Polycentric vs Sample Clauses

Polycentric vs monocentric governance One of the most important current trends in environmental governance is the shift from centralized control to the incorporation of lower-level administrative units and social groups into more democratic decision making processes through co-management, community-based natural resource management, and environmental policy decentralizations [62]. Xxxxxxxx defines the polycentric systems as the systems where “political authority is dispersed to separately constituted bodies with overlapping jurisdictions that do not stand in hierarchical relationship to each other” [64]. The same authors suggest that governance never was completely monocentric. Xxxxxxx et al. highlight that “the “old fashioned” mutual exclusivity between jurisdictions operating at the same level and the rational hierarchical ordering of jurisdictions at different spatial levels has been abandoned” [65]. Polycentric systems have advantages and disadvantages [65][62] to be take into account in governance models for NBS implementation. Some of the advantages are as follows: • They are resilient due to the redundancy: if a unit fails, others can adopt their functions. • They could be more efficient due to the competition among units (competitive cooperation). • They make decision making closer to those affected, promoting higher participation and accountability. • They make easier and more probable learning processes within units and the incorporation of more precise time- and place-specific knowledge about natural resources and local problems. • The large number of units enables the experimentation with new approaches. • Issues with different geographical scopes can be managed at different scales. As disadvantages it can be listed: • When the basic units in the system are too small economies of scale may be lost • Collective decision making could be difficult • Redundancy may generate resilience but also unnecessary duplication of efforts • When the responsibilities are very dispersed the democratic accountability can be more difficult.