Thanks to an unnamed angel I have been reading the articles in a PNAS special feature: Going Beyond Panaceas. The abstract from the lead perspectives article sums up.

In the context of governance of human–environment interactions, a panacea refers to a blueprint for a single type of governance system (e.g., government ownership, privatization, community property) that is applied to all environmental problems. The aim of this special feature is to provide theoretical analysis and empirical evidence to caution against the tendency, when confronted with pervasive uncertainty, to believe that scholars can generate simple models of linked social– ecological systems and deduce general solutions to the overuse of resources. Practitioners and scholars who fall into panacea traps falsely assume that all problems of resource governance can be represented by a small set of simple models, because they falsely perceive that the preferences and perceptions of most resource users are the same. Readers of this special feature will become acquainted with many cases in which panaceas fail. The articles provide an excellent overview of why they fail. Furthermore, the articles in this special feature address how scholars and public officials can increase the prospects for future sustainable resource use by facilitating a diagnostic approach in selecting appropriate starting points for governance and monitoring, as well as by learning from the outcomes of new policies and adapting in light of effective feedback.

This speaks to some concerns I've noted in previous posts and provides research to back it up.

I too have expressed doubts that any set of simple models can generate useful general prescriptions for resource governance. Each issue is different, especially when the norms and preferences of those who are affected are considered. Serious consideration of linked socio–ecological systems requires a sharp focus on these truths.

I too have advocated what I called an experimental approach with adaptive management, which is here called a diagnostic approach that learns and adapts to feedback.

The significance of this for policy is large. Political advocacy simplifies complex issues to make them memorable, and too often scholars do so as well, not only due to political views but also to advance their careers, get funding, and be more comprehensible to non-specialistrs etc.

Scholarly journals are peppered with works predicting ecological disasters unless some preferred cure-all is adopted . . .

It seems so obvious to me that good policy ia always particular, appropriate to circumstances, that it's a bit difficult to argue the point. The articles in this feature accomplish some of this. How do you eat an elephant? A bite at a time. There are several bites here.

I hope to post again about some of the more interesting articles, those that provide new insight, as time permits. It's fall seeding time here and so my posts are mere drive-by lick-and-a-promise placeholders due to time constraints. Winter is coming.