Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning

ISSN: 1523-908X (Print) 1522-7200 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjoe20

Measuring good governance: piloting an

instrument for evaluating good governance
principles

Emily F. Pomeranz & Richard C. Stedman

To cite this article: Emily F. Pomeranz & Richard C. Stedman (2020): Measuring good
governance: piloting an instrument for evaluating good governance principles, Journal of
Environmental Policy & Planning, DOI: 10.1080/1523908X.2020.1753181

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2020.1753181

Published online: 17 Apr 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 27

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjoe20
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & PLANNING
https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2020.1753181

Measuring good governance: piloting an instrument for evaluating good

governance principles
Emily F. Pomeranz* and Richard C. Stedman
Center for Conservation Social Science, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

As federal, state, and local governments and agencies respond to calls to make Received 20 December 2018
decisions and implement programs according to tenets of ‘good governance’, a Accepted 3 April 2020
need exists to develop methods for systematically evaluating performance. ‘Good
KEYWORDS
governance’ has been characterized as including a wide array of principles, which Natural resource governance;
vary across literatures. Comparatively little scholarship has sought to systematically good governance;
quantify program achievement in accordance with these principles. We develop community-based resource
and present a scale for measuring program achievement in accordance with eight management
main principles of good governance: inclusivity, fairness, transparency,
accountability, legitimacy, direction, performance, and capability. We present the
results of a pilot implementation of the scale within the context of two community-
based deer management programs. Our results suggest that these principles of
good governance may not sort into distinct dimensions in a real-world context.

Introduction
Promoted by the United Nations since the late 1980s, ‘good governance’ has become an imperative for decision
making and program implementation for many nations across the globe, as well as for federal, state, and local
governments and agencies in the United States. Expectations for good governance are reflected not only in sun-
shine laws (e.g., open meetings laws, freedom of information laws, etc.), but also in the realm of natural resource
management where consensus-driven stakeholder participation processes have become more common (Con-
nelly, 2011; Leong et al., 2009). These processes are viewed as enhancing legitimacy of governing bodies, giving
local people the ability to be engaged in decision making and policy development (Connelly, 2011).
According to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), good governance has been defined as
‘a process of decision making and the process by which decisions are implemented’ (Sheng, 2009, p. 1) that
ensures that corruption does not occur, voices of minority and vulnerable members of society are accounted
for, and that decision making is responsive to current and future needs of society (Graham et al., 2003). It
includes principles such as legitimacy and voice, direction, performance, accountability, and fairness (Graham
et al., 2003; Sheng, 2009). However, as we will discuss, these principles – what they mean and how to assess
them – are somewhat contested. The expectation to abide by good governance principles exists across scales
and contexts, including public health (Devaney, 2016), global development (Pelizzo & Stapenhurst, 2013; Phil-
lips et al., 2016; van Doeveren, 2011), and natural resources conservation and management (Bernstein, 2005;
Eagles, 2009; Lockwood, 2010; Lockwood et al., 2010; Turner et al., 2014). Changing trends in environmental
governance and a rise in the use of participatory processes for natural resource management (Leong et al., 2009;
Margerum, 2011; Mazmanian & Kraft, 2009) reflect this rising expectation for good governance (Decker et al.,
2016). Indeed, norms of good governance require inclusive and fair decision-making processes as reflected in
standards for sound participatory approaches to natural resources management (Pomeranz & Decker, 2018).

CONTACT Emily F. Pomeranz pomeranze@michigan.gov 4166 Legacy Parkway, Lansing, MI 48911

*Current affiliation: Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 4166 Legacy Parkway, Lansing MI 48911
© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 E. F. POMERANZ AND R. C. STEDMAN

Gunningham (2009) proposes that these changing expectations reflect a shift from top-down governance to a
new era of environmental governance, which includes participation, but also flexibility, inclusivity, transpar-
ency, ‘institutionalized consensus-building practices,’ (p. 146), all of which fall under the umbrella of good
governance.
With respect to natural resources, good governance has been lauded as an essential practice for broader
environmental governance as well as management and conservation (Decker et al., 2016). Even if not expressly
labeled ‘good governance,’ expectations for citizen participation, fair decision-making processes, and transpar-
ent and accountable governance have become both common and necessary for natural resource decision
makers at multiple levels of governance and management (Decker et al., 2016; Eagles, 2009; Leong et al.,
2009; Lockwood, 2010; Lockwood et al., 2010). In addition, these principles can be applied across various jur-
isdictional and geographic scales (Cash et al., 2006; Gibson et al., 2000). Good governance provides a normative
guide for environmental governance more broadly and for more specific management programs. Management
refers to the decision-making processes and programs carried out in support of environmental governance,
often with fewer management goals and entities involved than a broader environmental governance paradigm
(Cosens et al., 2014). Management in accordance with good governance principles enables the conservation
community to address environmental change and uncertainty, while recognizing that success depends on
the support of the public (Lockwood, 2010).
While good governance receives much theoretical attention, few metrics for measuring its dimensions have
been developed. Metrics are needed not only to support more comprehensive evaluations of good governance
practices, but also to further the development of good governance theory. Currently, a gap exists in the good
governance literature with respect to systematic analyses of good governance achievement (Devaney, 2016;
Lockwood, 2010; Lockwood et al., 2010; van Doeveren, 2011). In addition, much of the literature explores
high level good governance contexts (i.e. the programs and practices of international development organiz-
ations, landscape level management, etc.); few studies have quantitatively explored good governance at a
local context. Our study goal was to operationalize literature-based domains to empirically assess good govern-
ance performance We have responded to the call to develop quantitative assessment tools for good governance
evaluation (Lockwood et al., 2010) through the piloting of a scale that treats each good governance principle as
its own index, thus allowing dimensionality assessments.

Conceptual foundation
Definitions of ‘governance’ vary across organizations and contexts. Graham et al. (2003) define governance as a
‘process whereby societies or organizations make their important decisions, determine whom they involve in
the process and how they render account’ (p. 1). According to Kaufmann et al. (2004), governance is ‘the tra-
ditions and institutions by which authority in a country is exercised’ as well as ‘the process by which govern-
ments are selected and replaced, the capacity of the government to formulate and implement sound policies,
and the respect of citizens and the state for the institutions that govern economic and social interactions’
(p. 254). Stoker (1998) defines governance as ‘concerned with creating the conditions for ordered rule and col-
lective action’ (17). Kooiman and Jentoft (2009) acknowledge that the activities of governance occur in both
public and private spheres, and across scales. Common to these definitions is an emphasis on process; i.e.
how decisions are made and implemented, and how decision makers are held accountable.
Good governance provides normative guidance with respect to these governance processes. It is a catchall
term, prevalent across a range of literatures, and as such different scholars have identified a diversity of prin-
ciples that reflect good governance practices. In a review of seven sources (the European Union, World Bank,
OECD, United Nations, as well as working papers, textbooks, and peer-reviewed literature; see van Doeveren
2011 for citations), van Doeveren (2011) identifies five overarching principles: (1) accountability, (2) effective-
ness and efficiency, (3) openness/transparency, (4) participation, and (5) rule of law. In contrast with the afore-
mentioned UNDP definition (Graham et al., 2003), the United Nations Economic and Social Commissions for
Asia includes rule of law, transparency, responsiveness, consensus orientation, equity and inclusiveness,
efficiency and effectiveness, and accountability (Sheng, 2009). Critical to our understanding of good
 JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & PLANNING 3

governance, the meaning of each principle also varies across authors; van Doeveren (2011) explains that while
the principle of accountability was found in all of the definitions, the meaning of the term is inconsistent. For
example, the UN requires that private and civil society organizations along with governments be accountable to
all affected individuals; in contrast, the EU notes that accountability only applies to state institutions (van Doe-
veren, 2011). It is this diversity of meaning that can be hidden under broad labels that we wish to explore in this
paper. Clarity with respect to how principles are defined as well as to whom the terms apply is critical for any
good governance evaluation.
Specific to natural resources, Lockwood et al. (2010) include similar principles to those of the UN’s, but also
incorporate integration, capability and adaptability as necessary considerations for natural resources manage-
ment. For protected area management, Lockwood (2010) includes connectivity and resilience. For the purposes
of our work, we use the following eight principles: inclusivity, fairness, performance, transparency, legitimacy,
accountability, direction, and capability. Definitions used for this study and their sources can be found in Table
1. One of our goals in the selection of good governance principles is to help work towards more consistency
within the good governance literature as applied to natural resource governance and management especially.
Therefore, we rely most on principles proposed by Lockwood et al. (2010) and Lockwood (2010) for good gov-
ernance in natural resources management (including capability, accountability, legitimacy, fairness, inclusivity,
transparency) and include two additional principles– performance and direction. Lockwood (2010) embeds
direction (i.e. strategic vision) in connectivity; however, we believe retaining direction as a distinct principle
enhances relevance to natural resources management. Acknowledging direction and strategic vision help ensure
alignment between management actions and policy relative to specific programmatic objectives (Lockwood,
2010). In addition to the UNDP’s definition of direction as ‘strategic vision’, we incorporate the need for
good governance to look constructively towards the future, which draws on the work of Decker et al. (2016)
who emphasize public trust responsibilities for natural resources management that require consideration of
future resource beneficiaries. Finally, we include the UNDP’s principle of performance, which references
efficiency and effectiveness; van Doeveren’s meta-analysis (2011) finds this principle to be used by many organ-
izations and scholars.
In addition to expanding the breadth of principles proposed by Lockwood (2010) and Lockwood et al.
(2010), we have chosen not to include their proposed principles of connectivity, resilience, and integration.
With respect to resilience and connectivity, Lockwood et al. (2010) propose these principles as specific to pro-
tected-area management, and therefore not necessarily applicable to other forms of management. We excluded
integration, defined as coordination across different governance levels and governance organizations and inte-
gration of policy initiatives. In our estimation, integration represents a meta-principle, requiring examination of
good governance practices across multiple programs, rather than good governance as implemented through
management practices. At the same time, our scale is designed to measure public perceptions of progress

Table 1. Good Governance Principles Definition and Source.

Good Governance
Principles Definition Source
1. Inclusivity All stakeholders have opportunities to participate in and affect decision-making Lockwood et al. (2010)
2. Fairness Governing body and decision-making process respects diverse stakeholder Lockwood et al. (2010)
views, without bias; considers costs/benefit distribution
3. Performance Effectiveness and efficiency; processes meet their objectives while making the Graham et al. (2003); Sheng (2009)
best use of resources
4. Transparency Rationale for decision-making is clearly communicated; information is freely Lockwood et al. (2010); Graham et al.
available and accessible (2003); Sheng (2009)
5. Legitimacy Governing body given authority to make decisions by rule of law or by Lockwood et al. (2010)
stakeholders; authority used with integrity
6. Accountability Governing body takes responsibility and is answerable for its decisions; Lockwood et al. (2010); Graham et al.
demonstrates fulfillment of responsibilities (2003); Sheng (2009)
7. Direction Strategic vision; looking constructively towards the future Graham et al. (2003); Decker et al.
(2016)
8. Capability Resources, skills, leadership, knowledge of governing body Lockwood et al. (2010)
4 E. F. POMERANZ AND R. C. STEDMAN

towards those principles by governmental agencies or organizations implementing specific programs rather
than an objective evaluation of achievement, we did not feel integration was suited to our measurement pur-
poses. Certainly arm’s-length objective indicators to evaluate local management efforts could examine the inte-
gration of management priorities across scales, but as described further in our methodology our use of
subjective indicators (i.e. citizen perceptions of good governance processes) did not lend itself to an evaluation
of integration and therefore reduces the relevance of this important dimension for our analysis.
While a number of sources provide descriptive definitions for good governance, there exists a general dearth
of quantitative measures to evaluate good governance performance (Devaney, 2016; van Doeveren, 2011).
Those that have operationalized good governance quantitatively have done so for a limited number of prin-
ciples (e.g. Pelizzo and Stapenhurst [2013], who operationalize good governance as transparency and lack of
corruption) or in a simple diagnostic manner (e.g. Davis et al., 2013). A notable exception includes Turner
et al. (2014), who measure perceptions of community members in twelve coral reef-dependent Caribbean com-
munities. Relying on good governance principles by Lockwood (2010), Turner et al. (2014) treat good govern-
ance is as one index, with a single item for each of the seven principles. What remains to be developed, and what
we engage herein, is a more comprehensive scale with an index for each principle.
Attempting to measure principles of good governance helps further interrogate its dimensions which will
allow researchers to reference precise indicators rather than general principles. Metrics that facilitate this
type of analysis will better allow for refining theory and targeting more effective practice. With respect to tar-
geting more effective practice, Lockwood et al. (2010) propose that their defined principles serve as a ‘platform
for developing governance monitoring and evaluation instruments,’ a task that we engage in this paper (p. 998).
However, they also position the development of metrics as necessary for performance reporting and bench-
marking and suggest objective indicators or actions decision makers might take based on these principles
(e.g. holding public meetings in support of inclusivity). While we agree that objectiveoutcome indicators are
important, we suggest that subjective indicators of good governance performance are necessary as well,
especially within the context of decision-making processes. Understanding how those affected by decision-mak-
ing perceive the achievement of important principles may relate to the acceptability of a particular outcome or
program (Lauber & Knuth, 1998; Lawrence et al., 1997; Lind & Tyler, 1988; Roberson et al., 1999; Thibaut &
Walker, 1975). In other words, how can decision makers objectively be legitimate if those affected by their
decisions do not trust them or recognize their authority? As conservation successes often hinge on public sup-
port, and good governance principles are intended to encourage practices responsive to public needs, under-
standing public perceptions is an important step for evaluating whether good governance principles have
been effectively implemented.
With respect to refining theory, van Doeveren (2011) writes, ‘[Many] have used good governance principles
without giving much consideration to (1) defining their components, (2) identifying the possible interactions
between their components, (3) specifying their optimal values, and (4) paying attention to outcomes’ (p. 311).
Similarly, Grindle (2004) writes, ‘there is little guidance about what [principles of good governance are] essen-
tial and what’s not, what should come first and what should follow, what is feasible and what is not’ (p. 525). We
need to begin to develop quantifiable metrics for understanding good governance to not only better understand
its domains and begin to test hypotheses regarding domain interactions, as suggested by van Doeveren (2011),
but also so we may test hypotheses related to good governance and other constructs relevant to environmental
policy and management. In so doing, we may begin to expand the methodological breadth of the field, creating
an opportunity for asking new empirical and theoretical questions, and engaging comparative work using com-
mon metrics.

Methodology
Study context
We examine public perceptions of good governance within the context of two community-based deer manage-
ment programs. In the wildlife context, as impacts of overabundant white-tailed deer have become felt by an
 JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & PLANNING 5

increasing number of communities throughout the United States, many municipalities have taken on the task of
implementing deer management programs (Decker et al., 2004). While specific aspects of these programs vary,
often some form of citizen engagement, attuned to principles of good governance, accompanies them.

Data Collection
In September and October 2016, we conducted a mailback survey (n = 1256 households) addressing perceptions
of good governance around community-based deer management programs in two upstate New York villages,
Community A and Community B. Given the small population size for both communities, (3,788 for Commu-
nity B; 1,829 for Community A [US Census, 2014]), we chose to attempt a census of households (Salant & Dill-
man, 1994). Household addresses were acquired from the 2015 county property tax rolls. We used a modified
Dillman method, contacting each respondent up to four times (Salant & Dillman, 1994). Members of the house-
hold over the age of 18 with the most recent birthday were asked to complete the questionnaire. 1,265 ques-
tionnaires were distributed, with 675 returned (response rate = 53.5%). Questionnaires were reviewed and
granted approval by the Cornell University Office of Research Integrity and Assurance (Institutional Review
Board for Human Participants Protocol ID# 1006001472).
In November 2016, a nonrespondent follow-up telephone survey was conducted using a subset of six ques-
tions from the original questionnaire. A total of 91 non-respondents were contacted, 50 from Community A
and 41 from Community B. Significant differences (p < .05) were found between nonrespondents and respon-
dents for several related to the kinds of impacts experienced; however, the effect sizes for these differences were
all between a minimal and typical effect (r, Cramer’s V, or ϕ between .12 and .19), so we have chosen not to
weight the survey data.
We acknowledge that a risk of using a general population to evaluate the decision-making process is that
respondents may only have a partial awareness of all aspects of the process (Rowe et al., 2004), Results of
the survey did demonstrate that while familiarity with the deer management program was somewhat higher
in Community B than Community A (3.53 and 3.09 respectively, measured on a five-point scale from 1 =
not at all familiar, 5 = extremely familiarity), over 90% of respondents in both communities experienced
deer impacts.

Data analyses
We developed a scale for measuring public perceptions of performance related to eight principles of good gov-
ernance (Table 2). We test this 8-factor model (scale) through confirmatory factor analysis. This model is based
on our review of the literature, as described in our conceptual foundation, in an attempt to determine whether
good governance as a single, psychometric construct exists. We treat each principle as a potential index or
dimension of good governance, with the aim to compute indices for each dimension based on responses to
scale items. For each principle, respondents were asked whether or not they agreed that good governance prac-
tices were achieved in their communities (see Table 2 for the list of items that correspond to each principle).
These items were coded from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree that the good governance principle had
been achieved. We relied on the procedural justice literature for developing questions related to fairness and
inclusiveness, and somewhat less heavily for transparency, performance, and accountability items. As we
have found no existing good governance instruments that treat each dimension as an index, there was no single
comprehensive source for any dimension’s set of items. The language of our scale reflects our particular study
context, referring to the village board as the decision-making authority.
We evaluated the construct validity of our scale including convergent validity, discriminant validity, and
reliability. We define construct validity as the degree to which variables measure the theoretical construct
they were intended to measure; convergent validity as the degree to which a set of items intended to measure
a given construct share a high proportion of variance; define divergent validity as the degree to which constructs
intended to be distinct are distinct; and reliability as the internal consistency of a set of items intended to
measure a given construct (Hair et al., 2009).
6 E. F. POMERANZ AND R. C. STEDMAN

Table 2. Proposed Good Governance Dimensions and Associated Survey Itemsa.

Inclusivity
Residents were given the opportunity to express their preferences about deer management
All important views were heard during the deliberations about deer management
The amount of influence residents had in the management decision was too limited*
Some residents had a better chance to provide input on the deer plan than others*
Elected officials tried hard to give residents an opportunity to influence deer management
Fairness
The decision-making process for deer management favored some interests over others*
The village board was respectful of public views throughout the decision-making process
Resident input seemed to have no effect on the village board’s deer management plan*
Needs of residents who would bear most of the inconveniences of implementing the plan were considered
How our community would benefit from deer management was considered during the decision-making process
The deer management program benefits a broad range of residents
Performance
The village board should have been able to make a decision about deer management in much less time
The deer management decision-making process was effective
The deer program costs more than my community can afford *
The deer program is meeting its objectives
The benefits of deer management in my community are worth the costs
Transparency
I know where to get information on my community’s deer management program
The rationale behind the deer plan was clearly communicated by the village board
The village board clearly communicated how they made their decision about deer management
Residents were made aware of the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process
I was satisfied with the information shared by the village board
Legitimacy
I trusted the village board throughout the deer management decision-making process
The village board was sincere throughout the deer management decision-making process
The village board was the right authority to make the decision about deer management in my community
I trust the village board to manage deer in my community
Deer are being managed in accordance with a process the community generally finds acceptable
Accountability
The village board answered residents’ questions about deer management as well as it could
The village board keeps the community updated regularly on deer management outcomes
The village board keeps the community updated on changes with deer management
I know who to contact with questions or concerns about my community’s deer management program
Direction
If my community does deer management planning again, I favor using a similar process+
The deer management program in my community will benefit future residents
The long-term impacts of deer management on my community will be positive
Capability
My community has the financial resources to carry out the deer management program effectively
Members of the village board are knowledgeable about deer management
The deer plan appears to be poorly researched by the village board*
My community has the expertise to carry out our deer management program
My community has the right leadership to effectively implement the deer management program
a
Items measured on level of agreement with statements that assess community’s deer management program. 1 =
strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree. Asterisks (*) denote item was reverse
coded.

We performed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on our eight factor model and examined both factor load-
ings and average variance extracted (AVE) scores to assess convergent validity. We retained items with stan-
dardized factor loadings with a value greater than or equal to .50 (Hair et al., 2009). We assessed model fit
by examining the model chi-square, as well as approximate fit indices: comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-
Lewis Index (TLI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). We respecified our model by
removing items with low factor loadings or high error variances or allowing errors to covary within factors
by examining modification indices (Lagrangian multipliers) and standardized covariance residuals. To test dis-
criminant validity, we examined the correlations between factors (Hair et al., 2009). Between-factor correlations
should be less than. 80; high correlations may indicate that defined dimensions are not distinct as supposed
 JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & PLANNING 7

(Kline, 2011). To assess the internal consistency of the statements designed to measure each of the dimensions
of good governance, a Cronbach’s alpha reliability analysis was performed. A Cronbach’s alpha coefficient may
range from 0 (no reliability) to 1 (perfect reliability), with a value greater than or equal to .65 conventionally
considered acceptable reliability (Vaske, 2008). Each item should have corrected item total correlations greater
than or equal to .40 (correlations between one item and the sum of the values of the other items) (Vaske, 2008).
Those items with high factor loadings, as indicated by CFA, corrected item total correlations greater than .40
and that result in an alpha greater than .65 may be combined into an index to measure each dimension of good
governance.

Results
Confirmatory factor analysis using Stata (Version 13) was performed for our hypothesized eight-factor model
(Table 3). Two items were removed from further analysis, including one item for accountability (‘the village
board answered residents’ questions about deer management as well as it could’), and one item for performance
(‘the village board should have been able to make a decision about deer management in much less time’), with
factor loadings of .42 and .41, respectively (Hair et al., 2009).
We assessed model fit using maximum likelihood estimation (Table 4). The chi-square should be insignifi-
cant, the CFI and TLI should be above .95, and the RMSEA should be below .05 to suggest good model fit (Hu &
Bentler, 1999). The overall goodness-of-fit indices suggested that the initial model fit was poor, with a signifi-
cant model chi-square, high RMSEA, and low CFI and TLI (Table 4). We respecified our model iteratively by
removing four more items with borderline factor loadings and high error variances. We also examined modifi-
cation indices (Lagrangian multipliers) and standardized residuals; we allowed errors for three sets of variables
to covary (‘the rationale behind the deer plan was clearly communicated by the village board’ and ‘the village
board clearly communicated how they made their decision about deer management’; ‘I trusted the village board
throughout the deer management decision-making process’ and I trust the village board to manage deer in my
community’; and ‘The village board is the right authority to make the decision about deer management in my
community’ and ‘I trust the village board to manage deer in my community’). These respecifications did
improve our model fit, raising approximate fit indices and reducing the model chi-square. However, we failed
to fit a good model, with final overall goodness-of fit indices of: X2 (433) = 1460.34, p < .001, RMSEA = .066
(90% CI, .062–.069), CFI = .92, and TLI = .91. Further examination of modification indices (Lagrangian multi-
pliers) revealed a highly complicated series of suggested covariances, each with a minimal reduction in the chi-
square value, and many standardized covariance residuals remained high. We were unable to adjust and fit the
data (Table 4). The eight factors showed good convergent validity, as indicated by high factor loadings (Table
3). Average variance extracted (AVE) scores also reflected good convergent validity, with the highest average
variance extracted for accountability (AVE = .85), direction (AVE = .68) and capability (AVE = .62), and the
lowest for performance (AVE = .48). Correlations were high for the hypothesized eight-factor model, with
many correlation coefficients approaching the guideline cutoff for poor discriminant validity, .80, and a number
of correlations over .80 (inclusivity and fairness, fairness and legitimacy, fairness and capability, transparency
and legitimacy, transparency and inclusivity, transparency and capability) with the highest correlation between
legitimacy and capacity at r = .86 (Table 5) (Brown, 2006). Finally, a reliability analysis was performed. Overall,
the internal reliability scores for each dimension tended to be high: the overall reliability of the items measuring
each of the eight good governance dimensions for the eight-factor model are all Cronbach’s alpha scores above
.88 (Table 3). We did not find empirical support for an eight-factor model of good governance.

Discussion
A gap exists in the good governance literature with respect to quantitative analysis of good governance achieve-
ment (Devaney, 2016; Lockwood, 2010; Lockwood et al., 2010; van Doeveren, 2011). We have responded to the
call to develop quantitative good governance evaluation tools (Lockwood et al., 2010) through the piloting of a
scale that tests principles identified within the literature.
8 E. F. POMERANZ AND R. C. STEDMAN

Table 3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Good Governance Dimensions (8-factor hypothesized model).
Average Variance Standardized factor loadings
Factors & Itemsa Mean (SD) Extracted (standard errors)b
Inclusivity (α = .88) .58
All important views were heard during the deliberations about deer 3.93 (1.04) .75 (.02)
management
The amount of influence residents had in the management decision was 3.40 (1.21) .80 (.02)
too limited*
Some residents had a better chance to provide input on the deer plan 3.09 (1.21) .72 (02)
than others*
Elected officials tried hard to give residents an opportunity to influence 3.72 (1.12) .77 (.02)
deer management
Fairness (α = .91) .58
The decision-making process for deer management favored some 3.01 (1.22) .77 (.02)
interests over others*
The village board was respectful of public views throughout the 3.85 (1.03) .79 (.02)
decision-making process
Resident input seemed to have no effect on the village board’s deer 3.63 (1.14) .84 (.01)
management plan*
Needs of residents who would bear most of the inconveniences of 3.64 (.94) .68 (.02)
implementing the plan were considered
How our community would benefit from deer management was 4.00 (.86) .74 (.02)
considered during the decision-making process
The deer management program benefits a broad range of residents 3.91 (1.00) .72 (.02)
Performance (α = .81) .48
The deer management decision-making process was effective 3.65 (1.00) .79 (.02)
The deer program costs more than my community can afford * 3.71 (.98) .62 (.03)
The deer program is meeting its objectives 3.72 (.98) .64 (.03)
The benefits of deer management in my community are worth the costs 3.91 (1.07) .70 (.02)
Transparency (α = .93) .60
The rationale behind the deer plan was clearly communicated by the 3.74 (1.07) .79 (.02)
village board
The village board clearly communicated how they made their decision 3.41 (1.14) .77 (.02)
about deer management
Residents were made aware of the opportunity to participate in the 3.78 (1.07) .73 (.02)
decision-making process
I was satisfied with the information shared by the village board 3.58 (1.16) .81 (.02)
Legitimacy (α = .95) .59
I trusted the village board throughout the deer management decision- 3.63 (1.09) .77 (.02)
making process
The village board was sincere throughout the deer management 3.76 (1.06) .83 (.02)
decision-making process
The village board was the right authority to make the decision about 3.95 (.99) .73 (.02)
deer management in my community
I trust the village board to manage deer in my community 3.66 (1.08) .77 (.02)
Deer are being managed in accordance with a process the community
generally finds acceptable
3.61 (1.00) .74 (.02)
Accountability (α = .96) .85
The village board keeps the community updated regularly on deer 3.27 (1.12) .93 (.02)
management outcomes
The village board keeps the community updated on changes with deer 3.15 (1.12) .91 (.01)
management
Direction (α = .91) .68
If my community does deer management planning again, I favor using a 3.51 (1.19) .66 (.03)
similar process
The deer management program in my community will benefit future 3.96 (1.03) .91 (.01)
residents
The long-term impacts of deer management on my community will be 4.02 (1.05) .89 (.01)
positive
Capability (α = .91) .62
Members of the village board are knowledgeable about deer 3.48 (1.00) .73 (.02)
management

(Continued)
 JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & PLANNING 9

Table 3. Continued.
Average Variance Standardized factor loadings
Factors & Itemsa Mean (SD) Extracted (standard errors)b
The deer plan appears to be poorly researched by the village board* 3.86 (1.07) .78 (.02)
My community has the expertise to carry out our deer management 3.69 (.97) .78 (.02)
program
My community has the right leadership to effectively implement the 3.62 (1.05) .86 (.01)
deer management program
a
Items reported as level of agreement with statements that assess community’s deer management program. 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly
agree. Asterisks (*) denote item was reverse coded.
b
Only items with factor loadings greater than .4 were retained (Costello & Osborne, 2005). All factor loadings significant at p < .001.

Table 4. Goodness-of-fit Statistics for Good Governance Models

RMSEA
8-Factor Good Governance Modela X2 p-value df X2/df [90% CI] CFI TLI
Initial model 2829.51 < .001* 637 4.44 .079 [.082–.076] .85 .84
Final model 1460.34 < .001* 433 3.37 .066 [.062–.069] .92 .91
a
Based off level of agreement with statements evaluating whether or not the community’s deer management process has expressed these
dimensions. 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree.
*Indicates p < .001.

Table 5. Correlations for 8-factor Model.

Factorsa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Inclusivity – .83* .68* .82* .77* .65* .63* .79*
2. Fairness .83* – .78* .78* .82* .59* .73* .81*
3. Performance .68* .78* – .68* .77* .51* .75* .76*
4. Transparency .82* .78* .68* – .80* .73* .68* .81*
5. Legitimacy .73* .82* .77* .80* – .63* .77* .86*
6. Accountability .65* .59* .51* .73* .63* – .49* .65*
7. Direction .63* .73* .75* .68* .77* .49* – .73*
8. Capability .79* .81* .76* .81* .86* .65* .73* –
a
Based off level of agreement with statements evaluating whether or not the community’s deer management process has expressed these
dimensions. 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree.
* indicate significance at p < .001.

Methodological implications
Despite attention to literature-defined dimensions of good governance and our attempts to refine those dimen-
sions, we could not fit a valid model. Our intent was to operationalize the theoretical aspects of good governance
as defined in the literature and determine whether or not they sort into distinct dimensions in a ‘real world’
governance context. High correlations among factors and complicated covariances suggested by modification
indices imply that we have not yet identified the domains for good governance – if discrete domains exist. There
are a number of possible explanations for our results. Common method bias may have influenced the responses
given the similar averages for items (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Low salience may have also been an issue for deer
management within these communities; however especially in Community B, deer management has been an
ongoing, controversial topic for nearly 20 years for which they held over 40 public meetings on the issue within
that time. Over 90% of respondents from both communities reported experiencing impacts from deer. Our
metric was piloted through a census of residents in two communities; some have argued for a purposive
sampling of respondents as a better form of more directed evaluation (Chess, 2000). If salience was an issue,
one might purposively sample residents in order to test a revised metric. In addition, as our research was
exploratory and no single comprehensive source was available to develop items for each dimension of our
scale, the wording of each item may have introduced measurement error and influenced empirical findings.
Future studies may explore alternative wording and conduct a sensitivity analysis to further refine the scale.
10 E. F. POMERANZ AND R. C. STEDMAN

Theoretical implications
There may be theoretical implications for our unsupported model. Given the degree of conceptual overlap in
the literature with respect to identifying distinct principles reflecting good governance, it is perhaps not surpris-
ing that a number dimensions were highly intercorrelated. For example, Sheng (2009) defines fairness and
inclusivity as one principle. Graham et al.’s (2003) principle of legitimacy and voice includes participation;
their principle of accountability includes transparency. In addition, as van Doeveren (2011) writes, ‘ …
[there is] confusion about the meaning of governance … due to its ‘travels’ across disciplinary and subdisciplin-
ary borders. Scholars adjusted the concept [good governance] to their field of research … ’ resulting in a ‘color-
ful mixture of definitions’ (p. 303). We respond to this conceptual overlap by providing a number of empirically
based insights which may be useful for bringing clarity to these discussions.
Given the interrelated nature of measurement dimensions, it may be worthwhile to reduce the dimensions to
a more parsimonious number. While further research will be required to identify those refined dimensions, the
high correlations between the fairness and inclusivity indices suggests we might logically combine those two
concepts. The distinction in the literature between inclusivity and fairness can be narrow; as noted previously,
Sheng (2009) lumps them as one principle. The procedural fairness literature suggests fair processes are inclus-
ive processes, perhaps indicating that inclusivity is a subdomain of fairness. Other dimensions that may be com-
bined are legitimacy and capability. While conceptually legitimacy refers to the authority of decision makers
and their wielding of authority with integrity, and capability refers to the resources, knowledge, and skills of
that authority, both dimensions may be addressing a broader concept of leadership (can decision makers be
trusted to carry out their responsibilities – do they have the capacity to do so?). As accountability and trans-
parency have often been combined (e.g. Graham et al., 2003), they may reflect one broader domain, although
our empirical correlation between the two was lower than between other factors.. While we have relied on lit-
erature-derived principles and practices for inclusion in the scale, given the conceptual overlap and our chal-
lenges in identifying discrete principles, it may be useful to engage respondents using qualitative approaches to
better understand how principles are conceptualized and to compare to our literature-defined terms prior to
developing a quantitative assessment tool. Qualitative inquiry may help identify alternative or more appropriate
wording for items to assess performance on governance principles, as previously noted. In addition, qualitative
approaches may help identify the relative importance of these concepts.

Future research
Future work should seek to conjoin subjective metrics such as those presented in this paper with arm’s length
objective outcome indicators. The good governance metric piloted in this article reflects only one potential set
of subjective outcome indicators for evaluation – public perceptions of good governance performance. Public
perceptions of good governance reflect only one method of evaluating the expression of good governance prin-
ciples. Given that our metric involves public evaluation of a natural resource decision-making process or pro-
gram, it would be most useful as part of a summative or formative evaluation effort, and likely would not be the
only aspect of that evaluation (Chess, 2000). In addition to public perceptions of a program or process, other
useful aspects on which to evaluate decision-making processes may include external criteria such as participa-
tory capacity, the skill of process conveners, level of engagement, as well as programmatic outcomes such as
changes to management activities or policies (Emerson et al., 2009). In addition, a metric such as ours may
be coupled with an assessment by an external evaluator. For example, Rowe et al. (2004), in evaluating a delib-
erative conference, used a questionnaire to be completed by participants in combination with a checklist to be
used by an evaluator to rate indicators of performance – the authors describe the second checklist as important
because ‘participants may have incomplete knowledge of various aspects of … the process’ (p. 97).
While the use of stakeholder or participant surveys to evaluate natural resources decision-making processes
and programs is a common tool (Rowe et al., 2004; Schusler & Decker, 2002), relying solely on participant
evaluation has its limits, including potentially overlooking the goals and objectives of the governing body
that may be beyond the immediate perception of a broad public (Chess, 2000). There are potential external
 JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & PLANNING 11

indicators of success as well that may be used to evaluate their execution (Emerson et al., 2009; Stedman et al.,
2009). For example, an examination of transparency might include results of a resident survey coupled with an
objective evaluation of other indicators of transparency (e.g. such as program availability on a municipal web-
site). Future research may seek to match arm’s length objective indicators for each principle with subjective
public perception data, a task that was beyond the scope of our study.
Despite our decision to not include Lockwood et al.’s (2010) principle ‘integration’ in our scale (defined as: the
‘connection between and coordination across different governance levels … and alignment of priorities, plans
and activities’ [p. 995]), as it requires the evaluation of multiple decision-making processes rather than a specific
natural resource management program (as was our emphasis), we maintain that integration is a critical consider-
ation or outcome indicator when evaluating good governance at multiple levels. For multilevel processes to work
effectively, this type of coordination or integration is a critical consideration – i.e. recognizing cross-scale and
cross-level dynamics, or the interaction between scales and levels (Cash et al., 2006; Cash & Moser, 2000).
In addition to the points raised above, future research should focus on scale refinement towards valid indices.
Further research should explore to what degree perceptions of good governance dimensions reflect different
domains, or if there are a more parsimonious number of dimensions we can identify and measure with respect
to good governance. As we did not find that the dimensions discussed in the literature were supported by
empirical scrutiny, future research should seek to align good governance theory with how the public concep-
tualizes good governance in practice, examining to what degree people differentiate between elements of good
governance in ‘real-world’ contexts.

Conclusion
While we did not find the eight hypothesized domains as found in the literature, some factors had relatively high
average variance extracted scores, namely accountability, direction, and capability. In addition, as previously
noted, combining highly correlated factors may be a promising step forward. Development of a valid instrument
for measuring good governance would create the potential for testing hypotheses of both theoretical and practical
relevance while furthering good governance scholarship: researchers would be able to engage and test concrete
indicators rather than general principles. From a practical perspective, developing a valid scale may also be a use-
ful tool for governing bodies and decision makers who seek to evaluate strengths and deficiencies with respect to
perceived good governance achievement. Understanding performance may better allow decision makers to adjust
and refine their decision-making processes. Hypothetically, decision makers may seek transparency by including
substantial information about a public process on a municipal website, but in evaluating public perceptions of
good governance they may find that municipal residents are not aware of or satisfied with the information
being shared. This knowledge would allow decision makers to adjust course accordingly.
From a theoretical perspective, developing a metric for evaluating good governance would enable hypothesis test-
ing that can help researchers better understand the relationship between dimensions of good governance: for example,
do all of the dimensions have a direct effect on perceptions of, or satisfaction with, a decision-making process, or might
some principles mediate or moderate perceptions of governance processes and outcomes? We may also begin to
understand if there is some prioritization of good governance principles by citizens, to help better address Grindle’s
(2004) suggestion that perhaps some aspects of good governance are more critical for its ‘goodness’ than others.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
This research was supported in part by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Hatch project 1004275. Any
opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect the view of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) or the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
12 E. F. POMERANZ AND R. C. STEDMAN

Notes on contributors
Emily F. Pomeranz is a social scientist with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
Richard C. Stedman is a professor and associate chair in the Department of Natural Resources at Cornell University and serves as
the associate director of the Cornell Center for Conservation Social Sciences.

References
Bernstein, S. (2005). Globalization and the requirements of “good” environmental governance. Perspectives on Global Development
and Technology, 4(3-4), 645–679. https://doi.org/10.1163/156915005775093278
Brown, T. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Press.
Cash, D. W., Adger, W. N., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., Pritchard, L., & Young, O. (2006). Scale and cross-scale
dynamics: Governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecology and Society, 11(2), 8. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-
01759-110208
Cash, D. W., & Moser, S. C. (2000). Linking global and local scales: Designing dynamic assessment and management processes.
Global Environmental Change, 10(2), 109–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-3780(00)00017-0
Chess, C. (2000). Evaluating environmental public participation: Methodological questions. Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management, 43(6), 769–784. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560020001674
Connelly, S. (2011). Constructing legitimacy in the new community governance. Urban Studies, 48(5), 937–950. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0042098010366744
Cosens, B., Gunderson, L., Allen, C., & Benson, M. H. (2014). Identifying legal, ecological and governance obstacles and opportu-
nities for adapting to climate change. Sustainability, 6(4), 2338–2356. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6042338
Costello, A., & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from
your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 10(7). https://doi.org/10.7275/jyj1-4868
Davis, C., Williams, L., Lupberger, S., & Daviet, F. (2013). Assessing forest governance. World Resources Institute. Retrieved 18
December 2017 from https://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/assessing_forest_governance.pdf
Decker, D. J., Raik, D. B., & Siemer, W. F. (2004). Community-based deer management: A practitioner’s guide. Northeast Wildlife
Damage Management Research and Outreach Cooperative & Human Dimensions Research Unit.
Decker, D., Smith, C., Forstchen, A., Hare, D., Pomeranz, E., Doyle-Capitman, C., Schuler, K., & Organ, J. (2016). Governance
principles for wildlife conservation in the 21st century. Conservation Letters, 9(4), 290–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12211
Devaney, L. (2016). Good governance? Perceptions of accountability, transparency and effectiveness in Irish food risk governance.
Food Policy, 62, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.04.003
Eagles, P. F. J. (2009). Governance of recreation and tourism partnerships in parks and protected areas. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 17(2), 231–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580802495725
Emerson, K., Orr, P. J., Keyes, D. L., & McKnight, K. M. (2009). Environmental conflict resolution: Evaluating performance out-
comes and contributing factors. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 27(1), 27–64. https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.247
Gibson, C. C., Ostrom, E., & Ahn, T. K. (2000). The concept of scale and the human dimensions of global change: A survey.
Ecological Economics, 32(2), 217–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00092-0
Graham, J., Amos, B., & Plumptre, T. (2003). Principles for good governance in the 21st century (Policy brief no. 15). Institute on
Governance. Retrieved 28 March 2017 from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UNPAN/
UNPAN011842.pdf
Grindle, M. S. (2004). Good enough governance: Poverty reduction and reform in developing countries. Governance, 17(4), 525–
548. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0952-1895.2004.00256.x
Gunningham, N. (2009). The new collaborative environmental governance: The localization of regulation. Journal of Law and
Society, 36(1), 145–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2009.00461.x
Hair Jr., J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Prentice Hall.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new
alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2004). Governance matters III: Governance indicators for 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2002.
The World Bank Economic Review, 18(2), 253–387. https://doi.org/10.1093/wber/lhh041
Kline, R. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). The Guilford Press.
Kooiman, J., & Jentoft, S. (2009). Meta-governance: Values, norms and principles, and the making of hard choices. Public
Administration, 87(4), 818–836. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2009.01780.x
Lauber, T. B., & Knuth, B. A. (1998). Refining our vision of citizen participation: Lessons from a moose reintroduction proposal.
Society and Natural Resources, 11(4), 411–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941929809381091
Lawrence, R. L., Daniels, S. E., & Stankey, G. H. (1997). Procedural justice and public involvement in natural resource decision
making. Society & Natural Resources, 10(6), 577–589. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941929709381054
Leong, K. M., Decker, D. J., Lauber, T. B., Raik, D. B., & Siemer, W. F. (2009). Overcoming jurisdictional boundaries through sta-
keholder engagement and collaborative governance: Lessons learned from white-tailed deer management in the U.S.
 JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & PLANNING 13

In K. Andersson, E. Eklund, M. Lehtola, & P. Salmi (Eds.), Beyond the rural-urban divide: Cross-continental perspectives on the
differentiated countryside and its regulation (Vol. 14, pp. 221–247). Emerald Publishing Group.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. Plenum Press.
Lockwood, M. (2010). Good governance for terrestrial protected areas: A framework, principles and performance outcomes.
Journal of Environmental Management, 91(3), 754–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.10.005
Lockwood, M., Davidson, J., Curtis, A., Stratford, E., & Griffith, R. (2010). Governance principles for natural resources manage-
ment. Society & Natural Resources, 23(10), 986–1001. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920802178214
Margerum, R. D. (2011). Beyond consensus: Improving collaborative planning and management. MIT Press.
Mazmanian, D. A., & Kraft, M. E. (2009). Toward sustainable communities: Transitions and transformations in environmental pol-
icy. MIT Press.
Pelizzo, R., & Stapenhurst, F. (2013). The dividends of good governance. Poverty & Public Policy, 5(4), 370–384. https://doi.org/10.
1002/pop4.49
Phillips, J., Hailwood, E., & Brooks, A. (2016). Sovereignty, the “resource curse” and the limits of good governance: A political econ-
omy of oil in Ghana. Review of African Political Economy, 43(147), 26–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/03056244.2015.1049520
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical
review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0021-9010.88.5.879
Pomeranz, E. F., & Decker, D. J. (2018). Designing regional-level stakeholder engagement processes: Striving for good governance
while meeting the challenges of scale. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 20(4), 403–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1523908X.2017.1417119
Roberson, Q. M., Moye, N. A., & Locke, E. A. (1999). Identifying a missing link between participation and satisfaction: The mediat-
ing role of procedural justice perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(4), 585–593. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.4.
585
Rowe, G., Marsh, R., & Frewer, L. J. (2004). Evaluation of a deliberative conference. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 29(1),
88–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243903259194
Salant, P. A., & Dillman, D. A. (1994). How to conduct your own survey. John Wiley & Sons.
Schusler, T. M., & Decker, D. J. (2002). Engaging local communities in wildlife management area planning: An evaluation of the
Lake Ontario Islands Search conference. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 30, 1226–1237. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3784292?seq=1.
Sheng, K. (2009). What is good governance? United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. Retrieved
22 January 2014 from http://www.unescap.org/pdd/prs/ProjectActivities/Ongoing/gg/governance.asp
Stedman, R. C., Lee, B., Brasier, K., Weigle, J., & Higdon, F. (2009). Cleaning up water? Or building rural community? Community
watershed organizations in Pennsylvania. Rural Sociology, 74(2), 178–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1549-0831.2009.tb00388.x
Stoker, G. (1998). Governance as theory: Five propositions. International Social Science Journal, 155(50), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.
1111/1468-2451.00106
Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Turner, R. A., Fitzsimmons, C., Forster, J., Mahon, R., Peterson, A., & Stead, S. M. (2014). Measuring good governance for complex
ecosystems: Perceptions of coral reef-dependent communities in the Caribbean. Global Environmental Change, 29, 105–117.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.08.004
U.S. Census Bureau. (2014). American fact finder. https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml
van Doeveren, V. (2011). Rethinking good governance: Identifying common principles. Public Integrity, 13(4), 301–318. https://doi.
org/10.2753/PIN1099-9922130401
Vaske, J. J. (2008). Survey research and analysis: Applications in parks, recreation, and human dimensions. Venture.