Institutional fit and the sustainability of social–ecological systems

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.03.005Get rights and content

Highlights

  • A consistent approach to understand fit is needed to foster the sustainability of social–ecological systems.

  • A working typology of fit is synthesized from a rapidly expanding literature.

  • Ecological fit  fit between institutions and ecological problems.

  • Social fit  fit between institutions and social systems.

  • Social–ecological system fit  fit between institutions and contexts that contributes to success.

The literature on institutional fit is developing rapidly within the broader discourse on sustainability which has resulted in a diverse, but sometimes inconsistent program of research. Therefore we review the recent literature on the fit between institutions and social–ecological systems to identify three general types of fit: namely, ecological fit, social fit and social–ecological system fit. Each of these draws attention to different dimensions of social–ecological systems, with their own unique set of evaluative criteria. Although diversity is generally beneficial for the production of knowledge, it can also pose immense challenges as scholars and practitioners seek to build theoretically rigorous and practically useful knowledge concerning the sustainability of social–ecological systems. Therefore we present a typology which defines and summarizes the three major types of fit and can be used to organize and advance systematic theoretical and policy relevant inquiry.

Introduction

The sustainability of social–ecological systems (SESs) depends in part upon the fit between institutions, the problems they are meant to address and the contexts in which they operate [1, 2, 3]. This conclusion is what remains of many years of searching for, but ultimately failing to uncover, institutional panaceas for environmental problems. Although the literature on institutional fit has developed rapidly in recent years [4, 5••, 6, 7••, 8, 9••, 10, 11, 12•], its intuitive appeal threatens to undermine the development of theoretically rigorous and practically useful theories of fit as scholars apply the concept in diverse, often idiosyncratic ways [5••]. Institutions are clearly defined as the formal and informal rules, norms and conventions that societies use to structure interactions and increase predictability in situations of interdependent choice [13]. However, the concept of fit remains somewhat ambiguous; lacking a common understanding of both the meaning and evaluation of fit.

This paper seeks to address this problem by reviewing the literature on institutional fit in SESs and identifies three general types of fit (summarized in Figure 1 and Table 1). Ecological fit adopts a technical approach and considers whether institutions match the ecological or biophysical problems they are meant to address. In contrast, social fit, is concerned with congruence between institutions and the preferences, values, and needs of human actors. Finally, social–ecological system (SES) fit is a less explicit, but nonetheless important recent addition to the literature that seeks to uncover context-specific institutional arrangements that are likely to contribute to the sustainability of SESs. In what follows we define each of these types of fit, how each sets out to diagnose fit, and their respective strengths and weaknesses.

Ecological fit is a prominent feature of the literature on environmental governance that highlights the importance of matching institutions to the core features of the environmental problems they were meant to address [3, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18]. This concept emerged in part from repeated observations of governance failures that occurred as a result of a fundamental mismatch between institutional prescriptions and environmental problems [19, 20]. As an example, fishing quotas based upon maximum sustainable yield models are often inconsistent with the natural dynamics of fish populations, resulting in depleted fisheries [21].

The literature on ecological fit tends to highlight three critical dimensions, namely the alignment between the spatial, temporal and functional characteristics of biophysical problems and institutions [3, 15]. Spatial fit refers to congruence between the geographical extents of ecological problems and institutions. Spatial misfits arise when institutional applications are either too localized to encompass ecological problems or too large to meaningfully address the heterogeneous nature of those problems [22, 23, 24, 25]. Temporal fit is concerned with the rate of environmental change and the ability to devise and/or activate institutional responses. For instance, some problems such as floods can develop quickly and require rapid institutional responses [26]. Mismatches tend to occur when governance arrangements introduce friction and cause a lag between biophysical change and institutional responses [17, 23], or when there is a lag between the cause and symptoms of an environmental problem [27]. Finally, functional fit is concerned with the alignment between the functional linkages of natural systems (i.e., predator–prey, food webs, nutrient cycling). Mismatches develop when the interlinked constituents of ecological systems are managed independently, neglecting important feedback effects [3, 15, 28]. A prime example is the rapid development of the sea urchin fishery in Maine that failed to recognize the role of urchins in regulating algal growth, causing a system-wide transition towards macroalgal dominance [29].

The evaluation of the fit between institutions and ecological problems generally proceeds by characterizing the attributes of the ecological problem and then comparing these to the attributes of governing institutions. For instance, ozone depletion occurs at a global scale and thus the Montreal Protocol, which regulates global emissions of ozone depleting substances, fits at least the spatial attribute of the environmental problem [30]. Although matching individual attributes of ecological problems to institutions is a fairly straightforward process; the task becomes more complex as the number of potentially relevant attributes increases [31].

Understanding problems of fit between institutions and ecological systems is an important element of successful environmental decision-making. However, a singular focus on ecological fit is problematic for decision making for several reasons. First, ecological problems are often multi-dimensional, and institutional attributes that fit one dimension (e.g., spatial scale) may not fit other dimensions (e.g., time and functional linkages) of that problem [16]. Second, it is possible to address problems of ecological fit in the short term but at a high social cost over the long-term, as in the case of many strictly protected areas that undermine livelihoods of local people. Third, evaluations of fit inexorably depend upon how problems are defined. These problems are in part socially constructed, and a failure to consider the social relations of power in decision making means that some institutions may fail despite initially appearing to address problems of fit [32]. The design of institutions to address ecological problems of fit should also reflect the social systems in which they are embedded.

The concept of social fit is a relatively recent addition to the literature on environmental governance, although its intellectual roots extend from theories of democratic decentralization [33] and polycentric governance [34]. The central premise of a theory of social fit is that the performance of institutions depends upon the extent to which governing institutions reflect the interests, values, beliefs and psychological needs of groups [35••, 36].

A range of potentially salient attributes can affect the fit of institutions to social systems, although the literature tends to emphasize three. The first is the fit between operational rules and the social context in which they operate. This includes the alignment of rules with patterns of resource use, as well as interplay with the values, beliefs and social customs of affected groups [35••, 37, 38, 39]. For example, it has been argued that the practice of v-notching in Maine's lobster (i.e., captured lobster bearing eggs are returned with a notch on the tail which marks that individual as part of the breeding stock) fishery [40] has been successful because it builds upon existing norms of reciprocity among local fishers by providing a clear and reliable indicator of the trustworthiness of other fishers. This in turn promotes further cooperation [2].

A second dimension of social fit is concerned with the appropriateness of rulemaking processes given the expectations and psychological needs of stakeholders. This dimension draws heavily from the literature on social psychology to suggest that governing institutions that allow for meaningful stakeholder participation satisfy innate needs for self-determination and provide intrinsic motivation to cooperate with rules [41••]. In fact, local rulemaking is often associated with higher levels of rule compliance [42, 43, 44] and sustainable patterns of use [45, 46].

A third dimension is the fit between institutions and the scales or levels of social organization. Institutions must be devised that leverage the unique resources and capacities of groups across scales (e.g., community, regional, national) to resolve conflicts, produce public goods, build redundancies, and more generally, develop conditions conducive to social learning [41••, 47, 48]. As an example, the successful introduction of marine protected areas in the Coral Triangle have been linked to the use of cross-scale institutions that facilitate learning by linking scientific and traditional knowledge, while also providing external financing to foster capacity building in affected communities [49].

Evaluating social fit is complex for several reasons. For example, all social systems invariably include multiple sub-groups with different interests, values, and norms, and therefore, there is no guarantee that an institution that fits with respect to one of these groups will fit others. For instance, the institutional arrangements for community-based management often fit the interests, values, and beliefs of privileged subgroups at the expense of the poor [50, 51]. And finally, achieving social fit may fail to address problems of ecological fit, as is the case with some co-management experiences [52].

SES fit is a sometimes controversial concept that appears throughout the literature on SESs [6, 53, 54], although it is rarely distinguished from either social or ecological fit. Here, we use SES fit to refer to interactions between institutions and one or more attributes of an SES that are associated with one or more indicators of sustainability. For some, SES fit represents an intractable analytical problem [5••] that seems to simply replace economic and ecological panaceas with a more complex optimization problem. However, the study of SES fit represents the central research question for the emerging field of ‘sustainability science’ [55] that gives primacy to the goal of long-term sustainability in fundamentally interlinked SESs [2, 56]. Accordingly, SES fit begins with the general assumption that institutions are likely to succeed (or fail) in relation to how institutions are designed for coupled systems of people and nature. The goal then is to explore the performance of institutions in variable contexts to gradually piece together a theory of when particular institutional arrangements may contribute to better social and ecological outcomes. Given this complexity, if social–ecological system fit is to have analytical traction it must demonstrate that the positive effects of an institution depends upon the state of one or more contextual attributes [57, 58, 59]. For instance, common property pasture regimes have generally been more successful in highly variable and uncertain rangeland ecosystems than alternative private property pasture regimes [60, 61]. Similarly, third-party monitoring (i.e., guards paid by communities) of forest commons is more likely to be successful in the context of intermediate-sized groups [62]. These communities are better situated than small communities to overcome the fixed costs to hire a guard, but also face lower incremental costs than large communities that must hire additional guards to monitor the behavior of a larger number of resource users. In a further example, the performance of fisheries co-management appears to depend upon a number of complex causal clusters (i.e., combinations of conditions), all of which include strong local leadership [63].

The two defining characteristics of the literature on SES fit are as follows. First, it begins with the intuitive assumption that it is difficult to assume that an institution fits, if it is not associated with some measure of success. Second, contextual attributes that likely contribute to its success must be identified. Although this approach corresponds closely to the contingent or contextual theories that are thought to govern outcomes in SESs [64, 65], it also presents a significant analytical challenge for scholars as they seek to identify the full suite of contextual attributes that affect institutional performance. Methodological limitations abound with typically small sample sizes limiting the number of factors and interaction terms that can be included in statistical models [66, 67]. Qualitative methods, on the other hand, make significant and likely unrealistic demands on the time and knowledge of researchers to identify the complex set of factors that might be jointly necessary, but individually insufficient for sustainable governance of an environmental problem. Thus the central limitation of this line of research is that any one study, researcher or method is unlikely to provide a comprehensive account of the contextual attributes of SESs that affect the performance of institutions [68].

Section snippets

Conclusions and future directions

The concept of institutional fit is an important pillar of research in the growing field of sustainability science. However, if the literature on institutional fit is to move beyond self-evident metaphor and contribute towards much needed theories of when institutions are more (or less) likely to succeed then it must be attentive to the ways in which different scholars and studies conceptualize and analyze the fit between institutions and social–ecological contexts. This paper has therefore

References and recommended reading

Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, have been highlighted as:

  • • of special interest

  • •• of outstanding interest

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge support from the Ostrom Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), Canada's International Development Research Centre (IDRC), ArcticNet and the Northern Scientific Training Program. The authors would also like to thank two anonymous reviewers that have contributed to an improved manuscript.

References (72)

  • T. Dietz

    The Darwinian trope in the drama of the commons: variations on some themes by the Ostroms

    J Econ Behav Org

    (2005)
  • O.R. Young et al.

    A portfolio approach to analyzing complex human–environment interactions: institutions and land-change

    Ecol Soc

    (2006)
  • X. Basurto

    Linking multi-level governance to local common-pool resource theory using fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis: Insights from twenty years of biodiversity conservation in Costa Rica

    Global Environ Change

    (2013)
  • O.R. Young

    The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay, and Scale

    (2002)
  • E. Ostrom

    A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas

    Proc Natl Acad Sci USA

    (2007)
  • C. Folke et al.

    The problem of fit between ecosystems and institutions: ten years later

    Ecol Soc

    (2007)
  • K.N. Farrell et al.

    Nudging evolution?

    Ecol Soc

    (2013)
  • M. Cox

    Diagnosing institutional fit: a formal perspective

    Ecol Soc

    (2012)
  • J. Hiedanpää

    Institutional misfits: law and habits in finnish wolf policy

    Ecol Soc

    (2013)
  • L. Lebel et al.

    Institutional fit and river basin governance: a new approach using multiple composite measures

    Ecol Soc

    (2013)
  • A. Vatn et al.

    Fit, interplay, and scale: a diagnosis

    Ecol Soc

    (2012)
  • T. Haller et al.

    How fit turns into misfit and back: institutional transformations of pastoral commons in african floodplains

    Ecol Soc

    (2013)
  • F. Sternlieb et al.

    A question of fit: reflections on boundaries, organizations and social–ecological systems

    J Environ Manage

    (2013)
  • J.M. Anderies et al.

    Robustness of social–ecological systems: implications for public policy

    Pol Stud J

    (2013)
  • Ö. Bodin et al.

    Conservation success as a function of good alignment of social and ecological structures and processes

    Conserv Biol

    (2014)
  • O.R. Young

    The architecture of global environmental governance: bringing science to bear on policy

    Global Environ Policy

    (2008)
  • V. Galaz et al.

    The problem of fit among biophysical systems, environmental and resource regimes, and broader governance systems: insights and emerging challenges

  • T. Moss

    Solving problems of ‘fit’at the expense of problems of ‘interplay’? The spatial reorganisation of water management following the EU Water Framework Directive

    How Institutions Change

    (2003)
  • L.B. Crowder et al.

    Resolving mismatches in US ocean governance

    Science

    (2006)
  • E. Schlager et al.

    Mobile flows, storage, and self-organized institutions for governing common-pool resources

    Land Econ

    (1994)
  • J.A. Hutchings et al.

    What can be learned from the collapse of a renewable resource?. Atlantic Cod, Gadus morhua, of Newfoundland and Labrador

    Can J Fish Aquat Sci

    (1994)
  • R.A. Myers et al.

    Why do fish stocks collapse? The example of cod in Atlantic Canada

    Ecol Appl

    (1997)
  • J.M. Acheson et al.

    Order out of chaos: the case for parametric fisheries management

    Am Anthropol

    (1996)
  • T. Moss

    Spatial fit, from panacea to practice: implementing the EU Water Framework Directive

    Ecol Soc

    (2012)
  • J. Wandel et al.

    Institutional fit and interplay in a dryland agricultural social–ecological system in Alberta, Canada

    Adaptive Capacity and Environmental Governance

    (2010)
  • J. Acheson

    Institutional failure in resource management

    Ann Rev Anthropol

    (2006)
  • Cited by (252)

    • Vertical fit of water governing systems: A regional assessment

      2024, Current Research in Environmental Sustainability
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text