Advertisement

Managing the Earth System: Why We Need a Poly-Scalar Approach

  • Kate Meyer
  • Peter Newman
Chapter
  • 29 Downloads

Abstract

Human activity is altering critical natural processes beyond global limits. The way we manage the global environment over the next few decades will be a major determinant for the state of the Earth for the next epoch—the “Anthropocene”. Current efforts at managing the environment often use a top-down approach, an idea based on out-of-date theories of environmental management. Efforts at different levels are often piecemeal, with no cohesion or common direction beyond a general goal of reducing environmental impacts. Moreover, most people have a relatively small sphere of influence. Global environmental problems can feel overwhelming—it can be difficult to see how the efforts at smaller scales could influence global outcomes.

Three areas of social science, observed human behaviour, commons management, and change theory, can be used to show that a different approach is needed. These theories highlight the benefits of breaking down our global environmental problems into smaller pieces so that they can be tackled at the scale of magnitude that is most effective. They show the value of an approach that is integrative across different scales of society (i.e. individual, community, city, small and large business, and government at all scales) and across different timescales (from short term to long term). Further, they demonstrate the importance of an approach that is not overly prescriptive—that defines the “what” but allows people to determine the “how”. Finally, they convey the necessity that the approach should instil trust in others that people are working to the same end.

We thus propose a new “poly-scalar” approach that uses a general system of rules to generate trust that others are working towards the same goal. The system of rules needs to have the resolution to communicate what is needed at different scales of magnitude, the flexibility to let people determine how to achieve this, and the mechanisms to enable the integration of different timescales and scales of activity in society. It is our position that a poly-scalar approach would enable more effective management of the global environment. It could help us to return to and live within the planet’s limits as it links Earth sciences with the social sciences.

References

  1. Aristotle (ed) (1996) The politics and the constitution of Athens. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernard T, Young J (1997) The ecology of hope: communities collaborate for sustainability. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BCGoogle Scholar
  3. Brondizio ES, Ostrom E, Young OR (2009) Connectivity and the governance of multilevel social-ecological systems: the role of social capital. Annu Rev Env Resour 34:253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. C40 (2017) C40 cities. Available: http://www.c40.org/. Accessed 28 Jul 2017
  5. Chesick JP (1975) Atmospheric halocarbons and stratospheric ozone. Nature 254:275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eon C, Morrison GM, Byrne J (2017) Unraveling everyday heating practices in residential homes. Energy Procedia 121:198–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eon C, Morrison G, Byrne J (2018) The influence of design and everyday practices on individual heating and cooling behaviour in residential homes. Energ Effic 11:273–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Epstein G, Pérez I, Schoon M, Meek CL (2014) Governing the invisible commons: ozone regulation and the Montreal Protocol. Int J Commons 8:337–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Farman JC, Gardiner BG, Shanklin JD (1985) Large losses of total ozone in Antarctica reveal seasonal ClOx/NOx interaction. Nature 315:207–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Freeman DM (1989) Local level organizations for local development: concepts and cases of irrigation organization. Westview Press, Boulder, COGoogle Scholar
  11. Galaz V, Crona B, Österblom H, Olsson P, Folke C (2012) Polycentric systems and interacting planetary boundaries - emerging governance of climate change-ocean acidification-marine biodiversity. Ecol Econ 81:21–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gardner R, Herr A, Ostrom E, Walker JA (2000) The power and limitations of proportional cutbacks in common-pool resources. J Dev Econ 62:515–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gladwell M (2000) The tipping point. Little Brown, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  14. Glaeser EL, Gottlieb JD (2009) The wealth of cities: agglomeration economies and spatial equilibrium in the United States. J Econ Lit 47:983–1028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gordon HS (1954) The economic theory of a common-property resource: the fishery. J Pol Econ 62:124–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Graham D, Dender K (2011) Estimating the agglomeration benefits of transport investments: some tests for stability. Plan Pol Res Pract 38:409–426Google Scholar
  17. Hardin G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:1243–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hardin R (1982) Collective action. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MDGoogle Scholar
  19. Holmberg J, Lundqvist U, Robèrt KH, Wackernagel M (1999) The ecological footprint from a systems perspective of sustainability. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 6:17–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kates R, Wilbanks T (2003) Making the global local responding to climate change concerns from the ground. Environ Sci Pol Sustain Dev 45:12–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kaufman L (2009) Utilities turn their customers green, with envy. The New York Times. 31 January, 2009Google Scholar
  22. Korten D (1987) Introduction: community-based resource management. In: Korten D (ed) Community management: Asian experience and perspectives. Kumarian Press, Hartford, CTGoogle Scholar
  23. Korten D, Klauss R (1984) People centred development: contributions toward theory and planning frameworks. Kumarian Press, Hartford CTGoogle Scholar
  24. Lloyd W (1977) On the checks to population. In: Hardin G, Baden J (eds) Managing the commons. Freeman, San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  25. Lo CW, Tang SY (1994) Institutional contexts of environmental management: water pollution control in Guangzhou, China. Public Admin Dev 14:53–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lorek S, Spangenberg J (2001) Environmentally sustainable household consumption. Wuppertal Institute, WuppertalGoogle Scholar
  27. Marwell G, Ames RE (1980) Experiments on the provision of public goods. II. Provision points, stakes, experience, and the free-rider problem. Am J Sociol 85:926–937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McCay BJ, Acheson JM (1987) The question of the commons. The culture and ecology of communal resources. University of Arizona Press, Tucson AZGoogle Scholar
  29. McKean M (1998) Common property: what is it, what is it good for, and what makes it work? In: Gibson C, McKean M, Ostrom E (eds) Forest resources and institutions. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  30. Meyer K, Merry A (2017) Saving civilization through personal budgeting in a quality improvement paradigm. In: Herzberg A (ed) Statistics, science and public policy, vol XXI. National Library of Canada Cataloguing in Publication, HailshamGoogle Scholar
  31. Myers J (2016) This coach improved everything by 1%, putting Britain on the road to Rio Olympic glory. World Economic Forum. Accessed 9 Sep 2019Google Scholar
  32. National Research Council (1986) Proceedings of the Conference on Common Property Resource Management. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  33. Neuvonen A, Kaskinen T, Leppänen J, Lähteenoja S, Mokka R, Ritola M (2014) Low-carbon futures and sustainable lifestyles: a backcasting scenario approach. Futures 58:66–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Newman P (2005) Can the magic of sustainability revive environmental professionalism? Greener Manag Int 49:11–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Newman P, Kenworthy J (2015) The end of automobile dependence: how cities are moving beyond car-based planning. Island Press, Washington, DCCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Newman P, Rowe M (2003) The Western Australian state sustainability strategy: a vision for quality of life in Western Australia. Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Perth, WAGoogle Scholar
  37. Newman P, Beatley T, Boyer H (2017) Resilient cities: overcoming fossil fuel dependence. Island Press, Center for Resource Economics, Washington, DCCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Olson M (1965) The logic of collective action: public goods and the theory of groups. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  39. Ostrom E (1988) The rudiments of a theory of the origins, survival and performance of common property institutions. In: Korten D (ed) Making the commons work. Kumarian Press, Hartford DCGoogle Scholar
  40. Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York, NYCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ostrom V (1999) Polycentricity—Part 1. Polycentricity and local public economies. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MIGoogle Scholar
  42. Ostrom E (2009) A polycentric approach for coping with climate change. World Bank, Washington, DCCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ostrom E (2010) Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Glob Environ Chang 20:550–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ostrom V, Tiebout CM, Warren R (1961) The organization of government in metropolitan areas: a theoretical inquiry. Am Pol Sci Rev 55:831–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ostrom E, Gardner R, Walker J (1994) Rules, games, and common-pool resources. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MICrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Parson EA (2003) Protecting the ozone layer: science and strategy. Oxford University Press, New York, NYCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Runge CF (1981) Common property externalities: isolation, assurance, and resource depletion in a traditional grazing context. Am J Agric Econ 63:595–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Runge CF (1984) Institutions and the free rider: the assurance problem in collective action. J Polit 46:154–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rupasingha A, Boadu FO (1998) Evolutionary theories and the community management of local commons: a survey. Rev Agric Econ Agric Appl Econ Assoc 20:530–546Google Scholar
  50. Sandler T (1992) Collective action: theory and applications. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor MIGoogle Scholar
  51. Schleussner CF, Rogelj J, Schaeffer M, Lissner T, Licker R, Fischer EM, Knutti R, Levermann A, Frieler K, Hare W (2016) Science and policy characteristics of the Paris agreement temperature goal. Nat Clim Change 6:827–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Secretariat of the CBD (2006) Global biodiversity outlook 2. Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, QCGoogle Scholar
  53. Secretariat of the CBD (2010) Global biodiversity outlook 3. Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, QCGoogle Scholar
  54. Secretariat of the CBD (2014) Global biodiversity outlook 4. Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, QCGoogle Scholar
  55. Sharma A (2017) Precaution and post-caution in the Paris agreement: adaptation, loss and damage and finance. Clim Pol 17:33–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Siy RY (1982) Community resource management: lessons from the Zanjera. University of the Philippines Press, ManilaGoogle Scholar
  57. Solomon S, Ivy DJ, Kinnison D, Mills MJ, Neely RR, Schmidt A (2016) Emergence of healing in the Antarctic ozone layer. Science 353:269–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockström J, Cornell SE, Fetzer I, Bennett EM, Biggs R, Carpenter SR, De Vries W, De Wit CA, Folke C, Gerten D, Heinke J, Mace GM, Persson LM, Ramanathan V, Reyers B, Sörlin S (2015) Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347:1259855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Steg L (2016) Values, norms, and intrinsic motivation to act proenvironmentally. Annu Rev Env Resour 41:277–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Steg L, Vlek C (2009) Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review and research agenda. J Environ Psychol 29:309–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stocker L, Newman P, Duggie J (2012) Climate change and Perth (South West Australia). In: Blakely E, Carbonell A (eds) Resilient coastal regions: planning for climate change in the United States and Australia. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  62. Thomson G, Newman P (2016) Geoengineering in the Anthropocene through Regenerative Urbanism. Geosciences 6:46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Thomson G, Newman P (2018) Urban fabrics and urban metabolism: from sustainable to regenerative cities. Resour Conserv Recycl 132:218–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Trubka RL (2011) Agglomeration economies in Australian cities: productivity benefits of increasing urban density and accessibility. Doctor of Philosophy, CurtinGoogle Scholar
  65. UNEP (2017a) The Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer. Available: http://ozone.unep.org/en/treaties-and-decisions/montreal-protocol-substances-deplete-ozone-layer. Accessed 22 Dec 2017
  66. UNEP (2017b) Treaties and decisions. Available: http://ozone.unep.org/en/treaties-and-decisions. Accessed 22 Dec 2017
  67. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) (1992) Agenda 21. UNCED, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  68. White TA, Runge CF (1994) Common property and collective action: lessons from cooperative watershed management in Haiti. Econ Dev Cult Change 43:1–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wittmayer JM, Van Steenbergen F, Rok A, Roorda C (2016) Governing sustainability: a dialogue between local Agenda 21 and transition management. Local Environ 21:939–955CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kate Meyer
    • 1
  • Peter Newman
    • 2
  1. 1.The Planetary Accounting NetworkAucklandNew Zealand
  2. 2.Curtin UniversityWestern AustraliaAustralia

Personalised recommendations