Really, this is the last post for today
One other thought that I'm stewing over is: there is an inherent tension in the adaptive management literature around the need for socio-ecological management system to be adaptive and able to learn by doing, on one hand, and the need for stability and predictability (such as policies that keep people in line and enforcement) on the other. How do we reconcile these two facets, when adaptability goes in the face of our traditional bureaucratic governance systems and stability seems impossible in a totally decentralized, unregulated approach?
One idea I have found that might be useful is Eckley's (2002) idea of "dependable dynamism." As Noelle (who now is Noelle Selin, and is on my committee) writes: dependable dynamism is "the quality of assessment and decision-making processes that allows policymakers with ease to put off particular decisions for addressing in the future, with confidence that issues so put off will indeed be addressed later. The ability to modify such conclusions at a later time facilitates decision-making processes by offering a new dimension of compromise on both scientific assessment and policy decisions, and lowering the threshold of credibility necessary for decision-making."
While her definition of the term doesn't directly translate, I think the notion of dependably dynamism might be a concept to guide what we want to achieve in adaptive management--we want systems that are at once dynamic and adaptable, allowing local decision-makers to do what they need to do, but are also dependable, ensuring environmental quality, social justice, etc across space and time.
Should we develop this notion of dependable dynamism and how it relates to local governance (rather than international negotiations, which is what Noelle's paper is about)?
Reference
One other thought that I'm stewing over is: there is an inherent tension in the adaptive management literature around the need for socio-ecological management system to be adaptive and able to learn by doing, on one hand, and the need for stability and predictability (such as policies that keep people in line and enforcement) on the other. How do we reconcile these two facets, when adaptability goes in the face of our traditional bureaucratic governance systems and stability seems impossible in a totally decentralized, unregulated approach?
One idea I have found that might be useful is Eckley's (2002) idea of "dependable dynamism." As Noelle (who now is Noelle Selin, and is on my committee) writes: dependable dynamism is "the quality of assessment and decision-making processes that allows policymakers with ease to put off particular decisions for addressing in the future, with confidence that issues so put off will indeed be addressed later. The ability to modify such conclusions at a later time facilitates decision-making processes by offering a new dimension of compromise on both scientific assessment and policy decisions, and lowering the threshold of credibility necessary for decision-making."
While her definition of the term doesn't directly translate, I think the notion of dependably dynamism might be a concept to guide what we want to achieve in adaptive management--we want systems that are at once dynamic and adaptable, allowing local decision-makers to do what they need to do, but are also dependable, ensuring environmental quality, social justice, etc across space and time.
Should we develop this notion of dependable dynamism and how it relates to local governance (rather than international negotiations, which is what Noelle's paper is about)?
Reference
Eckley, N. (2002). Dependable dynamism: lessons for designing scientific assessment processes in consensus negotiations. Global Environmental Change, 12(1), 15–23.
I love the challenge of thinking of how you achieve both certainty and flexibility - but not balancing them, or doing them in turn, but akin to ( wheeler as i recall) discussed being flexible and firm at the same time. So, I don't like, at least at the onset dependable dynamism. I wonder if thinking about scales (levels?) can be useful.
ReplyDelete