Jeffrey, P.

Pahl-Wostl, C.

Sendzimir, J.

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)

Copyright © 2009 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance.Pahl-Wostl, C., J. Sendzimir, and P. Jeffrey. 2009. Resources management in transition. Ecology andSociety 14(1): 46. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art46/Guest Editorial, part of a Special Feature on New Methods for Adaptive Water ManagementResources Management in TransitionClaudia Pahl-Wostl 1, Jan Sendzimir 2, and Paul Jeffrey 3Key Words: adaptive management; climate change; interdisciplinary research; social learning; waterresourcesIn recent years, the prospects of severe climatechange have increasingly focused attention on thelong-term sustainability of current practices ofresource management, which no longer appearrobust to uncertainty from extreme weather eventsor trends. Increased awareness of uncertainties andthe complexity of the systems to be managedhighlight the need for some profound changes inresource management (Gleick 2000, Pahl-Wostl2007). Uncertainties and complexity have alwayscharacterized water management. Water managementtraditionally emphasizes the reduction ofuncertainties, often by designing systems that canbe predicted and controlled. This has resulted in astrong emphasis on technical solutions to rathernarrowly defined problems. However, human–technology–environment systems are more appropriatelydescribed as complex adaptive systems whereunpredictable co-evolution makes uncertaintyirreducible. Managing under inevitable uncertaintyrequires improved learning and adaptation, inaddition to control. The goal of management shouldbe to increase the adaptive capacity to learn fromand better cope with uncertain developments, ratherthan to try to find optimum solutions. Water-management science must confront the mainbarriers to learning and adaptation: path dependenceemerging from sunk costs in prior paradigms,infrastructure, and existing practices. Developingnew paradigms and practices has gained increasingimportance with the attempt to implementintegrated management approaches.The challenges of improving the scientificfoundations of adaptive and integrated watermanagement and of understanding the transitiontoward adaptive and integrated managementregimes have been tackled in the European projectNeWater (New methods for adaptive Water management under uncertainty). This specialfeature showcases some of the key work effortsconducted under the umbrella of the NeWaterproject. One major goal of NeWater has been thedevelopment of a conceptual and methodologicalframework for the transition of prevailing water-management regimes to adaptive ones. Based onthis framework, specific approaches and tools havebeen further developed for practical applications ina number of case studies in Europe (Elbe, Guadiana,Rhine, and Tisza), in Central Asia (Amudarya), andin Africa (Nile and Orange). The emphasis of thework reported in this special feature is on thedevelopment of conceptual foundations andmethodological innovations.Pahl-Wostl et al. (2007) describe how the principlesof adaptive water management might improve theconceptual and methodological base for sustainableand integrated water management in an uncertainand complex world. Their critical debate isstructured around four questions: (1) What types ofuncertainty need to be taken into account in watermanagement? (2) How does adaptive managementaccount for uncertainty? (3) What are thecharacteristics of adaptive-management regimes?(4) What is the role of social learning in managingchange? They conclude that major transformationprocesses are needed because, in many cases, thestructural requirements (e.g., adaptive institutionsand a flexible technical infrastructure) for adaptivemanagement are not available.Huitema et al. (2009) assess the idea of adaptivewater management from the perspective of thegovernance literature. They highlight that attentionshould be called to the complexities associated withparticipation and collaboration, the difficulty ofexperimenting in a real-world setting, and the1University of Osnabrueck, Germany, 2International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), 3School of Water Sciences, Cranfield UniversityEcology and Society 14(1): 46http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art46/politicized nature of discussion on governance atthe bioregional scale.van der Brugge and van Raak (2007) investigatethree central concepts from the transition-management literature for their potential contributionto adaptive management. They conclude that, inparticular, the notions of arenas and shadownetworks merit further study through joint research.Sendzimir et al. (2007) examine what barriers andbridges operate at which scales to either enhance orblock the potential for transition (transformability)of the regime that currently manages the Tisza riverbasin in Hungary. Special attention is paid tocomparing the transformability of the Tisza withother regional resource-management regimes inSweden and Florida based on the relativecontributions of shadow networks, local champions,and innovative ideas.Krysanova et al. (2008) provide an overview ofexisting practices for coping with floods anddroughts, compare strategies in different riverbasins, and outline the areas that need improvement.An analysis of the coping strategies shows thatstructural measures exist in all seven river basins,but that non-structural measures are generally notvery extensive or advanced.Aerts et al. (2008) advocate a diversification ofmeasures as one robust strategy to address thechallenges of climate change. They introduce a newmethod based on Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT)that contributes to developing flood-managementstrategies. This theory aims at finding sets ofinvestments that diversify risks, thereby reducingthe overall risk of the total portfolio of investments.Raadegever et al. (2008) reflect on strategies fortransboundary management. Their paper presents acomprehensive overview of regime features thatsupport adaptive management, focused ontransboundary river-basin management. It thencollates these features into a framework describingactor networks, policy processes, informationmanagement, and legal and financial aspects.Subsequently, this framework is applied to theOrange and Rhine basins.Nilsson and Renöfält (2008) describe the key issuesassociated with environmental flows in rivermanagement needed to address the challenge of howto satisfy the needs of both humans and naturewithout sacrificing one or the other. They reviewknowledge in this field, provide examples on howthe flow regime and the water quality can impactecosystem processes, and conclude that mostproblems are associated with low-flow conditions.Given that reduced flows represent an escalatingproblem in an increasing number of riversworldwide, managers are facing enormouschallenges.Schlüter and Pahl-Wostl (2007) propose an agent-based modeling approach to explore systemcharacteristics and mechanisms of resilience in acomplex resource-management system, based on acase study of water use in the Amudarya River. Theaim is to investigate the influence of (1) theorganizational structure of water management, (2)information on water availability, and (3) thediversity of water uses on the resilience of thesystem to short- and long-term water scarcity.Diversification of resource use, e.g., irrigation andfishing, increases the performance of thedecentralized regime and the resilience of both.Dewulf et al. (2007) outline a framing approach tocross-disciplinary research that focuses on thedifferent perspectives that researchers fromdifferent backgrounds use to make sense of theissues they want to research jointly. They analyzethe challenges posed by frame diversity and themethods used to support social-learning processesto develop the capacity of researchers to cross theboundaries for their domain of expertise and engagein productive interdisciplinary research.Medema et al. (2008) critically review the claimsmade for integrated water-resource managementand adaptive management against evidence fromtheir implementation, and explore whether or notcriticisms are rooted in problems encounteredduring the translation from research to practice.They discuss these findings in the context of thebroader societal challenge of effective translationof research into practice, science into policy, andambition into achievement.In guiding this special issue to fruition, we havebeen struck by the way in which reframingsustainable water management within an adaptive-management paradigm has encouraged a generosityof intellectual spirit among the involvedresearchers. Disciplinary and professional distractionshave receded in the face of problem statements thattranscend specializations. The nature and benefitsEcology and Society 14(1): 46http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art46/of such inclusive yet highly productivecollaboration are largely hidden in the products ofour activities. We would, however, like toacknowledge here the often courageous commitmentto transdisciplinary working exhibited by theNeWater project team. Professional and intellectualrisk taking have characterized much of the research;leading, as demonstrated by the contributions in thisspecial issue, to richer, more nuanced appreciationsof the challenges facing those communities exposedto urgent water-resource management issues.Responses to this article can be read online at:http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art46/responses/Acknowledgments:The work presented in this paper was funded by theEuropean Commission (Contract N° 511179 -NEWATER).LITERATURE CITEDAerts, J. C. J. H., W. Botzen, A. van der Veen, J.Krywkow, and S. Werners. 2008. Dealing withuncertainty in flood management throughdiversification. Ecology and Society 13(1): 41.[online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss1/art41/.Dewulf, A., G. François, C. Pahl-Wostl, and T.Taillieu. 2007. A framing approach to cross-disciplinary research collaboration: experiencesfrom a large-scale research project on adaptivewater management. Ecology and Society 12(2): 14.[online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art14/.Gleick, P. H. 2000. The changing water paradigm:a look at twenty-first century water resourcesdevelopment. Water International 25:127–138.Huitema, D., E. Mostert, W. Egas, S.Moellenkamp, C. Pahl-Wostl , and R. Yalcin. 2009. Adaptive water governance: assessing theinstitutional prescriptions of adaptive (co-)management from a governance perspective anddefining a research agenda. Ecology and Society 14(1): 26. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art26/.Krysanova, V., H. Buiteveld, D. Haase, F. F.Hattermann, K. van Niekerk, K. Roest, P.Martínez-Santos, and M. Schlüter. 2008.Practices and lessons learned in coping withclimatic hazards at the river-basin scale: floods anddrought. Ecology and Society 13(2): 32. [online]URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art32/.Medema, W., B. S. McIntosh, and P. J. Jeffrey. 2008. From premise to practice: a criticalassessment of integrated water resourcesmanagement and adaptive management approachesin the water sector. Ecology and Society 13(2): 29.[online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art29/.Nilsson, C., and B. Malm Renöfält. 2008. Linkingflow regime and water quality in rivers: a challengeto adaptive catchment management. Ecology andSociety 13(2): 18. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art18/.Pahl-Wostl, C. 2007. The implications ofcomplexity for integrated resources management.Environmental Modeling and Software 22: 561–569.Pahl-Wostl, C., J. Sendzimir, P. Jeffrey, J. Aerts,G. Berkamp, and K. Cross. 2007. Managingchange toward adaptive water management throughsocial learning. Ecology and Society 12(2): 30.[online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art30/.Raadgever, G. T., E. Mostert, N. Kranz, E.Interwies, and J. G. Timmerman. 2008. Assessingmanagement regimes in transboundary river basins:do they support adaptive management? Ecology andSociety 13(1): 14. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss1/art14/.Schlüter, M., and C. Pahl-Wostl 2007.Mechanisms of resilience in common-pool resourcemanagement systems: an agent-based model ofwater use in a river basin. Ecology and Society 12(2): 4. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art4/.Sendzimir, J., P. Magnuszewski, Z. Flachner, P.Balogh, G. Molnar, A. Sarvari, and Z. Nagy 2007.Ecology and Society 14(1): 46http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art46/Assessing the resilience of a river managementregime: informal learning in a shadow network inthe Tisza River Basin. Ecology and Society 13(1):11. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss1/art11/.van der Brugge, R., and R. van Raak. 2007.Facing the adaptive management challenge:insights from transition management. Ecology andSociety 12(2): 33. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art33/.

Resources management in transition (Guest Editorial)

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)