Scale-Sensitive Governance of the Environment

Scale-Sensitive Governance of the Environment

Edited by

Frans PadtDepartment of Landscape Architecture and the Department of

Agricultural Economics, Sociology, and EducationThe Pennsylvania State University

USA

Paul OpdamLand Use Planning Group and Alterra Nature

and Society GroupWageningen URThe Netherlands

Nico PolmanLEI Regional Economy & Land Use Group

Wageningen URThe Netherlands

and

Catrien TermeerPublic Administra tion and Policy Group

Wageningen URThe Netherlands

This edition first published 2014 © 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

Registered office: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK

Editorial offices: 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030-5774, USA

For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell.

The right of the author to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher.

Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author(s) have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services and neither the publisher nor the author shall be liable for damages arising herefrom. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Scale-sensitive governance of the environment / edited by Frans Padt, Paul Opdam, Nico Polman, Catrien Termeer. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-118-56715-9 (cloth) 1. Environmental management. 2. Environmental management–International cooperation. 3. Environmental policy. 4. Environmental policy–International cooperation. I. Padt, Frans, 1961– II. Opdam, Paul. III. Polman, Nico, 1969 IV. Termeer, Catrien. GE300.S25 2014 363.7'056–dc23 2013041993

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books.

Cover image: M.C. Escher’s Print Gallery © 2013 The M.C. Escher Company-The Netherlands. All rights reserved. www.mcescher.comCover design by Steve Thompson

Set in 10/12.5 pt Minion Pro Regular by Toppan Best-set Premedia Limited

1 2014

List of Contributors xForeword xiiiPreface xvList of Abbreviations xx

1 Concepts of scale 1Frans Padt and Bas Arts1.1 Introduction 11.2 Definitions of scale 21.3 Scale-sensitive governance of . . . what? 41.4 Scale as a reality . . . or not? 81.5 The politics of scale 111.6 Acknowledgements 13References 13

2 Incorporating multiple ecological scales into the governance of landscape services 17Paul Opdam2.1 Introduction 172.2 The social-ecological system at the local scale 192.3 Ecological scales and local social-ecological systems 222.4 Incorporating the ecological scale hierarchy into social-ecological

system decision-making 252.5 Discussion and conclusions 302.6 Acknowledgements 33References 34

3 Scale-sensitivity as a governance capability: Observing, acting and enabling 38Catrien Termeer and Art Dewulf3.1 Introduction 383.2 Scales in monocentric governance 39

Contents

vi CONTENTS

3.3 Scales in multilevel governance 423.4 Scales in adaptive governance 443.5 The contours of scale-sensitivity as a governance capability 473.6 Conclusion 51References 52

4 Knowledge of competing claims on natural resources: Toward institutional design and integrative negotiations 56Nico Polman, Arianne de Blaeij and Maja Slingerland4.1 Introduction 564.2 Competing claims approach on natural resources 574.3 Types of knowledge in competing claims approaches 614.4 Distributive approaches toward competing claims negotiations 654.5 Integrative approaches to negotiations on competing claims 664.6 Conclusions 694.7 Acknowledgements 70References 70

5 The relevance of scale to water governance: An example from Loweswater, UK 73Lisa Norton, Stephen Maberly, Claire Waterton, Nigel Watson and Judith Tsouvalis5.1 Introduction 735.2 Loweswater 745.3 The Loweswater Care Project (LCP) 795.4 The importance of scale at Loweswater 825.5 Conclusions 85References 87

6 Multiple-level governance is needed in the social-ecological system of alpine cultural landscapes 90Rocco Scolozzi, Ian D Soane and Alessandro Gretter6.1 Introduction 906.2 The concepts of SES, resilience and panarchy in the context of a

cultural landscape 926.3 A mixed method approach 936.4 The cultural landscape of the Ledro Valley: Internal dynamics leading

to unplanned futures 946.5 Discussion and conclusion 1016.6 Acknowledgements 103References 103

7 Beyond localism: The spatial scale and scaling in energy transitions 106Philipp Späth and Harald Rohracher7.1 Introduction 1067.2 Creating space for the spatial scale and scaling in conceptualizations of

sustainability transitions 107

CONTENTS vii

7.3 The governance of sustainability transitions and its spatial dimensions: Two case studies reconsidered 110

7.4 Learning from the cases: Can place-bound particularities and scaling influence sustainability transitions? 115

7.5 Conclusions and outlook 1187.6 Acknowledgements 119References 119

8 Tracing drivers of global environmental change along the governance scale: Methodological challenges and possibilities 122Sylvia I Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen8.1 What makes environmental issues global? 1228.2 Methodological challenges in a multilevel analysis 1248.3 Multilevel analysis of drivers for pesticide problems 1278.4 Multilevel drivers for the pesticide problem 1318.5 Multilevel drivers for multiple problems 1348.6 Concluding reflections on the multilevel analysis of drivers 135References 137

9 ‘Glocal’ politics of scale on environmental issues: Climate change, water and forests 140Joyeeta Gupta9.1 Introduction 1409.2 A theoretical framework 1419.3 Case studies 1429.4 Comparative analysis 1489.5 Conclusions 1529.6 Acknowledgements 153References 153

10 The politics of cross-level interactions in the jurisdictional scale: The case of natural resource management in the South 157Daniel Compagnon10.1 Introduction 15710.2 Scaling up and scaling down: Some clarifications 15810.3 Re-assessing the state in the South 16010.4 The state and the rescaling processes 16110.5 Conclusion 166References 167

11 Rescaling environmental governance: The case of watersheds as scale-sensitive governance? 172Alice Cohen11.1 Introduction 17211.2 Watersheds as rescaling 17311.3 Understanding the implications of rescaling 177

viii CONTENTS

11.4 Conclusions: Watersheds as everything to everyone? 18111.5 Acknowledgements 183References 183Legislation 187

12 Urban sustainability pilot projects: Fit or misfit between challenge and solution? 188Sofie Bouteligier12.1 Introduction 18812.2 Scaling urban environmental governance 19012.3 How pilot projects inspire sustainability transitions 19112.4 Urban pilot projects: The way forward? 19612.5 Conclusion 197References 199

13 Tensions between global-scale and national-scale governance: The strategic use of scale frames to promote sustainable palm oil production in Indonesia 203Otto Hospes and Annemoon Kentin13.1 Introduction 20313.2 Scale and scale frames 20413.3 Do national principles for sustainable palm oil specify or challenge

global principles? 20713.4 The interactive development and strategic use of scale frames 20913.5 Conclusions 21413.6 Acknowledgements 217References 217

14 Rethinking governance of complex commodity systems: Evidence from the Nepali tea value chain 220Sarah Mohan14.1 Introduction 22014.2 Conceptualizing scale in commodity systems 22114.3 Case study: Mismatches in the Nepali tea heterarchy 22614.4 Insights into scale in private economic governance 23414.5 Conclusions 23814.6 Acknowledgements 238References 238

15 An approach to analysing scale-sensitivity and scale-effectiveness of governance in biodiversity conservation 241Eeva Primmer, Riikka Paloniemi, Raphaël Mathevet, Evangelia Apostolopoulou, Joseph Tzanopoulos, Irene Ring, Marianne Kettunen, Jukka Similä, Joanna Cent, Małgorzata Grodzińska-Jurczak, Thomas Koellner, Paula Antunes, John D Pantis, Simon G Potts and Rui Santos

CONTENTS ix

15.1 Introduction 24115.2 Scalesandbiodiversityconservation 24315.3 Governancemechanisms 24415.4 Scalesandreal-worldbiodiversitygovernanceinEurope 24715.5 Discussion:Governancemechanismsgeneratingscale-sensitivityand

scale-effectiveness 25215.6 Conclusions 25615.7 Acknowledgements 257References 257

16 Scale-sensitiveevaluation:ThecontributionoftheEURuralDevelopmentProgrammetoEuropeanwaterqualityambitions 263Stijn Reinhard, Vincent Linderhof and Nico Polman16.1 Introduction 26316.2 Changinggovernanceinruraldevelopmentprogrammes 26516.3 EvaluationoftheRuralDevelopmentProgramme 26716.4 Casestudyatthememberstatelevel 27316.5 Conclusionsandchallenges 27816.6 Acknowledgements 279References 279

17 Greeninfrastructureplanningatmultiplelevelsofscale:ExperiencesfromtheAutonomousRegionofValencia,Spain 283Arancha Muñoz-Criado and Vicente Domenech17.1 Introduction 28317.2 Theformerplanningmodel:Lackofcoordinationbetween

levelsofgovernmentintheRegionofValencia 28417.3 Anewframeworkforintegratingurbanplanning,strategic

environmentalassessmentandlandscapeplanning,basedonamultilevelGreenInfrastructure 286

17.4 DevelopingGreenInfrastructureatdifferentscales:Examplesofplansandprojects 294

17.5 Conclusion:BenefitsofGreenInfrastructureasthestructuringelementforplanningatallscales 299

References 300

18 Synthesisandperspectivesforanewresearchfield 302Frans Padt, Paul Opdam, Nico Polman and Catrien Termeer18.1 Introduction 30218.2 Abriefsummaryofthemaininsights 30218.3 Conceptualmodel 30618.4 Scale-sensitivegovernanceinpractice 30718.5 Perspectivesforanewresearchfield 315References 316

Index 318

Colorplatesbetweenpages170and171

List of Contributors

Paula Antunes, Professor at CENSE-Center for Environmental and Sustainability Research, Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal.

Evangelia Apostolopoulou, PhD Researcher at the Department of Ecology, School of Biology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece; Postdoctoral Research Associate, Depart-ment of Geography and Centre for Science and Policy, University of Cambridge, UK.

Bas Arts, Professor at the Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group, Wageningen UR, the Netherlands.

Arianne de Blaeij, Researcher at LEI Regional Economy & Land Use Group, Wageningen UR, the Netherlands.

Sofie Bouteligier, Associate Fellow, Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies, KU Leuven, Belgium.

Joanna Cent, PhD Candidate and Research Assistant at the Institute of Environmental Sci-ences, Jagiellonian University, Poland.

Alice Cohen, Assistant Professor at the Department of Earth and Environmental Science, Acadia University, Canada.

Daniel Compagnon, Professor of Political Science at the Emile Durkheim Centre, Sciences Po Bordeaux, University of Bordeaux, France.

Art Dewulf, Associate Professor Governance of Natural Resources at the Public Adminis-tration and Policy Group, Wageningen UR, the Netherlands.

Vicente Domenech, Subdirector General of Territorial Planning, Government of the Auton-omous Region of Valencia, Spain.

Alessandro Gretter, FIRST FEM International Research School Trentino, Research and Innovation Centre, Fondazione Edmund Mach, Italy; PhD Candidate at the Faculty of Geo- and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Innsbruck, Austria.

Małgorzata Grodzińska-Jurczak, Associate Professor at the Institute of Environmental Sciences, Jagiellonian University, Poland.

LISTOFCONTRIBUTORS xi

Joyeeta Gupta, Professor of Environment and Development in the Global South at the Department of Geography, Planning and International Development Studies, Amster-dam Institute for Social Science Research, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Professor at UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, Delft, the Netherlands.

Otto Hospes, Associate Professor Global Governance of Food at the Public Administration and Policy Group, Wageningen UR, the Netherlands.

Sylvia I Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, Assistant Professor at the Public Administration and Policy Group, Wageningen UR, the Netherlands.

Annemoon Kentin, MSc and trainee at UTZ Certified, the Netherlands.

Marianne Kettunen, Senior Policy Analyst at the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), Belgium.

Thomas Koellner, Professor at the Department of Geography, University of Bayreuth, Germany.

Vincent Linderhof, Researcher at LEI Regional Economy & Land Use Group, Wageningen UR, the Netherlands.

Stephen Maberly, Professor at the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Natural Environment Research Council, UK.

Raphaël Mathevet, Researcher at Centre d’Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive (CEFE), France and Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Sweden.

Sarah Mohan, PhD Candidate at the Department of Economics, Carleton University, Canada.

Arancha Muñoz-Criado, Senior Research Fellow at the Franklin Institute, Universidad de Alcalá, Spain; Former Director of Spatial Planning, Landscape and Environment, Gov-ernment of the Autonomous Region of Valencia, Spain.

Lisa Norton, Senior Scientist at the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Natural Environment Research Council, UK.

Paul Opdam, Professor of Landscape in Spatial Planning at the Land Use Planning Group and Alterra Nature and Society Group, Wageningen UR, the Netherlands.

Frans Padt, Senior Lecturer at the Department of Landscape Architecture and the Depart-ment of Agricultural Economics, Sociology, and Education, The Pennsylvania State University, USA.

Riikka Paloniemi, Senior Researcher, Finnish Environment Institute, Finland.

John D Pantis, Professor at the Department of Ecology, School of Biology, Aristotle Uni-versity of Thessaloniki, Greece.

Nico Polman, Senior Researcher at LEI Regional Economy & Land Use Group, Wageningen UR, the Netherlands.

xii LISTOFCONTRIBUTORS

Simon G Potts, Professor of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, School of Agriculture, Policy and Development, University of Reading, UK.

Eeva Primmer, Research Coordinator, Ecosystem Services, Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE), Finland.

Stijn Reinhard, Department Head at LEI Regional Economy & Land Use Group and Researcher at the Agricultural Economics and Rural Policy Group, Wageningen UR, the Netherlands.

Irene Ring, Deputy Head at the Department of Economics, UFZ-Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research and Leipzig University, Germany.

Harald Rohracher, Professor in Technology and Social Change at the Department of The-matic Studies, Linköping University, Sweden.

Rui Santos, Associate Professor at CENSE-Center for Environmental and Sustainability Research, Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal.

Rocco Scolozzi, Research Fellow at the Centre of Molecular and Environmental Biology (CBMA), Department of Biology, University of Minho, Portugal.

Jukka Similä, Division Manager at the Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE), Finland.

Maja Slingerland, Assistant Professor at the Plant Production Systems Group, Wageningen UR, the Netherlands.

Ian D Soane, Research Associate, Action with Communities in Cumbria, Penrith, Cumbria, UK.

Philipp Späth, Assistant Professor at the Institute of Environmental Social Sciences and Geography, University of Freiburg, Germany.

Catrien Termeer, Professor of Public Administration and Policy at the Public Administra-tion and Policy Group, Wageningen UR, the Netherlands.

Judith Tsouvalis, Research Fellow at the School of Sociology and Social Policy, Nottingham University, UK.

Joseph Tzanopoulos, Lecturer in Biodiversity Conservation and Deputy Director of Graduate Studies at Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology (DICE), University of Kent, UK.

Claire Waterton, Senior Lecturer at the Department of Sociology, Lancaster University, UK.

Nigel Watson, Lecturer at Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, UK.

From the challenges of climate change to those of energy production, from the use and labelling of GMOs in globalized food chains to calls for ‘local’ food systems, and from the management of forests to that of watersheds and water supplies, not a day goes by without struggles and debates over the scales at which environmental governance would be most effective, appropriate and just figuring prominently in the news. All of these issues are centrally about scale and environmental governance, yet coverage and discussion of them rarely mentions the word ‘scale’, or clearly presents the roles that scale-dependent knowl-edge, beliefs or frameworks play in their unfolding. In short, scale is a ubiquitous yet often unremarked feature of much environmental governance, which makes it extremely chal-lenging to think clearly about many of the issues and dynamics central to such governance – much less to intervene effectively in them.

The publication of Scale-sensitive governance of the environment is cause for celebration, then, because it is addresses these topics head-on, and advances our ability to understand and talk about them in ways relevant to policymakers and academics alike. It is timely because the importance of scale – and, indeed, of processes of creating and changing scales – to environmental governance is increasingly being recognized as an urgent topic by natural and social scientists and policymakers alike. Yet, while the importance and com-plexities of scale in environmental governance are increasingly recognized, it has proven notoriously difficult to make progress on these issues. Human societies circulate matter and energy around the globe at ever-increasing rates, yet for the most part we jealously guard national sovereignty and demand and celebrate local self-determination. Meanwhile, the lack of a common vocabulary or conceptual framework among natural and social scientists, policymakers and other actors in society has meant that miscommunication, misunderstanding and disagreement persist over basic definitional, ontological and epis-temological questions about scale in the context of environmental governance. Debates persist, for example, over whether scales ‘really’ exist in the environment apart from their description; over whether ‘social’ scales are entirely constructed or are emergent phenom-ena; over whether the difficulties of scale boil down to ‘mismatches’ between putative social and natural scales; and indeed over what an analytical focus on scales reveals or conceals. Different disciplinary communities and traditions approach and answer such questions in divergent ways, making it difficult to have a straightforward conversation about them, let alone achieve consensus.

Foreword

xiv FOREWORD

Scale-sensitive governance of the environment represents an important advance in these conversations. It has its origins in a conference at Wageningen University in the Nether-lands in November 2010: ‘Towards a New Knowledge for Scale Sensitive Governance of Complex Systems’. The conference, in which I was privileged to participate, took the above state of the debate as its starting point, and brought together multiple communities and perspectives concerned with processes of scaling in environmental governance to see if progress could be made towards a common vocabulary and conceptual framework and architecture. This volume is the fruit of that ambitious effort, but it also goes far beyond the conference proceedings. The 18 chapters, including 14 excellent case studies, were all written specifically and exclusively for the volume. Individually and, especially, collectively, they cross many sorts of boundaries: not just between closely related disciplines in the social and natural sciences, but across the much larger gulf between those categories; across different types of objects of environmental governance; across regions, including represen-tation from both the global North and global South; and between academic and policy communities, paying attention to both theoretical debates and to practical considerations of policy formation and implementation. Three introductory chapters summarize the debate that took place before the volume was written, and place the case studies in a his-torical and theoretical context for thinking about and working with notions of scale in relation to environmental governance, while the conclusion pulls together all of the materi-als above and lays out a conceptual basis for scale-sensitive environmental governance.

The resulting volume is a state-of-the-art starting point for thinking about the signifi-cance and operations of scale in environmental governance. Theoretically, it makes impor-tant advances and establishes the foundation for a new, transdisciplinary research field. Pedagogically, it provides students with a superb introduction to and overview of the dif-ficult but exciting and productive subject of how scale matters in environmental govern-ance. And pragmatically, it provides essential guidance for actual policy formation and implementation. It will be an invaluable resource for charting a path through the urgent environmental governance challenges of the decades ahead.

James McCarthyGraduate School of Geography

Clark UniversityWorcester, MA

Preface

The goals and plan of the book

This book focuses on the role of scale in environmental governance. Although scales and governance are not new subjects, their significance has grown over the last few years in cross-disciplinary research and professional practice. This growth can be explained by the increasing concerns about sustainability issues in the context of a globalizing world. Chal-lenges, such as climate change, food and bio-energy production, the management of storm water, and the decline of biodiversity, stretch across local to global scales and require action at multiple governance scales. Governance systems are typically not ready for this task due to organizational and jurisdictional fragmentation and specialization, and short-term plan-ning horizons. Scientific knowledge is fragmented as well, along disciplinary lines and research traditions in academia and research institutions. With this book, we aim to cross these disciplinary lines by bringing together a variety of research and governance approaches. To this end, we introduce the concept of scale-sensitive governance of the environment. This concept aims to develop advanced knowledge on scaling and govern-ance that is practically relevant and scientifically sound.

With this book, we aim to develop a conceptual and methodological basis for scale-sensitive governance of the environment. More specifically, the book serves three goals. First, it aims to develop a holistic vision on the cross-scale interaction between social and ecological processes and the governance of these processes across scales. What is state of the art in the scale debate in environmental disciplines? What unifying concepts of scale can be developed? How should researchers and practitioners understand the relationships between social and ecological processes across scales? How sensitive are traditional govern-ance approaches to scale? Are new approaches needed?

Second, the book aims to provide empirical evidence about scale-sensitive governance as a political and scientific practice. Rather than taking scales for granted, the social dynam-ics ‘behind’ it are explored. How do public and private interests, political discourses, and plain politics mobilize the bias toward a particular scale in decision-making? How does this manipulation of scale have an effect on society and the environment? Likewise, scaling is seen as a scientific activity. What decisions do scientists (often implicitly) make about scale when collecting quantitative and qualitative data and performing analyses? How do these decisions affect system descriptions and governance recommendations?

xvi PREFACE

Finally, the book aims to show how current environmental governance practices can be enriched by using theories on scale. Although growing insight exists into the complex nature of social-ecological relationships, the implications for policy are not widely understood or systematically considered in environmental governance. How can policy instruments be applied in a complex multi-scalar setting? How can scientists, local experts and policymakers collaborate in scale research and negotiate on the scales to be addressed?

In order to reach these goals, we have developed the following plan for the book. Chap-ters 1–3 introduce definitions, theories and models for scale-sensitive governance of the environment, as well as a few real-world examples. The subsequent chapters 4–17 present a series of case studies, following a variety of scientific approaches. The primary case studies were performed in Austria, Canada, Costa Rica, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Indo-nesia, Italy, Kenya, Nepal, Poland, Portugal and the UK. Other chapters use secondary case studies from Europe, southern Africa and South America. The topics that these chapters address include biodiversity, climate change, commodities (e.g. palm oil and tea), cultural landscapes, energy, forestry, natural resource management, pesticides, urban development and water management. The final chapter of the book (18) combines the insights from all of these chapters in order to develop a conceptual basis for scale-sensitive governance of the environment. This chapter also proposes priorities for future research.

Brief introduction to the chapters

The first three chapters introduce the reader to the concepts of scale-sensitive environmen-tal governance. Chapter 1, by Frans Padt and Bas Arts, explains that scale is a much debated topic in the academic disciplines of geography, urban sociology and planning, political ecology, environmental governance, ecology, spatial policy and water management. The authors suggest that there is a great potential for bringing these disciplinary approaches together around the issue of scale-sensitive environmental governance. However, conceptual ambiguity and imprecise definitions of scale stand in the way of such an effort. In this chapter, differ-ent definitions of scales are explained as well as analytical approaches for studying scale.

Paul Opdam, in chapter 2, examines how ecological processes at different scales affect local biodiversity and the provision of landscape services. Using an example from a polder in the Netherlands, the author discusses how community-based planning and collective action can affect these scales by physically adjusting the green infrastructure in the region and thereby improving the provision of landscape services.

In chapter 3, Catrien Termeer and Art Dewulf compare different governance models and show to what extent these models are sensitive toward scale. The authors also review how scale is understood in these models and to what extent they enable actors to take action at different scales. This exploration is supported by several case studies on Dutch water management.

The following 14 chapters present a series of primary and secondary case studies. Nico Polman et al. explore, in chapter 4, the role of scales in natural resource management conflicts and how these conflicts can be addressed by anticipating these scales. The authors take into account unequal distribution of knowledge and power, and uncertainties and risks at different scales. The authors also develop proposals for integrative negotiations and new institutional designs.

In chapter 5, Lisa Norton et al. explore ways of including multiple scales in local water management in order to provide ecosystem services. The authors take into account the

PREFACE xvii

wider social, ecological and governance systems that are relevant to the watershed. The analysis is supported by a case study for the Loweswater watershed in the UK.

In chapter 6 Rocco Scolozzi et al. study the governance of landscapes and how to incor-porate different scales therein. Their study area is the alpine cultural landscape of Val di Ledro in northern Italy. The authors observe that the governance of these landscapes has become more complex and involves more scales than decades ago when only local com-munities used the resources of the landscape. The authors discuss new emerging scales of governance as well as the shifting role of actors and knowledge.

In chapter 7, Philipp Späth and Harald Rohracher study energy transitions in Austria and Germany at different scales, from the scale of towns and regions to the national scale and beyond. They give special attention to the role of actors, networks, places and politics to explain how energy transitions take place over time. Such a transition is understood as a radical, systemic and transformational change toward a sustainable energy provision and consumption.

As described in chapter 8, Sylvia Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen performed case studies in Kenya and Costa Rica in order to identify what interactional, organizational and institutional factors drive pesticide use in these countries. The case studies take different scales into account, from the community to the national and beyond. The author develops a methodo-logical framework to support scale-sensitive governance of pesticide use.

Joyeeta Gupta’s chapter 9 revolves around the question of why problems related to climate change, forestry and water management are scaled up or scaled down. The author explores the related politics of, arguments of, and consequences for scale-sensitive govern-ance of these issues. A theoretical framework is developed to understand how actors use scale strategically to reach their goals.

Daniel Compagnon, in a similar vein, in chapter 10, critically reviews the role of national politics in natural resources management in the South. The author considers the unequal distribution of power across scales and how this distribution affects efficient and fair envi-ronmental governance. He explains how institutional reforms can help overcome this problem.

Alice Cohen, in a study of Canadian watersheds in chapter 11, asks why watersheds have become such a popular unit of governance in water management and beyond over the past decades. The author discusses the roles of science, politics and social movements in order to answer this question and critically reviews the watershed scale as a unit of governance. Cohen especially criticizes the idea that one scale can encompass all of the ecological and institutional complexities inherent to environmental governance.

Sofie Bouteligier’s field of inquiry is urban planning. In chapter 12, she reviews how pilot projects in cities across the world have inspired the exchange of knowledge in transnational networks and a wider transition to sustainable urban development. The dominant role of Western cities in this transition is critically discussed as well.

In chapter 13, Otto Hospes and Annemoon Kentin analyse the production of palm oil in Indonesia. The authors give an extensive account of how actors have tried to make this production more sustainable by defining global and national sustainability standards. The role of politics and competing powerful interests in defining these standards at these par-ticular scales is also critically discussed.

A second commodity study, described in chapter 14 by Sarah Mohan, deals with tea production in Nepal. Competing standards for sustainable tea production as well as how these standards have influenced the commodity chain, especially on the production side, are described. The commodity chain is not analysed in isolation, but in relation to

xviii PREFACE

wider networks that function at different scales and influence this chain. The author also discusses the role of politics in defining the standards and governance of the Nepali tea commodity chain.

In chapter 15, Eeva Primmer et al. describe a comparative study of biodiversity conserva-tion in Finland, France, Greece, Poland, Portugal and the UK. The authors analyse the governance mechanisms in each of these countries and state what mechanism works best to address biodiversity and governance scales in a particular situation. Hierarchical control and adaptiveness in the governance system are central to their analysis.

Stijn Reinhard et al. performed an evaluation of the contribution of the European Rural Development Program in reducing water pollution in Europe. This study is reported in chapter 16. The authors seek ways to link the general objectives, formulated at the European scale, to the farm scale. This linkage is important in order to assess the cost-effectiveness of the European policies that are in place. The authors also develop a model for future evaluations of European policies.

In chapter 17, Arancha Muñoz-Criado and Vicente Domenech describe how the govern-ment of the Region of Valencia in Spain designed a large-scale Green Infrastructure, con-necting different landscapes at the municipal scale. The authors discuss the legal and organizational challenges of collaboration between these municipalities and with higher levels of government, as well as how these challenges were addressed. In essence, the entire regional legal system used to regulate land use and landscape planning has been revisited, following a participatory process with the residents.

The final chapter (18) brings together the many new insights from the previous chapters. First, we, the editors, highlight the theoretical notions that help researchers and policymak-ers understand scale issues in environmental governance. We then present a conceptual model for analysis and to be used as a guide by which to develop new approaches. Hands-on solutions for scale-sensitive governance are included as well. Finally, priorities for future research are described.

Readership

The book is aimed at students, academics and professionals in the field of environmental governance who could benefit from the comprehensive coverage of scale and scaling issues from both natural and social sciences perspectives. This book conveys different views on scale and paves the path to a more informed way of dealing with scale in environmental governance. Readers will be able to use this book as a reference work for environmental applications of interdisciplinary work on scale-sensitive governance. The book also covers a range of research approaches, topics and solutions that demonstrate the benefits of rec-ognizing scales in empirical research and governance practices. We hope that the oppor-tunity to disseminate successful insights on scale-sensitive environmental governance attracts interest around the world and sets the agenda for future research. This ambition is supported by including case studies from different geographical areas.

Acknowledgements

The idea for this book evolved from the interdisciplinary Scaling and Governance Pro-gramme at Wageningen University and Research (WUR) centre in the Netherlands. This

PREFACE xix

programme, financed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (now called the Ministry of Economic Affairs) and WUR, started in 2006 and continued until 2011. Researchers from different disciplines, including environmental, social, animal, and plant sciences, worked together in the programme on a series of research projects and publications. It culminated in an international Scaling and Governance Conference, held from 10–12 October 2010 in Wageningen. About 125 researchers from 22 countries participated in the conference, including a large number of young researchers. The symposium was supported by four Wageningen University Research Schools and endorsed by the Global Land Project and Earth System Governance Project. The Global Land Project is a joint research project for land systems for the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) and the International Human Dimensions Programme (IHDP). The Earth System Governance Project is a global social science research network in the area of governance and global environmental change and a core project of IHDP.

During the conference, it became clear that all of the participants were involved in scale research and seeking to cross the borders of their own disciplines. It also turned out that there was no ‘home base’ for research on scale and environmental governance. These observations led to the idea of a collaborative book project to explore the idea of scale as an interdisciplinary concept for improving environmental governance. The authors of this book have different backgrounds in ecology, political sciences, public administration, eco-nomics, geography, agricultural sciences, environmental sciences, hydrology, law, and history, which indicates that much can be gained from this collaborative project.

The development of this book benefited from the many thoughtful discussions during the conference and between the authors and editors during the preparation of the book. Each author also reviewed another chapter of the book. The editors are deeply grateful to the authors for their contributions and the excellent collaboration during the preparation of the manuscript.

Many people have contributed to the preparation of the manuscript. We want to thank the publisher who supported the idea for this book project from its inception and the anonymous reviewers of the book proposal. We also want to thank the reviewers who took the time and effort to provide detailed and constructive suggestions for the individual chapters: Jeffrey Brownson, Andy Cole, Nora Fagerholm, Louisa Jansen, Roel Jongeneel, Peter Mollinga, Brian Orland, Bruce Taylor, Tom Veldkamp, Davide Viaggi, Judith Westerink, and Karl Zimmerer. Their judgement and expertise have been extremely valuable to the book and authors.

We are thankful for the dedicated work of Josine Donders of Wageningen University and Research centre for the technical editing of the book and the coordination of the prepara-tion of the manuscript with the editor. Emily Davis, a freelance editor, did a fantastic job on the language editing and we are very indebted to that.

This book would not have been possible without financial support from Wageningen University and Research centre in the Netherlands and The Pennsylvania State University in the US. We highly appreciate this support.

Frans PadtPaul OpdamNico Polman

Catrien Termeer

AEM agri-environmentalmeasuresAES agri-environmentalschemesANT ActorNetworkTheoryC40cities networkoftheworldmegacitiescommittedtoaddressingclimatechangeCAMPFIRE CommunalAreasManagementProgrammeforIndigenousResourcesCATS ClearanceofAuditTrailSystemCBDR commonbutdifferentiatedresponsibilityprincipleCBFM community-basedforestmanagementCBFP CongoBasinForestPartnershipCBNRM community-basednaturalresourcemanagementCBO community-basedorganizationsCCI ClintonClimateInitiativeCEH CentreforEcologyandHydrologyCH2 CouncilHouse2CMEF CommonMonitoringandEvaluationFrameworkCoC CodeofConductCOMIFAC CommissionfortheForestsofCentralAfricaCPR commonpoolresourcesCTC ‘crush,tear,curl’:aninexpensiveteamanufacturingprocessDEED describe-explain-explore-designDefra DepartmentfortheEnvironmentFarmingandRuralAffairs(UK)DPSIR drivingforces-pressures-state-impacts-responsesEA EnvironmentalAgencyEAFRD EuropeanAgriculturalFundforRuralDevelopmentECSFDI EnglandCatchmentSensitiveFarmingDeliveryInitiativeELS EnvironmentalStewardshipEntryESA EnvironmentallySensitiveAreaESDP EuropeanSpatialDevelopmentPerspectiveEU EuropeanUnionEU-LEADER European‘LiaisonEntreActionsdeDéveloppementdel’ÉconomieRurale’FADN FarmAccountancyDataNetworkFALP ForumofPeripheralLocalAuthoritiesFAO FoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNations

List of Abbreviations

LISTOFABBREVIATIONS xxi

FESA associationpromotingrenewableenergyandenergyefficiencyFLEGT ForestLawEnforcementGovernanceandTradeFSC ForestStewardshipCouncilFSS FarmStructureSurveyGAPKI IndonesianPalmOilProducersAssociationGDP grossdomesticproductGIS geographicinformationsystemGIZ Germandevelopmentorganization(formerlyknownasGTZ)GMO geneticallymodifiedorganismHES human-environmentsystemHIMCOOP HimalayanTeaProducersCooperativeLimitedHLS higherlevelschemesHNV highnaturalvalue(farmland)HOTPA HimalayanOrthodoxTeaProducersAssociationICM integratedcatchmentmanagementIFOAM InternationalFederationofOrganicAgriculturalMovementsIGO inter-governmentalorganizationIPOC IndonesianPalmOilCommitteeISO InternationalOrganizationforStandardizationISPO IndonesianSustainablePalmOilIUCN InternationalUnionforConservationofNatureIWRM integratedwaterresourcesmanagementJICA JapanInternationalCooperationAgencyLCP LoweswaterCareProjectLDC leastdevelopedcountryLDI logicaldiagramofimpactLDNPA LakeDistrictNationalParkAuthorityLFA lessfavouredareaMLP multi-levelperspectiveMSFD MarineStrategyFrameworkDirectiveND NitrateDirectiveNE NaturalEnglandNE-DEED negotiate-describe-explain-explore-designframeworkNGO non-governmentalorganizationNSPKD NationalSpatialPlanningKeyDecisionNT NationalTrustNTCDB NepalTea&CoffeeDevelopmentBoardNTFP non-timberforestproductsNUTS0 statisticalsubdivisionatmemberstatelevelintheEUNUTS2 statisticalsubdivisionattheregionallevelintheEUNUTS3 statisticalsubdivisionatthelocallevelintheEUNWRBD TheNorthWestRiverBasinDistrictPOP persistentorganicpollutantPPP purchasingpowerparityPPS9 PlanningPolicyStatement9RDP RuralDevelopmentProgrammeREDD ReducingEmissionsfromDeforestationandForestDegradation

xxii LISTOFABBREVIATIONS

RELU RuralEconomiesandLandUseRRA rapidruralappraisalRSPO RoundTableonSustainablePalmOilSADC SouthernAfricanDevelopmentCommunitySES social-ecologicalsystemSNV DutchdevelopmentorganizationSPARD SpatialAnalysisofRuralDevelopmentTMN transnationalmunicipalnetworksUAA utilizedagriculturalareaUELS UplandsEntryLevelSchemeUK UnitedKingdomUN UnitedNationsUNCED UnitedNationsConferenceonEnvironmentandDevelopmentUNEP UnitedNationsEnvironmentProgrammeUNESCO UnitedNationsEducational,ScientificandCulturalOrganizationUNFCCC UnitedNationsFrameworkConventiononClimateChangeUNGA UnitedNationsGeneralAssemblyUS UnitedStatesofAmericaUSAID UnitedStatesAgencyforInternationalDevelopmentUSGS UnitedStatesGeologicalSurveyWFD WaterFrameworkDirectiveWMO WorldMeteorologicalOrganizationWTO WorldTradeOrganizationWWF WorldWildlifeFund/WorldWideFundforNature

1

Concepts of scale

Frans Padt1 and Bas Arts2

1Department of Landscape Architecture and the Department of Agricultural Economics, Sociology, and Education, The Pennsylvania State University, USA2Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group, Wageningen UR, the Netherlands

1.1 Introduction

Climate change, food and bio-energy production, storm water management, collapsing fisheries, and the decline of biodiversity are examples of environmental challenges that stretch across scales and cut across traditional jurisdictions and scopes of scientific routines and models. Such challenges call for new interdisciplinary approaches in the interface of natural and social sciences, framed in a context of governance and decision-making by actors from the state, market and civil society. Several comprehensive books on scale have been published in geography (Brenner 2004; Sheppard and McMaster 2004; Zimmerer 2006; Entrikin 2008), urban sociology and planning (Lefebvre 1991; Soja 2010), political ecology (Neumann 2005; Paulson and Gezon 2005), environmental governance (Young 2002; Rotmans and Rothman 2003; Young et al. 2008; Adger and Jordan 2009; Winter 2011), ecology (Chapin et al. 2009; Scheffer 2009), spatial policy (Arts et al. 2009), and water man-agement (Huntjens 2011). These books nicely illustrate the richness of the approaches and ideas in the scale debate in various distinct disciplines. At the same time, great potential exists in regard to bringing these disciplinary approaches and ideas together to solve the pressing environmental problems of these times. However, conceptual ambiguity and imprecise definitions of scale stand in the way of such an effort. This chapter seeks to bring some clarity to the scale debate. With this chapter, we aim to bridge a variety of approaches, definitions and jargon used in the various disciplines in order to provide common ground for a concept of scale as a basis for scale-sensitive governance of the environment.

The road map for this chapter is as follows. In section 1.2, the concept of scale is intro-duced and three meanings of scale are explained: scale as size, level, and relation. Next to the traditional spatial and temporal scales, various other scales are introduced that can help scientists and policymakers get a hold on scale-sensitive governance of the environment. In section 1.3, we elaborate on three analytical frameworks that can be used to study scale: social-ecological systems, social-ecological networks, and ‘heterarchy’, which is a combina-tion of the previous two. Section 1.4 addresses the question of how to identify scales,

Scale-Sensitive Governance of the Environment, First Edition. Edited by Frans Padt, Paul Opdam, Nico Polman, and Catrien Termeer.© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

2 FRANS PADT AND BAS ARTS

bearing in mind that the scale of observation may influence observations and patterns themselves. Due to this fundamental uncertainty in identifying scales objectively, we propose to negotiate the scales of governance among a wide range of stakeholders. As stakeholders may have special interests in promoting one scale above the other, the politics of scale come into play. The politics of scale is the topic of section 1.5. The politics of scale can exacerbate or alleviate spatial injustice, as will be explained in this section.

1.2 Definitions of scale

A quick look in the dictionary reveals two basic definitions of scale. First, scale refers to the actual size or extent of phenomena. Second, it refers to a graduated range of values for measuring these phenomena (i.e. scale as a measuring rod). As large scale phenomena require different measuring rods than small scale phenomena, different levels of scale are discerned. These levels are not quantitative units on a measurement rod, but, instead, are qualitative orders (or classes) of measurement. Sayre and Vittorio (2009) explained the differences between scale as size and scale as level clearly:

Whether one is measuring weight, distance, area, volume, velocity, duration, temperature, or some other quality, one uses a scale to do so. [. . .] Scale in this sense is a tool, arbitrary in its units, that an observer employs to derive knowledge about the world; by abstracting from qualitatively different things in a standardized way, a scale renders them comparable in quantita-tive terms. [.  .  .] Things measured in grams and things measured in tons occupy different levels of weightiness, so to speak. [. . .] When we observe that the weight of the earring is on a different scale from that of a train, we do not deny that quantitative reduction is possible, but rather recognize that the quantitative difference is so great as to represent, in some signifi-cant sense, a difference in kind. Things measured in a jeweler’s scale will not register on a railroad scale, and things measured on a railroad scale will crush a jeweler’s scale to smithereens. Scale as level presupposes, but abstracts from, scale as size (p. 20).

From this quote, it follows that scale is primarily a device by which to measure biophysical and social phenomena. Traditionally two scales are discerned: spatial and temporal. For social scientists, typical levels in the spatial scale are the human individual, household, neighbourhood, city, metropolitan area, province/state, nation-state, continent and globe (Sayre and Vittorio 2009). For natural scientists, typical levels in the spatial scale are point, field, landscape, region, and globe (Veldkamp et al. 2011). Typical levels in the temporal scale relate to rate (e.g. decomposition of plant matter or population change), duration (e.g. rain showers or the 24-hour news cycle), or frequency (e.g. hurricanes or social conflict) (Cash et al. 2006). For scale-sensitive governance of the environment, it is often not suf-ficient to take into account only space and time. Cash et al. (2006) made an important contribution to the scale debate by identifying specific governance scales (i.e. jurisdictional, institutional, management, knowledge, and social network scales) (Fig. 1.1). Jurisdictional scales are defined as clearly bounded and organized administrative units, such as towns, counties, states or provinces, and nations, with the links between them created by consti-tutional and statutory means. Institutional scale relates to rules, ranging from constitutions

CONCEPTS OF SCALE 3

(e.g. international or national constitutions) to systems of laws and regulations (e.g. envi-ronmental laws and ordinances) to operational rules (e.g. building codes). Management plans have a hierarchy that runs from strategies (e.g. economic revitalization) through projects (e.g. industrial zones) and tasks (e.g. logistics). Social networks may stretch from societies and beyond (e.g. labour unions) to families and relationships (e.g. between

Figure 1.1 Schematic illustrations of different scales and levels, which are critical in understanding complex social and natural processes. (Cash et al. 2006. Repro-duced with permission of Dr DW Cash.)

A. Spatial B. Temporal C. Jurisdictional D. Institutional

Areas Rates, Durations,and Frequencies Administrations Rules

E. Management F. Networks G. Knowledge

General Universal

Speci�c Contextual

TruthsLinksPlans

Slow Long

Fast Short

Globe

Regions

Landscapes

Patches

Annual

Seasonal

Daily

National

Provincial

Localities

Intergovernmental

Constitutio

ns

Laws, Regulatio

ns

Operating Rules

Strategies

Projects

Tasks

Society

Kin

Family

Trans-socie

ty

4 FRANS PADT AND BAS ARTS

workers). Knowledge can range in scale from universal and generally applicable knowledge (e.g. about system dynamics) to specific contextual knowledge (e.g. a particular wetland).

By analytically discerning multiple scales, researchers can be more precise in communi-cating the relationships between and among scales and levels. For example, Alaska and Rhode Island in the US are on the same administrative level on the jurisdictional scale, but different in size on the spatial scale. Similarly, extreme events, such as flooding and hurricanes, can affect large areas (spatial scale) in a couple of days (temporal scale), affecting local sites in different ways because of spatial heterogeneity. Some sites (e.g. grass-lands) may recover within a few years, while others (e.g. forests) may take decades to regenerate.

Of course, demarcating scales and discrete levels of scale (Fig. 1.1) are overly abstract ways of ordering ecological and social processes, which are fuzzy and fluid by their very nature. For this reason, authors have stressed that scale is, first and foremost, relational (Howitt 2003; Sayre 2009; Sayre and Vittorio 2009). For example, a national veterinary policy (jurisdictional scale) relates to policies at the higher intergovernmental level within that same scale as well as to higher trans-society dairy commodity chains in the social network scale and a lower contextual understanding of veterinary issues (knowledge scale). Another example can be found in the expansion of a city (spatial scale) that relates to activities in the management scale (e.g. city growth strategies) and to dynamics in the social network scale (e.g. increase of single households, regional urbanization trends, globaliza-tion of movement). Scale, in these examples, is truly relational: a national veterinary policy is a negotiation between local and global issues and seeing the city is also seeing the house-holds and the world at the same time holistically.

These scales and levels are analytical tools that can be used to research the environment and the governance thereof. However, how can we make the environment a tangible object for research and governance? The answer to that question is the topic of the next section.

1.3 Scale-sensitive governance of . . . what?

1.3.1 Social-ecological systems

Scale and levels of scale are useful when analysing and governing natural and social pro-cesses, as explained above. To carry out such an analysis, we need to define and demarcate an analytical framework. There are three approaches that we feel can serve this goal. The first framework is the social-ecological system (SES), which is also known as the coupled human-environment system (HES) approach. A SES consists of one social and one ecologi-cal subsystem. The relationship between the two subsystems can be described as dynamic feedback loops in which societal actors influence, and are influenced by, ecological systems so that they become self-organizing. These dynamic feedback loops generate emergent behaviour that cannot be understood when ecological and social systems are studied sepa-rately (Gibson et al. 2000; Veldkamp et al. 2011).

A systems approach is typically based on a hierarchical notion of scale (the word scale is derived from the Latin word scala, which means ladder). Applied to socio-ecological systems, a hierarchical notion of scale can introduce ambiguity. Social scientists studying social-ecological systems tend to see hierarchy as an arrangement in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority (New Oxford

CONCEPTS OF SCALE 5

American Dictionary 2010). In political and social sciences, the metaphor often used is ‘command and control’, which means that higher organizational levels exercise power over lower ones. Natural scientists tend to see a hierarchy as an arrangement or classification of things according to relative importance or inclusiveness (New Oxford American Diction-ary 2010). Yet, despite these differences, both social and natural scientists share the same metaphor: that of the Russian Matryoshka doll where discrete scale levels are embedded inside one another (Moore 2008).

1.3.2 Social-ecological networks

Social-ecological networks represent the second framework to be used to study and govern natural and social phenomena. The social-ecological network approach emphasizes the interconnection and interdependence of biophysical and social phenomena across space (i.e. between places) (Zimmerer 2006). The scale of a network refers to the horizontal extent of these networks (the Greek word for scale is dromos, which means running or course, which, inherently, has a horizontal connotation) and not to the level. A conventional network analysis aims to identify and demarcate networks and understand the intercon-nections and interdependencies that hold the network together. Zimmerer (2006) for example argued that, due to globalization, spatiality is not only territorial, but also network-like. Such an organization of space implies that interventions for a particular area may lie outside of that area, further away in the socio-environmental networks. Examples of global social-ecological networks include fair trade, the Forest Steward Council (FSC) and Bees for Development. Examples of local social-ecological networks include farmer markets, urban farming and community supported agriculture. These new geographies must be taken into account when conducting governance, as is explained by the author.

A more radical approach is to see social-ecological networks as fundamentally unbounded in space and time. Kortelainen (1999) illustrated this point well when describing the Finnish forest industry utilization of lake and river systems:

Through these networks, the actors of the river are connected with a vast number and variety of actors in other locations. International paper markets, for example, link the river with forest companies, publishers and printing houses, international environmental organisations, and millions of paper consumers in different parts of the world. Decisions and behaviours of these faraway actors can potentially affect the river (p. 237, reproduced with permission of Elsevier).

This example illustrates that a river is embedded in a wider network of actors. In a similar fashion, Woods (2007) introduced the concept of ‘global countryside’ in order to describe the advanced interconnection and interdependence of localities across the world. The global countryside is a virtual space having no fixed borders, but actually shaping and transforming landscapes at the same time. The global countryside is a place where food comes from all over the world, labourers migrate easily from one place to another, and tourism and counter-urbanization are global. In the global countryside, transnational agri-food, forestry and mining corporations are constantly seeking new spaces for production. Competition between regions leads to an inflow of capital and entrepreneurs and, hence, the displacement of local businesses and the migration of residents.

6 FRANS PADT AND BAS ARTS

This example illustrates that a landscape, like the river in the previous example, can only be understood as a part of a larger network. Bradshaw (2008) applied this idea to com-munities. He introduced the concept of ‘post-place communities’ that are organized as social networks, unlike local communities that are territorially organized. Social networks can extend to the global level (e.g. using the internet), whereas local communities are characterized by localized social relations. Bradshaw argued that social networks can create special, materialized places because they are a node or a hub in a network. Examples include Silicon Valley and creative cities that provide a hospitable place for people to base their international interests. In the same line of reasoning, Cerny (2009) stated that loca-tional (dis)advantages of regions do not depend on how they are located within a national territory, but on how they are plugged into the global economy. For scale analysis, this observation means that the position a place has in larger networks and how it relates to other places should be studied.

The Actor Network Theory (ANT) has been developed in order to study such unbounded relationships (see Latour 2005 for a comprehensive explanation). ANT starts from the idea that social and ecological processes are organized along unbounded networks in space and time. ANT shows that people create these networks through social interactions as well as nature itself (e.g. water flows, wild animals move and seeds fly through the air). ANT sug-gests that the task of the researcher is to meticulously follow these processes and reveal the scale and nature of the socio-ecological relationships. Such an approach is obviously far removed from a systems approach. Whereas systems are hierarchical, closed (i.e. not influ-enced by outer influences), functionalistic (i.e. all parts of the systems serve a function in the entire system) and teleological (i.e. the system has a purpose and develops accordingly), networks are flat, open (i.e. having fuzzy boundaries, if any), holistic (i.e. the parts can only be understood by reference to the whole) and contingent (i.e. not following a predefined path).

Although the system and network approaches are fundamentally different ways to study biophysical and social processes, they are not mutually exclusive. One way to combine these two approaches is to consider networks as part of a system. For example, Janssen et al. (2006) stated that

A network perspective might be a useful complement to existing analyses because it focuses explicitly on the structure of the interactions between the components of social-ecological systems and the ways in which this structure affects the performance of the system (p. 15).

Incorporating networks into a system is surely one way to go, but, at the same time, we see a risk of losing sight of the fuzzy, holistic, and contingent nature of social-ecological net-works. For this reason, we have introduced the concept of heterarchy, which we feel does justice to the explanatory power of both the system and network approaches.

1.3.3 Where systems and networks meet: Heterarchies

In many cases, natural and social phenomena cannot be explained as part of a system or a network. Most often, they are negotiated based on the intersections of vertical (scalar) and horizontal (network) relationships (Hartzog 2004; Bulkeley 2005; Allen and Cochrane 2007; Moore 2008). For example, a national veterinary policy in one country is the negoti-