PANARCHY BY DESIGN: CROSS-SCALE ADAPTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW FOR A TURBULENT CLIMATE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24002/dlc.v3i1.12752Keywords:
Cross-scale Governance, Ecological Threshold, Environmental Law, PanarchyAbstract
This article develops a panarchy-informed blueprint for cross-scale adaptive environmental law under climate turbulence, using panarchy to explain how nested adaptive cycles and thresholds across scales can cause policies that work locally to fail at provincial or national levels, and vice versa. It asks: (1) how statutes can learn across scales without eroding legal certainty or equity; and (2) which design elements enable timely, evidence-based adjustment under climate volatility. Methodologically, the study integrates doctrinal analysis of statutes, regulations, and review practices with comparative case studies of watersheds, forests, and coastal zones, combining system mapping of feedback loops and decision interfaces with process tracing of revision episodes and, where data allow, interrupted time-series evaluation to assess policy timing and effects. Across cases, it evaluates three performance metrics: ecological fit, adaptation lead time, and distributive impact, and finds that robust adaptive capacity increases when learning loops are nested, transparent, and institutionally constrained. The article proposes a modular drafting toolkit comprising threshold-based legal triggers tied to ecological indicators, periodic review with ratchet and sunset clauses, subsidiarity with upward and downward escalation rules, mandatory open-data pipelines, and enforceable safeguards for Indigenous and marginal communities, translating panarchy into actionable legal design principles for accountable adaptation.
References
Books
Beach, Derek, and Rasmus Brun Pedersen, Process-Tracing Methods: Foundations and Guidelines, 2nd Edition, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 2019.
Cosens, Barbara A., and Lance H. Gunderson (eds.), Practical Panarchy for Adaptive Water Governance: Linking Law to Social-Ecological Resilience, London: Springer, 2018.
Gunderson, Lance H., and C. S. Holling (eds.), Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems, Washington: Island Press, 2002.
Huitema, Dave, Andrew Jordan, Harro van Asselt, and Johanna Forster (eds.), Governing Climate Change: Polycentricity in Action?, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Trust and Public Policy: How Better Governance Can Help Rebuild Public Trust, Paris: OECD Publishing, 2017.
Saldaña, Johnny, The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, 4th Edition, California: SAGE, 2021.
Yin, Robert K., Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods, 6th Edition, California: SAGE, 2018.
Journal Articles
Carroll, S. R., et al., “The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance,” Data Science Journal 19 (2020): 43, https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2020-043.
Craig, R. K., et al., “Balancing Stability and Flexibility in Adaptive Governance: An Analysis of Tools Available in U.S. Environmental Law,” Ecology and Society 22, no. 2 (2017): 3, https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08983-220203.
DeCaro, D. A., et al., “Legal and Institutional Foundations of Adaptive Environmental Governance,” Ecology and Society 22, no. 1 (2017): 32, https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09036-220132.
Falkner, R., “The Paris Agreement and the New Logic of International Climate Politics,” International Affairs 92, no. 5 (2016): 1107–1125, https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12708.
Gentzkow, M., B. Kelly, and M. Taddy, “Text as Data,” Journal of Economic Literature 57, no. 3 (2019): 535–574, https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20181020.
Glicksman, R. L., and J. Page, “Adaptive Management and NEPA: How to Reconcile Predictability, Flexibility, and Legality in Environmental Review,” Harvard Environmental Law Review 46, no. 1 (2022): 35–107, https://journals.law.harvard.edu/elr/wp-content/uploads/sites/79/2022/04/46.1-Glicksman.pdf.
Hazen, E. L., et al., “A Dynamic Ocean Management Tool to Reduce Bycatch and Support Sustainable Fisheries,” Science Advances 4, no. 5 (2018): eaar3001, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aar3001.
Hutchinson, T., “The Doctrinal Method: Incorporating Interdisciplinary Methods in Reforming the Law,” Erasmus Law Review 8, no. 3 (2015): 130–138, https://doi.org/10.5553/ELR.000044.
Lewison, R. L., et al., “Dynamic Ocean Management: Identifying the Critical Ingredients of Dynamic Approaches to Ocean Resource Management,” BioScience 65, no. 5 (2015): 486–498, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1318960111.
López Bernal, J., S. Cummins, and A. Gasparrini, “Interrupted Time Series Regression for the Evaluation of Public Health Interventions: A Tutorial,” International Journal of Epidemiology 46, no. 1 (2017): 348–355, https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyw098.
Maxwell, S. M., et al., “Dynamic Ocean Management: Defining and Conceptualizing Real-Time Management of the Ocean,” Marine Policy 58 (2015): 42–50, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.03.014.
Mitchell, M., et.al., “Model Cards for Model Reporting,” Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency 19, (2019): 220–229, https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287596.
Müller, H., E. Vayena, and A. Blasimme, “Dynamic Consent: A Patient Interface for Twenty-First Century Research Networks,” Digital Health 9 (2023): 20552076231190997, https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076231190997.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, “Going Digital: Integrated Policy Framework”, OECD Digital Economy Papers 292, (2020): 1-32, https://doi.org/10.1787/dc930adc-en.
Paprica, P. A., et al., “Essential Requirements for Establishing and Operating Data Trusts: Practical Guidance Co-Developed by Representatives from Fifteen Canadian Organizations and Initiatives,” International Journal of Population Data Science 5, no. 1 (2020): 1353, https://doi.org/10.23889/ijpds.v5i1.1353.
