Adaptive Governance

Environmental Governance: A Review of Relevant Literature The field of environmental governance has grown unprecedentedly as a result of the increasing concern and occurrences of climate change-related events all over the world. Where social, political, and cultural movements and shifts have influenced human history over the years, the environment is taking the forefront as humanity -- societies and nations -- are threatened by one common force no amount of socio-political or cultural power could control or undermine: climate change.

Indeed, events relating to climate change are more pervasive than ever, affecting not just specific groups of people or nations, but all of humanity. This is why literature on climate change and environmental sustainability, both popular and academic, have increased over the years, triggering a global debate about the future of the planet and the "plight" of the human race in the decades or centuries to come.

Beyond the issue of environmental sustainability, however, is also a compelling debate and discussion about the transformation of societies as we human s confront the realities of climate change and the alarmingly limited/scarce environmental resources in the world today. This review of current literature, as a response, looks into the issue of environmental / ecological sustainability from different lenses/perspectives, but ultimately looking at the way the issue has shaped social, political, and cultural structures, roles, and dynamics all over the world.

Setting the foundation to this debate is an elaborate discussion of "four visions" of the future of human societies as influenced by humanity's pursuit of a "healthy global environment." Clapp and Dauvergne (2011) identified these "four visions" as market liberalism, institutionalism, bioenvironmentalism, and social green (ism).They determined market liberalism as the "optimistic" vision of humanity's future on earth: market liberalists think of a "future of ever-greater prosperity" driven by their belief that sustainable development would be the future of businesses and the natural course (way forward) of societies and institutions in the years to come (228).

The institutionalist vision, meanwhile, takes the market liberalism approach to a larger and wider scale. "Institutionalists" believe that better global environment management requires not only an efficient and effective implementation of sustainable development, globalization and free markets in societies. More critical is how this synergy can be elevated from a national to international platform, wherein societies, organizations, and businesses all over the world are working efficiently together, strengthening their local/domestic socio-economic "capacities" while at the same time, effectively managing environmental affairs (233).

Bioenvironmentalists take the pessimistic viewpoint to the challenge of ecological sustainability. For them, humans will face an inevitable "environmental doom"; consequently, they consider curbing population growth as one of the ways to prevent the "environmental doom" and to manage what is left of the environmental resources on Earth (237). Evans (2011) reflected these visions in his discussion of "adaptive governance" as humanity and environment's way of coping with the inevitable ecological changes happening to Earth and human societies now and will continue to happen in the following years.

For Evans, Earth and humans will undergo a transformation reflective of the "complex adaptive systems," which undergo an adaptive cycle when a change happens. Adaptive governance will come in as humans will adapt to ecological changes on Earth, and will have to go through different processes consistent with the four phases of the adaptive cycle: r-phase -- stable systems/growth ( K-phase-close adaptation to the environment/conservation ( ( phase- rapid breakdown of the system/release ( ( phase- renewal/reorganization (184-5).

Levin et al.'s (2010) take on ecological sustainability and environmental governance reflects the institutionalist viewpoint, wherein dealing with the "wicked problem" of ecological sustainability requires the establishment of a higher social order that influences policy and social planning on environmental conservation at an international level (23).

Voss and Kemp (2006) described the aspect of higher social order in influencing social planning and policy as an approach called "reflexive governance." This concept requires "symmetry of action" among the actors and players relevant to governance of institutions and systems that will survive or remain despite ecological changes (26). From this.