Governance, scale and the environment: the importance of recognizing knowledge claims in transdisciplinary arenas

Any present day approach of the world's most pressing environmental problems involves both scale and governance issues. After all, current local events might have long-term global consequences (the scale issue) and solving complex environmental problems requires policy makers to think and govern beyond generally used time-space scales (the governance issue). To an increasing extent, the various scientists in these fields have used concepts like social-ecological systems, hierarchies, scales and levels to understand and explain the "complex cross-scale dynamics" of issues like climate change. A large part of this work manifests a realist paradigm: the scales and levels, either in ecological processes or in governance systems, are considered as "real". However, various scholars question this position and claim that scales and levels are continuously (re)constructed in the interfaces of science, society, politics and nature. Some of these critics even prefer to adopt a non-scalar approach, doing away with notions such as hierarchy, scale and level. Here we take another route, however. We try to overcome the realistconstructionist dualism by advocating a dialogue between them on the basis of exchanging and reflecting on different knowledge claims in transdisciplinary arenas. We describe two important developments, one in the ecological scaling literature and the other in the governance literature, which we consider to provide a basis for such a dialogue. We will argue that scale issues, governance practices as well as their mutual interdependencies should be considered as human constructs, although dialectically related to nature's materiality, and therefore as contested processes, requiring intensive and continuous dialogue and cooperation among natural scientists, social scientists, policy makers and citizens alike. They also require critical reflection on scientists' roles and on academic practices in general. Acknowledging knowledge claims provides a common ground and point of departure for such cooperation, something we think is not yet sufficiently happening, but which is essential in addressing today's environmental problems.

[1]  Sheila Jasanoff,et al.  Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science , 2003 .

[2]  J. Fairbrass,et al.  Multi-level Governance and Environmental Policy , 2004 .

[3]  Urooj Amjad,et al.  Environmentally Sustainable Construction: Knowledge and Learning in London Planning Departments , 2007 .

[4]  J. Norberg,et al.  ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE OF SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS , 2005 .

[5]  A. Sayer,et al.  Realism and Social Science , 1999 .

[6]  Julia A. Ekstrom,et al.  Evaluating Functional Fit between a Set of Institutions and an Ecosystem , 2009 .

[7]  A. Veldkamp,et al.  CLUE: a conceptual model to study the Conversion of Land Use and its Effects , 1996 .

[8]  Amy Luers,et al.  Illustrating the coupled human–environment system for vulnerability analysis: Three case studies , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[9]  N. Sayre Ecological and geographical scale: parallels and potential for integration , 2005 .

[10]  R. McLain,et al.  Adaptive management: Promises and pitfalls , 1996, Environmental management.

[11]  Jianguo Wu,et al.  CONCEPTS OF SCALE AND SCALING , 2006 .

[12]  Derek Armitage,et al.  Governance and the Commons in a Multi-Level World , 2007 .

[13]  John M. Anderies,et al.  Insight, part of a Special Feature on Exploring Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems Fifteen Weddings and a Funeral: Case Studies and Resilience- based Management , 2006 .

[14]  Deborah G. Martin,et al.  Space, Scale, Governance, and Representation: Contemporary Geographical Perspectives on Urban Politics and Policy , 2003 .

[15]  Emiliano Ferreira Castejon,et al.  Using neural networks and cellular automata for modelling intra‐urban land‐use dynamics , 2008, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[16]  Erin Bohensky,et al.  Young Scholars Dialogue, part of a Special Feature on Scenarios of global ecosystem services Linking Futures across Scales: a Dialog on Multiscale Scenarios , 2007 .

[17]  E. Alexander The Role of Knowledge in planning , 2008 .

[18]  B. Jessop State- and Regulation-Theoretical Perspectives on the European Union and the Failure of the Lisbon Agenda , 2006 .

[19]  M. Gibbons Mode 2 society and the emergence of context-sensitive science , 2000 .

[20]  M. Archer,et al.  Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach , 1997 .

[21]  B. Peters,et al.  Governance, Politics and the State , 2000 .

[22]  S. Schwartzman,et al.  The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies , 1994 .

[23]  Frans van Waarden,et al.  ‘Governance’ as a bridge between disciplines: Cross-disciplinary inspiration regarding shifts in governance and problems of governability, accountability and legitimacy , 2004 .

[24]  P. Leroy,et al.  Nature Policy Between Trends and Traditions: Dynamics in Nature Policy Arrangements in the Yorkshire Dales, Donana and the Veluwe , 2005 .

[25]  S. Jasanoff States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and the Social Order , 2004 .

[26]  S. Bommel,et al.  Understanding experts and expertise in different governance contexts : the case of nature conservation in the Drentsche Aa area in the Netherlands , 2008 .

[27]  N. Brenner The limits to scale? Methodological reflections on scalar structuration , 2001 .

[28]  Yvonne Rydin,et al.  Indicators as a Governmental Technology? The Lessons of Community-Based Sustainability Indicator Projects , 2007 .

[29]  C. S. Holling,et al.  Panarchy Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems , 2002 .

[30]  Lynne M. Westphal,et al.  Linking Resilience Theory and Diffusion of Innovations Theory to Understand the Potential for Perennials in the U.S. Corn Belt , 2009 .

[31]  J. Bouma,et al.  A spatial explicit allocation procedure for modelling the pattern of land use change based upon actual land use , 1999 .

[32]  F. Fischer Citizens, Experts, and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge , 2000 .

[33]  M. Hisschemöller,et al.  Ecological Indicators: between the two fires of science and policy , 2007 .

[34]  Eric Bonabeau,et al.  Agent-based modeling: Methods and techniques for simulating human systems , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[35]  R. Rhodes,et al.  The New Governance: Governing without Government , 1996 .

[36]  Joseph Alcamo,et al.  Chapter Six The SAS Approach: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Knowledge in Environmental Scenarios , 2008 .

[37]  K. Hogl Patterns of multi-level co-ordination for NFP-processes: learning from problems and success stories of European policy-making , 2002 .

[38]  B. Arts 'Green Alliances' of Business and NGOs. New Styles of Self-Regulation or 'Dead-End Roads'? , 2002 .

[39]  Jan van Tatenhove,et al.  Political modernisation and the environment : the renewal of environmental policy arrangements , 2000 .

[40]  Louis Lebel,et al.  Guest Editorial, part of a Special Feature on Scale and Cross-scale Dynamics Scale and Cross-Scale Dynamics: Governance and Information in a Multilevel World , 2006 .

[41]  M. Archer,et al.  Morphogenesis versus structuration: on combining structure and action. 1982. , 1982, The British journal of sociology.

[42]  S. Funtowicz,et al.  Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Measures of Uncertainty in Model‐Based Environmental Assessment: The NUSAP System , 2005, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[43]  Dale S. Rothman,et al.  Multi-scale narratives from an IA perspective: Part I. European and Mediterranean scenario development , 2006 .

[44]  Kasper Kok,et al.  Methods for Developing Multiscale Participatory Scenarios: Insights from Southern Africa and Europe , 2007 .

[45]  B. Peters,et al.  Multi-level Governance and Democracy: A Faustian Bargain? , 2004 .

[46]  L. Hooghe,et al.  Multi-Level Governance and European Integration , 2001 .

[47]  Harriet Bulkeley,et al.  Reconfiguring environmental governance: Towards a politics of scales and networks , 2005 .

[48]  R. Moss,et al.  Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessment , 2003 .

[49]  Brian Walker,et al.  A handful of heuristics and some propositions for understanding resilience in social-ecological systems , 2006 .

[50]  E. Ostrom,et al.  Foundations : SESs , Variability , Disturbance , Scale , and HOT , 2007 .

[51]  O. Young Institutional dynamics: Resilience, vulnerability and adaptation in environmental and resource regimes , 2010 .

[52]  Joop Koppenjan,et al.  Managing Complex Networks: Strategies for the Public Sector , 1997 .

[53]  Michael Gibbons,et al.  Introduction: `Mode 2' Revisited: The New Production of Knowledge , 2003 .

[54]  A. Lagendijk,et al.  The Disoriented State: Shifts In Governmentality, Territoriality and Governance , 2009 .

[55]  B. Jessop THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF SCALE AND EUROPEAN GOVERNANCE1 , 2005 .

[56]  A. Veldkamp,et al.  Introduction to the Special Issue on Spatial modeling to explore land use dynamics , 2005, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[57]  C. Folke RESILIENCE: THE EMERGENCE OF A PERSPECTIVE FOR SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS ANALYSES , 2006 .

[58]  Eric F. Lambin,et al.  Land-use and land-cover change : local processes and global impacts , 2010 .

[59]  Yvonne Rydin,et al.  Re-Examining the Role of Knowledge Within Planning Theory , 2007 .

[60]  David W. Cash,et al.  Linking global and local scales: designing dynamic assessment and management processes , 2000 .

[61]  S. Marston,et al.  Human geography without scale , 2005 .

[62]  G. Cumming,et al.  Scale mismatches in social-ecological systems: Causes, consequences, and solutions , 2006 .

[63]  Martin Jones Phase space: geography, relational thinking, and beyond , 2009 .

[64]  R. Howitt Scale as relation: musical metaphors of geographical scale , 1998 .

[65]  I. M. Buizer,et al.  Worlds apart : interactions between local initiatives and established policy , 2008 .

[66]  A. Veldkamp,et al.  Multiscale soil-landscape process modeling , 2016 .

[67]  E. Ostrom,et al.  The concept of scale and the human dimensions of global change: a survey , 2000, Ecological Economics.

[68]  T. F. H. Allen,et al.  The confusion between scale‐defined levels and conventional levels of organization in ecology , 1990 .

[69]  J. Sarukhán,et al.  A new mechanism for science-policy transfer and biodiversity governance? , 2009, Environmental Conservation.

[70]  L. Lebel,et al.  The Politics of Scale, Position, and Place in the Governance of Water Resources in the Mekong Region , 2005 .

[71]  E. Ostrom A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems , 2009, Science.

[72]  B. Jessop From Governance to Governance Failure and from Multi-level Governance to Multi-scalar Meta-governance , 2009 .

[73]  J. Sime,et al.  Living on the border: knowledge, risk and transdisciplinarity , 2004 .

[74]  Christoph Görg,et al.  Landscape governance: The “politics of scale” and the “natural” conditions of places , 2005 .

[75]  J. Pierre Debating Governance: Authority, Steering, and Democracy , 2000 .

[76]  Keith C. Clarke,et al.  The effect of disaggregating land use categories in cellular automata during model calibration and forecasting , 2006, Comput. Environ. Urban Syst..

[77]  C. Folke,et al.  The problem of fit between ecosystems and institutions , 2007 .

[78]  E. Ostrom Self-governance and forest resources , 1999 .

[79]  L. Hooghe,et al.  Unraveling the Central State, but How? Types of Multi-level Governance , 2003, American Political Science Review.

[80]  R. Kasperson,et al.  Linking vulnerability, adaptation, and resilience science to practice: Pathways, players, and partnerships , 2007 .

[81]  Martin van der Velde,et al.  ARTICULATING LOCAL AND GLOBAL SCALES , 2004 .