Experience approaches, which are too blunt and insensitive to

Experience shows that recognition and successful exploitation of cross-scale opportunities has been important for improving well-being: improvements in public health and education, the development and adoption of productivity-enhancing technologies in agriculture, innovations in social and environmental policy, and new organizational forms and management strategies in business. There is a long history of disappointments in policy, management, and assessment arising from the failure to take into proper account the scale and cross-scale dynamics in human-environment systems: collapsing fisheries, transboundary pollution problems, vulnerability to repeated extreme events like floods and droughts, and the inability to address human-induced disease outbreaks (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005. This could be read as either an acknowledgement that many problems have causes and solutions that span multiple”Cross-level” interactions refer to interactions among levels within a scale, whereas “cross-scale” means interactions across different scales, for example, between spatial domains and jurisdictions. Just as spatial scale can be thought of as divided into different “levels,” temporal scale can be thought of as divided into different “time frames” related to rates, durations, or frequencies (see Fig. Although most attention given to scale in studies of human-environment interactions has focused on spatial, temporal, and jurisdictional issues, there are other scales that may be worth considering in particular cases (see Figs. 2000) we define “scale” as the spatial, temporal, quantitative, or analytical dimensions used to measure and study any phenomenon, and “levels” as the unitsA state-level water plan that might be salient to state actors who believe that water can best be allocated by aggregating it throughout the state might not be salient to local actors who feel that the plan not only fails to address local problems but in fact causes new ones. The current governance regime in Kristianstads Vattenrike is a highly flexible organizational solution that relies on cross-level interactions to help create integrated landscape solutions to problems that arise and match the scale of the problems. The opposite poles of top-down approaches, which are too blunt and insensitive to local constaints and opportunities, and bottom-up approaches, which are too insensitive to the contribution of local actions