Advertisement

The Role of Bridging Organizations in Enhancing Ecosystem Services and Facilitating Adaptive Management of Social-Ecological Systems

Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

The nested nature of social-ecological systems across scales requires a multi-scale approach for monitoring and response. However, in many cases this flow is hindered by hierarchical structures and bureaucratic procedures. Recent research suggests that bridging organizations that facilitate collaboration and learning across sectors and scales are key to adaptive governance. Bridging organizations can facilitate cross-scale linkages, enabling formal management entities operating at discrete scales to improve communication channels and create opportunities for collaboration. This allows for management to set new target levels and modify policy to reach those target levels as new information is generated on scale-specific system attributes. Bridging organizations also incubate new ideas for environmental management, provide a forum for coming to agreement on contentious issues, and foster the capacity to manage for resilience of social-ecological systems and the provisioning of ecosystem services that are directly and indirectly important on a regional and international scale.

Keywords

Resilience Adaptive management Adaptive governance Bridging organizations Ecosystem services 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Berkes, F. (2009). Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging ­organizations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 1692–1702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brock, W. A. (2006). Tipping points, abrupt opinion change, and punctuated policy change. In R. Repetto (Ed.), Punctuated equilibrium and the dynamics of U.S. Environmental Policy ­(pp. ­47–77). New Haven: Yale.Google Scholar
  3. Brock, W. A., & Carpenter, S. R. (2007). Panaceas and diversification of environmental policy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104, ­15206–15211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, L. D. (1991). Bridging organizations and sustainable development. Human Relations, 44, 807–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, L. D., Khagram, S., Moore, M. H., & Frumkin, P. (2000). Globalization, NGOs and ­multisectoral relations. In J. S. Nye & J. D. Donohue, editors. Governance in a Globalizing World (pp. 271–296). Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  6. 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. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art8/http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art8/ .
  7. Costanza, R., D’Aarge, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O´Neill, R., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R. G., Sutton, P., & Van den Belt, M. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387, 253–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crona, B., & Parker, J. (2012). Learning in support of governance: Theories, methods and findings to assess how bridging organizations contribute to adaptive resource governance. Ecology and Society, 17(1), 32. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04534-170132 . CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cronert, H., & Lindblad, T. (2004). Strandängsinventering längs nedre Helgeån i Kristianstads Vattenrike våren 2003. ANSER 2/04: pp. 65–78.Google Scholar
  10. Daily, G. (Ed). (1997). Nature’s services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.Google Scholar
  11. Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 441–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Garmestani, A. S., Allen, C. R., & Cabezas, H. (2009). Panarchy, adaptive management and ­governance: Policy options for building resilience. Nebraska Law Review, 87, 1036–1054.Google Scholar
  13. Green, O. O., & Garmestani, A. S. (2012). Adaptive management to protect biodiversity, best available science and the Endangered Species Act. Diversity, 4, 164–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gunderson, L. H. (1999). Stepping back: Assessing for understanding in complex regional ­systems. In K. N. Johnson, F. Swanson, M. Herring, & S. Greene (Eds), Bioregional ­assessments: ­Science at the crossroads of management and policy (pp. 27–40). Washington, D.C.: Island Press.Google Scholar
  15. Gunderson, L. H., & Holling, C. S. (2002). Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gunderson, L. H., Holling, C. S., & Light, S. S. (1995). Barriers and bridges to renewal of ­ecosystems and institutions. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hahn, T. (2011). Self-organized governance networks for ecosystem management: Who is ­accountable? Ecology and Society, 16(2), 18. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art18/.Google Scholar
  18. Hahn, T., Olsson, P., Folke, C., & Johansson, K. (2006). Trust-building, knowledge generation and organizational innovations: The role of a bridging organization for adaptive co-management of a wetland landscape around Kristianstad, Sweden. Human Ecology, 34, 573–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hahn, T., Schultz, L., Folke, C., & Olsson, P. (2008). Social networks as sources of resilience in social-ecological systems. In J. Norberg & G. Cumming (Eds), Complexity theory for a ­sustainable future (pp. 119–148). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Holling, C. S. (1978). Adaptive environmental assessment and management. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  21. Karkkainen, B. C. (2002). Collaborative ecosystem governance: Scale, complexity and dynamism. Virginia Environmental Law Journal, 21, 189–244.Google Scholar
  22. Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives and public policies. New York: Harper Collins ­College.Google Scholar
  23. Kinzig, A., Starrett, D., Arrow, K., Aniyar, S., Bolin, B., Dasgupta, P., Ehrlich, P., Folke, C., ­Hanemann, M., Heal, G., Hoel M., Jansson, A., Jansson, B. O., Kautsky, N., Levin, S., ­Lubchenco, J., Maler, K. G., Pacala, S. W., Schneider, S. H., Siniscalco, D., & Walker, B. (2003). Coping with uncertainty: A call for a new science-policy forum. Ambio, 32, 330–335.Google Scholar
  24. Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Office. (2011). http://www.vattenriket.kristianstad.se/eng/index.php. Accessed 13 Sep 2011.
  25. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystem and human well-being: Synthesis. ­Washington, D.C.: Island.Google Scholar
  26. Magnusson, S. E. (2004). The changing perception of the wetlands in and around Kristianstad, Sweden—from waterlogged areas toward a future Water Kingdom, Kristianstad Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1023, 323–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Magnusson, S. E., Andersson, J., & Vägren, G. (1989). Markhävdkartering 1989. Helgeåns ­vattenområde från Torsebro till havet [Mapping of land-use practices. Lower Helgeå River catchment from Torsebro to the sea]. Kristianstad. Sweden: Nordöstra Skånes Fågelklubb and Kristianstads Vattenrike.Google Scholar
  28. Magnusson, S. E., Magntorn, K., Wallsten, E., Cronert, H., & Thelaus, M. (2004). Kristianstads Vattenrike biosphere reserve nomination form.Google Scholar
  29. Malayang, B. S. III, Hahn, T., & Kumar, P. (2007). Responses to ecosystem change and to their ­impacts on human well-being. Pages 203–226 in Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, ­Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Multiscale Assessments, Findings of the Sub-global ­Assessments Working Group. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.Google Scholar
  30. Nekoro, M., & Svedén, J. (2009). Ekosystemtjänstanalys i Kristianstads Vattenrike 2008 - Pilotstudie strandängar [Ecosystemservices in Kristianstads Vattenrike—pilot study flooded ­meadows, Report in the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency series], Naturvårdsverket, Rapport 5947, May 2009. ISBN 978-91-620-5947-7pdf. ISSN 0282–7298Google Scholar
  31. Odum, E. P. (1989). Ecology and our endangered life support systems. Sunderland: Sinauer ­Associated.Google Scholar
  32. Olsson, P., Folke, C., & Berkes, F. (2004). Adaptive co-management for building resilience in social-ecological systems. Environmental Management, 34, 75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Olsson, P., Gunderson, L. H., Carpenter, S. R., Ryan, P., Lebel, L., Folke, C., & Holling, C. S. (2006). Shooting the rapids: Navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 11(1), 18. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art18/.
  34. Olsson, P., Folke, C., Galaz, V., Hahn, T., & Schultz, L. (2007). Enhancing the fit through adaptive co-management: creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in the ­Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve Sweden. Ecology and Society, 12(1), 28. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art28/.
  35. Oveson, P. (2009). Markhävdkartering 2008 hävdtillståndet på betesmarker och slåtterängar inom nedre Helgeåns våtmarksområde i Kristianstads Vattenrike, Vattenriket i fokus 2009:05 ­Mapping of traditional land-use 2008: current maintenance of pastures and hay meadows in the lower Helgeå wetland area in Kristianstads Vattenrike.Google Scholar
  36. Roy, A. H., Wenger, S. J., Fletcher, T. D., Walsh, C. J., Ladson, A. R., Shuster, W. D., Thurston, W., & Brown, R. R. (2008). Impediments and solutions to sustainable, watershed-scale ­urban stormwater management: Lessons from Australia and the United States. Environmental ­Management, 42, 344–359.Google Scholar
  37. Ruitenbeek, J., & Cartier, C. (2001). The invisible wand: Adaptive co-management as an emergent strategy in complex bio-economic systems. Bogor: Center for International Forestry Research.Google Scholar
  38. Ruhl, J. B., Kraft, S. E., & Lant, C. L. (2007). The law and policy of ecosystem services. ­Washington, D.C.: Island Press.Google Scholar
  39. Scheffer, M., Westley, F., & Brock, W. (2003). Slow response of societies to new problems: Causes and costs. Ecosystems, 6, 493–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schultz, L. (2009). Nurturing resilience in social-ecological systems: Lessons learned from ­bridging organizations. Dissertation, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
  41. Schultz, L., & Lundholm, C. (2010). Learning for resilience? Exploring learning opportunities in Biosphere Reserves. Environmental Education Research, 16, 5–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schultz, L., Folke, C., & Olsson, P. (2007). Enhancing ecosystem management through ­social-ecological inventories: Lessons from Kristianstads Vattenrike, Sweden. Environmental Conservation, 34, 140–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Skjaerseth, J. B. (2006). Protecting the northeast Atlantic: One problem, three institutions. In S. Oberthur & T. Gehring, (Eds), Institutional interaction in global environmental governance (pp. 103–125). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  44. Stokke, O. S., & Coffey, C. (2006). Institutional interplay and responsible fisheries: Combating subsidies, developing precaution. In S. Oberthur & T. Gehring (Eds), Institutional interaction in global environmental governance (pp. 127–155). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  45. Walker, B., & Salt, D. (2006). Resilience thinking—sustaining ecosystems and people in a ­changing world. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.Google Scholar
  46. Westley, F. (1995). Governing design: The management of social systems and ecosystems ­management. In L.H. Gunderson, C. S. Holling, & S. S. Light (Eds), Barriers and bridges to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions (p. 20). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Wood, B. D., & Doan, A. (2003). The politics of problem definition: Applying and testing ­threshold models. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 640–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht (outside the USA) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyCincinnatiUSA
  2. 2.Stockholm Resilience CentreStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden
  3. 3.Stockholm UniversityStockholmSweden
  4. 4.Office of Research and DevelopmentU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options