Search

This Special Feature, "Nudging Evolution? Critical Exploration of the Potential and Limitations of the Concept of Institutional Fit for the Study and Adaptive Management of Social-Ecological Systems," aims to contribute toward the development of social theory and social research methods for the study of social-ecological system dynamics. Our objective is to help strengthen the academic discourse concerning if, and if so, how, to what extent, and in what concrete ways the concept of institutional "fit" might play a role in helping to develop better understanding of the social components of interlinkages between the socioeconomic-cultural and ecological dynamics of social-ecological systems. Two clearly discernible patterns provide a map of this Special Feature: (1) One pattern is the authors' positions regarding the place and role of normativity within their studies and assessment of institutional fit. Some place this at the center of their studies, exploring phenomena endogenous to the process of defining what constitutes institutional fit, whereas others take the formation of norms as a phenomenon exogenous to their study. (2) Another pattern is the type of studies presented: critiques and elaborations of the theory, methods for judging qualities of fit, and/or applied case studies using the concept. As a body of work, these contributions highlight that self-understanding of social-ecological place, whether explicit or implicit, constitutes an important part of the study object, i.e., the role of institutions in social-ecological systems, and that this is, at the same time, a crucial point of reference for the scholar wishing to evaluate what constitutes institutional fit and how it might be brought into being.

Developing institutions to handle human-environment interactions well is important. In relation to that, the theory of resource regimes, and the themes of fit, interplay, and scale - as originating not least in the work of Oran Young - are core. His work is very impressive. At the same time we observe two sets of issues where we think further development is needed. The first relates to the ontological underpinning of Young's conceptual framework. The second set of issues concerns the definitions of and the relationships between the concepts of fit, interplay, and scale. Regarding the former, we emphasize issues related to "marrying" different theories about human action. Regarding the latter, we note that while the three concepts have a lot of practical appeal, there are still some important challenges surfacing, not least when using them in empirical research. We analyze three challenges: the definitions of the concepts; their internal overlap; and finally, the way environmental regimes are defined and understood as opposed to the wider institutional context of the economy. Our paper offers some direction for how to move forward on the issues specified.