Dynamics in the landscape ecology of institutions: lags, legacies, and feedbacks drive path-dependency of forest landscapes in British Columbia, Canada 1858–2020

Context Many landscapes are constrained into pathways featuring deforestation, loss of biodiversity, and rising mega-disturbances due to legacies and feedbacks preserved in ecosystems and institutions. Institutions are the norms and rules that emerge locally or are set by prevailing powers, and that...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Landscape ecology 2023-12, Vol.38 (12), p.4325-4341
Hauptverfasser: Sutherland, Ira J., Copes-Gerbitz, Kelsey, Parrott, Lael, Rhemtulla, Jeanine M.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Context Many landscapes are constrained into pathways featuring deforestation, loss of biodiversity, and rising mega-disturbances due to legacies and feedbacks preserved in ecosystems and institutions. Institutions are the norms and rules that emerge locally or are set by prevailing powers, and that mediate coupled social-ecological dynamics. Objectives We analyzed coupled landscape-institutional dynamics contributing to path-dependent mega-disturbances and the depletion of old-growth forests in temperate forests of British Columbia, Canada (1858–2020). Methods We used qualitative historical review to contextualize dynamics in a hierarchy of institutional structures (i.e., power dynamics), functions (i.e., policy interventions), and processes (i.e., land management activities) and quantitative data to reconstruct their landscape outcomes. We examined connections between institutions and landscapes with a focus on temporal lags, legacies, and feedbacks. Results Institutional structure persisted as an overarching colonial legacy (since 1858) whereas institutional functions (e.g., policy interventions) were added more frequently (every 10–30 years) but tended to layer onto existing functions rather than replace them. Institutional processes dynamically reshaped forests through regimes of harvesting, tree planting, and fire suppression, while a fourth process of landscape monitoring acted as a feedback to enable institutional adaptation depending on what was monitored and by who. Conclusions We describe lags, legacies, and feedbacks as causal forces of change in landscape-institutional co-evolution, and contribute to emerging theory on the landscape ecology of institutions. To foster social-ecological resilience we recommend to (1) manage forests more locally; (2) restore complex landscapes; and (3) use reflective processes to help transform institutions to meet emerging landscape challenges.
ISSN:0921-2973
1572-9761
DOI:10.1007/s10980-023-01721-y