Framing Watersheds

Arnold, Craig Anthony

doi:10.1017/cbo9781139519762.015

Cited by 7 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At the same time, however, governance actors have been purposefully transforming SESs by triggering conscious regime shifts throughout history. Historical studies of institutions, ecosystems, and society reveal that SESs periodically develop new governance structures and features to facilitate systemic change in nested SESs (103)(104)(105)(106). For example, forests and wetlands have been intentionally converted to commercial and residential developments, and waterways have been targeted for waste disposal, commercial navigation, engineered flood control, and water-supply diversions-fundamentally altering the basic structures and processes of these linked SESs-with significant trade-offs between the supply of specific (prioritized) ecosystem services and ecological integrity.…”

Section: Constraints and Opportunities To Fostering Transformative Gomentioning

confidence: 99%

Transformative Environmental Governance

Chaffin

Garmestani

Gunderson

et al. 2016

Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.

284

225

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transformative governance is an approach to environmental governance that has the capacity to respond to, manage, and trigger regime shifts in coupled social-ecological systems (SESs) at multiple scales. The goal of transformative governance is to actively shift degraded SESs to alternative, more desirable, or more functional regimes by altering the structures and processes that define the system. Transformative governance is rooted in ecological theories to explain cross-scale dynamics in complex systems, as well as social theories of change, innovation, and technological transformation. Similar to adaptive governance, transformative governance involves a broad set of 399 U.S. government works are not subject to copyright. governance components, but requires additional capacity to foster new social-ecological regimes including increased risk tolerance, significant systemic investment, and restructured economies and power relations. Transformative governance has the potential to actively respond to regime shifts triggered by climate change, and thus future research should focus on identifying system drivers and leading indicators associated with social-ecological thresholds.

show abstract

Section: Constraints and Opportunities To Fostering Transformative Gomentioning

confidence: 99%

Transformative Environmental Governance

Chaffin

Garmestani

Gunderson

et al. 2016

Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.

284

225

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, Arnold (2014) identified 16 ways that watershed systems can be framed in environmental law. Many of these frames contradict one another (e.g., economic highways versus sacred places).…”

Section: Mental Models (Cognitive Frames)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This issue is problematic because contradictory watershed frames can increase conflict (e.g., Chaffin et al 2014b), hinder coordination (Vreudenhill et al 2010), and stall important decisions at the problem definition stage (Moser and Ekstrom 2010). Therefore, reconciling competing mental models is often a crucial step in adaptive governance (e.g., Arnold 2014, Chaffin et al 2014bsee Ostrom 2005, Pahl-Wostl 2009 for discussion). Vreudenhill et al (2010) illustrated how difficult it is to reconcile mental models.…”

Section: Mental Models (Cognitive Frames)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many of these principles and topics represent active areas of investigation, but typically not from the standpoint of understanding legal and institutional foundations of adaptive governance. For example, scholars may wish to explore such questions as: how is a focal issue being framed by different groups, and how are those frames influencing conflict, cooperation, and change (e.g., Castro 2012, Arnold 2014? What role have perceptions of regulatory systems and participatory processes played for different groups, issues, or social-ecological settings (e.g., DeCaro and Stokes 2013)?…”

Section: Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In 2010, the group drafted a Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement to improve cooperation, reallocate scarce water resources, and restore river habitat for protected species. During this process, groups engaged in social representations, contesting and renegotiating the meaning and function of the existing laws and current governance systems; they also protested restrictive participatory processes, seeking more inclusive, subjectively fair ways to influence critical decisions (see Ostrom 1965, Arnold 2014 for analogous cases). These processes are still unfolding, and the future of governance in the Klamath is still unknown (Chaffin et al 2014b).…”

Section: Integrative Case Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Understanding and applying principles of social cognition and decision making in adaptive environmental governance

DeCaro¹,

Arnold²,

Boamah³

et al. 2017

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Environmental governance systems are under greater pressure to adapt and to cope with increased social and ecological uncertainty from stressors like climate change. We review principles of social cognition and decision making that shape and constrain how environmental governance systems adapt. We focus primarily on the interplay between key decision makers in society and legal systems. We argue that adaptive governance must overcome three cooperative dilemmas to facilitate adaptation: (1) encouraging collaborative problem solving, (2) garnering social acceptance and commitment, and (3) cultivating a culture of trust and tolerance for change and uncertainty. However, to do so governance systems must cope with biases in people's decision making that cloud their judgment and create conflict. These systems must also satisfy people's fundamental needs for self-determination, fairness, and security, ensuring that changes to environmental governance are perceived as legitimate, trustworthy, and acceptable. We discuss the implications of these principles for common governance solutions (e.g., public participation, enforcement) and conclude with methodological recommendations. We outline how scholars can investigate the social cognitive principles involved in cases of adaptive governance.

show abstract