Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Spatial Frames and the Quest for Institutional Fit

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Environment and Society

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in Environmental Sociology and Policy ((PASTESP))

Abstract

Spatial frames play a crucial role in debates over environmental sustainability. Building on a social scientific understanding of space, we discuss key spatial frames in biodiversity and ecosystem management, including territory, social-ecological systems, global networks and flows, and sense of place. In evaluating these frames, we argue that the state with its territorial power has clear limitations in effectively and legitimately addressing ecosystem problems, even when it remains a crucial power-container and regulator. Adapting institutional arrangements to ecosystem scale, as advocates of social-ecological systems propose, is often inappropriate because of cross-scale socio-political dynamics. Given the importance of global flows, we argue that place-based or landscape approaches that bring together local ecosystem management and global value chains present an ambivalent, but highly relevant spatial framing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Allmendinger, P., & Haughton, G. (2010). Spatial Planning, Devolution, and New Planning Spaces. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 28(5), 803–818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batterbury, S. P., & Fernando, J. L. (2006). Rescaling Governance and the Impacts of Political and Environmental Decentralization: An Introduction. World Development, 34(11), 1851–1863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (Eds.). (1998). Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brasser, A. (2013). Olam International and Rainforest Alliance Case Study. Reducing Risk: Landscape Approaches to Sustainable Sourcing. Washington, DC: EcoAgriculture Partners.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brockington, D. (2004). Community Conservation, Inequality and Injustice: Myths of Power in Protected Area Management. Conservation & Society, 2(2), 411–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brondizio, E. S., Ostrom, E., & Young, O. R. (2009). Connectivity and the Governance of Multilevel Social-Ecological Systems: The Role of Social Capital. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 34, 253–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. C., & Purcell, M. (2005). There’s Nothing Inherent About Scale: Political Ecology, the Local Trap, and the Politics of Development in the Brazilian Amazon. Geoforum, 36(5), 607–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bulkeley, H. (2005). Reconfiguring Environmental Governance: Towards a Politics of Scales and Networks. Political Geography, 24(8), 875–902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buscher, B., & Dressler, W. (2007). Linking Neoprotectionism and Environmental Governance: On the Rapidly Increasing Tensions Between Actors in the Environment-Development Nexus. Conservation and Society, 5(4), 586.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cash, D., Adger, W. N., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., et al. (2006). Scale and Cross-Scale Dynamics: Governance and Information in a Multilevel World. Ecology and Society, 11(2), 8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castells, M. (2000). The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, M., Arnold, G., & Tomás, S. (2010). A Review of Design Principles for Community-Based Natural Resource Management. Ecology and Society, 15(4), 38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cullingworth, J. B. (2002). The Political Culture of Planning: American Land Use Planning in Comparative Perspective. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupuis, E. M., & Vandergeest, P. (Eds.). (1996). Creating the Countryside. The Politics of Rural and Environmental Discourse. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive Governance of Socio-Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 441–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hajer, M., & Zonneveld, W. (2000). Spatial Planning in the Network Society-Rethinking the Principles of Planning in the Netherlands. European Planning Studies, 8(3), 337–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartje, V. J., Klaphake, A., & Schliep, R. (2003). The International Debate on the Ecosystem Approach: Critical Review; International Actors; Obstacles and Challenges. Bonn: BfN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, D. (1996). Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference (p. 468). Cambridge: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hein, L. G., Van Koppen, C. S. A., De Groot, R. S., & Van Ierland, E. C. (2006). Spatial Scales, Stakeholders and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services. Ecological Economics, 57(2), 209–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holling, C. S., & Gunderson, L. H. (Eds.). (2002). Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Washington: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2003). Unraveling the Central State, But How? Types of Multi-Level Governance. American Political Science Review, 97(2), 233–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kidd, S., & Shaw, D. (2013). Reconceptualising Territoriality and Spatial Planning: Insights from the Sea. Planning Theory & Practice, 14(2), 180–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kissinger, G., Brasser, A., & Gross, L. (2013). Scoping Study. Reducing Risk: Landscape Approaches to Sustainable Sourcing. Washington, DC: Landscapes for People, Food and Nature Initiative.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masterson, V., Stedman, R., Enqvist, J., Tengö, M., Giusti, M., Wahl, D., & Svedin, U. (2017). The Contribution of Sense of Place to Social-Ecological Systems Research: A Review and Research Agenda. Ecology and Society, 22(1), 49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mol, A. P., & Spaargaren, G. (2006). Towards a Sociology of Environmental Flows: A New Agenda for Twenty-First-Century Environmental Sociology. In A. P. Mol & G. Spaargaren (Eds.), Governing Environmental Flows: Global Challenges to Social Theory (pp. 39–82). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M. (2012). Natural Resources, Territorial Right, and Global Distributive Justice. Political Theory, 40(1), 84–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., Da Fonseca, G. A. B., & Kent, J. (2000). Biodiversity Hotspots for Conservation Priorities. Nature, 403(6772), 853–858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, R. P. (1998). Imposing Wilderness. Struggles Over Livelihood and Nature Preservation in Africa. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons. The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (2009). A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems. Science, 325(5939), 419–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pimbert, M. P., & Pretty, J. N. (1995). Parks, People and Professionals. Putting “Participation” into Protected Area Management. Geneve: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ros-Tonen, M. A., Van Leynseele, Y.-P. B., Laven, A., & Sunderland, T. (2015). Landscapes of Social Inclusion: Inclusive Value-Chain Collaboration Through the Lenses of Food Sovereignty and Landscape Governance. The European Journal of Development Research, 27(4), 523–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sassen, S. (2006). Territory, Authority, Rights: From Medieval to Global Assemblages. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schama, S. (1995). Landscape and Memory. London: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2005). Handbook of the Convention on Biological Diversity. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, A. J. (2001). On the Territorial Rights of States. Noûs, 35, 300–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Takacs, D. (1996). The Idea of Biodiversity. Philosophies of Paradise. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuan, Y.-F. (1974). Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes and Values. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuan, Y.-F. (1977). Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.N.E.P. (2000). Ecosystem Approach: Description, Principles and Guidelines. UNEP/CBD/COP/5/23. 2000. Decisions Adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its Fifth Meeting, Nairobi, 15–26 May 2000, Decision V/6: UNEP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urry, J. (2000). Sociology Beyond Societies: Mobilities for the Twenty-First Century. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandergeest, P., Ponte, S., & Bush, S. (2015). Assembling Sustainable Territories: Space, Subjects, Objects, and Expertise in Seafood Certification. Environment and Planning A, 47(9), 1907–1925.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Koppen, C. S. A. (2002). Echte natuur. Een sociaaltheoretisch onderzoek naar natuurwaardering en natuurbescherming in de moderne samenleving. Wageningen: Dissertations Wageningen University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Koppen, C. S. A. (2006). Governing Nature? On the Global Complexity of Biodiversity Conservation. In G. Spaargaren, A. P. J. Mol, & F. H. Buttel (Eds.), Governing Environmental Flows: Global Challenges to Social Theory (pp. 187–219). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Koppen, C. S. A. (2009). Restoring Nature in a Mobile Society. In M. Drenthen, J. Keulartz, & J. Proctor (Eds.), New Visions of Nature. Complexity and Authenticity (pp. 229–236). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vane-Wright, R. I. (1996). Identifying Priorities for the Conservation of Biodiversity: Systematic Biological Criteria Within a Socio-Political Framework. In K. J. Gaston (Ed.), Biodiversity. A Biology of Numbers and Differences (pp. 309–344). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warner, J. F., Wester, P., & Hoogesteger, J. (2014). Struggling with Scales: Revisiting the Boundaries of River Basin Management. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 1(5), 469–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, D. R., & Stewart, S. I. (1998). Sense of Place: An Elusive Concept that Is Finding a Home in Ecosystem Management. Journal of Forestry, 96(5), 18–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilshusen, P. R., Brechin, S. R., Fortwangler, C. L., & West, P. C. (2002). Reinventing a Square Wheel: Critique of a Resurgent “Protection Paradigm” in International Biodiversity Conservation. Society and Natural Resources, 15, 17–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, O. R. (2002). The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay, and Scale. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, O. R. (2008). The Architecture of Global Environmental Governance: Bringing Science to Bear on Policy. Global Environmental Politics, 8(1), 14–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands

    C. S. A. (Kris) van Koppen & Simon R. Bush

Authors
  1. C. S. A. (Kris) van Koppen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Simon R. Bush
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. S. A. (Kris) van Koppen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Humanities Education and Social Sciences, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden

    Magnus Boström

  2. Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada

    Debra J. Davidson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

van Koppen, C.S.A.(., Bush, S.R. (2018). Spatial Frames and the Quest for Institutional Fit. In: Boström, M., Davidson, D. (eds) Environment and Society. Palgrave Studies in Environmental Sociology and Policy. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76415-3_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76415-3_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-76414-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-76415-3

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation