Do we need a new river basin management paradigm?

Do we need a new river basin management paradigm?
The missing link for socio-ecological system health
Niki Frantzeskaki, Heleen Vreugdenhil, Jill Slinger and Els van Daalen
Policy Analysis Section, Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Jaffalaan 5, 2628BX, Delft, The Netherlands, telephone: +31152788929, fax: +31152786233, e-mail: N.Frantzeskaki@tbm.tudelft.nl & h.s.i.vreugdenhil@tudelft.nl

Abstract
Social and ecological subsystems in a river management context are inherently intertwined. Balancing societal and ecological interdependencies is a condition for sustainability of socio-ecological systems, but in existing management paradigms the emphasis is generally on treating societal demands. We provide an overview of the evolution of ecology-oriented management paradigms in water management starting from the ecosystem management paradigm to the adaptive management paradigm including the related management approaches. Since these paradigms pose the risk of over-institutionalization and subsequently feed the belief in the possibilities to engineer the system, we propose a renewed paradigm. By taking a transitions management perspective we extend the existing paradigms to the ‘inclusive reflexive institutional paradigm’. The paradigm includes the design of institutions, policies and practices which may lead to sustaining socio-ecological system’s health. Basic elements include inclusiveness of institutions and allowance for innovation. We provide a working list of policy guidelines with the potential to create conditions for reflexivity, inclusiveness, integration and creativity. Examples include inclusion of pioneers in the process, capitalization of local knowledge and anchoring of the project design with dominant thinking.

1. Introduction
Socio-ecological systems and river basin systems are subject to change that arises from and impacts their dual nature: the river system as an ecosystem delineates the space and the functionalities for the societal system(s) formed and functions in its boundaries whereas the societal system engineers and utilizes its services. Change in physical conditions of the river basin system includes a change in the quality of the services and/or a change in its spatial boundaries. More specifically, changes in the systemic characteristics of the river basin system can include water pollution, scarcity leading to droughts etc. and are manifested by the change in the quality of the provided services of the river basin system (Costanza, 1998, 2000; Costanza et.al. 1997; Pretty and Ward, 2001) such as supply of drinking water supply or recreation uses. Additionally, changes in values and preferences within the societal subsystem also impact the way river basin systems are managed.

The evolution of society in the form of changing values and changing attitudes towards ecosystems is depicted in the way river basin systems are protected and managed in general. The view of river systems and riparian areas as risk-prone areas given the high risk of flooding and consequent loss of properties and lives belongs to pre-industrial societies, whereas when technology became available to deal with water related risks, societies developed along the rivers positioning the river basin system at the heart of the societal activities (e.g. the Elbe and early industrialized German cities, the lower Rhine and the industrialization of the low countries).

During their industrialization period, societies used the environment and the river systems as the non-depleteable source of the raw material and as the sink for industrial effluents unaware of impacts and side-effects of such practices. Post-industrial societies faced the impacts of bad-practices and started caring about the environment. The green social movement empowered citizens and urged governmental agencies to take action for protecting the environmental resources and treating pollutants. Post-industrial society deals with a complex societal nexus of interconnected systems (Holling, 2001) and emerging environmental (climate change) and societal trends (urbanization, globalization); that assign environmental problems with a great degree of uncertainty and complexity. Values of environmental protection and restoration are addressed and guide environmental management paradigms and river basin management paradigms as well.

The evolution of society from fearing environment towards careful utilization is depicted in the evolution of environmental management paradigms: Starting from inaction towards environmental issues, towards dealing with end-of-the-pipe measures to cope with anthropogenic activities, and advancing into being proactive (precautionary) and integrating social activities and ecosystems functions respectively. In dealing with uncertainty and complexity, economics offered a framework for new management practices in ecosystems. Following an economics-oriented societal model, society manages environmental systems and river basin systems more specifically, using economical models that view ecosystems as sources of ecosystem services that need to be regulated and managed by assisting market mechanisms.

1.1 A systems view for socio-ecological systems health

The existing paradigm of ecosystem health “attends to systems that are manipulated in a way to satisfy human needs and preferences” (Westra, 2003; Burkhard and Muller, 2008, p.35) hence translates ecosystems’ resources into monetized services and commodities (see Figure 1(a)). Consequently, what the ecosystem’s health paradigm offers is a scientific basis for practices to support a flow of services from ecosystem to social system; despite the discourse of sustainability science that argues for a balanced development of both the societal and the ecological subsystems.

Aligned with sustainability thinking, we believe that the societal and ecological interdependencies need to be balanced for a socio-ecological system to reach sustainability. Therefore, we suggest that not only the flow of services from the ecological subsystem to societal need to be regulated and accounted but the two-side flow needs to be managed: the ecological services need to be regulated and the environmental stewardship needs to be sustained and enabled (see Figure 1 (b)). Consequently, not only the societal metabolism needs to be satisfied but the socio-ecological metabolism needs to be sustained (having as upper goal socio-ecological health) for the socio-ecological system to undergo a transition to sustainability. Our view positions that integration of societal and ecological systems is a precondition for balancing not only the metabolic mechanisms but also the dynamics of these subsystems so as to achieve sustainability (see Figure 1 (b)).

What we introduce in the present paper is a starting conceptual and operational basis for a new socio-ecological systems management paradigm that aims at supporting socio-ecological systems health. Our research objective is to investigate what the current management paradigms perform towards reaching socio-ecological systems’ health and what actions can contribute to achieving socio-ecological systems’ health. As shown in Figure 1, the new management paradigm aims at sustaining a balanced interdependence between the social and ecological subsystems.
INSTITUTIONS TO ENGINEER & MANAGE





ECOSYSTEM
Ecosystem services





SOCIETY

(a) Current management paradigm that acquires institutional settings that manage the ecosystem and its services.





ECOSYSTEM
Ecosystem services


Stewardship



SOCIETY




INSTITUTIONS TO SUSTAIN A BALANCED
INTERDEPENDENCE
(b) Proposed management paradigm that requires institutional arrangements which sustain a balanced interdependence of socio-ecological system.
Figure 1: Current and introduced socio-ecological system management paradigms.

Our research unfolds in three steps: First, the existing paradigms of socio-ecological systems management are presented in Section 2. The key characteristics, the distinctive operational propositions of both environmental management paradigm and adaptive management paradigm are presented. Second, the conceptual propositions and distinctive characteristics of the new management paradigm in a generic form are discussed in Section 3. Third, Section 4 includes a number of guidelines consistent with the proposed management paradigm. Reflection and concluding remarks are given in Section 5.

2. Paradigms of river basin management
Taking a meta-level view on the evolution of management paradigms of river basin systems, we observe that in their early phase paradigms take into account the socio-ecological interdependency – the so-called ecosystems approach. After that phase, the majority of river basin systems paradigms allow a domination of societal dynamics via the institutionalization of interests, practices and resources – the so-called adaptive management approach. During the institutionalization of the practices, the interdependencies between social and ecosystem subsystems are often neglected. We will present here which river basin system management paradigms fall into every phase of paradigm evolution by briefly showing the conceptual and operational propositions, the strengths and the weaknesses in dealing with complexities stemming from systemic characteristics of river basin systems.

We conceptualize a management paradigm as the overarching set of ideas that constitutes the conceptual basis of a specific domain. A paradigm belongs to the deep structure of a system (Douglas, 1986) given that it consists of ideas, perceptions, views and the underlying assumptions. It is part of the culture of the system (part of the informal institutions, North, 1990). It directs the way institutions are structured and evolve while remaining receptive to influences from institutions. That means that a management paradigm requires a specific arrangement of institutions to regulate and support it; while the operation of the institutions influences the views included in the paradigm (Giddens, 1989, p.25-27). This either results in adaptation (Imperial, 1995; Carlsson and Berkes, 2005) of the paradigm or in paradigm shift (Kuhn, 1962).

2.1 The ecosystem management paradigm

The ecosystem management paradigm views the ecosystem as a part of the system that needs to be protected and searches for means to conserve ecosystems (Imperial, 1999; Pretty and Ward, 2001; Dryzek, 2005, p.91-92). Therefore, ecosystem management paradigm allowed research from ecosystem scientists to be incorporated into the information stream for policy design so as to avoid destruction of ecosystems. In the early stages of this paradigm, a distinction between ecosystems management and engineering was made by ecosystem thinkers. According to them, the ecosystem could not be “engineered” or controlled; hence any type of intervention was either preventive or reactive (in the form of end-of-pipe solutions to anthropogenic impacts in ecosystems). This management paradigm adapted towards an enhanced view of ecosystem dynamics (apart from ecosystem conservation only) by including the changing view of institutions and their role in protecting the ecosystem.

In the ecosystem management paradigm the ecosystem is viewed in isolation from the society. That results in two main views: that the ecosystem cannot be controlled hence it is a system by its own and that society can only intervene in “correcting” its impacts by using engineering means and technology (that are the basis for environmental management and engineering). This constitutes the first management paradigm for socio-ecological systems (see also Figure 2).

The ecosystems management paradigm involves a set of two management approaches: the environmental management approach and the ecosystem-based management approach (Costanza, 1998, 2000; Costanza et.al. 1997). Environmental protection management or environmental management encompasses management practices and approaches to protect and rehabilitate the environment. Environmental management also includes end-of-pipe management approaches that deal with mitigation and handling of effluents. In end-of-the-pipe management approaches, technological applications play a core role.

In ecosystem-based management, the search of a commonly accepted solution to deal with resources management involves multiple actors (Imperial, 1999, p.451). Ecosystem-based management has its conceptual basis in the common-pool resources approach (Ostrom, 1990; Dietz et al., 2003; Imperial, 1999, p.459) and in ecosystems research. It asks for “sound ecological models and understanding” while recognizing that the active involvement of humans is essential (Imperial, 1999, p.451). Within an ecosystem-based management approach the functioning of the ecosystem itself is central and of a vital importance for ecosystem services.

System’s view
Paradigm Key propositions

Ecosystem management paradigm
Mitigation of anthropogenic activities



Adaptive management paradigm
(integrated resources management)

(adaptive co-management) Three-dimensional integration




Management practices responsive to social context
Figure 2: The evolution of socio-ecological systems’ management paradigms.

2.2 The adaptive management paradigm

Adaptive management paradigm is a follow-up of the integrated resource management paradigm. The integrated resource management paradigm raised issues in socio-ecological systems’ management that can be summarized in integration of three dimensions: the integration of physical components of the water system itself (systemic integration), the integration of water management with spatial planning (sectoral or vertical integration) and the integration of ecosystems with societal needs (organizational or horizontal integration) (Kidd and Shaw, 2007, p.318; Mitchell, 1990). Scholars from the integrated resources management field actually provided the arguments and the basis for a shift of the existing paradigm to an integrative paradigm. Adaptive management scholars touch on this ground but focused on how to apply it in practice. Institutional arrangements are seen as important means to reach the desirable integration. The interdependency of socio-ecological systems is explicitly stated in the conceptual propositions of adaptive management approaches. However this interdependency is limited in the operational level (Lee, 1993) since the institutional arrangements formed to regulate ecosystem services depict the mono-dependency of the society on ecosystems (see Figure 2).

The adaptive management paradigm includes two approaches: the adaptive management approach (Lee, 1993) and the adaptive co-management approach (Carlsson and Berkes, 2005). The adaptive management approach focuses on inputs from the environment that yield knowledge of ecological functioning for policy making and on learning by doing (Berkes and Folke, 1998, p.10-11) in order to arrange institutions for adapting and managing such ecosystem dynamics (Hamouda et al., 2004, p.5032). The adaptive management approach has the competitive advantage in comparison with environmental management given that it incorporates research findings at early stages of the scientific cycle and integrates societal actors’ interests and policy practitioners’ ideas (Pahl-Wostl, 2007, p.51; Pahl-Wostl et al., 2008, p.485).

Adaptive co-management approach (Carlsson and Berkes, 2005; Olsson et al., 2004a; Olsson et al., 2004b; Folke et al., 2005, p.448; Dietz et al., 2003; Dehnhardt and Petschow, 2008, p.15) is a participatory/deliberate and integrated approach since it asks for multi-party and multi-issue involvement. The adaptive co-management approach employs management rules for institutions and for legislation and deals with measures that have the potential to cope with environmental problems that entail either competition for the same non-renewable resources or intrusion in the natural landscape. What is therefore new in adaptive co-management approach is the inclusion of the role of institutions and their functioning in dealing with co-management of resources in addition to the participation of actors and the input /openness to scientific discoveries. Institutional evolution and learning are addressed and exposed when analyzing and researching management of socio-ecological systems.

Summarizing, the management paradigms for socio-ecological systems evolved from controlling the context and mitigating anthropogenic activities (environmental management paradigm) towards a paradigm that is responsive to social context (see Figure 2).

2.3 Implications of management paradigms

Adaptive management is currently the dominant paradigm in socio-ecological systems management. It follows the doctrines of new institutionalists’ (North, 1990) as well as ecological economics’ writings (Vatn, 2005). The management practices derived by the current management paradigm mainly concern the institutionalization of resources, the protection of interests through institutions and the regulation of activities linked to environmental resources and rely on a sufficient function of institutions. However, this confidence in institutional capacity simmers the risk of the over-institutionalization of the socio-ecological system in such a way that decision makers get to think that the system can be engineered in every possible way. This however is supported by the microeconomics’ thinking applied in ecosystems, that positions ecosystems as sources of services that need to be regulated and managed with market mechanisms so as to satisfy conflicting interests and needs of social actors and asks for institutional arrangements to support and legitimize the mechanisms that regulate such ecosystems services (Costanza, 2000; Pretty and Ward, 2001; Faber et al., 2002). This modernistic approach is challenged when coping with the complexity present in socio-ecological systems (Scott, 1989; Healey, 2006).

Our arguments here do not state that institutions are not important or that we need to avoid institutional processes and functions. We recognize the value of institutions and the necessity of their functions . What we note is that over-institutionalization and the adoption of a modernistic approach of an “engineered” system (Scott, 1989) pose some risks for socio-ecological systems.

First, in an over-institutionalized system, the stringent focus on safeguarding societal demands results in neglecting the inherent dynamics of the system. When societal dynamics dominate in the form of institutionalization of practices and resources, ecological dynamics are eliminated. More specifically, what is observed in such institutionalized systems is that ecosystem responses that do not fit in the predicted behavior -as given in standards and laws- are called “ecological surprises”. Even the label of this phenomenon – surprise- shows that ecosystem dynamics are neglected even though always present (see the case of the Elbe estuary dynamics and how they are perceived as “surprises” within the coastal policy arena in the research findings of Gerrits, 2008).

Ecological system dynamics can be taken into account partially by involving actors knowledgeable and experienced with the system function e.g. farmers know how to drain and manage the land in case of excess water surge in riparian areas. The knowledge and insights of those actors however is valuable and reflects the “memory of the system” before engineering the system irreversibly. Scott (1989) addressed that local knowledge needs to be capitalized by decision makers. Concluding, two main points need to be addressed: (a) over-institutionalization that does not give space for ecological dynamics may prove inefficient in dealing with socio-ecological systems complexity, and (b) local knowledge needs to be incorporated since local actors are carriers of the memory of the system (that includes ecosystem’s dynamics) and reflect the context particularities constituting critical aspects for the success of the management practices.

Second, the trust in institutional capacity may lead to the adoption of practices that show the potential to deal with problems in an environment of controlled conditions (as the one created by institutions) but is damaging for the environment since ecosystem dynamics are not included. What asks our attention is the contextuality of socio-ecological systems. A practice that has proven successful in a context needs to be modified so as to comply with the characteristics of the destination context. An example for such context particularities comes from fisheries management where the adoption of quotas has been successful in Canada and in the United States (see the California Sacramento case as reviewed by Repetto, 2006) but its application is questionable for developing countries in Africa.

Third, the adoption of adaptive management as a paradigm to cope with socio-ecological system’s pathologies requires a nest of well organized and coordinated institutions to support, regulate and monitor the system following the management scheme. This actually means that a stand-alone institution to deal with the socio-ecological system presupposes an institutional structure to corroborate its operation. This however, is not the case in countries with infant institutional structures or with fragmented institutional settings. The absence of an orchestrated institutional network makes unlikely the success of adaptive management practices.

Four, the existence of a well-organized and coordinated network of institutions hosts a dilemma: it enables the adoption of adaptive management paradigm practices but it evens out innovation. More specifically, a well-organized institutional structure may put pressure on keeping up with the standardized procedures and does not allow diversification in practices that might be the cradle for change in the institutional landscape. Take for example, the water boards for water resources management at local level in the Netherlands that comprised an exemplar for local level governance and supported political interventions for further decentralizations in other sectors as well.

Following those prevailing characteristics of over-institutionalization, a first step towards system’ change includes the restructuring of institutions. The nature of institutions and their function can be changed and that may lead to changes in the physical landscape of the engineered rivers. It is recognized that ecosystems dynamics need to be included in the management practices without adopting a retrospective view on management practices. What we propose here is that the management paradigm needs to include more sound ecosystem-related practices that agree with societal needs and innovations so as to maintain a balanced inter-dependence of social and ecosystem subsystems.

3. Towards a new management paradigm in river basin management
The proposed socio-ecological system management paradigm builds-upon the lessons learned from the application of adaptive management paradigm principles and updates it by taking a transition management perspective. Transition management provides the management principles and practices so as to explicitly and actively involve pioneers from different societal settings to pull the system towards a new vision (Loorbach, 2007). Process management practices -or “soft measures” as Pahl-Wostl et al., (2008) noted- aiming at arranging institutions towards “being adaptive to emergent innovations” (Van der Brugge and Rotmans, 2007, p.261) and reflexive to societal changes. More specifically, transition management contributes with the concepts of dynamics of the system (where both societal and ecosystem’s change are taken into account), of transition pioneers or agents of change and of experimentation in societal niches for detecting and breeding change of societal values (Van der Brugge and Rotmans, 2007; Loorbach, 2007; Van der Brugge and van Raak, 2007).

The new management paradigm requires a new design and function of institutions -that will allow the system to remain flexible and receptive to its changing context conditions. Transition management is chosen as a theoretical basis for steering institutions towards an inclusive reflexive modus operandi (see also Frantzeskaki et al., 2008). Concerning the inclusiveness of institutions, we take into account that participation of a divergent group of actors is required for effective water management (see Pahl-Wostl et al., 2008; Videira et al., 2007; Margerum and Whitall, 2004). However, we take a step further into forming the conditions for the participation of those actors that practice innovative ideas in water management so as to allow variety of ideas and modes of management as well as into including guidelines from project planning experiences for design of feasible water management projects.

4. A transition management perspective on river basin management
In this section, we propose a working list of policy and project guidelines that operationalize the previously discussed and presented theoretical propositions of the management paradigm. In order to incorporate the dynamics of socio-ecological systems, we opt for reflexivity and integration. For incorporating transition pioneers and agents of change, we opt for inclusiveness and for experimenting for detecting and breeding change in societal values, we opt for adaptiveness.

Here we tentatively translate what reflexive and inclusive institutional setting means in the form of institutional arrangements and practices.

• For the establishment of reflexive institutions:
(a) Integrate monitoring and evaluation of environmental policies in the policy design cycle not as the last and the least step of the policy cycle but as part of the starting steps. In this way experience and lessons learnt from previous policy cycles will be capitalized from decision makers.
(b) Ensure/ apply frequent adjustment of policy measures for socio-ecological systems. In this way, the societal system will remain adaptive to ecosystem dynamics and avoid surprises. For an adaptive policy of socio-ecological systems, openness to early scientific findings is essential. This comes in line with the precautionary principle of environmental planning (Dorman, 2005). Two examples illustrate the importance of the openness and receptiveness to scientific findings: the policy process concerning the deepening of the Elbe River and the complexity to manage riverbed sediment when scientific findings contradicted management predictions (Gerrits, 2008) and the revealing of the importance of wetland’s functions and services in Everglades that was used as an input for environmental policies. But scientific information is only one of the inputs that are required for the system to remain adaptive. Integration of social needs that are not static over the years is also required. This can be achieved in two ways: ensure openness in actors’ participation and maintain adjustment more frequent according to social needs than the policy cycle.

• For the establishment of inclusive institutions:
(c) Deliberate institutions so as to allow for bottom-up organization of socio-ecological systems that will include all the actors and not only the leaders of political communities. This builds on and extends the institutional design principles of collaborative planning (Healey, 2006, p.288-289) that refer to “inclusion of all members of political communities” (…) and to the suggestion to remain “continually and openly accountable, making available to relevant political communities the arguments, the information, the consideration of stakeholders’ concerns, the images and metaphors which lie behind decisions”. More specifically, the openness and invitation for participation of different types of actors with diverse interests and stakes will allow representation of multiple interests and eliminate impairment of interests by delegates. The lessons learned from the Basel case back this policy implication. In the Basel case, the university was blamed for wearing the “environmentalist’s suit” and thus not being ‘objective’, which they felt they had to advocate since there was no ‘real’ environmental actor present. That resulted in the loss of power in the policy arena for the university (see Box 1).

Box 1: Mixed policy suits - Lessons from the Wiese case, Basel, Switzerland.
The Wiese is a tributary of the Rhine River, flowing from Germany via Switzerland into the Rhine. Near Basel in Switzerland ground water is being extracted from the floodplains for drinking water. To refill the ground water, water from the Rhine is used instead of water from the Wiese, which was historically highly contaminated. Within the MGU F2.00-project (Mensch-Geselschaft-Umwelt) the University of Basel proposed to replace the Rhine water with the improved native Wiese water to further reduce transportation costs and moreover to restore the natural character of the floodplains. Experimentation showed that positive ecological results and there was no significant impact on the drinking water production (Wüthrich et al., 2001). However, the drinking water producer decided not to continue the project since upstream waste water treatment plants kept the risk of contamination too high. In addition, the existing system was considered adequate since it is relatively environmentally friendly, reliable and cheap. In contrast, the university would have liked to continue and even broaden the project because of additional benefits for environment, recreation and production. However, the relations between the university and the drinking water have been worsened during the project whereby the water producer blames the university for being an environmentalist with a hidden agenda instead of being an independent and neutral research organization, while the university blames the drinking water producer for being conservative and non-cooperative. Since environmental and recreational stakes were not represented by other actors, the university took over that role. For the drinking water producer who had the powerful resources (ownership, political support) this was a reason to stop the cooperation with the university.

(d) Arrange, allow and maintain the active participation of actors that are self-mobilized and initiate alternative action towards the treatment of the existing problems. In this way local initiatives amongst “a range and variety of stakeholders concerned with changes to local and urban environments” (Healey, 2006, p.288) will be included in the governance process. By taking into account the practices of those people, decision makers can integrate and design small-step solutions that reflect social needs. This might be more effective if combined with the following policy.
(e) Capitalize local knowledge and experience of local niches. More particularly, it is suggested to include actors from local communities in panels of project designs so as to enable transfer of knowledge (local expertise and tacit knowledge with engineering expertise) (Scott, 1989). For the testing of the acceptance and effectiveness of those adaptive small-scale policy measures pilot projects or transition experiments can be used (Kemp et al., 2007, p.4).

Institutions and management processes are inherently linked: institutions form the platform upon which practical contextual-based practices take place. The guiding principle here is not only to design the process to fulfill the condition but to leave space for adaptive variation of those processes and practices to the context. Based on this, we tentatively translate project paradigm into adaptive and integrative practices.

• For the establishment of adaptive project designs:
(a) Support the idea underpinning the project design but allow variation and selection. It is recommended to allow the core idea of the project design to “survive” while remaining alert and open to developments in the field and in similar cases, even if the design has been developed by an interdisciplinary team. In this way, the project design may be modified and adapted to recent developments and changes without shifting priorities and goals. The lessons learned from the Altenheim case back this policy implication. The integrated design made for the pilot in Polder Altenheim was relatively easily accepted and implemented and since considered successful used as a basis for the development of the whole policy program. However, during the implementation of the policy resistance grew due to changing societal values and preferences (see Box 2).

Box 2: Do you hear the voice of a society which changes? - Lessons from the Altenheim case, Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany (Vreugdenhil et al., 2008a).
In the Rhine section in Baden-Württemberg, the Integrated Rhine Program has been developed to increase flood defence levels mainly by reconnecting former floodplain areas to the main stream (Gewasserdirektion Südlicher Oberrhein/Hochrein, 1997). Since these areas have been disconnected for decades by dikes for flood defence and hydropower purposes, flora and fauna has developed. Re-using the former floodplains for floods would have a high impact on the existing ecology in the area (i.e. species would drown). In order to prevent this negative impact, areas need to be first restored as wetland areas, with associated native species that are not or less vulnerable for wet conditions. The conditions are changed by regularly (5-6 times per year) letting in small volumes of water such that species can adapt.
The first area which tested this approach is Polder Altenheim. The ecological results were considered positive with the re-establishment of species and improved water and soil quality in the floodplains. The development was positively received by the community, since it increased the quality of recreation and the neighboring town in general. After this ‘success’ it was decided to implement the strategy in all the floodplains, but so far only three of the thirteen areas have been implemented due to high societal resistance. The initial tests were in 1989 and the IRP was only approved in 1996. Possible explanations lie in the perceptions’ change of democracy (e.g. the public is more attached to and willing to participate in decision making of ‘their’ area) or limited communication between ‘experts’ and ‘stakeholders’ resulting in negative ideas about potential impacts (e.g. wet cellars, mosquitoes).

(b) Strategic anchoring of project design with dominant thinking. We suggest here that for an innovative project design to survive, it needs to be strategically positioned in the broad context of policy developments. For example, when proposing an innovation, it is advised to either link with dominant goals (e.g. projects focusing only nature development are very unlikely to be implemented on a large scale, see the ontpoldering cases in Zeeland or Armenous development case, Box 3) or to anchor with other projects for which a sense of urgency exist (e.g. flood defense projects).

Box 3: One net with three anchors – The Armenous development plan, Crete, Greece (Tsoutsos et al., 2008).
The management of water resources and energy projects were anchored to the high-priority goal of sustainable tourism development of the Armenous community as set by the local authorities. First, a plan for the water resources management of the Koiliaris river was linked to the development plan of the region. A study for the Koiliaris river basin was conducted by the Technical University of Crete in 2002-2003 and monitoring stations and an observation station were placed. The next step included the energy planning of the community and was initiated in 2006 when the Municipality of Armenous joined the Rerina project that consulted and facilitated the sustainable energy planning process of the region. The energy planning was not only anchored to the sustainable tourism development but also to the Koiliaris river basin protection.

• For the establishment of integrative project designs:
The full integration and compliance of river basin management with spatial planning requires a new socio-ecological systems management paradigm or as it is stated in Howe and White (2004, p.422) “new forms of governance”. We present project guidelines for achieving these integrative project designs.

(c) Enable and strive for integration of spatial and water management project designs by sustaining issue openness and/or having a multi-issue focus that enables package deals that might satisfy both river basin management and spatial planning goals.
(d) Ensure fitness of scales in space and in time by coupling specific projects with temporary or adapted institutional arrangements (Vreugdenhil et al., 2008b) and/or assignment of tasks to institutions of the same scale with the project so as to avoid spatial misfit (Borowski et al., 2008). For example, by arranging issue-specific working groups or project bureaus, the fitness of the project in time and in space may be achieved.
(e) Discipline integration for project integration. Given the interdisciplinary nature of project designs, it is important to sustain a bridging of disciplines involved so as to better integrate the project design to the socio-ecological system. The messages move across disciplinary boundaries from actors that may belong to different disciplines but understand “each world” and have the ability to transfer the message and knowledge across. These policy brokers (Sabatier, 1988) function as message carriers and bridge different disciplines and need to be investigated and mobilized for successful project integration.

5. Do we need a new management paradigm in river basin management?
The existing management paradigms offer a solid basis for deriving policy and project planning guidelines for managing socio-ecological systems. The adaptive management paradigm is interested in the processes that need to be in place for managing and involving actors and knowledge and suggests market mechanisms as the alternative to insufficient command-and-control practices. We recognize the strengths and the managerial advantages of this approach since it is proactive and deliberative in practice. However, we point at two aspects that require our attention: the tendency to over-institutionalization of socio-ecological systems (and the risks arising from it) and the neglected changing dynamics of both social and ecological subsystems.

What we suggest is to build-upon the lessons learned from the application of adaptive management paradigm principles. A new paradigm for water management and for river basin management in particular will overlap in a great degree with the existing one; thus we suggest extending the current management paradigm by taking a transition management approach into account (Van der Brugge and van Raak, 2007). In this way, socio-ecological system dynamics will be taken into consideration when designing institutional functions, policies and projects; that will in turn lead to sustaining socio-ecological system health. Implications for improvement of institutional functions include guidelines towards inclusive reflexive institutions and implications for project and planning development include guidelines for adaptive and integrative project design processes. Those institutional and project betterment guidelines are derived having in mind that we need to put more effort for acquiring sustainability of socio-ecological systems.

When designing the next steps though, we need to capitalize on the lessons learned so as to ease and improve the processes. The experiences with adaptive management paradigm methods revealed that social learning as an outcome of a well-designed process is an important outcome that enables trust building and allows embedding of the engineering processes in the societal context (see Pahl-Wostl et al., 2008). An investigation of the role of learning processes in the new management paradigm for achieving socio-ecological health is an issue for our future research on sustainability of socio-ecological systems.

Acknowledgements
This research has been conducted with the support of the KSI II.2 Research Subprogram “The dynamics of transitions” (www.ksinetwork.nl), the Water Research Centre Delft, the Multi-Actor Systems research at Delft University of Technology and the EU Interreg IIIb ‘Freude am Fluss’ project.

References
Berkes, F., Folke, C., 1998. Linking social and ecological systems: Management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge University Press.
Borowski, I., Bourhis, J.P.L., Pahl-Wostl, C., Barraque, B., (2008), Spatial misfit in participatory river basin management: Effects on Social learning, a comparative analysis of German and French case studies. Ecology and Society, 13(1):Article 7.
Burkhard, B., F. Muller, F., 2008. Indicating ecosystem health and integrity. In: Dehnhardt, A., Petschow, U., (Eds.), Sustainability in river basins: A question of governance. Institute for Ecological Economy Research. OEKOM, Munich.
Carlsson, L., Berkes, F., 2005. Co-management: concepts and methodological implications. Journal of Environmental Management, 75:65-76.
Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Anderies, J.M., Abel, N., 2001. From metaphor to measurement: Resilience of what to what? Ecosystems, 4:765-781.
Costanza, R., 1998. The value of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 25(1):139.
Costanza, R., 2000. Social goals and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecosystems, 3:4–10.
Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Naeem, S., Limburg, K., Paruelo, J., O’Neill, R.V., Raskin, R., Sutton, P., van den Belt, M., 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387:253–260.
Dehnhardt, A., Petschow, U., (Eds.), 2008. Sustainability in river basins: A question of governance. Institute for Ecological Economy Research. OEKOM, Munich.
Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., Stern, P.C., 2003. The struggle to govern the commons. Science, 302:1907-1911.
Dorman, P., 2005. Evolving knowledge and the precautionary principle. Ecological Economics, 53:169-176.
Douglas, M., 1986. How institutions think. Syracuse University Press.
Dryzek, J.S., 2005. The politics of the Earth: Environmental discourses. Oxford University Press.
Faber, S.C., Costanza, R., Wilson, M.A., 2002. Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 41:375–392.
Frantzeskaki, N., van Daalen, E., Slinger, J.H., 2008. Detecting and directing socio-ecological transitions: A transitions management approach, International Society of Ecological Economics. Paper for the 8th International Conference ISEE 2008 Nairobi: Applying Ecological Economics for social and environmental sustainability, Nairobi, Kenya 7-11 August.
Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., Norberg, J., 2005. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Rev.Environ.Resources, 30:441-473.
Gerrits, L.M., 2008. The gentle art of co-evolution: A complexity theory perspective on decision making over estuaries in Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands. PhD Thesis, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Gewasserdirektion Sudlicher Oberrhein/Hochrhein, 1997. The Integrated Rhine Programm: Flood control and restoration of former flood plains on the Upper Rhine. G. Klaiber, Pharr, U., Kuhn, S. Lahr (D), State of Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany.
Giddens, A., 1984. The constitution of society. Polity Press.
Hamouda, L., Hipel, K.W., Kilgour, D.M., The, J.L., 2004. Adaptive management of salmon aquaculture in British Columbia. Paper for the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, The Hague, The Netherlands, pp.5031-5037, 10-13 October.
Healey, P., 2006. Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. Second Edition, Palgrave MacMillan.
Holling, C.S., 2001. Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological and social systems. Ecosystems, 4:390-405.
Howe, J., White, I., 2004. Like a fish out of the water: the relationship between planning and flood risk management in the UK. Planning, Practice and Research, 19:415-425.
Imperial, M.T., 1999. Institutional analysis and ecosystem-based management: The Institutional analysis and development framework. Environmental management, 24(4):449-465.
Imperial, M.T., 2005. Using Collaboration as a Governance Strategy: Lessons From Six Watershed Management Programs. Administration &Society, 37:281- 320.
Kemp, R., Loorbach, D., Rotmans, J., 2007. Transition management as a model for managing processes of co-evolution towards sustainable development. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 14:1-15.
Kidd, S., Shaw, D., 2007. Integrated water resource management and institutional integration: realizing the potential of spatial planning in England. The geographical journal, 173(4):312-329.
Kuhn, T.S., 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Second Edition. University of Chicago Press.
Lawrence, T. B., Hardy, C., Phillips, N., 2002. Institutional effects of interorganizational collaboration: The emergence of proto-institutions. Academy of Management Journal, 45:281-290.
Lee, K., 1993. Compass and gyroscope: Integrating science and politics for the environment. Island Press, Washington DC.
Loorbach, D., 2007. Transition management: New mode of governance for sustainable development. PhD Thesis. Erasmus University Rotterdam, International Books.
Margerum, R.D., Whitall, D., 2004. The Challenges and implications of collaborative management on a river basin scale. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 47(3):407-427.
Mitchell, B. (Eds.), 1990. Integrated Water Management: International experiences and perspectives. Belhaven Press, London.
North, D.C., 1990. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press, Campridge.
Olsson, P., Folke, C., Hahn, T., 2004a. Social-ecological transformation fro ecosystem management: the development of adaptive co-management of a wetland landscape in Southern Sweden. Ecology and Society, 9(4):Article 2.
Olsson, P., Folke, C., Berkes, F., 2004b. Adaptive co-management for building resilience in social-ecological systems. Environmental Management, 34(1):75-90.
Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Pahl-Worst, C., 2007. Transitions towards adaptive management of water facing climate and global change. Water Resources Management, 21:49-62.
Pahl-Worst, C., Tabara, D., Bowen, R., Craps, M., Dewulf, A., Mostert, E., Riffer, D., Taillieu, T., 2008. The importance of social learning and culture for sustainable water management. Ecological Economics, 64:484-495.
Pretty, J., Ward, H., 2001. Social capital and the environment. World Development, 29(2):209-227.
Repetto, R. (Eds.), 2006. Punctuated equilibrium and the dynamics of U.S. Environmental Policy. Yale University Press, New Haven and London.
Sabatier, P., 1988. An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 22:129-168.
Scott, J. C., 1989. Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. Yale University Press.
Singh, S.J., Grunbuhel, C.M., Schandl, H., Schulz, N., 2001. Social metabolism and labour in a local context: Changing environmental relations on Trinket Island. Population and Environment, 23(1):71-104.
Seidl, I., Tisdell, C.A., 1999. Carrying capacity reconsidered: from Malthus’ population theory to cultural carrying capacity. Ecological economics, 31:395-408.
Tsoutsos, T., Coroyannakis, P., and Petroula, D., 2008. Sustainable Energy Communities: A practical guide for insular and ecologically sensitive areas. RERINA project, Intelligent Energy Europe, ISBN 978-960-8475-11-3.
Vatn, A., 2005. Institutions and the environment. Edward Elgar.
Van der Brugge, R., Rotmans, J., 2007. Towards transition management of European water Resources. Water Resources Management, 21:249-269.
Van der Brugge, R., van Raak, R., 2007. Facing the adaptive management challenge: Insights from transition management. Ecology and Society, 12(2):Article 33.
Videira, N., Antunes, P., Santos, R., Lobo, G., 2006. Public and stakeholder participation in European Water Policy: a Critical review of project evaluation processes. European Environment, 16:19-31.
Vreugdenhil, H.S.I., Slinger, JH., Smits, A., Kater, E., 2008a. Impacts of governance styles on river restoration in NW Europe. Paper for the conference of the International Association of Impact Assessments. Perth, Australia, 4-11 May.
Vreugdenhil, H.S.I., Slinger, JH., Smits, A., Kater, E., 2008b. Tensions bows as a tool to assess the impacts of institutional change: an example from Dutch floodplain management. Paper for the conference of the International Association of Impact Assessments, Perth, Australia, 4-11 May.
Westra, L. 2003. The ethics of ecological integrity and ecosystem health: the Interface. In: Rapport, D.J., (Eds.), Managing for healthy ecosystems. Boca Raton, London, New York, Washington DC.
Wüthrich, C., Geissbühler, U. and Rüetschi, D.,2001. Revitalisierung und Trinkwasserschutz in der dicht genutzten Wiese-Ebene. Feuchtgebiete als Reinigungsstufe. Regio Basiliensis 42 (1): 97-116 (in German).