Scale Mismatches: How do you fix ‘em -- (Cumming et al. 2006)

In short, scale mismatches are a product of ill-sized governance mechanisms when compared to the social-ecological systems they are intended to regulate.  These mismatches often result in inefficiencies, insufficiencies, and a loss of adaptive capacity within both the human and natural systems.

Although the research of scale mismatches is still limited and inchoate, Cumming et al (2006) attempt to provide the beginning of a skeletal framework for how to address scale mismatches. 

Much like problems with personal addiction, the authors suggest the first step in addressing scale mismatch is to acknowledge and be aware that a mismatch between ecological and institutional scales does exist.

 

The second step is to formulate an active approach, or working model that can be used to develop flexible learning institutions.  In essence, the authors are arguing for the emergence of adaptive governance frameworks such as those mentioned in the previous post. 

However, transforming management institutions is a difficult task.  In the short-term, the authors suggest taking common-sense approaches such as modifying boundary locations or altering their properties ie. increasing permeability through fence removal. 

The real impact of these recommendations for dealing with scale mismatches is to make readily apparent that there are, in fact, no established methods for rectifying them.  The solutions offered are vague, with little practical value at this point.  From my perspective, more comprehensive work is warranted to address what is arguably a critical component of social-ecological governance. 

--

Cumming, G.S., D.H.M. Cumming, and C.L. Redman. 2006. "Scale mismatches in social-ecological systems: causes, consequences, and solutions." Ecology and Society no. 11 (1).

Adaptive Governance: Uncertainty, deal with it -- (Folke et al. 2005)

Crises in social-ecological systems--whether they are natural, such as prolonged periods of extreme drought (see Texas 2011) or of the human produced variety, ie. the “great recession”--when viewed under an adaptive governance lens (see also adaptive co-management), can be seen as an opportunity for societal transformation into a preferred state. 

Of course, upon first thought, this appears to be oxymoronic.  Should crises not be avoided at all costs?  Undoubtedly, it would be preferable to remain in a steady-state of relative equilibrium; who prefers to deal with dramatic change?  However, if the aforementioned examples are any indication, it is best that societies learn to deal with periods of intense uncertainty, or risk further stagnation and possible atrophy. 

The predominant literature on adaptive governance tends to argue that rather than manage our social and natural systems under the assumption that disturbance is bad, we should in fact embrace uncertainty and manage our resources knowing good and well that circumstances will change.  In this light, flexibility and continuous learning are the keys to resilience in an uncertain world. 

But back to crises as opportunities.  Taking the example of the Texas drought above, in a perfect adaptive governance world, we would apply the lessons learned from the drought—and subsequent wildfires--to policies which better regulate our use of water and land management.  These policies could include both increased voluntary incentive based programs as well as mandatory conservation measures in areas particularly vulnerable to limited water or prevent suburban sprawl within fire prone areas.  In essence, the drought could be used as the trigger to transform Texas water governance and planning practices across multiple scales. 

To quote Rahm Emanual, “you never want a serious crises to go to waste.”

--

Folke, C., T. Hahn, P. Olsson, and J. Norberg. 2005. "Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems." Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. no. 30:441-473.