Advertisement

Theory and Research to Study the Legal and Institutional Foundations of Adaptive Governance

  • Daniel A. DeCaroEmail author
  • Brian C. Chaffin
  • Edella Schlager
  • Ahjond S. Garmestani
  • J. B. Ruhl
Chapter

Abstract

Adaptation to major social and ecological changes requires the participation, innovation, social learning, and political deliberation of many stakeholders, doing many different governance activities at different scales. Legal and institutional systems set the ground rules for this governance activity, establishing boundaries and opportunities for widespread innovation and cooperation. However, the enabling conditions for adaptive governance are poorly understood, making it difficult to facilitate. Candidate design principles that describe enabling conditions for adaptive environmental governance are proposed. Research opportunities are outlined to study the effects of these factors in different social-ecological systems and to further refine the principles.

Keywords

Adaptive governance Climate change Design principles Environmental law Social-ecological resilience State-reinforced self-governance Water governance 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was developed in part under the Adaptive Water Governance Project, funded by the US National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC) under funding from the US National Science Foundation, NSF DBI-1052875. The views set forth by contributors to this volume represent their own and do not represent the views of any public or private entity the contributor is affiliated with.

References

  1. Allen CR, Garmestani AS (2015) Adaptive management of social-ecological systems. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armitage D (2007) Governance and the commons in a multi-level world. Int J Commons 2(1):7–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnold CA, Gunderson LH (2013) Adaptive law and resilience. Environ Law Report 43:10426–10443Google Scholar
  4. Arnold CA, Green OO, DeCaro DA, Chase A, Ewa JG (2014) The social-ecological resilience of an eastern urban-suburban watershed: the Anacostia River Basin Idaho Law Rev 51(1):29–90Google Scholar
  5. Arnstein SR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Plann 35:216–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berkes F (2007) Community-based conservation in a globalized world. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104(39):15188–15193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bingham LB (2009) Collaborative governance: emerging practices and the incomplete legal framework for public and stakeholder voice. J Disput Resolut 2(2):1–58Google Scholar
  8. Bingham LB (2010) The next generation of administrative law: building the legal infrastructure for collaborative governance. Wisconsin Law Rev 10(2):297–356Google Scholar
  9. Bingham LB, Nabatchi T, O’Leary R (2005) The new governance: practices and processes for stakeholder and citizen participation in the work of government. Public Adm Rev 65(5):547–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Birge HE, Allen CR, Craig RK, Garmestani AS, Hamm JA, Babbitt C, Nemec K, Schlager E (2014) Social-ecological resilience and law in the Platte River Basin Idaho Law Rev 51(1):229–327Google Scholar
  11. Chaffin BC, Gunderson LH (2016) Emergence, institutionalization and renewal: rhythms of adaptive governance in complex social-ecological systems. J Environ Manag 165:81–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chaffin BC, Craig RK, Gosnell H (2014a) Resilience, adaptation, and transformation in the Klamath River Basin social-ecological system. Idaho Law Rev 51(1):157–183Google Scholar
  13. Chaffin BC, Gosnell H, Cosens BA (2014b) A decade of adaptive governance scholarship: synthesis and future directions. Ecol Soc 19(3):56.  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06824-190356 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chaffin BC, Garmestani AS, Gunderson LH, Benson MH, Angeler DG, Arnold CA, Cosens BA, Craig RK, Ruhl JB Allen CR (2016) Transformative environmental governance. Annu Rev Environ Resour 41:399–423Google Scholar
  15. Clarvis MH, Allan A, Hannah DM (2014a) Water, resilience and the law: from general concepts and governance design principles to actionable mechanisms. Environ Sci Pol 43:98–110.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.10.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clarvis MH, Fatichi S, Allan A, Fuhrer J, Stoffel M, Romerio F, Gaudard L, Burlando P, Beniston M, Xoplaki E, Toreti A (2014b) Governing and managing water resources under changing hydro-climatic contexts: the case of the upper Rhone basin. Environ Sci Pol 43:56–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clean Water Fund (2010) Everglades for all? An in-depth look at public perception and public participation in the world largest ecosystem restoration project. http://www.cleanwater.org/files/publications/fl/everglades-for-all_survey_final_201003.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2017
  18. Clement F (2010) Analysing decentralised natural resource governance: proposition for a “politicised” institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Sci 43(2):129–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cole DH, McGinnis MD (eds) (2015) Elinor Ostrom and the Bloomington school of political economy, Polycentricity in public administration and political science, vol 1. Lexington Books, LexingtonGoogle Scholar
  20. Cosens BA (2013) Legitimacy, adaptation, and resilience in ecosystem management. Ecol Soc 18(1):3.  https://doi.org/10.5751/es-05093-180103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cosens B, Fremier A (2014) Assessing system resilience and ecosystem services in large river basins: a case study of the Columbia River Basin. Idaho Law Rev 51(1):91–125Google Scholar
  22. Cosens BA, Williams MK (2012) Resilience and water governance: adaptive governance in the Columbia River Basin. Ecol Soc 17(4):3.  https://doi.org/10.5751/es-04986-170403 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cosens BA, Gunderson L, Chaffin B (2014) The Adaptive Water Governance Project: assessing law, resilience and governance in regional social-ecological water systems facing changing climate. Idaho Law Rev 51(1):1–27Google Scholar
  24. Cosens BA, Craig RK, Hirsch S, Arnold CA, Benson MH, DeCaro DA, Garmestani AS, Gosnell H, Ruhl JB, Schlager E (2017) The role of law in adaptive governance. Ecol Soc 22(1):30.  https://doi.org/10.5751/es-08731-22130
  25. Cox M (2014) Applying a social-ecological system framework to the study of the Taos Valley irrigation system. Hum Ecol 42(2):311–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cox M, Arnold G, Tomás SV (2010) A review of design principles for community-based natural resource management. Ecol Soc 15(4):38. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art38/. Accessed 31 July 2017
  27. Craig RK (2010) Stationarity is dead: long live transformation: five principles for climate change adaptation law. Harv Environ Law Rev 31:9–75Google Scholar
  28. Craig RK, Ruhl JB (2014) Designing administrative law for adaptive management. Vanderbilt Law Rev 67(1):1–87Google Scholar
  29. Craig RK, Garmestani AS, Allen CR, Arnold CA, Birgé H, DeCaro DH, Fremier AK, Gosnell H, aSchlager E. (2017) Balancing stability and flexibility in adaptive governance: an analysis of tools available in U.S. environmental law. Ecol Soc 22(2):3.  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08983-220203
  30. Craik AN, DiMento JF (2008) Environmental cooperation in the (partially) disaggregated state: lessons from the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. Chicago J Int Law 8:479Google Scholar
  31. DeCaro DA, Stokes MK (2013) Public participation and institutional fit: a social–psychological perspective. Ecol Soc 18(4):40.  https://doi.org/10.5751/es-05837-180440 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. DeCaro DA, Arnold CA, Boamah EF, Garmestani AS (2017a) Understanding and applying principles of social cognition and decision making in adaptive environmental governance. Ecol Soc 22(1):33.  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09154-220133
  33. DeCaro DA, Chaffin BC, Schlager E, Garmestani AS, Ruhl JB (2017b) Legal and institutional foundations of adaptive environmental governance. Ecol Soc 22(1):32.  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09036-220132
  34. Dietz T, Ostrom E, Stern PC (2003) The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302:1907–1912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Doremus H, Hanemann M (2008) The challenges of dynamic water management in the American West. UCLA J Environ Law & Policy 26(2):55–75Google Scholar
  36. Engel KH (2006) Harnessing the benefits of dynamic federalism in environmental law. Emory Law J 56:159Google Scholar
  37. Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, Norberg J (2005) Adaptive governance of social–ecological systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30:441–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Freeman D (2010) Implementing the Endangered Species Act on the Platte Basin Water Commons. University Press of Colorado, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  39. Galusha D (2002) Liquid assets: a history of New York City’s water system. Purple Mountain Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Garmestani AS, Allen CR (2014) Social-ecological resilience and law. Columbia University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Garmestani AS, Benson MH (2013) A framework for resilience-based governance of social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 18(1):9.  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05180-180109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Gerlak AK, Heikkila T (2011) Building a theory of learning in collaboratives: evidence from the Everglades restoration program. J Public Adm Res 21:619–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Green OO, Garmestani AS, Hopton ME, Heberling MT (2014) A multi-scalar examination of law for sustainable ecosystems. Sustain For 6(6):3534–3551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Green OO, Garmestani AS, Allen CR, Gunderson LH, Ruhl JB, Arnold CA, Graham NA, Cosens BA, Angeler DG, Chaffin BC, Holling CS (2015) Barriers and bridges to the integration of social–ecological resilience and law. Front Ecol Environ 13(6):332–337Google Scholar
  45. Gunderson LH, Garmestani A, Rizzardi KW, Ruhl JB, Light A (2014) Escaping a rigidity trap: governance and adaptive capacity to climate change in the everglades social ecological system Idaho Law Rev 51:127–156Google Scholar
  46. Heikkila T, Schlager E, Davis MW (2011) The role of cross-scale institutional linkages in common pool resource management: assessing interstate river compacts. Pol Stud J 39(1):121–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Holling CS (ed) (1978) Adaptive environmental assessment and management. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. Holling CS (1986) The resilience of terrestrial ecosystems: local surprise and global change. In: Clark WC, Munn RE (eds) Sustainable development of the biosphere. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 292–317Google Scholar
  49. Holling CS (2001) Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems 4(5):390–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources [IUCN] (1980) World conservation strategy: living resource conservation for sustainable development. IUCN, GlandGoogle Scholar
  51. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources [IUCN] (2008) Shaping a sustainable future: the IUCN programme 2009–2012. https://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_programme_2009_2012_dfc.pdf. Accessed 31 July 2017
  52. Larson KL, Wiek A, Keeler LW (2013) A comprehensive sustainability appraisal of water governance in Phoenix, AZ. J Environ Manag 116:58–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Marshall G (2007) Nesting, subsidiarity, and community-based environmental governance beyond the local scale. Int J Commons 2(1):75–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Moser SC, Ekstrom JA (2010) A framework to diagnose barriers to climate change adaptation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(51):22026–22031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. National Civic League [NCL] (2013) Making public participation legal. http://ncdd.org/rc/wp-content/uploads/MakingP2Legal.pdf. Accessed 27 July 2017
  56. Olsson P, Gunderson LH, Carpenter SR, Ryan P, Lebel L, Folke C, Holling CS (2006) Shooting the rapids: navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 11(1):18. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art18/
  57. Orts EW (1995) A reflexive model of environmental regulation. Bus Ethics Q 5(4):779–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ostrom E (1965) Public entrepreneurship: a case study in ground water management. Dissertation, University of California at Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  59. Ostrom V (1971) The political theory of a compound republic: designing the American experiment, 2nd edn. Institute for Contemporary Studies Press, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  60. Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ostrom E (1992) Crafting institutions for self-governing irrigation systems. Institute for Contemporary Studies Press, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  62. Ostrom V (1994) The meaning of American Federalism: constituting a self-governing society. Institute for Contemporary Studies Press, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  63. Ostrom E (1998) A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action: presidential address, American Political Science Association, 1997. Am Polit Sci Rev 91:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Ostrom V (1999) Polycentricity (Parts 1 and 2). In: McGinnis MD (ed) Polycentricity and local public economies. University of Michigan Press, pp 52–74, 119–138Google Scholar
  65. Ostrom E (2000) The danger of self-evident truths. PS Polit Sci Polit 33(01):33–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Ostrom E (2005) Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  67. Ostrom E (2007) A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104(39):15181–15187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Ostrom E (2010) Beyond markets and states: polycentric governance of complex economic systems. Am Econ Rev 100:1–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Ostrom E (2014) Do institutions for collective action evolve? J Bioecon 16:3–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Pahl-Wostl C (2009) A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Glob Environ Chang 19(3):354–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Poteete AR, Janssen MA, Ostrom E (eds) (2010) Broadly comparative field-based research. In: Working together: collective action, the commons, and multiple methods in practice. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 64–88Google Scholar
  72. Prager K (2010) Local and regional partnerships in natural resource management: the challenge of bridging institutional levels. J Environ Manag 46:711–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Reed M (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol Conserv 141:2417–2431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Ruhl JB (2011) General design principles for resilience and adaptive capacity in legal systems: applications to climate change adaptation law. North Carolina Law Rev 89:1374–1401Google Scholar
  75. Sabatier PA, Focht W, Lubell M, Trachtenberg Z, Vedlitz A, Matlock M (2005) Swimming upstream: collaborative approaches to watershed management. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  76. Sarker A (2013) The role of state-reinforced self-governance in averting the tragedy of the irrigation commons in Japan. Public Adm 91(3):727–743Google Scholar
  77. Sarker A, Itoh T, Kada R, Nakashima M, Herath G (2014) User self-governance in a complex policy design for managing water commons in Japan. J Hydrol 510:246–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Schlager E, Heikkila T (2011) Left high and dry? Climate change, common-pool resource theory, and adaptability of Western water compacts. Public Adm Rev 71(3):461–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Schlager E, Engel K, Rider S (eds) (2011) Navigating climate change policy: the opportunities of federalism. The University of Arizona PressGoogle Scholar
  80. Schlager E, Heikkila T, Case C (2012) The costs of compliance with interstate agreements: lessons from water compacts in the western United States. Publius, J Federalism 42(3):494–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Shivakumar S (2005) The constitution of development: crafting capabilities for self-governance. Palgrave Macmillan, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Stern PC (2011) Design principles for global commons: natural resources and emerging technologies International. Int J Commons 5(2):213–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Teubner G (1983) Substantive and reflexive elements in modern law. Law Soc Rev 17(2):239–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Thomson VE, Arroyo V (2011) Upside-down cooperative federalism: climate change policymaking and the states. Virginia Environ Law J 29(1):1–61Google Scholar
  85. Tyler TR (1990) Why people obey the law. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  86. Tyler TR (2006) Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimization. Annu Rev Psychol 57:375–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. U. S. State Department (2017) Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in the United States. https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/fs/2017/266904.htm#_ftn1. Accessed June 20 2017
  88. Volkman JM, McConnaha WE (1993) Through a glass, darkly: Columbia River salmon, the Endangered Species Act, and adaptive management. Environ Law 23:1249–1272Google Scholar
  89. Wheeler SM (2000) Planning for metropolitan sustainability. J Plan Educ Res 20(2):133–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Yin KR (2014) Case study research: design and methods, 5th edn. SAGE, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel A. DeCaro
    • 1
    Email author
  • Brian C. Chaffin
    • 2
  • Edella Schlager
    • 3
  • Ahjond S. Garmestani
    • 4
  • J. B. Ruhl
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Urban and Public Affairs, Department of Psychological and Brain SciencesUniversity of LouisvilleLouisvilleUSA
  2. 2.W. A. Frank College of Forestry and ConservationUniversity of MontanaMissoulaUSA
  3. 3.School of Government and Public PolicyThe University of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  4. 4.School of Natural ResourcesUniversity of NebrasksaLincolnUSA
  5. 5.Vanderbilt University Law SchoolNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations