Matching Ecosystem Functions with Adaptive Ecosystem Management: Decision Pathways to Overcome Institutional Barriers

Amar Nanda,Berry Gersonius,Anas Ghadouani,Jeroen Rijke,Matthew Hipsey,Leah Beesley

doi:10.3390/w10060672

Abstract

Environmental management strategies aim to protect or repair ecological assets (ecosystems, species) so that their ecological and social values can be preserved. However, creating an effective strategy is difficult because multiple government departments are involved and because water and land use legislation and policy instruments are often fragmented. A key obstacle that is often overlooked is the spatial mismatch between ecological processes and institutional organisation (i.e., legislative framework and government departments). Successful management depends on the ability to cultivate resilient ecosystems through institutional reforms that take into account the complexity of ecosystems while supporting cross-sectoral and scale-dependent decision-making within the science–policy interface. Here, we use a case study approach to illustrate how collective strategic decisions can be made to manage a valued ecosystem situated within an urban matrix. We used a three-step framework to guide our approach and commenced by identifying a range of adaptation measures (i.e., management interventions) and the actors responsible. For each adaptation measure, we then investigated (i) mismatches among ecosystem and institution scales and levels; (ii) institutional barriers; and (iii) the role of actors in decision making. We use this information to identify ‘decision pathways’: i.e., a flexible decision-making platform that assists stakeholders to make strategic short- and long-term decisions. Key insights included the discussion of policy and practical experiences for ecosystem management at different levels and the necessary conditions to provide better alignment between jurisdictional an ecosystem scale to guide decision makers accordingly. We detail the institutional and jurisdictional changes that must be implemented across all levels of governance to protect and support the resilience of environmental assets. ‘Short-term’ decision pathways were preferred among actors and cross-level cooperation at jurisdictional level provided an adequate fit with the ecosystem scale. ‘Long-term’ decisions require substantial change of the institutional framework to enable the implementation of adaptive management. Although challenges at institutional and jurisdictional scales remain, decision pathways promote adaptive ecosystem management through a better fit of jurisdictional and institutional roles/policy and ecosystem-scale processes.

Highlights

Ecosystems are naturally complex, and considerable uncertainty exists about their ability to maintain natural function while exposed to anthropogenic stress [1,2]
Governance: the ways and means employed by actors to make collective decisions, choose collective goals, and take action to achieve those goals; Decision pathway: cross level interaction within the jurisdictional domain to allow the implementation of adaptation measures that match the biophysical levels of the ecosystem
Jurisdictional scale mismatches lead to different actors that are concerned with the wetland’s conservation and a lack of a coordinating actor that can align decisions over multiple jurisdictional levels

Summary

Introduction

Ecosystems are naturally complex, and considerable uncertainty exists about their ability to maintain natural function while exposed to anthropogenic stress [1,2]. Factors contributing to the poor success rate of management plans include the institutional fragmentation of environmental policies (e.g., separation of land use from water planning) and their enforcement by different organisations Another key obstacle is the poor alignment of the decision-making process within the institutional domain and the influential ecological and social processes [11,12]. In instances where management does occur at multiple spatial levels (e.g., site, landscape), successful management is contingent on the timely transfer of information among spatial levels and requires cooperation of management authorities that operate at different spatial scales [17] Another unexpected but potentially important problem is the ability for national or state level mandated policies to negatively impact on local-level decision-making (e.g., climate adaptation [18] and governance [19]). Mismatches often exist between the compliance of organisations to mandated legislation and the resources needed to support the successful implementation of on-ground management actions; this is an issue for local scale ecosystem management departments [20] or departments with conflicting interests [21]

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion