Balancing stability and flexibility in adaptive governance: An analysis of tools available in U.S. environmental law

Robin Kundis Craig, Ahjond S. Garmestani, Craig R. Allen, Craig Anthony Tony Arnold, Hannah Birgé, Daniel A. DeCaro, Alexander K. Fremier, Hannah Gosnell, Edella Schlager

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

33 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Adaptive governance must work “on the ground,” that is, it must operate through structures and procedures that the people it governs perceive to be legitimate and fair, as well as incorporating processes and substantive goals that are effective in allowing social-ecological systems (SESs) to adapt to climate change and other impacts. To address the continuing and accelerating alterations that climate change is bringing to SESs, adaptive governance generally will require more flexibility than prior governance institutions have often allowed. However, to function as good governance, adaptive governance must pay real attention to the problem of how to balance this increased need for flexibility with continuing governance stability so that it can foster adaptation to change without being perceived or experienced as perpetually destabilizing, disruptive, and unfair. Flexibility and stability serve different purposes in governance, and a variety of tools exist to strike different balances between them while still preserving the governance institution’s legitimacy among the people governed. After reviewing those purposes and the implications of climate change for environmental governance, we examine psychological insights into the structuring of adaptive governance and the variety of legal tools available to incorporate those insights into adaptive governance regimes. Because the substantive goals of governance systems will differ among specific systems, we do not purport to comment on what the normative or substantive goals of law should be. Instead, we conclude that attention to process and procedure (including participation), as well as increased use of substantive standards (instead of rules), may allow an increased level of substantive flexibility to operate with legitimacy and fairness, providing the requisite levels of psychological, social, and economic stability needed for communities to adapt successfully to the Anthropocene.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number3
JournalEcology and Society
Volume22
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2017

Fingerprint

climate change
economics
environmental law
analysis
need
Anthropocene
participation

Keywords

  • Adaptive governance
  • Balance
  • Due process
  • Equity
  • Fairness
  • Legitimacy
  • Nonequilibrium
  • Procedure
  • Resilience
  • Rule
  • Standard

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ecology

Cite this

Balancing stability and flexibility in adaptive governance : An analysis of tools available in U.S. environmental law. / Craig, Robin Kundis; Garmestani, Ahjond S.; Allen, Craig R.; Arnold, Craig Anthony Tony; Birgé, Hannah; DeCaro, Daniel A.; Fremier, Alexander K.; Gosnell, Hannah; Schlager, Edella.

In: Ecology and Society, Vol. 22, No. 2, 3, 01.06.2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Craig, RK, Garmestani, AS, Allen, CR, Arnold, CAT, Birgé, H, DeCaro, DA, Fremier, AK, Gosnell, H & Schlager, E 2017, 'Balancing stability and flexibility in adaptive governance: An analysis of tools available in U.S. environmental law', Ecology and Society, vol. 22, no. 2, 3. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08983-220203
Craig, Robin Kundis ; Garmestani, Ahjond S. ; Allen, Craig R. ; Arnold, Craig Anthony Tony ; Birgé, Hannah ; DeCaro, Daniel A. ; Fremier, Alexander K. ; Gosnell, Hannah ; Schlager, Edella. / Balancing stability and flexibility in adaptive governance : An analysis of tools available in U.S. environmental law. In: Ecology and Society. 2017 ; Vol. 22, No. 2.
@article{b5ad341675e74c2d91962a45fd013bb0,
title = "Balancing stability and flexibility in adaptive governance: An analysis of tools available in U.S. environmental law",
abstract = "Adaptive governance must work “on the ground,” that is, it must operate through structures and procedures that the people it governs perceive to be legitimate and fair, as well as incorporating processes and substantive goals that are effective in allowing social-ecological systems (SESs) to adapt to climate change and other impacts. To address the continuing and accelerating alterations that climate change is bringing to SESs, adaptive governance generally will require more flexibility than prior governance institutions have often allowed. However, to function as good governance, adaptive governance must pay real attention to the problem of how to balance this increased need for flexibility with continuing governance stability so that it can foster adaptation to change without being perceived or experienced as perpetually destabilizing, disruptive, and unfair. Flexibility and stability serve different purposes in governance, and a variety of tools exist to strike different balances between them while still preserving the governance institution’s legitimacy among the people governed. After reviewing those purposes and the implications of climate change for environmental governance, we examine psychological insights into the structuring of adaptive governance and the variety of legal tools available to incorporate those insights into adaptive governance regimes. Because the substantive goals of governance systems will differ among specific systems, we do not purport to comment on what the normative or substantive goals of law should be. Instead, we conclude that attention to process and procedure (including participation), as well as increased use of substantive standards (instead of rules), may allow an increased level of substantive flexibility to operate with legitimacy and fairness, providing the requisite levels of psychological, social, and economic stability needed for communities to adapt successfully to the Anthropocene.",
keywords = "Adaptive governance, Balance, Due process, Equity, Fairness, Legitimacy, Nonequilibrium, Procedure, Resilience, Rule, Standard",
author = "Craig, {Robin Kundis} and Garmestani, {Ahjond S.} and Allen, {Craig R.} and Arnold, {Craig Anthony Tony} and Hannah Birg{\'e} and DeCaro, {Daniel A.} and Fremier, {Alexander K.} and Hannah Gosnell and Edella Schlager",
year = "2017",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.5751/ES-08983-220203",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "22",
journal = "Ecology and Society",
issn = "1708-3087",
publisher = "The Resilience Alliance",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Balancing stability and flexibility in adaptive governance

T2 - An analysis of tools available in U.S. environmental law

AU - Craig, Robin Kundis

AU - Garmestani, Ahjond S.

AU - Allen, Craig R.

AU - Arnold, Craig Anthony Tony

AU - Birgé, Hannah

AU - DeCaro, Daniel A.

AU - Fremier, Alexander K.

AU - Gosnell, Hannah

AU - Schlager, Edella

PY - 2017/6/1

Y1 - 2017/6/1

N2 - Adaptive governance must work “on the ground,” that is, it must operate through structures and procedures that the people it governs perceive to be legitimate and fair, as well as incorporating processes and substantive goals that are effective in allowing social-ecological systems (SESs) to adapt to climate change and other impacts. To address the continuing and accelerating alterations that climate change is bringing to SESs, adaptive governance generally will require more flexibility than prior governance institutions have often allowed. However, to function as good governance, adaptive governance must pay real attention to the problem of how to balance this increased need for flexibility with continuing governance stability so that it can foster adaptation to change without being perceived or experienced as perpetually destabilizing, disruptive, and unfair. Flexibility and stability serve different purposes in governance, and a variety of tools exist to strike different balances between them while still preserving the governance institution’s legitimacy among the people governed. After reviewing those purposes and the implications of climate change for environmental governance, we examine psychological insights into the structuring of adaptive governance and the variety of legal tools available to incorporate those insights into adaptive governance regimes. Because the substantive goals of governance systems will differ among specific systems, we do not purport to comment on what the normative or substantive goals of law should be. Instead, we conclude that attention to process and procedure (including participation), as well as increased use of substantive standards (instead of rules), may allow an increased level of substantive flexibility to operate with legitimacy and fairness, providing the requisite levels of psychological, social, and economic stability needed for communities to adapt successfully to the Anthropocene.

AB - Adaptive governance must work “on the ground,” that is, it must operate through structures and procedures that the people it governs perceive to be legitimate and fair, as well as incorporating processes and substantive goals that are effective in allowing social-ecological systems (SESs) to adapt to climate change and other impacts. To address the continuing and accelerating alterations that climate change is bringing to SESs, adaptive governance generally will require more flexibility than prior governance institutions have often allowed. However, to function as good governance, adaptive governance must pay real attention to the problem of how to balance this increased need for flexibility with continuing governance stability so that it can foster adaptation to change without being perceived or experienced as perpetually destabilizing, disruptive, and unfair. Flexibility and stability serve different purposes in governance, and a variety of tools exist to strike different balances between them while still preserving the governance institution’s legitimacy among the people governed. After reviewing those purposes and the implications of climate change for environmental governance, we examine psychological insights into the structuring of adaptive governance and the variety of legal tools available to incorporate those insights into adaptive governance regimes. Because the substantive goals of governance systems will differ among specific systems, we do not purport to comment on what the normative or substantive goals of law should be. Instead, we conclude that attention to process and procedure (including participation), as well as increased use of substantive standards (instead of rules), may allow an increased level of substantive flexibility to operate with legitimacy and fairness, providing the requisite levels of psychological, social, and economic stability needed for communities to adapt successfully to the Anthropocene.

KW - Adaptive governance

KW - Balance

KW - Due process

KW - Equity

KW - Fairness

KW - Legitimacy

KW - Nonequilibrium

KW - Procedure

KW - Resilience

KW - Rule

KW - Standard

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85016806792&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85016806792&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.5751/ES-08983-220203

DO - 10.5751/ES-08983-220203

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85016806792

VL - 22

JO - Ecology and Society

JF - Ecology and Society

SN - 1708-3087

IS - 2

M1 - 3

ER -