Ecological Governance: Organizing Principles for an Emerging Era

Abstract

Th e signifi cant reforms being implemented in governance systems around the world refl ect a broader transition of society from the modern to a new emerging era. Th is transition is framed in terms of a shift from a mechanistic to an ecological worldview, stimulated by a number of developments during the twentieth century and the last decade. In contrast to the mechanistic orientation toward reductionism, prediction and control, and competition, an ecological worldview emphasizes the interconnectedness, self-organizing capacity, and coevolutionary dynamics of all natural systems. Th is emergent worldview yields useful insights regarding the purpose, design, process, and relationships characteristic of organizational systems that strive to play an eff ective role in the future governance of society. Th e discussion outlines specifi c organizing principles pertinent to these four areas, identifying some compatible practices that are already being adopted by public and private organizations. Th e authors address the possibility that the continued transition to ecological governance may not refl ect just a long, slow process of incremental change, but also could entail a sudden, systemic reorientation that results in a faster transformation of the extant institutions of public administration.

Adaptive governance: Towards a stable, accountable and responsive government

“…Because of these characteristics of natural systems, adherence to prescribed plans, procedures and rules is not feasible. Rather successful adjustment to realtime contingencies based on timely information is key (Robertson & Choi, 2010). Adaptive governance is about being able to improve the adaptive capacity of organizations to deal with uncertainty and improve the speed of decision-making.…”

Finding sense in new reality: From the epoch of machines to the age of uncertainty

“…The deepening dynamics of the external environment caused by connectivity and interdependence accelerates the onset of an ecological era in which things are organized in a network rather than sequentially [63]. The forming non-biological civilization must therefore adopt completely new tools for exploring objective reality (namely causal field or causal circle).…”

The New Governance Era: Implications for Collaborative Conservation and Adaptive Management in Department of the Interior Agencies

“…At the same time, societal changes, such as the environmental movement of the 1960s and '70s, heightened distrust of government, and democratization of information, resulted in increased pressure from the public for opportunities to be involved in decision-making, intractable conflicts over environmental issues, and creative experiments to engage the public more collaboratively (Lauber, Decker, & Knuth, 2008;Wondolleck & Yaffee, 2000). Robertson and Choi (2010) argue that these changes collectively signal a transition from the modern era to a new era in governance, where governance refers to the interactions among structures, processes, and traditions that determine how power and responsibilities are exercised, decisions are made, and citizens or other stakeholders are included in collective decisions (Ansell & Gash, 2008). Researchers are examining this shift under many frameworks, including new governance (Bingham, Nabatchi, & O'Leary, 2005), experimentalist governance (de Burca, 2010), collaborative governance (Ansell & Gash, 2008), ecological governance (Robertson & Choi, 2010), and adaptive governance (Brunner et al, 2005).…”

“…Robertson and Choi (2010) argue that these changes collectively signal a transition from the modern era to a new era in governance, where governance refers to the interactions among structures, processes, and traditions that determine how power and responsibilities are exercised, decisions are made, and citizens or other stakeholders are included in collective decisions (Ansell & Gash, 2008). Researchers are examining this shift under many frameworks, including new governance (Bingham, Nabatchi, & O'Leary, 2005), experimentalist governance (de Burca, 2010), collaborative governance (Ansell & Gash, 2008), ecological governance (Robertson & Choi, 2010), and adaptive governance (Brunner et al, 2005). Regardless of terminology, these analyses converge on common elements of a new governance era, including interdependence, decentralization, horizontal networks, cooperation, common interests, shared beliefs, transparency, trust, relationship building, learning, flexibility, and adaptation.…”

“…Previous eras relied on scientific management principles and technocratic decision-making, which emphasize fixed goals, stable systems, reductionism, certainties, prediction and control, competition among interests, and expert authority governance (Brunner et al, 2005;Robertson & Choi, 2010). Federal land management focused on lands within jurisdictional boundaries, functionally treating these areas as islands of protected habitat This analogy began to break down with increased recognition of global stressors, acknowledgment of the interdependence between ecological and social systems within and outside protected areas, and the rise of ecosystem-based management and systems thinking (Layzer, 2008;Robertson & Choi, 2010). As a result, agencies have begun to more fully embrace ecosystem management at a landscape (vs. organizational unit) scale, and adaptive management.…”