9), participatory methods (4), spatial and GIS analysis (2), application of analytical frameworks (8), scenario analysis (4), ethnography (3), and systematic reviews (2) (Figure 6: Methodology). Regarding the approach, in most cases, a critical analysis is made (28), methodological proposals are developed (26), criteria for determining the effectiveness of governance are identified (24), public policy recommendations are made (18), proposals to improve different forms of governance are analyzed (17), various expressions of collective action are studied (15) and, to a lesser extent, scenarios are predicted (4) (Figure 7: Approach). 2. Trends in environmental governance studies according to the approach There are different approaches to the use of the term environmental governance as a conceptual and/or analytical framework, as is evidenced by the qualitative analysis of information reported in the abstracts and by the relationship between the objectives and reported results. The order that the analysis follows corresponds to the hierarchical place of the approach based on the sum of the cases found (for further reference, see Annex 1) (Figure 8: Analytical Frameworks and Different Approaches). 2.1. Critical analysis From the critical analysis approach linked to decision-making, actions, generation of mechanisms, strategies and governance structures, the studies indicate that some legal instruments (international and local, such as management programs) do not recognize or contribute to the formation of environmental subjects. Similarly, regulatory frameworks tend to marginalize or not include the ecological knowledge of local groups because they favor market interests (Di Giminiani 2016; Sindico and Hawkins 2015; Aalto 2016; Watts and Depledge 2018) and economic valuation without taking into account environmental or social demands (Ioris 2009). The authors highlight the persistent failure of some international governance frameworks to solve issues that contribute to the continuous and widespread destruction of the environment and ecosystem services (Raftopoulos and Morley 2020; Laterra et al. 2019). This failure affects local managers, who act as bridges between government agencies and local communities, as they face the institutional dilemmas of multilevel and multiscale governance expressed in paradoxes of legalism and social emancipation (Prado et al. 2020). Regarding political ecology, the effects of neoliberal policies adopted in different countries and sectors of Latin America are analyzed: those that threaten common values and various socially legitimized community and collective processes, taking advantage of lax environmental legislation as well as the state’s participation in weakening resistance and demobilizing social activism against megaprojects and extractivist “development” projects (Rojas 2020; Andreucci and Radhuber 2017; Duarte-Abadia et al. 2015; Renfrew 2011). From the postneoliberal and postdevelopment perspectives, the studies propose using new tools to analyze and better understand socioenvironmental conflicts in highly conflictive scenarios (Córdoba et al. 2018; Grasa 2020). They also report that in some countries, new environmental governance measures have been imposed; although they have had positive social and environmental results, contradictions and uncertainties persist that affect socioecosystems negatively (Schmink et al. 2019). From the perspective of the management of natural resources, ecosystems and territories, authors argue that it is not enough to identify key actors in socioecosystems since there are important gaps in institutional networks that inhibit the transmission of information between scales and sectors (Vignola et al. 2019). The poor services infrastructure and lack of coordination between key sectors also limit individual agency (Harris and Carter 2019). From a critical analytical perspective, for some authors, environmental governance as a plural participation mechanism is a seemingly empty concept since studies on megaprojects show that although this idea is supposedly adopted to increase public participation and promote ecological sustainability, in the real world, it is a simulation (Pieck 2013). In some cases, the parties involved demanded participation in the design and execution of policy interventions in spaces that need them in order to incorporate their needs and experiences to improve governance and thus avoid maldevelopment (Russo et al. 2021; Selfa et al. 2015). 2.2. Methodological proposals Regarding the creation, application, improvement or transformation of methodological proposals that improve the operability of environmental governance and the coupling of social and natural analytical frameworks, authors develop proposals to explain the challenges faced by societies in moving toward sustainability and achieving adequate environmental governance in various socioecosystems. They highlight aspects such as considering local communities and contexts in addition to revealing the potential existence of governance patterns. Many of these methodological proposals are formulated to assist in monitoring and influencing decision-making (Schaller et al. 2016; Vollmer et al. 2021), generating operational theoretical frameworks that link activities and achievements, and identifying useful learning for others (Olsen 2002; Sherman 2014). The aim is to help rigid and centralized governance models transition to adaptive and resilient models that can be modified over time (Sánchez et al. 2018; Galvis et al. 2018; Coates 2021) and to establish internal governance initiatives that manage the various interests and levels of influence of the parties involved (Taylor 2005). Among the methodological frameworks applied are the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) (Monteiro et al. 2018), Participatory Water Monitoring (Pareja et al. 2018), the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) and Systems Approach Framework (SAF) approaches (Semeoshenkova et al. 2017), the Social Multi-criteria Evaluation (SMCE) (Walter et al. 2016), the field environmental philosophy applied to the ethics and ecology of educational and governance processes (FILAC) (Rozzi et al., 2014); the Human Scale Development (HSDA) analytical framework for achieving Transformative Science (TSc) (Spiering et al. 2021); and analytical frameworks on ecological democracy (Mitchell 2006). Other methodological proposals focus on the management of natural resources, ecosystems and territories to analyze a set of indicators related to the drivers of change and apply the results to specific adaptive management regimes (e.g., to reduce pollution) (Sherman 2014). Interpretations of the three pillars of sustainable development (social, economic and environmental) beyond European contexts are also investigated, and the differences and strategic imperatives of countries in the global South are noted (Fritsch et al. 2020). In other cases, advances in the management of specific natural resources are discussed, and conceptual, methodological and practical challenges for scientists and decision-makers are identified (Botero et al. 2015). Studies referring to methodological proposals seek to provide references for public policies and different social sectors, pointing out that it is important for operational frameworks to link different activities and achievements using evaluation methods that facilitate the identification of learning in each project and the elements that should be incorporated throughout the process (Olsen 2002). Frameworks are used to compare social benefit sharing against conventional market institutions to understand how internal governance manages the diverse interests and influences of stakeholders (Taylor 2005). Conceptual models of community comanagement are also addressed with a territorial and functional approach incorporating different levels of governance (community/local, regional and national) with functions articulated in nested spaces that guarantee access to strategic resources in rural communities (Bernal et al. al. 2014). Other studies confirm the relevance of institutional context in integrating multilevel governance and various forms of participation (Schaller et al. 2016; Lebel et al. 2013). In addition, governance proposals are prepared within the frame of these challenges, threats and current environmental planning instruments (Manriquez et al. 2019). Methodological proposals conceiving of environmental governance as a plural participation mechanism highlight the need to develop new approaches that include the findings of research from different disciplines (McDonnell 2008) to facilitate the transition from a traditional to an adaptive governance model (Sánchez et al. 2018; Coates 2021). 2.3. Criteria identification Regarding the identification of criteria, strategies, actions and effective or ineffective forms of environmental governance, analyses of legal and institutional frameworks for sustainable ecosystem management highlight the need to identify criteria that reveal the role of legal and institutional reforms in achieving collaborative or territorial governance, as well as their legitimacy, in addition to determining the contextual conditions favoring the achievement of effective governance [3] (Cisneros 2019; Cistulli et al. 2014; Fernández-Maldonado 2019; Bradshaw 2017; Krause and Nielsen 2014; Monterroso and Barry 2012). Other studies recognize fragile or unclear governance in cases where institutional arrangements are weak, both within and between countries, which contributes to ecosystem vulnerability to imminent threats (Doria et al. 2020). Regarding community management of ecosystems and territories, criteria are identified to determine the influence of community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) on the resilience of socioecosystems and decision-making in facing important threats. Studies conclude that socioecological systems with a long tradition of community management, that is, that have established common agreements at the local level, seem to be more resilient to environmental challenges, while communities with internal governance problems have limited capacities to deal with external disturbances (such as global drivers of change or national policies) (Delgado-Serrano et al. 2018). Evidence shows that it is more effective to generate rules in a participatory manner and monitor compliance at the local level, making it possible to generate and maintain community governance (Epstein 2017). Other authors show that governance for community management faces challenges regarding the decentralization of specific actions (such as conservation) since it depends on how and why local actors become involved in regional strategies (Pinel et al. 2018). The usefulness of multilevel governance in solving conflicts over natural resources between different actors (state, market and communities) at different levels is also discussed (Sattler et al. 2016). Local knowledge and interest in community management (particularly in forestry) produce better social and environmental results than governance at other levels. However, the implementation of these practices may be inconsistent over time, mainly because of a dynamic political environment or variations in government support of resource management policies (London et al., 2017). Criteria called internal variables associated with socioecological systems, sustainable development and sustainability (that is, community governance systems related to ancestral knowledge, history of land use and resources) are identified (Delgado-Serrano et al. 2015), as are external variables (linked to analyses of environmental public policies; environmental agreements and international organizations, governmental policies and public attitudes favoring and/or affecting socioecosystems; the use of regulations and market instruments and the security of individual and collective property rights; the adoption of green protocols and social and environmental responsibility policies translated into financial products, etc.) (Flores 1999; Swallow et al. 2010; Mejia-Escobar et al. 2020). Other studies point out technical and financial capacities as key attributes of governance; institutional memory, learning and knowledge; and participation and accountability and mention that these elements have been eroded by new public management reforms (Eakin et al. 2011; Lostarnau et al. 2011). The relevance of identifying criteria that are not fulfilled and their influence on the construction of ineffective environmental governance are also discussed (Morales-Giner et al. 2021). 2.4. Public policy recommendations Another relevant aspect of environmental governance studies is their linkage with public policy recommendations (for creating and modifying policies and institutional frameworks) for achieving sustainability. In terms of socioecological systems, sustainable development and sustainability, in many cases, institutional frameworks do not consider the uncertainty and nonlinearity of socioecosystems, the existence of conceptual contradictions in policies and the lack of integration of scientific knowledge into legal frameworks (Martínez et al. 2012). It is recommended that participatory public policies be implemented, but previously, it was essential to achieve adequate centralized management of socioecosystems (Salinas-Rojas and Roussel 2011); undertake actions that favor opportune and effective implementation of international institutional frameworks, such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), that cover various relevant topics (e.g., health and environment) (Buss et al. 2016); and foster trust relations with government organizations to support the implementation of collaborative actions between actors (Urcuqui-Bustamante et al. 2021). Likewise, the link between the management of natural resources, ecosystems and territories and public policies is key, although in the studies use very different frameworks, including neoinstitutionalism, new public management, the Anthropocene and political ecology. For example, some studies argue that management practices for sustainability can be adopted only when good governance supported by financial incentives for the effective application of management rules exists (Nasi et al. 2011). However, if institutional frameworks are emphasized, they highlight generating mechanisms that favor permanence of personnel in public administration and formulate strategic governance systems (Bredariol and D'Avignon 2018). The authors emphasize that it is essential to grant property titles to indigenous peoples and local communities (Gunter and Ceddia 2020). Recent changes in some policy frameworks emphasize the generation of incentives for integrated forest management and the simplification of regulations (Pacheco et al. 2016); other authors propose carrying out internal political reforms that allow local capacity building (for example, in forest conservation) (Jodoin 2017). Regarding the struggle against illegality, some studies mention that it is a priority to generate local benefits from production systems adapted to local communities’ needs (e.g., certification) (McDermott et al. 2015). Other analyses show that public policies can interact positively at different levels as participants combine resources to pursue individual and collective socioeconomic strategies, generating synergies between implementation processes and improvement processes in program design (Izquierdo-Tort 2020). Additionally, some areas have been specified in which governmental and nongovernmental organizations can support local producers in decisions to achieve sustainable productive diversification (Schroth and Ruf 2014). Some authors consider it necessary to radically modify the institutional structure of international environmental cooperation that allows short-termism to end, especially among economic and political powers (Franchini et al. 2017). It is essential to integrate the human rights approach into environmental impact assessments in order to protect the environment and the fundamental rights of indigenous peoples (Pereira 2021). 2.5. Proposal construction Proposal construction related to mechanisms, instruments and strategies of local governance for sustainability refers to taking into account socioenvironmental specificities at different scales, which implies going beyond the limits theoretically proposed by sustainability, sustainable development and socioecological systems (Montoya et al. 2006; Zinsstag et al. 2016; Kuzdas et al. 2014; Roldan et al. 2019; Desmaison et al. 2018). The authors mention a tendency in the scientific field to analyze governance segmentally; thus, it is necessary to generate lasting institutional instruments that encourage the real participation of the sectors involved to generate integrated and collaborative governance (Roldan et al. 2019; Kuzdas et al. 2014; Mathez-Stiefel et al. 2017; Eakin and Wehbe 2009; Challenger et al. 2018). Regarding natural resource, ecosystem and territory management, studies consider it necessary to recognize and validate local knowledge systems and create networks to understand social and natural landscapes (Romero et al. 2012) as well as to promote more studies about the socioecosystems of the global South with a sustainable development approach (De Macedo et al. 2021). Regarding environmental governance as a mechanism of plural participation, research finds that it can help to encourage the implementation of actions that aim at the sustainable use of strategic resources as long as governmental and nongovernmental actors (including private companies, government, and civil society organizations) actively participate. Generating interinstitutional coordination mechanisms with a clear regulatory framework that favors plural interactions and the formulation of regulatory frameworks to stimulate the design, evaluation and modification of public policies can also be helpful (Esquivel et al. 2014; Cassio and Sánchez 2018). For other authors, environmental governance has aims to identify actors in the political arena without considering their position in the capitalist accumulation framework (Renfrew 2011). Regarding legal and institutional environmental frameworks, a study highlights that weak implementation capacities, insufficient financing, sectoral and social conflicts, and lack of transparency are key obstacles to the implementation of policies and the functioning of governance mechanisms in the region (in forest landscape restoration) (Schweizer et al. 2021). 2.6. Expressions of collective action The approach of environmental governance as an expression of collective action refers to how social mobilization contributes to the construction of organizations and social movements favoring cooperation and the construction of alternative decision-making systems (Barkin and Lemus, 2014); multiscalar organizations and movements that advocate for the governance of common property resources (Vos et al. 2020); and cases of strong critiques being made because consultation or participation guidelines for local stakeholders are lacking, favoring solely the participation of private entities in governance processes, so that the concept of collective action becomes only rhetorical (Benites-Lazaro and Mello-Thery 2019). Regarding collective action related to institutional frameworks for socioecosystem management, London et al. (2017) consider the common historical and cultural roots, the presence of leadership, local knowledge, economic dependence on resources and the threat of these to the socioecosystem to generate incentives for collective action and recognize that internal conflicts are the main barrier to community management. Others foreground the need for partnerships between multiple actors at various scales to promote social and environmental justice solutions that recognize the rights of communities to land and water (Stoltenborg and Boelens 2016). One study suggests considering sociopolitical actors associated with the market and mass media as social subjects, since they participate in conflicts and existing forms of governance (Lirios et al. 2015). Other authors affirm that Ostrom’s principles of institutional design (1993) have been useful in explaining how, through organization and community collective action, it has been possible to build governance from the bottom up even though changes in governance have traditionally occurred from the top down (Sattler et al., 2015). Schröter et al. (2014) consider that community natural resource management requires a society with a certain level of self-organization, empowerment in decision-making processes, and interactions with external agents considered reliable by it, with which it can perhaps create effective win-win management scenarios. Likewise, Delgado-Serrano (2017) finds that community activities are not the main cause of natural resource degradation and recognizes that communities face important internal challenges (such as lack of capacities, rigid rules, and noninclusive community management) as well as external challenges (such as lack of economic incentives and compensation models that generate welfare opportunities associated with sustainable management). Currently, gender diversity and gender studies heed the participation of women in decision-making bodies, especially in traditional societies, where more women occupy positions or leadership (Coleman and Mwangi 2013), and their participation is recognized as necessary to achieve solid and resilient socioecological systems management (Delgado-Serrano and Escalante 2018). Some studies indicate that institutions associated with natural resource management can contribute to the emergence of conflicts or cooperative actions. Hence, they recommend that policies include resource ownership and conflict resolution mechanisms and recognize social inequalities, facilitate strategies for strengthening collective action and promote equitable participation in dialogue and negotiation for access to and use of resources by marginalized groups (Ratner et al. 2017). 2.7. Future scenario prediction Regarding scenario prediction in the framework of environmental governance, few studies take this approach, although human and nature rights, sustainability and climate change in particular may force us to reflect on the subject. Studies that explicitly address scenarios conceive that future problems are unlikely to be effectively addressed in certain ecosystems (e.g., coastal and insular areas) despite numerous management plans and development policy initiatives (Debrot and Sybesma 2000). On the other hand, authors consider that to achieve sustainability, a legal-political approach must be taken to facilitate regional integration in strategic sectors (such as energy); they emphasize that new scenarios must include fifth-generation human rights (such as energy security and the human rights to water and a healthy environment, among others) (Balderrama et al. 2019; Wilder et al. 2020). In communities, policies and strategies for future adaptation to climate change remain limited, which is why authors call for support for local livelihoods (Ruiz-Mallén et al. 2015) and encourage commitments to developing and adopting sustainable clean and innovative technologies (both in society and in business sectors) to prevent pollution, among other problems (Pérez-Pineda et al 2017). 3. Main challenges of environmental governance in Latin America The reviewed literature on environmental governance alludes to various limitations related to the democratic deficit and practices that are generally reproduced by Latin American societies. Schmitter and Karl (1991) recognize that notions of the economic freedom of neoliberal models are not synonymous with political freedom and can even hinder it. They state that in democratic terms, the emergence of political institutions that can compete peacefully to form governments and influence public policies is desirable in order to canalize social and economic conflicts through regular procedures that are sufficient and adequately linked with civil society. In this way, authorities will commit to carrying out courses of action in favor of the public and collective interests. However, "democracies" in the countries of the region have not been able to fulfill that promise, in part due to difficult transitions from authoritarian governments and the interference and influence of de facto powers that have historically impeded democratic processes and practices from becoming common and constant. The emergence and survival of democracy depend on social preconditions such as the wide distribution of participatory resources and the existence of a trusting and tolerant public that values freedom of choice. Ideally, these elements should permeate the being and must be of environmental governance. However, in Latin America, some of the most important phenomena that hinder the concretion of the meaning of governance are associated with the fact that powerful social actors at the local level and national governments contribute to the reproduction of clientelistic and centralist authoritarian models in which the trafficking of influence prevails (Libert and Trench 2016; Cruz-García et al. 2016). Likewise, the imposition of participation frameworks from above or from the government persists (Brenner and Vargas 2010). Slowness or the deliberate transgression of efforts that contribute to establishing participatory governance processes, as well as new arrangements to face environmental challenges that are dependent on specific political and financial situations at the local and international levels, are also important issues (Libert and Trench, 2016). One of the key issues for environmental governance in various countries and sectors of government public administration is that there are no guidelines to encourage the participation of stakeholders at the local level, and when such guidelines do exist, they are vague and/or unfulfilled, a situation that is used by private companies to dominate and control consultation processes (Benites-Lazaro et al. 2019). There is a persistent lack of participation of local communities in discussions and deliberations about the potential benefits and effects of projects that are carried out in their territories and an absence of effective participatory mechanisms for decision-making (Benites-Lazaro et al. 2019; Kusters et al. 2020). At the international level, authors point out the persistent failure of international governance frameworks to address and provide solutions to the widespread destruction of nature, which has even been linked to phenomena such as cultural genocide and ecocide (Raftopoulos and Morley 2020). Although gender issues are addressed in only a few studies, it is essential to encourage studies about women's participation in decision-making processes and their potential contribution to antipatriarchal, postcapitalist and postneoliberal environmental governance. [3] According to some authors, among the necessary conditions for governance are access to information and the capacities of actors, organizations and institutions at different levels (Cistulli et al., 2014); recognition of the rights of local people and communities (Graziano et al. 2015); and the need to foster trust in governance regimes, mainly among indigenous populations (Evans et al. 2014). For example, territorial governance is subject to the limited interest and capacity of the state to plan, manage and guide spatial development, so it is essential to review the institutional frameworks associated with planning systems, the approach and the types of governance that are promoted (Fernández-Maldonado 2019). Discussion In academic terms, the environmental governance studies reviewed clearly exemplify the polysemy and vagueness of the concept (Hufty 2016 ; Lange et al. 2013 ; Létourneau 2009 ; Porras 2019 ) and demonstrate the ontological and epistemological diversity that permeates the analytical frameworks used and different visions present in the study of this topic in Latin America. Likewise, they evidence a conceptual multidimensionality that combines institutional and normative, organizational and collective action, scientific and local knowledge, social and public action, and forms and structures of government on various scales (global, national, regional, local, community, corporate, etc.) Despite this complex diversity of ideas and results, we find some coincidences that allow us to characterize the use and meaning of environmental governance in the region as a concept that refers to transformations and change in the broadest sense of the word when trying to understand ways of interaction between state and society that go beyond hierarchical relationships. Theoretically, the purpose of governance is to solve socioenvironmental problems in a coordinated and joint manner, making society part of the solution. However, this implies disputing and questioning the status quo and the hegemonic frameworks that structure the forms of unequal and unfair social interaction that perpetuate the subordination of the most vulnerable or those whose rights are not recognized. The use of the governance concept also shows a process of experimentation and scientific creativity to integrate and apply analytical frameworks, especially of a multidisciplinary nature, followed by interdisciplinary and, to a lesser extent, transdisciplinary frameworks. Through the systematic review, it is possible to conclude that there is a convergence of social sciences disciplines (sociology, economics, political science, public administration, legal sciences, anthropology, international relations, and geography, among others) with natural and environmental sciences (biology, ecology, environmental engineering, forest engineering, hydrology, geology, sustainability, etc.). Hence, the largest number of studies refer to the analysis of specific ecosystems and their links with the ways in which societies (states or groups) organize themselves to manage them at different scales and levels. The formulation and application of legal and institutional frameworks is a key issue; various regulatory instruments and public policies seek to achieve the objectives that theoretically must be defined through the participation of all parties involved to accomplish the sustainable management of ecosystems. However, some authors mention that knowledge is usually fragmented (Kuzdas and Wieck 2014; Balanzo et al. 2020 ; Ortíz et al. 2020); therefore, they point out that it is important to adopt an integrated vision through incorporating different frameworks to describe and analyze what happens in socioenvironmental reality using various methods, such as critical reflection, literature review, empirical work and direct dialogue with social actors (Roldan et al. 2019 ; Lebel et al. 2013 ; Kusters et al. 2020 ). Likewise, the field of environmental governance invites us to explore the combination of analytical frameworks in addition to incorporating and experimenting with different variable and indicator combinations that favor the operability of the concept. Such investigations allow researchers to determine relevant aspects, typologies, classifications or other methods that contribute to useful generalizations for analysis in academic terms and for application in public policies. The expectation is that the operability of the concept helps identify the elements that make it inoperable and ineffective and, above all, prevent socioenvironmental problems from being solved. Operability has academic utility, but it is also key for the elaboration, re-elaboration, modification, evaluation or prescription of public policies, programs, strategies and any other element for which it is necessary to know the efficiency of societal and environmental interactions (Taylor 2005 ; Eakin and Wehbe 2009 ; Lebel et al. 2013 ; Álvarez-Coque et al. 2020 ). However, the instrumentalization of the concept has aroused critiques since it has been used to measure "efficacy" rather than to build mechanisms and strategies that help formulate and achieve common goals to solve complex social and socioenvironmental problems (Eakin et al. 2011 ; Barkin and Fuente 2013 ). Instrumentalization can be seen as a virtue for some public policies, especially those that oversimplify the contexts in which they are inscribed, as is the case of the structural adjustment policies implemented in several Latin American countries (Zurbriggen 2011 ). Other visions indicate that it is necessary to incorporate an integral vision (integrality), that is, to observe the specificities and particularities of the social, political, ecological and economic contexts among other aspects that permeate the socioenvironmental realities. Regarding the political use of the concept, it refers to state-society relations, but unlike approaches that configure governance as an exclusive directive action of the government, governance makes it possible to recognize society-society relationships that are built with the aim of undertaking actions and solving socioenvironmental problems that arise in groups on different scales. Understanding these interactions beyond hierarchical relationships is a way of recognizing that governments are not the only relevant actors in solving and managing socioenvironmental problems; rather, these are shared responsibilities, as scholars on the subject mention (Kooiman 2003 ; Pierre and Peters 2000 ; Rhodes 1997 ; Stoker 1998 ). Regarding society-society relations, they refer to existing various forms of collective organization at smaller social and spatial scales (e.g., communities and networks of civil society organizations and other agents that contribute to the generation of governance from the bottom up). Elinor Ostrom’s school has made important contributions to understanding the value of the governance of the commons and its interconnection with broader scales through the establishment of rules that contribute to the maintenance of socioecological systems. Studies predominantly report a critical approach to environmental governance, questioning certain practices and uses that discredit its usefulness, which can add to the lack of clarity in the concept definition. Some authors conceive it as an empty concept because it is used to simulate the participation of agents involved in decision-making or to endorse processes that do not involve consultation or social participation, thus favoring agents with economic and political power. Likewise, different agents with decision-making capacity (public and private) do not accredit local groups and inhabitants as subjects of law, undermining the democratic values to which the concept appeals as well as community processes and forms of local organization and generating significant potential for conflicts. On the other hand, the lack of adequate communication channels and transmission of information between actors involved and authorities is detected, to which are added institutional gaps and lax regulations used to execute projects affecting socioecosystems. Environmental governance as a mechanism of democratic and plural social participation requires much work in the region, especially because there are contradictions between development policies and the current state of socioecosystems and respect for individual and group human rights. Community environmental governance contrasts with other forms of governance since several studies report that communities that are capable of formulating their own rules to regulate social life and interactions with socioecosystems can be successful in the management of their resources. However, these favorable aspects have exogenous limitations associated with the state and other external agents’ relations as well as variations in public policies over time that can discourage or affect forms of local governance. Conclusion The main challenge presented by environmental governance in Latin America is the lack of a democratic tradition that favors relations between state and society based on mutual recognition as subjects of rights; therefore, the lack of respect for the rule of law has repercussions for local societies and ecosystems. These problems seem to be far from being solved in pandemic and postpandemic contexts, since inequalities and poverty have increased in the region and with authoritarian outbreaks, while local societies and groups continue to protest decisions that violate their rights. Declarations Declarations of interest: none References Aalto P (2016) The new International Energy Charter: Instrumental or incremental progress in governance? Energy Research and Social Science Aguilar Villanueva LF (2006) Gobernanza y gestión pública. Edit. FCE, México. Aguilar Villanueva LF (2016) Democracia, gobernabilidad y gobernanza. Edit. Instituto Nacional Electoral. México. Álvarez-Coque JMG, Saini E, Esteban E, Verdú FM (2020) Governance of knowledge and innovation in the Ibero-American agri-food system; Spanish journal of agricultural research, 18(4), 4. Andreucci D, Radhuber, IM (2017). Limits to “counter-neoliberal” reform: Mining expansion and the marginalisation of post-extractivist forces in Evo Morales’s Bolivia. Geoforum, 84, 280-291. Balanzo A, Garavito L, Rojas H, Sobotova L, Pérez O, Guaquetá D, Sanabria S (2020) Typical Challenges of Governance for Sustainable Regional Development in Globalized Latin America: A Multidimensional Literature Review. Sustainability, 12(7), 2702. Balderrama C, Oliveira V, Orellana R, Morales M (2019) Análisis elemental en integración energética entre naciones en el marco de la nueva generación del derecho internacional de la energía. Revista Andina de Estudios Políticos, 9(1), 26-45. Barkin D, Fuente M (2013) Community forest management: Can the green economy contribute to environmental justice? In Natural Resources Forum; Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 200-210. Barkin D, Lemus B (2014) Rethinking the Social and Solidarity Society in Light of Community Practice; Sustainability Benites-Lazaro LL, Mello-Thery NA (2019) Empowering communities? Local stakeholders' participation in the Clean Development Mechanism in Latin America; World Development Bernal A, Rivas Tovar LA, Peña Cruz MP (2014) Propuesta de un modelo de co-gestión para los pequeños abastos comunitarios de agua en Colombia. Perfiles Latinoamericanos. Bevir M (2013) A theory of governance. Bezerra MO, Vollmer D, Acero N, Marques MC, Restrepo D, Mendoza E, Serrano L (2021) Operationalizing Integrated Water Resource Management in Latin America: Insights from Application of the Freshwater Health Index; Environmental Management, 1-20. Bobbio N, Matteucci N, Pasquino G (1983) Dicionário de Política. Vol. 1. Edit. Fundacao Universidade de Brasilia (UnB). Brasil. Botero CM, Williams AT, Cabrera JA (2015) Advances in Beach Management in Latin America: Overview from Certification Schemes; Environmental Management and governance: advances in coastal and marine resources Bradshaw A (2017) Regulatory change and innovation in Latin America: The case of renewable energy in Brazil. Utilities Policy Bredariol TDO, D’Avignon ALDA (2018) Institutions and environmental governance: the case of environmental permitting for offshore oil and gas projects. Ambiente and Sociedade, 21. Brenner L, Vargas del Río D (2010) Gobernabilidad y gobernanza ambiental en México: La experiencia de la Reserva de la Biosfera Sian Ka'an; Polis, 6(2), 115-154. Burger P, Christen M (2011) Towards a capability approach of sustainability; Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(8), 787-795. Burrier G (2016) The developmental state, civil society, and hydroelectric politics in Brazil, The Journal of Environment & Development, 25(3), 332-358. Buss PM, Fonseca LE, Galvao LAC, Fortune K, Cook C (2016) Health in all policies in the partnership for sustainable development; Revista Panamericana de Salud Publica-Pan American Journal Of Public Health Cassio Madrazo E, Sánchez Ortiz E. (2018) Gobernanza ambiental para el desarrollo sostenible de la cuenca de Santiaguillo, Durango. Espiral (Guadalajara), 25(72), 183-208. CEPAL, Naciones Unidas. (2016) La matriz de la desigualdad social en América Latina. Chile. Challenger A, Córdova A, Lazos Chavero E, Equihua M, Maass M (2018) La opinión experta evalúa la política ambiental mexicana: Hacia la gestión de socioecosistemas; Gestión y política pública Chan S, Ellinger P, Widerberg O (2018) Exploring national and regional orchestration of non-state action for a< 1.5 C world; International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 18(1), 135-152. Childs J (2014) From ‘criminals of the earth’ to ‘stewards of the environment’: The social and environmental justice of Fair Trade gold; Geoforum, 57, 129-137. Cisneros P (2019) What makes collaborative water governance partnerships resilient to policy change? A comparative study of two cases in Ecuador; Ecology and Society. Cistulli V, Rodriguez-Pose A, Escobar G, Marta S, Schejtman A (2014) Addressing food security and nutrition by means of a territorial approach; Food Security. Coates R (2021) Educational hazards? The politics of disaster risk education in Rio de Janeiro. Disasters Coleman EA, Mwangi E (2013) Women's participation in forest management: A cross-country analysis; Global Environmental Change, 23(1), 193-205. Contreras-Hermosilla A (2011) People, governance and forests -The stumbling blocks in forest governance reform in Latin America; Forests, 2(1), 168-199. Córdoba D, Chiappe M, Abrams J, Selfa T (2018) Fuelling Social Inclusion? Neo‐extractivism, State–Society Relations and Biofuel Policies in Latin America's Southern Cone; Development and Change, 49(1), 63-88. Cruz-García et al., 2016 De Macedo LSV, Picavet MEB, de Oliveira JAP, Shih WY (2021) Urban green and blue infrastructure: A critical analysis of research on developing countries. Journal of Cleaner Production De Marchi M, Sengar B, Furze JN (2017) Prospects for Sustainability in Human–Environment Patterns: Dynamic Management of Common Resources; Mathematical Advances Towards Sustainable Environmental Systems (pp. 319-347). Springer, Cham. De Sousa Santos B (2010) Refundación del Estado en América Latina. Perspectivas desde una epistemología del Sur. Edit. Instituto Internacional de Derecho y Sociedad, Programa Democracia y Transformación Global. Perú. Debrot AO, Sybesma J (2000) The Dutch Antilles. Seas at the millennium - an environmental evaluation - Volume 1. Elsevier Delgado-Serrano MM (2017) Trade-offs between conservation and development in community-based management initiatives. International Journal of the Commons, 11(2). Delgado-Serrano MM, Escalante SR (2018) Gender and cross-scale differences in the perception of social-ecological systems; Sustainability, 10(9), 2983. Delgado-Serrano MM, Oteros-Rozas E, Ruiz-Mallén I, Calvo-Boyero D, Ortiz-Guerrero CE, Escalante-Semerena RI, Corbera E (2018) Influence of community-based natural resource management strategies in the resilience of social-ecological systems; Regional environmental change, 18(2), 581-592. Delgado-Serrano MM, Oteros-Rozas E, Vanwildemeersch P, Ortíz-Guerrero C, London S, Escalante R (2015) Local perceptions on social-ecological dynamics in Latin America in three community-based natural resource management systems; Ecology and Society, 20(4). Desmaison B, Boano C, Astolfo G (2018) CASA (Ciudades Auto-Sostenibles Amazónicas): desafíos y oportunidades para la sostenibilidad de los proyectos de reasentamiento poblacional preventivo en la Amazonía Peruana; Medio Ambiente y Urbanización Di Giminiani P (2016) How to Manage a Forest: Environmental Governance in Neoliberal Chile; Anthropological Quarterly Doria CRC, Athayde S, de Lima HM, Carvajal-Vallejos FM, Dutka-Gianelli J (2020) Challenges for the Governance of Small-Scale Fisheries on the Brazil-Bolivia Transboundary Region; Society and Natural Resources Duarte-Abadía B, Boelens R, Roa-Avendaño T (2015) Hydropower, encroachment and the re-patterning of hydrosocial territory: The case of Hidrosogamoso in Colombia; Human Organization, 74(3), 243-254. Dulal HB, Shah KU, Sapkota C (2012) Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) projects: lessons for future policy design and implementation; International journal of sustainable development & world ecology; 19(2), 116-129. Eakin H, Eriksen S, Eikeland PO, Øyen C (2011) Public sector reform and governance for adaptation: implications of new public management for adaptive capacity in Mexico and Norway; Environmental management, 47(3), 338-351. Eakin HC, Wehbe MB (2009) Linking local vulnerability to system sustainability in a resilience framework: Two cases from Latin America Epstein G (2017) Local rulemaking, enforcement and compliance in state-owned forest commons; Ecological Economics Esquivel Rios S, Cruz Jiménez G, Zizumbo Villarreal L, Cadena Inostroza C (2014) Gobernanza para el turismo en espacios rurales. Reserva de la biosfera mariposa Monarca; Revista mexicana de ciencias agrícolas Evans K, Murphy L, de Jong W (2014) Global versus local narratives of REDD: A case study from Peru's Amazon; Environmental Science and Policy Fernández-Maldonado AM (2019) Unboxing the Black Box of Peruvian Planning; Planning Practice and Research Flores M (1999) Agri-food production in Mexico: the transition to sustainability. Industry and Environment (France). Foa RS, Klassen A, Wenger D, Rand A, Slade M (2020) Youth and Satisfaction with Democracy: Reversing the Democratic Disconnect? Cambridge, United Kingdom: Centre for the Future of Democracy. Franchini M, Viola E, Barros-Platiau AF (2017) The challenges of the anthropocene: from international environmental politics to global governance; Ambiente & Sociedade, 20, 177-202. Fritsch O, Benson D, Adelle C, Massot A (2020) Three faces of the european union water initiative: Promoting the water framework directive or sustainable development? Water Alternatives Fürst C, Opdam P, Inostroza L, Luque S (2014) Evaluating the role of ecosystem services in participatory land use planning: proposing a balanced score card. Landscape ecology; 29(8), 1435-1446. Galvis LKS, Gaspar ÀB, Navarro RM, Vallejos-Romero A (2018) Gobernanza del agua y desafíos emergentes para estructuras normativas e institucionales rígidas: un análisis desde el caso chileno; Revista del CLAD Reforma y Democracia, (70), 199-234. Grasa R (2020) Direct violence and distributive conflicts about water. The evolution of analytical debate and the proposal of a new approach; Relaciones Internacionales-Madrid Graziano Ceddia M, Gunter U, Corriveau-Bourque A (2015) Land tenure and agricultural expansion in Latin America: The role of Indigenous Peoples' and local communities' forest rights; Global Environmental Change Gunter U, Ceddia MG (2020) Can Indigenous and Community-Based Ecotourism Serve as a Catalyst for Land Sparing in Latin America? Journal Of Travel Research Harris ML, Carter ED (2019) Muddying the waters: A political ecology of mosquito-borne disease in coastal Ecuador. Health and Place Hufty M (2016) La gouvernance: polysémique, banale et neutre? Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai-Studia Europaea, 61(1), 103-134. Ioris AAR (2009) Water policy reforms in Brazil: the contradiction between economic approaches and socionatural needs; Social Development. Izquierdo-Tort S (2020) Payments for ecosystem services and conditional cash transfers in a policy mix: Microlevel interactions in Selva Lacandona, Mexico. Environmental Policy and Governance Jodoin S (2017) The transnational policy process for REDD+ and domestic policy entrepreneurship in developing countries; Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space Juteau-Martineau G, Becerra S, Maurice L (2014) Ambiente, petróleo y vulnerabilidad política en el Oriente Ecuatoriano: ¿hacia nuevas formas de gobernanza energética? Kemp R, Parto S, Gibson RB (2005) Governance for sustainable development: moving from theory to practice; International journal of sustainable development, 8(1-2), 12-30. Kooiman J (2003) Governing as Governance, London: Sage. Krause T, Nielsen TD (2014) The legitimacy of incentive-based conservation and a critical account of social safeguards. Environmental Science and Policy Kusters K, De Graaf M, Buck L, Galido K, Maindo A, Mendoza H, Zagt R (2020) Inclusive landscape governance for sustainable development: assessment methodology and lessons for Civil Society Organizations; Land, 9(4), 128. Kuzdas C, Warner B, Wiek A, Yglesias M, Vignola R, Ramírez-Cover A (2016) Identifying the potential of governance regimes to aggravate or mitigate local water conflicts in regions threatened by climate change; Local Environment, 21(11), 1387-1408. Kuzdas C, Wiek A, Warner B, Vignola R, Morataya R (2014) Sustainability appraisal of water governance regimes: the case of Guanacaste, Costa Rica; Environmental management, 54(2), 205-222. Lange P, Driessen PPJ, Sauer A, Bornemann B, Burger P (2013) Governing Towards Sustainability-Conceptualizing Modes of Governance; Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, DOI:10.1080/1523908X.2013.769414 Laterra P, Nahuelhual L, Vallejos M, Berrouet L, Pérez EA, Enrico L, Villegas-Palacio C (2019) Linking inequalities and ecosystem services in Latin America; Ecosystem Services, 36, 100875. Latinbarométro (2021) Informe Latinbarómetro 2021. Adios a Macondo; Santiago, Chile. Octubre https://www.latinobarometro.org/latContents.jsp Lebel L, Anderies JM, Campbell B, Folke C, Hatfield-Dodds S, Hughes TP, Wilson J (2006) Governance and the capacity to manage resilience in regional social-ecological systems; Ecology and Society 11(1): 19. www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art19/ Lebel L, Nikitina E, Pahl-Wostl C, Knieper C (2013) Institutional fit and river basin governance: a new approach using multiple composite measures; Ecology and Society, 18(1). Lehmann P, Brenck M, Gebhardt O, Schaller S, Süßbauer E (2015) Barriers and opportunities for urban adaptation planning: analytical framework and evidence from cities in Latin America and Germany; Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change, 20(1), 75-97. Létourneau A (2009) Les théories de la gouvernance: Pluralité de discours et enjeux éthiques; [VertigO] La revue électronique en sciences de l’environnement 6 Libert AA, Trench T (2016) Bosques y suelos en el contexto de REDD+: Entre gobierno y gobernanza en México; Terra Latinoamericana, 34(1), 113-124. Lirios CG, Guillén JC, Valdés JH, Rubio SM, Estrada EG, Ferrusca JFR (2015) Hacia una agenda hídrica para la gobernanza local sustentable; Revista Internacional de Investigación en Ciencias Sociales, 11(1), 130-154. London S, Rojas M, Martin MI, Scordo F, Cisneros MAH, Bustos ML, Piccolo MC (2017) Characterization of an artisanal fishery in Argentina using the social-ecological systems framework; International Journal of the Commons, 11(1). Lostarnau C, Oyarzún J, Maturana H, Soto G, Señoret M, Soto M, Oyarzún R (2011) Stakeholder participation within the public environmental system in Chile: Major gaps between theory and practice; Journal of Environmental Management, 92(10), 2470-2478. Manriquez Tirado H, Mansilla Quiñones P, Moreira Muñoz A (2019) Hacia una conservación integrada del paisaje biogeocultural de Atacama; Diálogo andino. Martínez Peña RM, Huber-Sannwald E, Arredondo Moreno JT, Costero Garbarino MC, Peña de Paz F (2012) Análisis del concepto de sostenibilidad en la legislación mexicana usando el paradigma de Desarrollo de las Zonas Secas; Interciencia Mathez-Stiefel SL, Peralvo M, Baez S, Rist S, Buytaert W, Cuesta F, Fadrique B, Feeley KJ, Groth AAP, Homeier J, Llambi LD, Locatelli B, Sandoval FL, Malizia A, Young KR (2017) Research Priorities for the Conservation and Sustainable Governance of Andean Forest Landscapes; Mountain Research and Development McDermott CL, Irland LC, Pacheco P (2015) Forest certification and legality initiatives in the Brazilian Amazon: Lessons for effective and equitable forest governance; Forest Policy and Economics McDonnell RA (2008) Challenges for integrated water resources management: How do we provide the knowledge to support truly integrated thinking?; International Journal of Water Resources Development Mejia-Escobar JC, González-Ruiz JD, Duque-Grisales E (2020) Sustainable financial products in the Latin America banking industry: Current status and insights; Sustainability, 12(14), 5648. Mitchell RE (2006) Environmental governance in Mexico: Two case studies of Oaxaca's community forest sector. Journal of Latin American Studies, 38(3), 519-548. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta- Analyses: The PRISMA Statement; PLoS Med 6(7): e1000097. doi:10.1371/ journal.pmed.1000097 Monteiro MB, do Rosário Partidário M, Meuleman L (2018) A comparative analysis on how different governance contexts may influence Strategic Environmental Assessment; Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 72, 79-87. Monterroso I, Barry D (2012) Legitimacy of Forest Rights: The Underpinnings of the Forest Tenure Reform in the Protected Areas of Peten, Guatemala; Conservation and Society Montoya Gómez G, Hernández Ruiz JF, Velasco Pérez A, Reygadas L, Ramos Maza T (2006) Organización comunitaria para la conservación forestal: estudio de caso en la Selva Lacandona de Chiapas, México; Papeles de Población Morales-Giner P, Speranza ML, Arteaga M, Baudoin Farah A, Ferreira da Fonseca JS, García Villacorta A, Perz S (2021) Multi-Criteria Frameworks to Improve Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Environmental Governance in the Amazon; Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 4, 38. Nasi R, Putz FE, Pacheco P, Wunder S, Anta S (2011) Sustainable forest management and carbon in tropical Latin America: The case for REDD+; Forests Olsen SB (2002) Assessing progress toward the goals of coastal management; Coastal Management Ortiz A, Sucozhañay D, Vanegas P, Martínez-Moscoso A (2020) A Regional Response to a Global Problem: Single Use Plastics Regulation in the Countries of the Pacific Alliance; Sustainability, 12(19), 8093. Ostrom E (1993) Design principles in long‐enduring irrigation institutions, Water Resources Research, 29(7), 1907-1912. Pacheco P, Mejia E, Cano W, de Jong W (2016) Smallholder Forestry in the Western Amazon: Outcomes from Forest Reforms and Emerging Policy Perspectives; Forests Pareja C, Honey-Rosés J, Kunz NC, Fraser J, Xavier A (2018) What participation? Distinguishing water monitoring programs in mining regions based on community participation; Water, 10(10), 1325. Pereira R (2021) Public participation, indigenous peoples’ land rights and major infrastructure projects in the Amazon: The case for a human rights assessment framework; Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law. Pérez-Pineda F, Alcaraz JM, Colón C (2017) Creating sustainable value in the hospitality industry: a (critical) multi-stakeholder study in the Dominican Republic; Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25(11), 1633-1649. Pieck SK (2013) Asphalt dreams: road construction and environmental citizenship in Peru; Development and Change, 44(5), 1039-1063. Pierre J, Peters BG (2000) Governance, Politics and the State, London: Macmillan. Pinel SL, López Rodriguez F, Morocho Cuenca R, Astudillo Aguillar D, Merriman D (2018) Scaling down or scaling up? Local actor decisions and the feasibility of decentralized environmental governance: a case of Páramo wetlands in Southern Ecuador; Scottish Geographical Journal, 134(1-2), 45-70. Porras F (2019) Gobernanza: propuestas, límites y perspectivas. Edit. Instituto de Investigaciones José María Luis Mora, Conacyt. México. E-Book. Prado DS, de Castro F, Seixas CS (2020) The Dramas of the Marine Extractive Reserve Managers in Brazil: Navigating through Multiple Institutions; Society and Natural Resources Raftopoulos M, Morley J (2020) Ecocide in the Amazon: the contested politics of environmental rights in Brazil; The International Journal of Human Rights, 24(10), 1616-1641. Ratner B, Meinzen-Dick R, Hellin J, Mapedza E, Unruh J, Veening W, Bruch C (2017) Addressing conflict through collective action in natural resource management; International Journal of the Commons, 11(2). Renfrew D (2011) The curse of wealth: Political ecologies of Latin American neoliberalism; Geography Compass, 5(8), 581-594. Rhodes RAW (1997) Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability, Buckingham: Open University Press. Rojas Rosales CA (2020) Biopolitics and hydropower of drinking water in Latin America: Conceptual resources to understand hydrohegemony in Latin America; Relaciones Internacionales-Madrid Roldan VA, Galvan DE, Lopes PFM, Lopez J, Bellamy AS, Gallego F, Cinti A, Rius P, Schroter B, Aguado M, Barriga AM, Pittman J, Avila-Flores G, Lopez-Gomez CP, Gongora ME (2019) Are we seeing the whole picture in land-sea systems? Opportunities and challenges for operationalizing the ES concept; Ecosystem Services, 38, 100966. Romero C, Athayde S, Collomb JGE, DiGiano M, Schmink M, Schramski S, Seales L (2012) Conservation and Development in Latin America and Southern Africa: Setting the Stage. Ecology and Society Roncagliolo ÁC (2013) La gobernanza del agua en la cuenca Chancay-Lambayeque, Perú. De la Reforma Agraria a la Gestión Integrada de Recursos Hídricos (1969-2013), Revista Geográfica, 7-53. Rozzi R, Massardo F, Contador T, Crego RD, Méndez M, Cavieres LA, Jiménez JE (2014) Filosofía ambiental de campo: ecología y ética en las redes LTER-Chile e ILTER. Bosque (Valdivia), 35(3), 439-447. Ruiz-Mallén I, Corbera E, Calvo-Boyero D, Reyes-García V (2015) Participatory scenarios to explore local adaptation to global change in biosphere reserves: experiences from Bolivia and Mexico; Environmental Science and Policy, 54, 398-408. Russo Lopes G, Bastos Lima MG, Reis Tiago NP (2021) Maldevelopment revisited: Inclusiveness and social impacts of soy expansion over Brazil's Cerrado in Matopiba; World Development Salinas-Rojas A, Roussel D (2011) Participative politics around protected natural spaces in Latin America. The cases of nevado de toluca np (Mexico) and la Amistad NP (Costa Rica); Bulletin d'Association de Geographes Francais Sánchez Galvis LK, Boso Gaspar A, Montalba Navarro R, Vallejos-Romero A (2018) Gobernanza del agua y desafíos emergentes para estructuras normativas e institucionales rígidas: un análisis desde el caso chileno; Revista del CLAD; Reforma y Democracia. Sattler C, Schröter B, Jericó-Daminello C, Sessin-Dilascio K, Meyer C, Matzdorf B, Giersch G (2015) Understanding governance structures in community management of ecosystems and natural resources: the Marujá case study in Brazil; Ecosystem services, 16, 182-191. Sattler C, Schröter B, Meyer A, Giersch G, Meyer C, Matzdorf B (2016) Multilevel governance in community-based environmental management: a case study comparison from Latin America; Ecology and Society, 21(4). Sautu R, Boniolo P, Dalle P, Elbert R (2006) Manual de metodología. Construcción del marco teórico, formulación de los objetivos y elección metodológica; Edit. Clacso. Argentina. Schaller S, Jean-Baptiste N, Lehmann P (2016) Opportunities and barriers for urban adaptation to climate change in Latin America. Cases of Mexico City, Lima and Santiago de Chile; Eure. Schmink M, Hoelle J, Gomes CVA, Thaler GM (2019) From contested to ‘green’frontiers in the Amazon? A long-term analysis of São Félix do Xingu, Brazil; The Journal of Peasant Studies, 46(2), 377-399. Schmitter PC, Karl TL (1991) What democracy is and is not; Journal of democracy, 2(3), 75-88. Schröter B, Sessin-Dilascio K, Meyer C, Matzdorf B, Sattler C, Wortmann L (2014) Multi-level governance through adaptive co-management: conflict resolution in a Brazilian state park; Ecological Processes, 3(1), 1-13. Schroth G, Ruf F (2014) Farmer strategies for tree crop diversification in the humid tropics. A review, Agronomy for Sustainable Development Schweizer D, Meli P, Brancalion PH, Guariguata MR (2021) Implementing forest landscape restoration in Latin America: Stakeholder perceptions on legal frameworks; Land Use Policy, 104, 104244. Selfa T, Bain C, Moreno R, Eastmond A, Sweitz S, Bailey C, Pereira GS, Souza T, Medeiros R (2015) Interrogating Social Sustainability in the Biofuels Sector in Latin America: Tensions Between Global Standards and Local Experiences in Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia; Environmental Management Semeoshenkova V, Newton A, Rojas M, Piccolo MC, Bustos ML, Cisneros MAH, Berninsone LG (2017) A combined DPSIR and SAF approach for the adaptive management of beach erosion in Monte Hermoso and Pehuen Co (Argentina); Ocean and Coastal Management, 143, 63-73. Sherman K (2014) Adaptive management institutions at the regional level: The case of Large Marine Ecosystems; Ocean and Coastal Management Sindico F, Hawkins S (2015) The Guarani Aquifer Agreement and Transboundary Aquifer Law in the SADC: Comparing Apples and Oranges? Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law Spiering S, Del Valle Barrera M (2021) Testing the quality of transformative science methods: the example of the Human Scale Development approach; Sustainability Science, 1-19. Stoker G (1998) Governance as theory: Five propositions; International Social Science Journal, 50: 17–28. doi:10.1111/1468-2451.00106 (doi:10.1111/1468-2451.00106) Stoltenborg D, Boelens R (2016) Disputes over land and water rights in gold mining: the case of Cerro de San Pedro, Mexico; Water International, 41(3), 447-467. Swallow BM, Leimona B, Yatich T, Velarde SJ (2010) The conditions for functional mechanisms of compensation and reward for environmental services; Ecology and Society, 15(4). Taylor PL (2005) In the market but not of it: Fair trade coffee and forest stewardship council certification as market-based social change. World Development Toledo VM, Barrera-Bassols N, Boege E. (2019) ¿Qué es la diversidad biocultural? Edit. UNAM. México. Urcuqui-Bustamante AM, Selfa TL, Hirsch P, Ashcraft CM (2021) Uncovering Stakeholder Participation in Payment for Hydrological Services (PHS) Program Decision Making in Mexico and Colombia; Sustainability Vignola R, Otarola M, Alpizar F, Rivera P (2019) Gobernanza para la Adaptación basada en Ecosistemas (AbE) para pequeños caficultores de América Central; Agronomía Mesoamericana Vollmer D, Bezerra MO, Martínez NA, Ortiz O, Encomenderos I, Marques MC, Serrano-Durán L, Fauconnier I, Wang RY (2021) Can we take the pulse of environmental governance the way we take the pulse of nature? Applying the Freshwater Health Index in Latin America; Ambio Vos J, Boelens R, Venot JP, Kuper M (2020) Rooted water collectives: Towards an analytical framework; Ecological Economics Walter M, Tomás SL, Munda G, Larrea C (2016) A social multi-criteria evaluation approach to assess extractive and non-extractive scenarios in Ecuador: Intag case study; Land Use Policy, 57, 444-458. Watts J, Depledge J (2018) Latin America in the climate change negotiations: Exploring the AILAC and ALBA coalitions; Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change Wilder MO, Martinez Austria PF, Hernandez Romero P, Cruz Ayala MB (2020) The human right to water in Mexico: challenges and opportunities Zinsstag J, Bonfoh B, Zinsstag G, Crump L, Alfaroukh IO, Abakar MF, Schelling E (2016) A vision for the future of pastoralism; Rev Sci Tech, 35(2), 693-699. Zurbriggen C (2011) Gobernanza: una mirada desde América Latina. Perfiles latinoamericanos, 19(38), 39-64. Supplementary Diagram 1 is available in Supplementary Files section. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Annex1.pdf D1Diagram.pdf Diagram 1: Process of exclusion-inclusion Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Major revision 20 May, 2022 Reviews received at journal 19 May, 2022 Reviewers agreed at journal 04 May, 2022 Reviewers invited by journal 01 May, 2022 Editor assigned by journal 01 May, 2022 Submission checks completed at journal 20 Apr, 2022 First submitted to journal 19 Apr, 2022 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-1573427","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":99929183,"identity":"39adcc62-b06e-4cef-9dbf-77a9b2f0b1cf","order_by":0,"name":"Gabriela De la Mora-De la Mora","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Centro Regional de Investigaciones Multidisciplinarias","correspondingAuthor":true,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Gabriela","middleName":"De la Mora-De la","lastName":"Mora","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2022-04-19 15:59:21","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-1573427/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1573427/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":20656425,"identity":"2bc8b892-5492-4183-b14d-cf6120d136b3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2022-04-22 14:28:54","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":71735,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAnalytical Frameworks\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"F1AnalyticalFrameworks.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-1573427/v1/ed87717d7bd833f94fe02839.png"},{"id":20657601,"identity":"e734309e-2436-4e85-9339-fd07e9be9504","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2022-04-22 14:33:54","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":88202,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eGovernance Types\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"F2GovernanceType.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-1573427/v1/45ce6cb37df269d142e03bfc.png"},{"id":20655233,"identity":"7e1b54ca-3411-4b01-a7eb-fe3c49cda637","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2022-04-22 14:23:54","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":60162,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThemes (ecosystems, systems, sectors and topics)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"F3Themes.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-1573427/v1/e6eeb329d4f0745557a84805.png"},{"id":20655231,"identity":"97084d7f-5478-408e-bcf9-f36427b55848","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2022-04-22 14:23:54","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":72138,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eRegions Reported\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"F4RegionsReported.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-1573427/v1/068e81da1bf7babb29cef668.png"},{"id":20655236,"identity":"4aa1683d-ef10-4b01-857a-d09e55e45355","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2022-04-22 14:23:54","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":122609,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eNumber of cases reported in Latin American Countries\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"F5NumberofcasesLatinAmerica.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-1573427/v1/936ce83047498a36fa418f30.png"},{"id":20656427,"identity":"ff1a1725-5576-4272-8424-b7eebfb61baa","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2022-04-22 14:28:54","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":55637,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMethodology\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"F6Methodology.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-1573427/v1/1f4541fee28122e27278f9c3.png"},{"id":20657602,"identity":"022ea8c5-fa17-45bb-8a8c-d723d02009c8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2022-04-22 14:33:54","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":41552,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eApproach\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"F7Approach.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-1573427/v1/baa6d0bc8b3f3e0faaff1030.png"},{"id":20655234,"identity":"d5ad1048-064f-419a-92f6-03ed16411d4a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2022-04-22 14:23:54","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"Figure 8","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":94330,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAnalytical frameworks and Different Approaches\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"F8AnalyticalFApproaches.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-1573427/v1/9eef3e77bb19ed4b831f4917.png"},{"id":20657613,"identity":"bfa95563-6f19-49b7-b46b-a4ab343e0e21","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2022-04-22 14:33:57","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":546447,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-1573427/v1/68476be2-42b8-4842-81b6-3fe2a4c06169.pdf"},{"id":20655229,"identity":"d812651d-1e98-4700-8875-9d06b80e086e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2022-04-22 14:23:54","extension":"pdf","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":38635,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Annex1.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-1573427/v1/309a9182f8d1692f0ccbe357.pdf"},{"id":20655238,"identity":"01430c35-9450-4198-9f91-4a82a55f08d8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2022-04-22 14:23:54","extension":"pdf","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":50784,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eDiagram 1: Process of exclusion-inclusion\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"D1Diagram.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-1573427/v1/d07ab545a6f2716587e36655.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Conceptual and analytical diversity of environmental governance in Latin America: A systematic review","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe concept of governance is a polysemic and diffuse construction that generically refers to various complex public and social problems, including environmental ones. This term, at least theoretically, refers to the plural participation in decision-making of social actors (individual and collective) directly and indirectly involved in the enjoyment, use, and management of natural resources and territories. Various academic communities in the social sciences (development studies, economics, geography, international relations, planning, political science, public administration, and sociology) use the term to conceptualize abstract analyses associated with coordination and social organization and find patterns of governance in corporate, public and global affairs (Bevir 2013) for the study and formulation of public policies (Porras 2019; Aguilar 2006).\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe study of governance includes laws, regulations, discursive debates, negotiations, mediation, conflict resolution, elections, public consultations, protests and other decision-making processes of a political nature (politics is understood here as everything concerning the \u003cem\u003epolis\u003c/em\u003e, that is, the wide diversity of social relationships that occur in a specific context (Bobbio et al. 1983:960)). The polysemy of governance in its broadest sense crosses the concept of politics (the political, politics, policies) as well as regulation and management (Hufty 2016; Lange et al. 2013). As Lebel et al. (2006) noted, governance is not the exclusive competence of the state through the government but allows reflection on complex societies owing to the existence of a plurality of social subjects with duties and rights, capable of participating in the formulation and solution of common and public problems. Their participation includes generating, refuting and modifying diverse public policies and policy instruments.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis perspective allows us to recognize that public affairs are multidimensional and diverse, which is why they exceed the capacities of governments to solve them (Aguilar 2016; Zurbiggen 2011). This phenomenon ideally occurs in societies with democratic governments capable of adopting and promoting dialogue, consensus, empowerment, collaboration, coordination and plural participation (Aguilar 2006; L\u0026eacute;tourneau 2009; Bevir 2013; Hufty 2016; Aguilar 2016) to promote coresponsibility in solving social and common problems. The controversy generated by the concept of governance is associated with its instrumentalization by international financial organizations, such as the World Bank, when implanting \u0026quot;good \u003cem\u003egovernance\u003c/em\u003e\u0026quot;\u003csup\u003e[1]\u003c/sup\u003e principles with a \u0026quot;transforming\u0026quot; purpose in global South societies (Aguilar 2006; Zurbiggen 2011; Hufty 2016). Bevir (2013) argues from a modernist perspective, linked to rational choice theories and new institutionalism, that current governance reflects two waves of public sector reforms that have spread throughout the world since the 1980s. Neoliberals promoted the first wave in favor of market policies and state thinning under the assumption that the efficient provision of public services could be encouraged by commodification and privatization. The second wave was initiated in the 1990s by institutionalists and social democrats who argued that neoliberalism, far from making the public sector more efficient, fragmented the state by creating networks as an alternative to hierarchies and markets. The difficulty in directing the shifting alliances associated with the provision of services previously provided by the bureaucratic state emerged as a new problem for the state.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn Latin America, behind \u003cem\u003egood governance\u003c/em\u003e lies a neoliberal state model that coincides with the transition from authoritarian to democratic governments in several countries. These phenomena occurred in the 1980s after the growing social mobilizations against authoritarian and totalitarian regimes that began in the 1960s. There are different types of democracies and practices that produce varied sets of effects. De Sousa (2010) mentions that democracies can be participatory, representative and communal. For Schmitter and Karl (1991), democracy refers to respect for civic rights, that is, respect for the \u0026quot;rule of law\u0026quot; in the broadest sense of the term.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLatin America is the most unequal region in the world (CEPAL 2016), and as a result of the pandemic, great economic setbacks have accentuated poverty and inequity (Latinbar\u0026oacute;metro 2021). The societies of the region generally express a chronically low level of dissatisfaction with democracy (Foa et al. 2020); for example, in 2018, this level reached 72% (Latinbar\u0026oacute;metro 2021). At the same time, this region has the greatest biocultural and biodiversity wealth on Earth (Toledo et al. 2019). In such an unequal and exclusive world, it is difficult to exercise and promote governance conceived from a participatory, plural, inclusive and coordinated\u0026mdash;in short, democratic\u0026mdash;perspective. Hence, it is important to know whether these issues are questioned and how (part of) the scientific literature reports and studies the concept of environmental governance in Latin America. This study aims to investigate the basis of the analytical frameworks and approaches formulated from the objectives and results reported in studies that refer to the subject and have been published in both Anglo-Saxon and Latin American scientific databases. Through a systematic review of the literature, it analyses the main trends in studies on environmental governance in Latin America and the analytical frameworks and approaches most used, allowing us to characterize the concept from scientific and political points of view. Additionally, it addresses the main challenges of environmental governance in Latin America.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"ftn1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e[1]\u003c/sup\u003e \u003cem\u003eGood governance\u003c/em\u003e refers to transparency and effectiveness in three fundamental areas: 1) methods of election, control and replacement of rulers (institutional stability); 2) government capacity to manage resources and apply policies (regulatory framework and government effectiveness); and 3) respect for citizens (transparency, participation and guarantee of the rule of law) (World Bank 2005: 3-7 quoted in Zurbiggen 2011).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Materials And Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eTo carry out the systematic review of the scientific literature on environmental governance in Latin America and to analyze the main trends based on the analytical frameworks and approaches, the criteria described by Moher et al. (2009) for the Protocol of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) are used.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFour scientific databases are reviewed, all of which are recognized for high quality standards and leadership in the publication of multidisciplinary studies. The queries were performed in May and August 2021. Two of the databases, Elsevier Geobase and Clarivate Analytics Web of Science, list mainly articles in English. The search syntax was [environmental governance] and {framework} and [Latin America] in all fields (title, abstract, keywords). Scientific databases that publish articles in Spanish, including Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO) and the Hispanic American Periodicals Index (HAPI), were also consulted. The search syntax was [environmental governance] in all fields (title, abstract, keywords). The search pattern used in the Elsevier and Clarivate databases was not followed because the databases in Spanish are less sophisticated and precise, so when the sum of the terms {framework} and [latin america] was entered, there were zero results. However, it is essential to include information from Latin American databases because the journals and articles published in them are not reported in the English databases; they belong to different worlds\u003csup\u003e[2]\u003c/sup\u003e. In all cases, only information from published journal articles and book chapters was systematized and analyzed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSubsequently, an Excel database was created to integrate references from the four databases, and the matching and available fields were standardized for all cases. First, the fields from Geobase and Web of Science were homologated. Subsequently, the same procedure was applied to the HAPI and SciELO fields, and the English and Spanish references were later integrated into a single database. The information was ordered based on title and author(s) to verify that the articles were on the topic of interest and were not duplicated.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOnce all the information was integrated, a second, more careful review of the complete references was performed, paying special attention to the abstract content. The process of inclusion/exclusion was executed, and the following diagram details the process of selecting the 140 articles that met the review criteria by explicitly referring to some type of environmental governance and the analytical frameworks used for it (see Diagram 1: Process of exclusion-inclusion).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter the titles and abstracts were carefully reviewed, new fields were added to the database to systematize relevant information on the methodologies used; explicitly stated definition(s) of governance; analytical and theoretical frameworks used; topics referred to; references to geographic areas and countries of Latin America; and objectives and main results reported in the studies. Generally, an important variety of frameworks used, definitions of governance, methods and topics analyzed was found (see Table 1: Variables and contents).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 1: Variables and contents\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellpadding=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" width=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"3.803486529318542%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eN\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"16.164817749603802%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVARIABLES\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" width=\"80.03169572107765%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCONTENTS\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"3.803486529318542%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"16.164817749603802%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAnalytical frameworks\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" width=\"80.03169572107765%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAnalysis of environmental and development public policies; Good living; Conflicts linked to the use, management and distribution of natural resources; Ecological democracy; Political ecology; Socioenvironmental evaluation; Management of natural resources, ecosystems and territories; Community management of ecosystems and territories; Environmental governance as plural participation mechanism; Justice and environmental rights; Legal and institutional frameworks for sustainable management of resources and ecosystems; Institutional frameworks for ecosystem management (SES-Ostrom); Socioecological systems, sustainable development and sustainability; others (multiple stakeholders, interdisciplinary approaches, integration of various frameworks, theory state formation, decision-making, new public management)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"3.803486529318542%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"16.164817749603802%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGovernance types\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" width=\"80.03169572107765%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGovernance of specific ecosystems; Environmental governance; Environmental community governance; Governance on specific topics; Multilevel governance; International governance; Institutional governance; Collaborative governance; Good governance; Participatory governance; Governance for sustainability; Territorial governance; Regional sustainable governance; Local governance; Complex governance; Decentralized environmental governance; Regional governance; Multiactor governance; Market governance; Bottom-up governance; Counter-neoliberal ecosystem governance; Urban environmental governance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCombination of various types of governance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"3.803486529318542%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"16.164817749603802%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThemes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" width=\"80.03169572107765%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEcosystems:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eCoastal, marine and fishing; Forest; Water; Volcanoes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSectors:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eAgriculture; Energy; Ecotourism and Tourism; Mining\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSystems:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eSustainable economic and commercial; Socioecological; urban\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTopics\u003c/em\u003e: Climate change; Conservation; Pollution; Disasters and risks\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"3.803486529318542%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"16.164817749603802%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScales\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" width=\"80.03169572107765%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRegional and national (case studies)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"3.803486529318542%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"16.164817749603802%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTemporality\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" width=\"80.03169572107765%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYear of publication\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"3.803486529318542%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"16.164817749603802%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMethodologies\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" width=\"80.03169572107765%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDiscourse analysis; Scenario analysis; Public policy analysis; Documentary analysis; Spatial analysis and GIS; Application of analytical framework; Key informant interviews; Comparative study; Case study; Systematic review; Ethnography; Measurement and evaluation (generation of indices and indicators); Participatory methods; Fieldwork\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"3.803486529318542%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"16.164817749603802%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eObjectives\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"39.461172741679874%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe objectives reported in the summaries were systematized\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" width=\"40.57052297939778%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eApproaches\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"6.4%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"27.2%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResults\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"66.4%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe results reported in the abstracts were systematized\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom the review of the objectives and results reported in the abstracts, the articles were coded based on coincident information called Approaches, the meanings of which are explained below. In total, there are seven approaches (see Table 2: Approaches and their meanings).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 2: Approaches and their meanings\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellpadding=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"4.166666666666667%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eN\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.03205128205128%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCODE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"75.80128205128206%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMEANING\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"4.166666666666667%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.03205128205128%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCritical analysis\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"75.80128205128206%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLinked to decision-making, actions, mechanisms, strategies and governance structures that do not always or necessarily contribute to environmental justice or a transition toward sustainability\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"4.166666666666667%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.03205128205128%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMethodological proposals\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"75.80128205128206%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe creation, application, improvement or transformation of methodological proposals to improve the operation of current environmental governance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"4.166666666666667%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.03205128205128%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCriteria identification\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"75.80128205128206%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStrategies, actions and forms of effective or ineffective operation of environmental governance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"4.166666666666667%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.03205128205128%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRecommendations to modify public policies\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"75.80128205128206%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRelated to environmental governance and sustainability (may include legal frameworks)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"4.166666666666667%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.03205128205128%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProposal construction\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"75.80128205128206%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRelated to local governance mechanisms, instruments and strategies to achieve sustainability that also seek to avoid power asymmetries\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"4.166666666666667%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.03205128205128%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExpressions of collective action\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"75.80128205128206%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe social mobilization and participation of minorities, including gender issues, to achieve in-depth transformations at the socioenvironmental level and in the dominant development models that affect socioecosystems.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"4.166666666666667%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"20.03205128205128%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFuture scenario prediction\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" width=\"75.80128205128206%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEnvironmental governance based on current development schemes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOnce the new fields were entered into the database and coded, descriptive quantitative and qualitative analyses were carried out, and the data were segmented from the analytical frameworks explicitly reported in the studies. Dynamic tables were created in Excel for each variable described in Table 1 to depict the major trends present in the studies. Subsequently, the information was analyzed qualitatively and the most important trends were considered. The objectives and results of the studies were contrasted, which allowed the information to be systematized and codified into the seven approaches described above. Only the cases that reported information by relating two different variables were considered in the analysis; hence, the total number varies according to the variables and their relationships (see Annex 1: Summary Table).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eTheoretical framework\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTheoretical frameworks are the corpus of concepts that refer to different levels of articulated abstractions and guide the way in which reality is apprehended and processes and phenomena are explained (Sautu et al. 2006). A theory predicts the behavior of certain elements, actors or objects; in the case of environmental governance, it is a conceptual framework that provides insight into what is desirable for societies and ecosystems (L\u0026eacute;tourneau 2009).\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe conceptual framework implies a vision of society, the place that people occupy in it and the characteristics assumed by relationships between the whole and the parts (Sautu et al. 2006). Theory encompasses a wide range of ideas, concepts, formulations and statements that support a wide variety of methodological procedures designed to respond to specific research objectives (deduced and supported from a theory) and are also useful in obtaining empirical evidence (Sautu et al. 2006).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTheories, objectives and problems raised in and among disciplines allow various methodological responses with specific epistemological foundations to be formulated (Sautu et al. 2006). In the study of environmental governance, whatever the role of explicit theories, the understanding of governance and its linkage with the environment will have effects on concrete decision-making processes and on the understanding of social life and different collective action forms, organizations and social relations generated around socioenvironmental issues (L\u0026eacute;tourneau 2006). Part of the governance literature discusses laws, rules, and norms that coordinate people\u0026apos;s actions in ways that give rise to formal and informal organizations. Another considers the changing nature of politics, that is, the consequences for organizational and public actions manifested through the management of natural resources or nature and the emergence of markets and networks as alternatives to bureaucratic and hierarchical governance. New politics is extraordinarily diverse partly because people draw on different traditions to interpret and resist these narratives and knowledge (Bevir 2013).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEnvironmental governance and the analytical frameworks used in Latin America highlight a set of practices associated with the formulation of formal and informal norms and legal institutional frameworks. Various social organizations form at multiple scales and levels, including specific experiences of cooperation and dialogue that ideally refer to sustainability as well as conflicts and ruptures associated with social and ecosystem degradation caused by the decision-making and implementation of \u0026ldquo;development\u0026rdquo; policies that are socially and ecologically predatory. Like many other social sciences concepts, sustainability and governance are terms under construction, so they can become ambiguous and diffuse as they undergo the maturation process (Kemp et al. 2005). For example, sustainability is, at its root, a hybrid term that links normative bases (intra- and intergenerational justice) with systemic foundations (mechanisms of human-nature interaction or processes in socioecological systems). Social deliberation and negotiation also belong to sustainable development, as do social and environmental justice (Burger and Christen 2011).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSome issues are usually associated with environmental governance because they are either present or absent in decision-making processes related to socioecosystems. Examples are the existence or absence of transparency mechanisms (Libert and Trench 2016; Dulal et al. 2012, Schweizer et al. 2021), accountability (Bredariol and D\u0026rsquo;Avignon 2018; Roncagliolo 2013; Eakin et al. 2011; Pieck 2013), participation mechanisms (Lehmann et al., 2015; Ratner et al. 2017; Zinsstag et al. 2016), interactions and relationships with different agents (Bredariol and \u0026nbsp;D\u0026rsquo;Avignon 2018; Doria et al. 2020; Mathez-Stiefel et al. 2017; F\u0026uuml;rst et al. 2014), coordination (Esquivel et al. 2014; Izquierdo-Tort 2020; Bezerra et al. 2021; Chan et al. 2018), cooperation (Franchini et al. 2017; Kuzdas et al. 2014; Sattler et al., 2016), rule of law (Contreras-Hermosilla 2011), decentralization (Libert and Trench 2016; Zinsstag et al. 2016; Juteau-Martineau et al. 2014; Roncagliolo 2013), profit sharing (Evans et al. 2014; Childs 2014; Taylor 2005), legitimacy (Libert and \u0026nbsp;Trench 2016; Brenner and Vargas 2010), environmental citizenship and respect for rights (Dulal et al. 2012; Pieck 2013; Duarte-Abadia et al. 2015; Graziano et al. 2015; Burrier 2016), leadership (Kuzdas et al. 2014; Kuzdas et al. 2016; Coleman and \u0026nbsp;Mwangi 2014; London et al. 2017), collective or common goals or objectives (Kuzdas et al. 2014; Bezerra et al. 2021), environmental justice (De Marchi et al. 2017; Grasa 2020; Stoltenborg and Boelens 2016), context relevance and the impossibility of transferring solutions to other, similarly complex problems (Sattler et al. 2016).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTrends in environmental governance studies and the analytical frameworks they use for analyses in Latin America indicate that although the issues listed above are important, they do not work as theory supposes or as they would in the democratic societies in which the governance concept originates and develops, as well as the accompanying political and public actions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"ftn1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e[2]\u003c/sup\u003e The information reported in databases with the greatest impact, fundamentally meaning English research publications, tends to differ from that reported in Latin American and Ibero-American databases since the relevance and impact are greater in the former for several reasons. The comparative systematization of information in English vs. Spanish scientific databases requires significant technical work to match formats and search terms; databases (such as Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar and Elsevier) tend to have more precise and powerful search engines (which include multiple fields and the possibility of carrying out rapid graphical analysis regardless of whether the supporting documents are accessible), and it is possible to connect and relate information among companies; and generally, the articles are not available for public consultation unless the authors have paid for open access. In contrast, search engines in Latin America and Ibero-America (such as Redalyc, SciELO, and HAPI) are less precise, but they do allow full consultation and access to scientific articles.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003ch2\u003e1. Descriptive analysis of trends in studies on environmental governance in Latin America\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe 94 studies use various analytical frameworks linked to the understanding of socioecological systems, sustainable development and sustainability (18); environmental governance as a mechanism for plural participation (13); legal and institutional frameworks for the sustainable management of natural resources and ecosystems (11); natural resources, ecosystems and territory management (9); others (referring to multiple stakeholders, interdisciplinary approaches, integration of various frameworks, theory state formation, decision-making, and new public management) (7); justice and environmental rights (7); environmental and development public policies (7); institutional frameworks for ecosystem management (SES-Ostrom) (6); community management of ecosystems and territories (5); political ecology (4); ecological democracy (2); conflicts linked to the use, management and distribution of natural resources (2); good living (2); and socioenvironmental evaluation (1). In many cases, information about the analytical frameworks used is not included in the abstract (46) (Figure 1: Analytical Frameworks).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe polysemy of the term environmental governance is shown by the 23 explicit references found in the reviewed socioenvironmental studies (see Annex 1: Summary Table).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe most commonly used types of governance are the governance of specific ecosystems (16 cases, including analyses of ecosystems in general as well as water and forest ecosystems, etc.); a combination of 2 or 3 different types of governance (11); environmental governance (8); community governance (7); governance on specific issues (6 in total, associated with climate change, conservation, risks, health, the use of plastics and energy issues); international and multilevel governance (6 each); good governance, collaborative governance and institutional governance (4 each); participatory and prosustainability governance (3 cases each); complex, territorial, regionally sustainable, local and environmental decentralized governance (2 each); and regional, multistakeholder, market, bottom-up, counter-neoliberal ecosystems and urban environmental governance (1 each) (Figure 2: Governance Types).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding the themes (ecosystems, systems, sectors and topics), the most studied ecosystems are the water ones (28), followed by the topic of conservation (23), forest ecosystems (20), climate change (10), the agricultural sector (8), the energy sector (8), coastal, marine and fishing ecosystems (7), others (7, such as land tenure, territorial planning and zoning, human and environmental health, human development, environment and global environmental policy, alternative paradigms development); the mining sector (5), sustainable economic and commercial systems (4), ecotourism and tourism sector (4), urban systems (3), socioecological systems (3), pollution (2), volcanoes (1) and disasters and risks (1). (Figure 3: Themes (ecosystems, systems, sectors and topics)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe studies report information on different geographic scales, for example, at the regional level for Latin America (43 cases) and Latin America and the Caribbean (5) as well as other regions: Asia (20), Africa (19), Europe (14) and North America (2) (Figure 4: Regions Reported).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThey analyze cases in 20 Latin American countries. The most studied countries are Mexico (27), Brazil (25), Colombia (13), Peru (9), Ecuador (9), Chile (8), Costa Rica (7), Argentina (7), Bolivia (4), Uruguay (3), Guatemala (3), the Dominican Republic (2), Nicaragua (2), Honduras (2), Saint Lucia (1), Puerto Rico (1), Panama (1), El Salvador (1), Cuba (1), and the Netherlands Antilles (1). (Figure 5: Number of cases reported in Latin American Countries)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding the timing of studies on environmental governance and analytical frameworks, the first publication appeared in 1995. From 2010 to 2021, there was a sustained increase in the number of publications, with 2018 having the highest number of articles (17) (see Annex 1: Summary Table).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudies generally use combined methods, the most common being documentary analysis (44), case studies (29), interviews with key informants (27), discourse analysis (19), measurement and evaluation (19), comparative studies (11), fieldwork (12), public policy analysis (9), participatory methods (4), spatial and GIS analysis (2), application of analytical frameworks (8), scenario analysis (4), ethnography (3), and systematic reviews (2) (Figure 6: Methodology).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding the approach, in most cases, a critical analysis is made (28), methodological proposals are developed (26), criteria for determining the effectiveness of governance are identified (24), public policy recommendations are made (18), proposals to improve different forms of governance are analyzed (17), various expressions of collective action are studied (15) and, to a lesser extent, scenarios are predicted (4) (Figure 7: Approach).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e2. Trends in environmental governance studies according\u0026nbsp;to\u0026nbsp;the approach\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere are different approaches to the use of the term environmental governance as a conceptual and/or analytical framework, as is evidenced by the qualitative analysis of information reported in the abstracts and by the relationship between the objectives and reported results. The order that the analysis follows corresponds to the hierarchical place of the approach based on the sum of the cases found (for further reference, see Annex 1) (Figure 8: Analytical Frameworks and Different Approaches).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e2.1. Critical analysis\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom the critical analysis approach linked to decision-making, actions, generation of mechanisms, strategies and governance structures, the studies indicate that some legal instruments (international and local, such as management programs) do not recognize or contribute to the formation of environmental subjects. Similarly, regulatory frameworks tend to marginalize or not include the ecological knowledge of local groups because they favor market interests (Di Giminiani 2016; Sindico and Hawkins 2015; Aalto 2016; Watts and Depledge 2018) and economic valuation without taking into account environmental or social demands (Ioris 2009). The authors highlight the persistent failure of some international governance frameworks to solve issues that contribute to the continuous and widespread destruction of the environment and ecosystem services (Raftopoulos and Morley 2020; Laterra et al. 2019). This failure affects local managers, who act as bridges between government agencies and local communities, as they face the institutional dilemmas of multilevel and multiscale governance expressed in paradoxes of legalism and social emancipation (Prado et al. 2020).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding political ecology, the effects of neoliberal policies adopted in different countries and sectors of Latin America are analyzed: those that threaten common values and various socially legitimized community and collective processes, taking advantage of lax environmental legislation as well as the state\u0026rsquo;s participation in weakening resistance and demobilizing social activism against megaprojects and extractivist \u0026ldquo;development\u0026rdquo; projects (Rojas 2020; Andreucci and \u0026nbsp;Radhuber 2017; Duarte-Abadia et al. 2015; Renfrew 2011).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom the postneoliberal and postdevelopment perspectives, the studies propose using new tools to analyze and better understand socioenvironmental conflicts in highly conflictive scenarios (C\u0026oacute;rdoba et al. 2018; Grasa 2020). They also report that in some countries, new environmental governance measures have been imposed; although they have had positive social and environmental results, contradictions and uncertainties persist that affect socioecosystems negatively (Schmink et al. 2019). From the perspective of the management of natural resources, ecosystems and territories, authors argue that it is not enough to identify key actors in socioecosystems since there are important gaps in institutional networks that inhibit the transmission of information between scales and sectors (Vignola et al. 2019). The poor services infrastructure and lack of coordination between key sectors also limit individual agency (Harris and Carter 2019).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom a critical analytical perspective, for some authors, environmental governance as a plural participation mechanism is a seemingly empty concept since studies on megaprojects show that although this idea is supposedly adopted to increase public participation and promote ecological sustainability, in the real world, it is a simulation (Pieck 2013). In some cases, the parties involved demanded participation in the design and execution of policy interventions in spaces that need them in order to incorporate their needs and experiences to improve governance and thus avoid maldevelopment (Russo et al. 2021; Selfa et al. 2015).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e2.2. Methodological proposals\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding the creation, application, improvement or transformation of methodological proposals that improve the operability of environmental governance and the coupling of social and natural analytical frameworks, authors develop proposals to explain the challenges faced by societies in moving toward sustainability and achieving adequate environmental governance in various socioecosystems. They highlight aspects such as considering local communities and contexts in addition to revealing the potential existence of governance patterns. Many of these methodological proposals are formulated to assist in monitoring and influencing decision-making (Schaller et al. 2016; Vollmer et al. 2021), generating operational theoretical frameworks that link activities and achievements, and identifying useful learning for others (Olsen 2002; Sherman 2014). The aim is to help rigid and centralized governance models transition to adaptive and resilient models that can be modified over time (S\u0026aacute;nchez et al. 2018; Galvis et al. 2018; Coates 2021) and to establish internal governance initiatives that manage the various interests and levels of influence of the parties involved (Taylor 2005). Among the methodological frameworks applied are the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) (Monteiro et al. 2018), Participatory Water Monitoring (Pareja et al. 2018), the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) and Systems Approach Framework (SAF) approaches (Semeoshenkova et al. 2017), the Social Multi-criteria Evaluation (SMCE) (Walter et al. 2016), the field environmental philosophy applied to the ethics and ecology of educational and governance processes (FILAC) (Rozzi et al., 2014); the Human Scale Development (HSDA) analytical framework for achieving Transformative Science (TSc) (Spiering et al. 2021); and analytical frameworks on ecological democracy (Mitchell 2006).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOther methodological proposals focus on the management of natural resources, ecosystems and territories to analyze a set of indicators related to the drivers of change and apply the results to specific adaptive management regimes (e.g., to reduce pollution) (Sherman 2014). Interpretations of the three pillars of sustainable development (social, economic and environmental) beyond European contexts are also investigated, and the differences and strategic imperatives of countries in the global South are noted (Fritsch et al. 2020). In other cases, advances in the management of specific natural resources are discussed, and conceptual, methodological and practical challenges for scientists and decision-makers are identified (Botero et al. 2015).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudies referring to methodological proposals seek to provide references for public policies and different social sectors, pointing out that it is important for operational frameworks to link different activities and achievements using evaluation methods that facilitate the identification of learning in each project and the elements that should be incorporated throughout the process (Olsen 2002).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrameworks are used to compare social benefit sharing against conventional market institutions to understand how internal governance manages the diverse interests and influences of stakeholders (Taylor 2005). Conceptual models of community comanagement are also addressed with a territorial and functional approach incorporating different levels of governance (community/local, regional and national) with functions articulated in nested spaces that guarantee access to strategic resources in rural communities (Bernal et al. al. 2014). Other studies confirm the relevance of institutional context in integrating multilevel governance and various forms of participation (Schaller et al. 2016; Lebel et al. 2013). In addition, governance proposals are prepared within the frame of these challenges, threats and current environmental planning instruments (Manriquez et al. 2019).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMethodological proposals conceiving of environmental governance as a plural participation mechanism highlight the need to develop new approaches that include the findings of research from different disciplines (McDonnell 2008) to facilitate the transition from a traditional to an adaptive governance model (S\u0026aacute;nchez et al. 2018; Coates 2021).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e2.3. Criteria identification\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding the identification of criteria, strategies, actions and effective or ineffective forms of environmental governance, analyses of legal and institutional frameworks for sustainable ecosystem management highlight the need to identify criteria that reveal the role of legal and institutional reforms in achieving collaborative or territorial governance, as well as their legitimacy, in addition to determining the contextual conditions favoring the achievement of effective governance\u003csup\u003e[3]\u003c/sup\u003e (Cisneros 2019; Cistulli et al. 2014; Fern\u0026aacute;ndez-Maldonado 2019; Bradshaw 2017; Krause and Nielsen 2014; Monterroso and Barry 2012). Other studies recognize fragile or unclear governance in cases where institutional arrangements are weak, both within and between countries, which contributes to ecosystem vulnerability to imminent threats (Doria et al. 2020).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding community management of ecosystems and territories, criteria are identified to determine the influence of community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) on the resilience of socioecosystems and decision-making in facing important threats. Studies conclude that socioecological systems with a long tradition of community management, that is, that have established common agreements at the local level, seem to be more resilient to environmental challenges, while communities with internal governance problems have limited capacities to deal with external disturbances (such as global drivers of change or national policies) (Delgado-Serrano et al. 2018). Evidence shows that it is more effective to generate rules in a participatory manner and monitor compliance at the local level, making it possible to generate and maintain community governance (Epstein 2017). Other authors show that governance for community management faces challenges regarding the decentralization of specific actions (such as conservation) since it depends on how and why local actors become involved in regional strategies (Pinel et al. 2018).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe usefulness of multilevel governance in solving conflicts over natural resources between different actors (state, market and communities) at different levels is also discussed (Sattler et al. 2016). Local knowledge and interest in community management (particularly in forestry) produce better social and environmental results than governance at other levels. However, the implementation of these practices may be inconsistent over time, mainly because of a dynamic political environment or variations in government support of resource management policies (London et al., 2017). Criteria called internal variables associated with socioecological systems, sustainable development and sustainability (that is, community governance systems related to ancestral knowledge, history of land use and resources) are identified (Delgado-Serrano et al. 2015), as are external variables (linked to analyses of environmental public policies; environmental agreements and international organizations, governmental policies and public attitudes favoring and/or affecting socioecosystems; the use of regulations and market instruments and the security of individual and collective property rights; the adoption of green protocols and social and environmental responsibility policies translated into financial products, etc.) (Flores 1999; Swallow et al. 2010; Mejia-Escobar et al. 2020). Other studies point out technical and financial capacities as key attributes of governance; institutional memory, learning and knowledge; and participation and accountability and mention that these elements have been eroded by new public management reforms (Eakin et al. 2011; Lostarnau et al. 2011). The relevance of identifying criteria that are not fulfilled and their influence on the construction of ineffective environmental governance are also discussed (Morales-Giner et al. 2021).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e2.4. Public\u0026nbsp;policy\u0026nbsp;recommendations\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnother relevant aspect of environmental governance studies is their linkage with public policy recommendations (for creating and modifying policies and institutional frameworks) for achieving sustainability. In terms of socioecological systems, sustainable development and sustainability, in many cases, institutional frameworks do not consider the uncertainty and nonlinearity of socioecosystems, the existence of conceptual contradictions in policies and the lack of integration of scientific knowledge into legal frameworks (Mart\u0026iacute;nez et al. 2012). It is recommended that participatory public policies be implemented, but previously, it was essential to achieve adequate centralized management of socioecosystems (Salinas-Rojas and Roussel 2011); undertake actions that favor opportune and effective implementation of international institutional frameworks, such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), that cover various relevant topics (e.g., health and environment) (Buss et al. 2016); and foster trust relations with government organizations to support the implementation of collaborative actions between actors (Urcuqui-Bustamante et al. 2021).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLikewise, the link between the management of natural resources, ecosystems and territories and public policies is key, although in the studies use very different frameworks, including neoinstitutionalism, new public management, the Anthropocene and political ecology. For example, some studies argue that management practices for sustainability can be adopted only when good governance supported by financial incentives for the effective application of management rules exists (Nasi et al. 2011). However, if institutional frameworks are emphasized, they highlight generating mechanisms that favor permanence of personnel in public administration and formulate strategic governance systems (Bredariol and D\u0026apos;Avignon 2018).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors emphasize that it is essential to grant property titles to indigenous peoples and local communities (Gunter and Ceddia 2020). Recent changes in some policy frameworks emphasize the generation of incentives for integrated forest management and the simplification of regulations (Pacheco et al. 2016); other authors propose carrying out internal political reforms that allow local capacity building (for example, in forest conservation) (Jodoin 2017). Regarding the struggle against illegality, some studies mention that it is a priority to generate local benefits from production systems adapted to local communities\u0026rsquo; needs (e.g., certification) (McDermott et al. 2015). Other analyses show that public policies can interact positively at different levels as participants combine resources to pursue individual and collective socioeconomic strategies, generating synergies between implementation processes and improvement processes in program design (Izquierdo-Tort 2020). Additionally, some areas have been specified in which governmental and nongovernmental organizations can support local producers in decisions to achieve sustainable productive diversification (Schroth and Ruf 2014).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSome authors consider it necessary to radically modify the institutional structure of international environmental cooperation that allows short-termism to end, especially among economic and political powers (Franchini et al. 2017). It is essential to integrate the human rights approach into environmental impact assessments in order to protect the environment and the fundamental rights of indigenous peoples (Pereira 2021).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e2.5.\u0026nbsp;Proposal\u0026nbsp;construction\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eProposal construction related to mechanisms, instruments and strategies of local governance for sustainability refers to taking into account socioenvironmental specificities at different scales, which implies going beyond the limits theoretically proposed by sustainability, sustainable development and socioecological systems (Montoya et al. 2006; Zinsstag et al. 2016; Kuzdas et al. 2014; Roldan et al. 2019; Desmaison et al. 2018). The authors mention a tendency in the scientific field to analyze governance segmentally; thus, it is necessary to generate lasting institutional instruments that encourage the real participation of the sectors involved to generate integrated and collaborative governance (Roldan et al. 2019; Kuzdas et al. 2014; Mathez-Stiefel et al. 2017; Eakin and Wehbe 2009; Challenger et al. 2018). Regarding natural resource, ecosystem and territory management, studies consider it necessary to recognize and validate local knowledge systems and create networks to understand social and natural landscapes (Romero et al. 2012) as well as to promote more studies about the socioecosystems of the global South with a sustainable development approach (De Macedo et al. 2021).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding environmental governance as a mechanism of plural participation, research finds that it can help to encourage the implementation of actions that aim at the sustainable use of strategic resources as long as governmental and nongovernmental actors (including private companies, government, and civil society organizations) actively participate. Generating interinstitutional coordination mechanisms with a clear regulatory framework that favors plural interactions and the formulation of regulatory frameworks to stimulate the design, evaluation and modification of public policies can also be helpful (Esquivel et al. 2014; Cassio and S\u0026aacute;nchez 2018). For other authors, environmental governance has aims to identify actors in the political arena without considering their position in the capitalist accumulation framework (Renfrew 2011).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding legal and institutional environmental frameworks, a study highlights that weak implementation capacities, insufficient financing, sectoral and social conflicts, and lack of transparency are key obstacles to the implementation of policies and the functioning of governance mechanisms in the region (in forest landscape restoration) (Schweizer et al. 2021).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e2.6. Expressions of\u0026nbsp;collective\u0026nbsp;action\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe approach of environmental governance as an expression of collective action refers to how social mobilization contributes to the construction of organizations and social movements favoring cooperation and the construction of alternative decision-making systems (Barkin and \u0026nbsp;Lemus, 2014); multiscalar organizations and movements that advocate for the governance of common property resources (Vos et al. 2020); and cases of strong critiques being made because consultation or participation guidelines for local stakeholders are lacking, favoring solely the participation of private entities in governance processes, so that the concept of collective action becomes only rhetorical (Benites-Lazaro and \u0026nbsp;Mello-Thery 2019).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding collective action related to institutional frameworks for socioecosystem management, London et al. (2017) consider the common historical and cultural roots, the presence of leadership, local knowledge, economic dependence on resources and the threat of these to the socioecosystem to generate incentives for collective action and recognize that internal conflicts are the main barrier to community management. Others foreground the need for partnerships between multiple actors at various scales to promote social and environmental justice solutions that recognize the rights of communities to land and water (Stoltenborg and Boelens 2016). One study suggests considering sociopolitical actors associated with the market and mass media as social subjects, since they participate in conflicts and existing forms of governance (Lirios et al. 2015). Other authors affirm that Ostrom\u0026rsquo;s principles of institutional design (1993) have been useful in explaining how, through organization and community collective action, it has been possible to build governance from the bottom up even though changes in governance have traditionally occurred from the top down (Sattler et al., 2015). Schr\u0026ouml;ter et al. (2014) consider that community natural resource management requires a society with a certain level of self-organization, empowerment in decision-making processes, and interactions with external agents considered reliable by it, with which it can perhaps create effective win-win management scenarios. Likewise, Delgado-Serrano (2017) finds that community activities are not the main cause of natural resource degradation and recognizes that communities face important internal challenges (such as lack of capacities, rigid rules, and noninclusive community management) as well as external challenges (such as lack of economic incentives and compensation models that generate welfare opportunities associated with sustainable management).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCurrently, gender diversity and gender studies heed the participation of women in decision-making bodies, especially in traditional societies, where more women occupy positions or leadership (Coleman and Mwangi 2013), and their participation is recognized as necessary to achieve solid and resilient socioecological systems management (Delgado-Serrano and Escalante 2018).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSome studies indicate that institutions associated with natural resource management can contribute to the emergence of conflicts or cooperative actions. Hence, they recommend that policies include resource ownership and conflict resolution mechanisms and recognize social inequalities, facilitate strategies for strengthening collective action and promote equitable participation in dialogue and negotiation for access to and use of resources by marginalized groups (Ratner et al. 2017).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e2.7. Future\u0026nbsp;scenario\u0026nbsp;prediction\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding scenario prediction in the framework of environmental governance, few studies take this approach, although human and nature rights, sustainability and climate change in particular may force us to reflect on the subject. Studies that explicitly address scenarios conceive that future problems are unlikely to be effectively addressed in certain ecosystems (e.g., coastal and insular areas) despite numerous management plans and development policy initiatives (Debrot and Sybesma 2000). On the other hand, authors consider that to achieve sustainability, a legal-political approach must be taken to facilitate regional integration in strategic sectors (such as energy); they emphasize that new scenarios must include fifth-generation human rights (such as energy security and the human rights to water and a healthy environment, among others) (Balderrama et al. 2019; Wilder et al. 2020). In communities, policies and strategies for future adaptation to climate change remain limited, which is why authors call for support for local livelihoods (Ruiz-Mall\u0026eacute;n et al. 2015) and encourage commitments to developing and adopting sustainable clean and innovative technologies (both in society and in business sectors) to prevent pollution, among other problems (P\u0026eacute;rez-Pineda et al 2017).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e3. Main challenges of environmental governance in Latin America\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe reviewed literature on environmental governance alludes to various limitations related to the democratic deficit and practices that are generally reproduced by Latin American societies. Schmitter and Karl (1991) recognize that notions of the economic freedom of neoliberal models are not synonymous with political freedom and can even hinder it. They state that in democratic terms, the emergence of political institutions that can compete peacefully to form governments and influence public policies is desirable in order to canalize social and economic conflicts through regular procedures that are sufficient and adequately linked with civil society. In this way, authorities will commit to carrying out courses of action in favor of the public and collective interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, \u0026quot;democracies\u0026quot; in the countries of the region have not been able to fulfill that promise, in part due to difficult transitions from authoritarian governments and the interference and influence of de facto powers that have historically impeded democratic processes and practices from becoming common and constant. The emergence and survival of democracy depend on social preconditions such as the wide distribution of participatory resources and the existence of a trusting and tolerant public that values freedom of choice. Ideally, these elements should permeate the being and must be of environmental governance. However, in Latin America, some of the most important phenomena that hinder the concretion of the meaning of governance are associated with the fact that powerful social actors at the local level and national governments contribute to the reproduction of clientelistic and centralist authoritarian models in which the trafficking of influence prevails (Libert and Trench 2016; Cruz-Garc\u0026iacute;a et al. 2016). Likewise, the imposition of participation frameworks from above or from the government persists (Brenner and Vargas 2010). Slowness or the deliberate transgression of efforts that contribute to establishing participatory governance processes, as well as new arrangements to face environmental challenges that are dependent on specific political and financial situations at the local and international levels, are also important issues (Libert and Trench, 2016).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOne of the key issues for environmental governance in various countries and sectors of government public administration is that there are no guidelines to encourage the participation of stakeholders at the local level, and when such guidelines do exist, they are vague and/or unfulfilled, a situation that is used by private companies to dominate and control consultation processes (Benites-Lazaro et al. 2019). There is a persistent lack of participation of local communities in discussions and deliberations about the potential benefits and effects of projects that are carried out in their territories and an absence of effective participatory mechanisms for decision-making (Benites-Lazaro et al. 2019; Kusters et al. 2020).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt the international level, authors point out the persistent failure of international governance frameworks to address and provide solutions to the widespread destruction of nature, which has even been linked to phenomena such as cultural genocide and ecocide (Raftopoulos and Morley 2020). Although gender issues are addressed in only a few studies, it is essential to encourage studies about women\u0026apos;s participation in decision-making processes and their potential contribution to antipatriarchal, postcapitalist and postneoliberal environmental governance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"ftn1\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e[3]\u003c/sup\u003e According to some authors, among the necessary conditions for governance are access to information and the capacities of actors, organizations and institutions at different levels (Cistulli et al., 2014); recognition of the rights of local people and communities (Graziano et al. 2015); and the need to foster trust in governance regimes, mainly among indigenous populations (Evans et al. 2014). For example, territorial governance is subject to the limited interest and capacity of the state to plan, manage and guide spatial development, so it is essential to review the institutional frameworks associated with planning systems, the approach and the types of governance that are promoted (Fern\u0026aacute;ndez-Maldonado 2019).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn academic terms, the environmental governance studies reviewed clearly exemplify the polysemy and vagueness of the concept (Hufty \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Lange et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; L\u0026eacute;tourneau \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Porras \u003cspan citationid=\"CR108\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) and demonstrate the ontological and epistemological diversity that permeates the analytical frameworks used and different visions present in the study of this topic in Latin America. Likewise, they evidence a conceptual multidimensionality that combines institutional and normative, organizational and collective action, scientific and local knowledge, social and public action, and forms and structures of government on various scales (global, national, regional, local, community, corporate, etc.) Despite this complex diversity of ideas and results, we find some coincidences that allow us to characterize the use and meaning of environmental governance in the region as a concept that refers to transformations and change in the broadest sense of the word when trying to understand ways of interaction between state and society that go beyond hierarchical relationships. Theoretically, the purpose of governance is to solve socioenvironmental problems in a coordinated and joint manner, making society part of the solution. However, this implies disputing and questioning the \u003cem\u003estatus quo\u003c/em\u003e and the hegemonic frameworks that structure the forms of unequal and unfair social interaction that perpetuate the subordination of the most vulnerable or those whose rights are not recognized.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe use of the governance concept also shows a process of experimentation and scientific creativity to integrate and apply analytical frameworks, especially of a multidisciplinary nature, followed by interdisciplinary and, to a lesser extent, transdisciplinary frameworks. Through the systematic review, it is possible to conclude that there is a convergence of social sciences disciplines (sociology, economics, political science, public administration, legal sciences, anthropology, international relations, and geography, among others) with natural and environmental sciences (biology, ecology, environmental engineering, forest engineering, hydrology, geology, sustainability, etc.). Hence, the largest number of studies refer to the analysis of specific ecosystems and their links with the ways in which societies (states or groups) organize themselves to manage them at different scales and levels. The formulation and application of legal and institutional frameworks is a key issue; various regulatory instruments and public policies seek to achieve the objectives that theoretically must be defined through the participation of all parties involved to accomplish the sustainable management of ecosystems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, some authors mention that knowledge is usually fragmented (Kuzdas and Wieck 2014; Balanzo et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Ort\u0026iacute;z et al. 2020); therefore, they point out that it is important to adopt an integrated vision through incorporating different frameworks to describe and analyze what happens in socioenvironmental reality using various methods, such as critical reflection, literature review, empirical work and direct dialogue with social actors (Roldan et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR115\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Lebel et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Kusters et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLikewise, the field of environmental governance invites us to explore the combination of analytical frameworks in addition to incorporating and experimenting with different variable and indicator combinations that favor the operability of the concept. Such investigations allow researchers to determine relevant aspects, typologies, classifications or other methods that contribute to useful generalizations for analysis in academic terms and for application in public policies. The expectation is that the operability of the concept helps identify the elements that make it inoperable and ineffective and, above all, prevent socioenvironmental problems from being solved. Operability has academic utility, but it is also key for the elaboration, re-elaboration, modification, evaluation or prescription of public policies, programs, strategies and any other element for which it is necessary to know the efficiency of societal and environmental interactions (Taylor \u003cspan citationid=\"CR140\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Eakin and Wehbe \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Lebel et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; \u0026Aacute;lvarez-Coque et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). However, the instrumentalization of the concept has aroused critiques since it has been used to measure \"efficacy\" rather than to build mechanisms and strategies that help formulate and achieve common goals to solve complex social and socioenvironmental problems (Eakin et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Barkin and Fuente \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Instrumentalization can be seen as a virtue for some public policies, especially those that oversimplify the contexts in which they are inscribed, as is the case of the structural adjustment policies implemented in several Latin American countries (Zurbriggen \u003cspan citationid=\"CR150\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Other visions indicate that it is necessary to incorporate an integral vision (integrality), that is, to observe the specificities and particularities of the social, political, ecological and economic contexts among other aspects that permeate the socioenvironmental realities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegarding the political use of the concept, it refers to state-society relations, but unlike approaches that configure governance as an exclusive directive action of the government, governance makes it possible to recognize society-society relationships that are built with the aim of undertaking actions and solving socioenvironmental problems that arise in groups on different scales. Understanding these interactions beyond hierarchical relationships is a way of recognizing that governments are not the only relevant actors in solving and managing socioenvironmental problems; rather, these are shared responsibilities, as scholars on the subject mention (Kooiman \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Pierre and Peters \u003cspan citationid=\"CR106\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Rhodes \u003cspan citationid=\"CR113\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; Stoker \u003cspan citationid=\"CR137\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e). Regarding society-society relations, they refer to existing various forms of collective organization at smaller social and spatial scales (e.g., communities and networks of civil society organizations and other agents that contribute to the generation of governance from the bottom up). Elinor Ostrom\u0026rsquo;s school has made important contributions to understanding the value of the governance of the commons and its interconnection with broader scales through the establishment of rules that contribute to the maintenance of socioecological systems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudies predominantly report a critical approach to environmental governance, questioning certain practices and uses that discredit its usefulness, which can add to the lack of clarity in the concept definition. Some authors conceive it as an empty concept because it is used to simulate the participation of agents involved in decision-making or to endorse processes that do not involve consultation or social participation, thus favoring agents with economic and political power. Likewise, different agents with decision-making capacity (public and private) do not accredit local groups and inhabitants as subjects of law, undermining the democratic values to which the concept appeals as well as community processes and forms of local organization and generating significant potential for conflicts. On the other hand, the lack of adequate communication channels and transmission of information between actors involved and authorities is detected, to which are added institutional gaps and lax regulations used to execute projects affecting socioecosystems. Environmental governance as a mechanism of democratic and plural social participation requires much work in the region, especially because there are contradictions between development policies and the current state of socioecosystems and respect for individual and group human rights.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunity environmental governance contrasts with other forms of governance since several studies report that communities that are capable of formulating their own rules to regulate social life and interactions with socioecosystems can be successful in the management of their resources. However, these favorable aspects have exogenous limitations associated with the state and other external agents\u0026rsquo; relations as well as variations in public policies over time that can discourage or affect forms of local governance.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe main challenge presented by environmental governance in Latin America is the lack of a democratic tradition that favors relations between state and society based on mutual recognition as subjects of rights; therefore, the lack of respect for the rule of law has repercussions for local societies and ecosystems. These problems seem to be far from being solved in pandemic and postpandemic contexts, since inequalities and poverty have increased in the region and with authoritarian outbreaks, while local societies and groups continue to protest decisions that violate their rights.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDeclarations of interest:\u003c/strong\u003e none\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col class=\"decimal_type\"\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAalto P (2016) The new International Energy Charter: Instrumental or incremental progress in governance? Energy Research and Social Science\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAguilar Villanueva LF (2006) Gobernanza y gesti\u0026oacute;n p\u0026uacute;blica. Edit. FCE, M\u0026eacute;xico.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAguilar Villanueva LF (2016) Democracia, gobernabilidad y gobernanza. Edit. Instituto Nacional Electoral. M\u0026eacute;xico.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026Aacute;lvarez-Coque JMG, Saini E, Esteban E, Verd\u0026uacute; FM (2020) Governance of knowledge and innovation in the Ibero-American agri-food system; Spanish journal of agricultural research, 18(4), 4.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAndreucci D, Radhuber, IM (2017). Limits to \u0026ldquo;counter-neoliberal\u0026rdquo; reform: Mining expansion and the marginalisation of post-extractivist forces in Evo Morales\u0026rsquo;s Bolivia. Geoforum, 84, 280-291.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBalanzo A, Garavito L, Rojas H, Sobotova L, P\u0026eacute;rez O, Guaquet\u0026aacute; D, Sanabria S (2020) Typical Challenges of Governance for Sustainable Regional Development in Globalized Latin America: A Multidimensional Literature Review. Sustainability, 12(7), 2702.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBalderrama C, Oliveira V, Orellana R, Morales M (2019) An\u0026aacute;lisis elemental en integraci\u0026oacute;n energ\u0026eacute;tica entre naciones en el marco de la nueva generaci\u0026oacute;n del derecho internacional de la energ\u0026iacute;a. Revista Andina de Estudios Pol\u0026iacute;ticos, 9(1), 26-45.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBarkin D, Fuente M (2013) Community forest management: Can the green economy contribute to environmental justice? In Natural Resources Forum; Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 200-210.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBarkin D, Lemus B (2014) Rethinking the Social and Solidarity Society in Light of Community Practice; Sustainability\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBenites-Lazaro LL, Mello-Thery NA (2019) Empowering communities? Local stakeholders\u0026apos; participation in the Clean Development Mechanism in Latin America; World Development \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBernal A, Rivas Tovar LA, Pe\u0026ntilde;a Cruz MP (2014) Propuesta de un modelo de co-gesti\u0026oacute;n para los peque\u0026ntilde;os abastos comunitarios de agua en Colombia. Perfiles Latinoamericanos.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBevir M (2013) A theory of governance.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBezerra MO, Vollmer D, Acero N, Marques MC, Restrepo D, Mendoza E, Serrano L (2021) Operationalizing Integrated Water Resource Management in Latin America: Insights from Application of the Freshwater Health Index; Environmental Management, 1-20.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBobbio N, Matteucci N, Pasquino G (1983) Dicion\u0026aacute;rio de Pol\u0026iacute;tica. Vol. 1. Edit. Fundacao Universidade de Brasilia (UnB). Brasil.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBotero CM, Williams AT, Cabrera JA (2015) Advances in Beach Management in Latin America: Overview from Certification Schemes; Environmental Management and governance: advances in coastal and marine resources\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBradshaw A (2017) Regulatory change and innovation in Latin America: The case of renewable energy in Brazil. Utilities Policy\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBredariol TDO, D\u0026rsquo;Avignon ALDA (2018) Institutions and environmental governance: the case of environmental permitting for offshore oil and gas projects. Ambiente and Sociedade, 21.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrenner L, Vargas del R\u0026iacute;o D (2010) Gobernabilidad y gobernanza ambiental en M\u0026eacute;xico: La experiencia de la Reserva de la Biosfera Sian Ka\u0026apos;an; Polis, 6(2), 115-154.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBurger P, Christen M (2011) Towards a capability approach of sustainability; Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(8), 787-795.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBurrier G (2016) The developmental state, civil society, and hydroelectric politics in Brazil, The Journal of Environment \u0026amp; Development, 25(3), 332-358.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBuss PM, Fonseca LE, Galvao LAC, Fortune K, Cook C (2016) Health in all policies in the partnership for sustainable development; Revista Panamericana de Salud Publica-Pan American Journal Of Public Health\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCassio Madrazo E, S\u0026aacute;nchez Ortiz E. (2018) Gobernanza ambiental para el desarrollo sostenible de la cuenca de Santiaguillo, Durango. Espiral (Guadalajara), 25(72), 183-208.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCEPAL, Naciones Unidas. (2016) La matriz de la desigualdad social en Am\u0026eacute;rica Latina. Chile.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChallenger A, C\u0026oacute;rdova A, Lazos Chavero E, Equihua M, Maass M (2018) La opini\u0026oacute;n experta eval\u0026uacute;a la pol\u0026iacute;tica ambiental mexicana: Hacia la gesti\u0026oacute;n de socioecosistemas; Gesti\u0026oacute;n y pol\u0026iacute;tica p\u0026uacute;blica\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChan S, Ellinger P, Widerberg O (2018) Exploring national and regional orchestration of non-state action for a\u0026lt; 1.5 C world; International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 18(1), 135-152.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChilds J (2014) From \u0026lsquo;criminals of the earth\u0026rsquo; to \u0026lsquo;stewards of the environment\u0026rsquo;: The social and environmental justice of Fair Trade gold; Geoforum, 57, 129-137.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCisneros P (2019) What makes collaborative water governance partnerships resilient to policy change? A comparative study of two cases in Ecuador; Ecology and Society.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCistulli V, Rodriguez-Pose A, Escobar G, Marta S, Schejtman A (2014) Addressing food security and nutrition by means of a territorial approach; Food Security.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCoates R (2021) Educational hazards? The politics of disaster risk education in Rio de Janeiro. Disasters\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eColeman EA, Mwangi E (2013) Women\u0026apos;s participation in forest management: A cross-country analysis; Global Environmental Change, 23(1), 193-205.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eContreras-Hermosilla A (2011) People, governance and forests -The stumbling blocks in forest governance reform in Latin America; Forests, 2(1), 168-199.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eC\u0026oacute;rdoba D, Chiappe M, Abrams J, Selfa T (2018) Fuelling Social Inclusion? Neo‐extractivism, State\u0026ndash;Society Relations and Biofuel Policies in Latin America\u0026apos;s Southern Cone; Development and Change, 49(1), 63-88.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCruz-Garc\u0026iacute;a et al., 2016\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDe Macedo LSV, Picavet MEB, de Oliveira JAP, Shih WY (2021) Urban green and blue infrastructure: A critical analysis of research on developing countries. Journal of Cleaner Production\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDe Marchi M, Sengar B, Furze JN (2017) Prospects for Sustainability in Human\u0026ndash;Environment Patterns: Dynamic Management of Common Resources; Mathematical Advances Towards Sustainable Environmental Systems (pp. 319-347). Springer, Cham.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDe Sousa Santos B (2010) Refundación del Estado en América Latina. Perspectivas desde una epistemología del Sur. Edit. Instituto Internacional de Derecho y Sociedad, Programa Democracia y Transformación Global. Perú.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDebrot AO, Sybesma J (2000) The Dutch Antilles. Seas at the millennium - an environmental evaluation - Volume 1. Elsevier\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDelgado-Serrano MM (2017) Trade-offs between conservation and development in community-based management initiatives. International Journal of the Commons, 11(2).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDelgado-Serrano MM, Escalante SR (2018) Gender and cross-scale differences in the perception of social-ecological systems; Sustainability, 10(9), 2983.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDelgado-Serrano MM, Oteros-Rozas E, Ruiz-Mall\u0026eacute;n I, Calvo-Boyero D, Ortiz-Guerrero CE, Escalante-Semerena RI, Corbera E (2018) Influence of community-based natural resource management strategies in the resilience of social-ecological systems; Regional environmental change, 18(2), 581-592.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDelgado-Serrano MM, Oteros-Rozas E, Vanwildemeersch P, Ort\u0026iacute;z-Guerrero C, London S, Escalante R (2015) Local perceptions on social-ecological dynamics in Latin America in three community-based natural resource management systems; Ecology and Society, 20(4).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDesmaison B, Boano C, Astolfo G (2018) CASA (Ciudades Auto-Sostenibles Amazónicas): desafíos y oportunidades para la sostenibilidad de los proyectos de reasentamiento poblacional preventivo en la Amazonía Peruana; Medio Ambiente y Urbanización\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDi Giminiani P (2016) How to Manage a Forest: Environmental Governance in Neoliberal Chile; Anthropological Quarterly\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDoria CRC, Athayde S, de Lima HM, Carvajal-Vallejos FM, Dutka-Gianelli J (2020) Challenges for the Governance of Small-Scale Fisheries on the Brazil-Bolivia Transboundary Region; Society and Natural Resources \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDuarte-Abad\u0026iacute;a B, Boelens R, Roa-Avenda\u0026ntilde;o T (2015) Hydropower, encroachment and the re-patterning of hydrosocial territory: The case of Hidrosogamoso in Colombia; Human Organization, 74(3), 243-254.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDulal HB, Shah KU, Sapkota C (2012) Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) projects: lessons for future policy design and implementation; International journal of sustainable development \u0026amp; world ecology; 19(2), 116-129.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEakin H, Eriksen S, Eikeland PO, \u0026Oslash;yen C (2011) Public sector reform and governance for adaptation: implications of new public management for adaptive capacity in Mexico and Norway; Environmental management, 47(3), 338-351.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEakin HC, Wehbe MB (2009) Linking local vulnerability to system sustainability in a resilience framework: Two cases from Latin America\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEpstein G (2017) Local rulemaking, enforcement and compliance in state-owned forest commons; Ecological Economics\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEsquivel Rios S, Cruz Jim\u0026eacute;nez G, Zizumbo Villarreal L, Cadena Inostroza C (2014) Gobernanza para el turismo en espacios rurales. Reserva de la biosfera mariposa Monarca; Revista mexicana de ciencias agr\u0026iacute;colas\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEvans K, Murphy L, de Jong W (2014) Global versus local narratives of REDD: A case study from Peru\u0026apos;s Amazon; Environmental Science and Policy\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFern\u0026aacute;ndez-Maldonado AM (2019) Unboxing the Black Box of Peruvian Planning; Planning Practice and Research\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFlores M (1999) Agri-food production in Mexico: the transition to sustainability. Industry and Environment (France).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFoa RS, Klassen A, Wenger D, Rand A, Slade M (2020) Youth and Satisfaction with Democracy: Reversing the Democratic Disconnect? Cambridge, United Kingdom: Centre for the Future of Democracy.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFranchini M, Viola E, Barros-Platiau AF (2017) The challenges of the anthropocene: from international environmental politics to global governance; Ambiente \u0026amp; Sociedade, 20, 177-202.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFritsch O, Benson D, Adelle C, Massot A (2020) Three faces of the european union water initiative: Promoting the water framework directive or sustainable development? Water Alternatives\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eF\u0026uuml;rst C, Opdam P, Inostroza L, Luque S (2014) Evaluating the role of ecosystem services in participatory land use planning: proposing a balanced score card. Landscape ecology; 29(8), 1435-1446.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGalvis LKS, Gaspar \u0026Agrave;B, Navarro RM, Vallejos-Romero A (2018) Gobernanza del agua y desaf\u0026iacute;os emergentes para estructuras normativas e institucionales r\u0026iacute;gidas: un an\u0026aacute;lisis desde el caso chileno; Revista del CLAD Reforma y Democracia, (70), 199-234.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrasa R (2020) Direct violence and distributive conflicts about water. The evolution of analytical debate and the proposal of a new approach; Relaciones Internacionales-Madrid\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGraziano Ceddia M, Gunter U, Corriveau-Bourque A (2015) Land tenure and agricultural expansion in Latin America: The role of Indigenous Peoples\u0026apos; and local communities\u0026apos; forest rights; Global Environmental Change\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGunter U, Ceddia MG (2020) Can Indigenous and Community-Based Ecotourism Serve as a Catalyst for Land Sparing in Latin America? Journal Of Travel Research\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarris ML, Carter ED (2019) Muddying the waters: A political ecology of mosquito-borne disease in coastal Ecuador. Health and Place\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHufty M (2016) La gouvernance: polys\u0026eacute;mique, banale et neutre? Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai-Studia Europaea, 61(1), 103-134.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIoris AAR (2009) Water policy reforms in Brazil: the contradiction between economic approaches and socionatural needs; Social Development.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIzquierdo-Tort S (2020) Payments for ecosystem services and conditional cash transfers in a policy mix: Microlevel interactions in Selva Lacandona, Mexico. Environmental Policy and Governance\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJodoin S (2017) The transnational policy process for REDD+ and domestic policy entrepreneurship in developing countries; Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJuteau-Martineau G, Becerra S, Maurice L (2014) Ambiente, petr\u0026oacute;leo y vulnerabilidad pol\u0026iacute;tica en el Oriente Ecuatoriano: \u0026iquest;hacia nuevas formas de gobernanza energ\u0026eacute;tica?\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKemp R, Parto S, Gibson RB (2005) Governance for sustainable development: moving from theory to practice; International journal of sustainable development, 8(1-2), 12-30.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKooiman J (2003) Governing as Governance, London: Sage. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKrause T, Nielsen TD (2014) The legitimacy of incentive-based conservation and a critical account of social safeguards. Environmental Science and Policy\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKusters K, De Graaf M, Buck L, Galido K, Maindo A, Mendoza H, Zagt R (2020) Inclusive landscape governance for sustainable development: assessment methodology and lessons for Civil Society Organizations; Land, 9(4), 128.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKuzdas C, Warner B, Wiek A, Yglesias M, Vignola R, Ram\u0026iacute;rez-Cover A (2016) Identifying the potential of governance regimes to aggravate or mitigate local water conflicts in regions threatened by climate change; Local Environment, 21(11), 1387-1408.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKuzdas C, Wiek A, Warner B, Vignola R, Morataya R (2014) Sustainability appraisal of water governance regimes: the case of Guanacaste, Costa Rica; Environmental management, 54(2), 205-222.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLange P, Driessen PPJ, Sauer A, Bornemann B, Burger P (2013) Governing Towards Sustainability-Conceptualizing Modes of Governance; Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, DOI:10.1080/1523908X.2013.769414 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLaterra P, Nahuelhual L, Vallejos M, Berrouet L, P\u0026eacute;rez EA, Enrico L, Villegas-Palacio C (2019) Linking inequalities and ecosystem services in Latin America; Ecosystem Services, 36, 100875.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLatinbarom\u0026eacute;tro (2021) Informe Latinbar\u0026oacute;metro 2021. Adios a Macondo; Santiago, Chile. Octubre https://www.latinobarometro.org/latContents.jsp \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLebel L, Anderies JM, Campbell B, Folke C, Hatfield-Dodds S, Hughes TP, Wilson J (2006) Governance and the capacity to manage resilience in regional social-ecological systems; Ecology and Society 11(1): 19. www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art19/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLebel L, Nikitina E, Pahl-Wostl C, Knieper C (2013) Institutional fit and river basin governance: a new approach using multiple composite measures; Ecology and Society, 18(1).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLehmann P, Brenck M, Gebhardt O, Schaller S, S\u0026uuml;\u0026szlig;bauer E (2015) Barriers and opportunities for urban adaptation planning: analytical framework and evidence from cities in Latin America and Germany; Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change, 20(1), 75-97.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eL\u0026eacute;tourneau A (2009) Les th\u0026eacute;ories de la gouvernance: Pluralit\u0026eacute; de discours et enjeux \u0026eacute;thiques; [VertigO] La revue \u0026eacute;lectronique en sciences de l\u0026rsquo;environnement 6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLibert AA, Trench T (2016) Bosques y suelos en el contexto de REDD+: Entre gobierno y gobernanza en M\u0026eacute;xico; Terra Latinoamericana, 34(1), 113-124.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLirios CG, Guill\u0026eacute;n JC, Vald\u0026eacute;s JH, Rubio SM, Estrada EG, Ferrusca JFR (2015) Hacia una agenda h\u0026iacute;drica para la gobernanza local sustentable; Revista Internacional de Investigaci\u0026oacute;n en Ciencias Sociales, 11(1), 130-154.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLondon S, Rojas M, Martin MI, Scordo F, Cisneros MAH, Bustos ML, Piccolo MC (2017) Characterization of an artisanal fishery in Argentina using the social-ecological systems framework; International Journal of the Commons, 11(1).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLostarnau C, Oyarz\u0026uacute;n J, Maturana H, Soto G, Se\u0026ntilde;oret M, Soto M, Oyarz\u0026uacute;n R (2011) Stakeholder participation within the public environmental system in Chile: Major gaps between theory and practice; Journal of Environmental Management, 92(10), 2470-2478.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eManriquez Tirado H, Mansilla Qui\u0026ntilde;ones P, Moreira Mu\u0026ntilde;oz A (2019) Hacia una conservaci\u0026oacute;n integrada del paisaje biogeocultural de Atacama; Di\u0026aacute;logo andino.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMart\u0026iacute;nez Pe\u0026ntilde;a RM, Huber-Sannwald E, Arredondo Moreno JT, Costero Garbarino MC, Pe\u0026ntilde;a de Paz F (2012) An\u0026aacute;lisis del concepto de sostenibilidad en la legislaci\u0026oacute;n mexicana usando el paradigma de Desarrollo de las Zonas Secas; Interciencia \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMathez-Stiefel SL, Peralvo M, Baez S, Rist S, Buytaert W, Cuesta F, Fadrique B, Feeley KJ, Groth AAP, Homeier J, Llambi LD, Locatelli B, Sandoval FL, Malizia A, Young KR (2017) Research Priorities for the Conservation and Sustainable Governance of Andean Forest Landscapes; Mountain Research and Development\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcDermott CL, Irland LC, Pacheco P (2015) Forest certification and legality initiatives in the Brazilian Amazon: Lessons for effective and equitable forest governance; Forest Policy and Economics\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcDonnell RA (2008) Challenges for integrated water resources management: How do we provide the knowledge to support truly integrated thinking?; International Journal of Water Resources Development\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMejia-Escobar JC, Gonz\u0026aacute;lez-Ruiz JD, Duque-Grisales E (2020) Sustainable financial products in the Latin America banking industry: Current status and insights; Sustainability, 12(14), 5648.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMitchell RE (2006) Environmental governance in Mexico: Two case studies of Oaxaca\u0026apos;s community forest sector. Journal of Latin American Studies, 38(3), 519-548.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta- Analyses: The PRISMA Statement; PLoS Med 6(7): e1000097. doi:10.1371/ journal.pmed.1000097 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMonteiro MB, do Ros\u0026aacute;rio Partid\u0026aacute;rio M, Meuleman L (2018) A comparative analysis on how different governance contexts may influence Strategic Environmental Assessment; Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 72, 79-87.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMonterroso I, Barry D (2012) Legitimacy of Forest Rights: The Underpinnings of the Forest Tenure Reform in the Protected Areas of Peten, Guatemala; Conservation and Society\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMontoya G\u0026oacute;mez G, Hern\u0026aacute;ndez Ruiz JF, Velasco P\u0026eacute;rez A, Reygadas L, Ramos Maza T (2006) Organizaci\u0026oacute;n comunitaria para la conservaci\u0026oacute;n forestal: estudio de caso en la Selva Lacandona de Chiapas, M\u0026eacute;xico; Papeles de Poblaci\u0026oacute;n\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMorales-Giner P, Speranza ML, Arteaga M, Baudoin Farah A, Ferreira da Fonseca JS, Garc\u0026iacute;a Villacorta A, Perz S (2021) Multi-Criteria Frameworks to Improve Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Environmental Governance in the Amazon; Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 4, 38.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNasi R, Putz FE, Pacheco P, Wunder S, Anta S (2011) Sustainable forest management and carbon in tropical Latin America: The case for REDD+; Forests\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOlsen SB (2002) Assessing progress toward the goals of coastal management; Coastal Management\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOrtiz A, Sucozha\u0026ntilde;ay D, Vanegas P, Mart\u0026iacute;nez-Moscoso A (2020) A Regional Response to a Global Problem: Single Use Plastics Regulation in the Countries of the Pacific Alliance; Sustainability, 12(19), 8093.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOstrom E (1993) Design principles in long‐enduring irrigation institutions, Water Resources Research, 29(7), 1907-1912.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePacheco P, Mejia E, Cano W, de Jong W (2016) Smallholder Forestry in the Western Amazon: Outcomes from Forest Reforms and Emerging Policy Perspectives; Forests\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePareja C, Honey-Ros\u0026eacute;s J, Kunz NC, Fraser J, Xavier A (2018) What participation? Distinguishing water monitoring programs in mining regions based on community participation; Water, 10(10), 1325.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePereira R (2021) Public participation, indigenous peoples\u0026rsquo; land rights and major infrastructure projects in the Amazon: The case for a human rights assessment framework; Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eP\u0026eacute;rez-Pineda F, Alcaraz JM, Col\u0026oacute;n C (2017) Creating sustainable value in the hospitality industry: a (critical) multi-stakeholder study in the Dominican Republic; Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25(11), 1633-1649.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePieck SK (2013) Asphalt dreams: road construction and environmental citizenship in Peru; Development and Change, 44(5), 1039-1063. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePierre J, Peters BG (2000) Governance, Politics and the State, London: Macmillan.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePinel SL, L\u0026oacute;pez Rodriguez F, Morocho Cuenca R, Astudillo Aguillar D, Merriman D (2018) Scaling down or scaling up? Local actor decisions and the feasibility of decentralized environmental governance: a case of P\u0026aacute;ramo wetlands in Southern Ecuador; Scottish Geographical Journal, 134(1-2), 45-70.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePorras F (2019) Gobernanza: propuestas, l\u0026iacute;mites y perspectivas. Edit. Instituto de Investigaciones Jos\u0026eacute; Mar\u0026iacute;a Luis Mora, Conacyt. M\u0026eacute;xico. E-Book.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePrado DS, de Castro F, Seixas CS (2020) The Dramas of the Marine Extractive Reserve Managers in Brazil: Navigating through Multiple Institutions; Society and Natural Resources\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRaftopoulos M, Morley J (2020) Ecocide in the Amazon: the contested politics of environmental rights in Brazil; The International Journal of Human Rights, 24(10), 1616-1641.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRatner B, Meinzen-Dick R, Hellin J, Mapedza E, Unruh J, Veening W, Bruch C (2017) Addressing conflict through collective action in natural resource management; International Journal of the Commons, 11(2).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRenfrew D (2011) The curse of wealth: Political ecologies of Latin American neoliberalism; Geography Compass, 5(8), 581-594.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRhodes RAW (1997) Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability, Buckingham: Open University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRojas Rosales CA (2020) Biopolitics and hydropower of drinking water in Latin America: Conceptual resources to understand hydrohegemony in Latin America; Relaciones Internacionales-Madrid\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoldan VA, Galvan DE, Lopes PFM, Lopez J, Bellamy AS, Gallego F, Cinti A, Rius P, Schroter B, Aguado M, Barriga AM, Pittman J, Avila-Flores G, Lopez-Gomez CP, Gongora ME (2019) Are we seeing the whole picture in land-sea systems? Opportunities and challenges for operationalizing the ES concept; Ecosystem Services, 38, 100966.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRomero C, Athayde S, Collomb JGE, DiGiano M, Schmink M, Schramski S, Seales L (2012) Conservation and Development in Latin America and Southern Africa: Setting the Stage. Ecology and Society\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoncagliolo \u0026Aacute;C (2013) La gobernanza del agua en la cuenca Chancay-Lambayeque, Per\u0026uacute;. De la Reforma Agraria a la Gesti\u0026oacute;n Integrada de Recursos H\u0026iacute;dricos (1969-2013), Revista Geogr\u0026aacute;fica, 7-53.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRozzi R, Massardo F, Contador T, Crego RD, M\u0026eacute;ndez M, Cavieres LA, Jim\u0026eacute;nez JE (2014) Filosof\u0026iacute;a ambiental de campo: ecolog\u0026iacute;a y \u0026eacute;tica en las redes LTER-Chile e ILTER. Bosque (Valdivia), 35(3), 439-447.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRuiz-Mall\u0026eacute;n I, Corbera E, Calvo-Boyero D, Reyes-Garc\u0026iacute;a V (2015) Participatory scenarios to explore local adaptation to global change in biosphere reserves: experiences from Bolivia and Mexico; Environmental Science and Policy, 54, 398-408.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRusso Lopes G, Bastos Lima MG, Reis Tiago NP (2021) Maldevelopment revisited: Inclusiveness and social impacts of soy expansion over Brazil\u0026apos;s Cerrado in Matopiba; World Development\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSalinas-Rojas A, Roussel D (2011) Participative politics around protected natural spaces in Latin America. The cases of nevado de toluca np (Mexico) and la Amistad NP (Costa Rica); Bulletin d\u0026apos;Association de Geographes Francais\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eS\u0026aacute;nchez Galvis LK, Boso Gaspar A, Montalba Navarro R, Vallejos-Romero A (2018) Gobernanza del agua y desaf\u0026iacute;os emergentes para estructuras normativas e institucionales r\u0026iacute;gidas: un an\u0026aacute;lisis desde el caso chileno; Revista del CLAD; Reforma y Democracia.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSattler C, Schr\u0026ouml;ter B, Jeric\u0026oacute;-Daminello C, Sessin-Dilascio K, Meyer C, Matzdorf B, Giersch G (2015) Understanding governance structures in community management of ecosystems and natural resources: the Maruj\u0026aacute; case study in Brazil; Ecosystem services, 16, 182-191.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSattler C, Schr\u0026ouml;ter B, Meyer A, Giersch G, Meyer C, Matzdorf B (2016) Multilevel governance in community-based environmental management: a case study comparison from Latin America; Ecology and Society, 21(4).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSautu R, Boniolo P, Dalle P, Elbert R (2006) Manual de metodolog\u0026iacute;a. Construcci\u0026oacute;n del marco te\u0026oacute;rico, formulaci\u0026oacute;n de los objetivos y elecci\u0026oacute;n metodol\u0026oacute;gica; Edit. Clacso. Argentina.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchaller S, Jean-Baptiste N, Lehmann P (2016) Opportunities and barriers for urban adaptation to climate change in Latin America. Cases of Mexico City, Lima and Santiago de Chile; Eure.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchmink M, Hoelle J, Gomes CVA, Thaler GM (2019) From contested to \u0026lsquo;green\u0026rsquo;frontiers in the Amazon? A long-term analysis of S\u0026atilde;o F\u0026eacute;lix do Xingu, Brazil; The Journal of Peasant Studies, 46(2), 377-399.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchmitter PC, Karl TL (1991) What democracy is and is not; Journal of democracy, 2(3), 75-88.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchr\u0026ouml;ter B, Sessin-Dilascio K, Meyer C, Matzdorf B, Sattler C, Wortmann L (2014) Multi-level governance through adaptive co-management: conflict resolution in a Brazilian state park; Ecological Processes, 3(1), 1-13.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchroth G, Ruf F (2014) Farmer strategies for tree crop diversification in the humid tropics. A review, Agronomy for Sustainable Development\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchweizer D, Meli P, Brancalion PH, Guariguata MR (2021) Implementing forest landscape restoration in Latin America: Stakeholder perceptions on legal frameworks; Land Use Policy, 104, 104244.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSelfa T, Bain C, Moreno R, Eastmond A, Sweitz S, Bailey C, Pereira GS, Souza T, Medeiros R (2015) Interrogating Social Sustainability in the Biofuels Sector in Latin America: Tensions Between Global Standards and Local Experiences in Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia; Environmental Management\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSemeoshenkova V, Newton A, Rojas M, Piccolo MC, Bustos ML, Cisneros MAH, Berninsone LG (2017) A combined DPSIR and SAF approach for the adaptive management of beach erosion in Monte Hermoso and Pehuen Co (Argentina); Ocean and Coastal Management, 143, 63-73.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSherman K (2014) Adaptive management institutions at the regional level: The case of Large Marine Ecosystems; Ocean and Coastal Management\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSindico F, Hawkins S (2015) The Guarani Aquifer Agreement and Transboundary Aquifer Law in the SADC: Comparing Apples and Oranges? Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpiering S, Del Valle Barrera M (2021) Testing the quality of transformative science methods: the example of the Human Scale Development approach; Sustainability Science, 1-19.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStoker G (1998) Governance as theory: Five propositions; International Social Science Journal, 50: 17\u0026ndash;28. doi:10.1111/1468-2451.00106 (doi:10.1111/1468-2451.00106)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStoltenborg D, Boelens R (2016) Disputes over land and water rights in gold mining: the case of Cerro de San Pedro, Mexico; Water International, 41(3), 447-467.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSwallow BM, Leimona B, Yatich T, Velarde SJ (2010) The conditions for functional mechanisms of compensation and reward for environmental services; Ecology and Society, 15(4).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTaylor PL (2005) In the market but not of it: Fair trade coffee and forest stewardship council certification as market-based social change. World Development\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eToledo VM, Barrera-Bassols N, Boege E. (2019) \u0026iquest;Qu\u0026eacute; es la diversidad biocultural? Edit. UNAM. M\u0026eacute;xico. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUrcuqui-Bustamante AM, Selfa TL, Hirsch P, Ashcraft CM (2021) Uncovering Stakeholder Participation in Payment for Hydrological Services (PHS) Program Decision Making in Mexico and Colombia; Sustainability\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVignola R, Otarola M, Alpizar F, Rivera P (2019) Gobernanza para la Adaptaci\u0026oacute;n basada en Ecosistemas (AbE) para peque\u0026ntilde;os caficultores de Am\u0026eacute;rica Central; Agronom\u0026iacute;a Mesoamericana\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVollmer D, Bezerra MO, Mart\u0026iacute;nez NA, Ortiz O, Encomenderos I, Marques MC, Serrano-Dur\u0026aacute;n L, Fauconnier I, Wang RY (2021) Can we take the pulse of environmental governance the way we take the pulse of nature? Applying the Freshwater Health Index in Latin America; Ambio\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVos J, Boelens R, Venot JP, Kuper M (2020) Rooted water collectives: Towards an analytical framework; Ecological Economics\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWalter M, Tom\u0026aacute;s SL, Munda G, Larrea C (2016) A social multi-criteria evaluation approach to assess extractive and non-extractive scenarios in Ecuador: Intag case study; Land Use Policy, 57, 444-458.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWatts J, Depledge J (2018) Latin America in the climate change negotiations: Exploring the AILAC and ALBA coalitions; Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilder MO, Martinez Austria PF, Hernandez Romero P, Cruz Ayala MB (2020) The human right to water in Mexico: challenges and opportunities\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZinsstag J, Bonfoh B, Zinsstag G, Crump L, Alfaroukh IO, Abakar MF, Schelling E (2016) A vision for the future of pastoralism; Rev Sci Tech, 35(2), 693-699.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZurbriggen C (2011) Gobernanza: una mirada desde Am\u0026eacute;rica Latina. Perfiles latinoamericanos, 19(38), 39-64.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Supplementary","content":"\u003cp\u003eDiagram 1 is available in Supplementary Files section.\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"environmental-management","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"emvm","sideBox":"Learn more about [Environmental Management](http://link.springer.com/journal/267)","snPcode":"267","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/267/3","title":"Environmental Management","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Systematic review, Environmental governance, Analytical frameworks, Sustainability, Latin America","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-1573427/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1573427/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThe analysis of environmental governance and the analytical frameworks used to study this concept in Latin America show that the term is diffuse and polysemic. The term governance refers to democratic societies that theoretically encourage the plural participation of actors in decision-making to solve public or collective socioenvironmental problems. However, in Latin America, there is a broad social perception of a democratic deficit that affects the socioenvironmental sphere. The objective of this work is to determine the main trends in studies on environmental governance in Latin America, the most commonly used analytical frameworks and the predominant approaches in order to characterize the scientific and political uses of the concept. A systematic literature review is carried out on databases in English and Spanish, and 140 articles that consider environmental governance using various analytical frameworks are analyzed. The main finding is the predominance of a critical perspective on the effectiveness of environmental governance, as well as the associated institutional components and social organizations, because the democratic practices that should support it are questionable.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Conceptual and analytical diversity of environmental governance in Latin America: A systematic review","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2022-04-22 14:23:52","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-1573427/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Major revision","date":"2022-05-20T13:41:26+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2022-05-19T21:32:26+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"fa46f0e7-1268-44a9-afa9-3c499a0e3070","date":"2022-05-04T15:25:09+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2022-05-01T14:29:12+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2022-05-01T14:24:21+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2022-04-20T06:28:52+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Environmental Management","date":"2022-04-19T15:53:43+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"environmental-management","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"emvm","sideBox":"Learn more about [Environmental Management](http://link.springer.com/journal/267)","snPcode":"267","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/267/3","title":"Environmental Management","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"ba8443c1-60d7-468c-89cf-6dd2fa9fc8da","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 22nd, 2022","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2022-10-10T18:44:22+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2022-04-22 14:23:52","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-1573427","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-1573427","identity":"rs-1573427","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"-HB7Z8yhvgn0wM9Nzuekk","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}