A key dimension to the framings of climate change in the ACIA is preferences for different spatial scales: the global and to some extent a regional preference being emphasized by the Arctic climate systems' global role and by the local being in focus when complexity and interacting factors are emphasized. This section relates this finding to the analytical concepts of fit, interplay, and scale from the literature on institutional dimensions of global environmental change.2 The ACIA case shows that these concepts
1 Roger Pielke Jr., Gwyn Prins, Steve Rayner, and Daniel Sarawitz, "Lifting the Taboo on Adaptation," Nature 445, (2007): 597.
2 Young, The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change. Fit, Interplay, and Scale.
need to be rescrutinized in relation to how power relations may influence what scale is seen as appropriate and therefore how one should look at fit between environmental problems and governance structures. In short, this section argues that to analyze the relationship between power and knowledge (or policy and science), a discussion about fit should include a scrutiny of the politics of scale. Such a scrutiny will also make more apparent the role that international regimes and actors play in knowledge production.
Was this article helpful?