Ambio

, Volume 44, Issue 5, pp 343–352 | Cite as

Efficient and resilient governance of social–ecological systems

Report

Abstract

New institutions are critically needed to improve the resilience of social–ecological systems globally. Watershed management offers an important model due to its ability to govern mixed-ownership landscapes through common property regimes, translating national goals into local action. Here, I assess the efficacy of state watershed management institutions in the Pacific Northwest, based on their ability to support local watershed groups. I use document analysis to describe and compare state institutions in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. Results indicate that state institutional efficiency and resilience are the key factors determining watershed group activity and stability. The primary drivers of institutional efficiency and resilience were institutional unification, robust funding portfolios, low agency conflict, and strong support for economic multiplier effects, creative partnerships, and scholarly research. My findings elucidate the critical role of institutional efficiency and resilience in governing dynamic and complex social–ecological systems, enabling the flexibility to address emergent transformations.

Keywords

Adaptive co-management Biodiversity Governance Resilience Social–ecological systems Watershed management 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Michael Hibbard and Max Nielsen-Pincus for their guidance and enthusiasm for watershed management. I would also like to thank Daniel Gavin and Joshua Roering for their insights on long-term physical processes important to watershed functioning.

References

  1. Amos, C.B., P. Audet, W.C. Hammond, R. Burgmann, I.A. Johanson, and G. Blewitt. 2014. Uplift and seismicity driven by groundwater depletion in central California. Nature 509: 483–486. doi: 10.1038/nature13275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Axelrod, R. 1981. The emergence of cooperation among egoists. American Political Science Review 75: 306–318. doi: 10.2307/1961366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berkes, F., D.R. Armitage, and N. Doubleday. 2007. Adaptive co-management: Collaboration, learning, and multi-level governance. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
  4. Berkes, F., C. Folke, and J. Colding. 2000. Linking social and ecological systems: Management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Blomquist, W., T. Heikkila, and E. Schlager. 2004. Building the agenda for institutional research in water resource management. American Water Resources Association 40: 925–936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Born, S.M., and K.D. Genskow, 1999. Exploring the watershed approach: Critical dimensions of state-local partnerships. The Four Corners Watershed Innovators Initiative Report, Madison, WI (in Swedish, English summary).Google Scholar
  7. Borsa, A.A., D.C. Agnew, and D.R. Cayan. 2014. Ongoing drought-induced uplift in the western United States. Science. doi: 10.1126/science.1260279.Google Scholar
  8. Castle, S.L., B.F. Thomas, J.T. Reager, M. Rodell, S.C. Swenson, and J.S. Famiglietti. 2014. Groundwater depletion during drought threatens future water security of the Colorado River Basin. Geophysical Research Letters 41: 5904–5911. doi: 10.1002/2014gl061055.
  9. Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Program. 2012. Program funds by fiscal year and account. Retrieved August 17, 2012, from http://www.cbfish.org/Fund.mvc/Index.
  10. Erickson, A.M. 2014. Nested localized institutions for adaptive co-management: A history of state watershed management in the Pacific Region of the United States. Society & Natural Resources 28: 1–16. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2014.933920.
  11. Folke, C. 2006. Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions 16: 253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Folke, C., S. Carpenter, T. Elmqvist, L. Gunderson, C.S. Holling, and B. Walker. 2002. Resilience and sustainable development: Building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. AMBIO 31: 437–440. doi: 10.1579/0044-7447-31.5.437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Folke, C., T. Hahn, P. Olsson, and J. Norberg. 2005. Adaptive governance of social–ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30: 441–473. doi: 10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Folke, C., Å. Jansson, J. Rockström, P. Olsson, S. Carpenter, F.S. Chapin III, A.-S. Crépin, G. Daily, et al. 2011. Reconnecting to the biosphere. AMBIO 40: 719–738. doi: 10.1007/s13280-011-0184-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Getches, D.H. 2001. Some irreverent questions about watershed-based efforts. In Across the great divide: Explorations in collaborative conservation and the American West, ed. P. Brick, D. Snow, and S. Van De Wetering. Washington, D.C: Island Press.Google Scholar
  16. Habermas, J. 1984. The theory of communicative action. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162: 1243–1248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hibbard, M., and S. Lurie. 2005. Understanding the community economic and social impacts of Oregon’s Watershed Councils. University of Oregon Report, Eugene, OR (in Swedish, English summary).Google Scholar
  19. Holling, C.S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4: 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Holling, C.S. 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and management. Laxenburg/Chichester: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis/Wiley.Google Scholar
  21. Katz, J., P. Moyle, R. Quiñones, J. Israel, and S. Purdy. 2013. Impending extinction of salmon, steelhead, and trout (Salmonidae) in California. Environmental Biology of Fishes 96: 1169–1186. doi: 10.1007/s10641-012-9974-8.
  22. Kenney, D.S. 1999. Historical and sociopolitical context of the western watersheds movement. JAWRA: Journal of the American Water Resources Association 35: 493–503. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.1999.tb03606.x.Google Scholar
  23. Kerr, J. 2007. Watershed management: Lessons from common property theory. International Journal of the Commons 1: 89–109.Google Scholar
  24. Lewis, C.A., N.P. Lester, A.D. Bradshaw, J.E. Fitzgibbon, K. Fuller, L. Hakanson, and C. Richards. 1996. Considerations of scale in habitat conservation and restoration. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53: 440–445. doi: 10.1139/f96-021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nash, J.F. 1950. Equilibrium points in n-person games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 36: 48–49. doi: 10.1073/pnas.36.1.48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011. Report to Congress: Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund: FY 2000–2010. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Silver Spring, MD.Google Scholar
  27. National Research Council: Committee on Assessment of Water Resources Research. 2004. Confronting the nation’s water problems: The role of research. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  28. Nielsen-Pincus, M., and C. Moseley. 2010. Economic and employment impacts of forest and watershed restoration in Oregon. University of Oregon Report (in Swedish, English summary).Google Scholar
  29. Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pinkerton, E. 1989. Co-operative management of local fisheries: New directions for improved management and community development. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
  31. Reeve, T., J. Lichatowich, W. Towey, and A. Duncan. 2006. Building science and accountability into community-based restoration: Can a new funding approach facilitate effective and accountable restoration? Fisheries 31: 17–24. doi: 10.1577/1548-8446(2006)31[17:BSAAIC]2.0.CO;2.
  32. Roni, P., T.J. Beechie, R.E. Bilby, F.E. Leonetti, M.M. Pollock, and G.R. Pess. 2002. A review of stream restoration techniques and a hierarchical strategy for prioritizing restoration in Pacific Northwest Watersheds. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Roni, P., G. Pess, T. Beechie, and S. Morley. 2010. Estimating changes in Coho Salmon and Steelhead abundance from watershed restoration: How much restoration is needed to measurably increase smolt production? North American Journal of Fisheries Management 30: 1469–1484. doi: 10.1577/m09-162.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. State of California. 2008. California Department of Conservation, 2004–2007. Watershed Coordinator Grant Program: Final Report. D. o. Conservation, Sacramento, CA.Google Scholar
  35. State of Idaho. 1996. Bull Trout Conservation Plan. Governor Philip E. Batt, 133. Boise, ID.Google Scholar
  36. State of Washington. 2008. Directory: Lead entities for Salmon recovery. D. o. F. a. Wildlife, Olympia, WA.Google Scholar
  37. State of Washington. 2011. Memorandum of Understanding: ESHB 2514 and ESHB 2496. Retrieved February 8, 2011, from http://www.ecy.wa.gov/watershed/misc/MOU.html.
  38. State of Washington. 2012. State of salmon in watersheds. Olympia, WA: G. s. S. R. Office.Google Scholar
  39. U.S. General Accounting Office. 2002. Columbia River Basin Salmon and Steelhead: Federal Agencies’ recovery responsibilities, expenditures and actions: Report to the Ranking minority member, subcommittee on fisheries, wildlife, and water, committee on environment and public works, U.S. Senate. Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office.Google Scholar
  40. Vaux, H. 2005. Water resources research in the 21st century. Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education 131: 2–12. doi: 10.1111/j.1936-704X.2005.mp131001002.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Westley, F., P. Olsson, C. Folke, T. Homer-Dixon, H. Vredenburg, D. Loorbach, J. Thompson, M. Nilsson, et al. 2011. Tipping toward sustainability: Emerging pathways of transformation. AMBIO 40: 762–780. doi: 10.1007/s13280-011-0186-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wilson, D.C., J.R. Nielsen, and P. Degnbol. 2003. The fisheries co-management experience: Accomplishments, challenges, and prospects. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Forest Resources ManagementUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations