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

Authors

Robin Kundis Craig, University of UtahFollow
Ahjond S. Garmestani, U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyFollow
Craig R. Allen, University of Nebraska - LincolnFollow
Craig Anthony (Tony) Arnold, University of Louisville Brandeis School of LawFollow
Hannah E. Birge, University of Nebraska-LincolnFollow
Daniel A. DeCaro, University of LouisvilleFollow
Alexander K. Fremier, Washington State UniversityFollow
Hannah Gosnell, Oregon State UniversityFollow
Edella Schlager, University of ArizonaFollow

Date of this Version

2017

Citation

2017 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance.

Comments

Craig, R. K., A. S. Garmestani, C. R. Allen, C. A. Arnold, H. Birgé, D. A. DeCaro, A. K. Fremier, H. Gosnell, and E. Schlager. 2017. Balancing stability and flexibility in adaptive governance: an analysis of tools available in U.S. environmental law. Ecology and Society 22(2):3. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08983-220203

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.