Water Managers’ Boundary Judgments and Adaptive Water Governance. An Analysis of the Dutch Haringvliet Sluices Case

In this paper, we explore how managing actors’ boundary judgments influence the adaptability of water governance. We approach this question by examining the relationship between the way water managers frame, and act in, complex water issues on the one hand and develop adaptive water governance strategies on the other. We define four categories of boundary judgments made by water managers in order to deal with the complexities in water governance issues. An in-depth case study analysis of an attempt to adjust the management of the water regime in the south-west Delta of the Netherlands is provided in order to reconstruct the water managers’ boundary judgments and their impact upon governance strategies used. We found that, most of the time, the water managers involved predominantly made tight boundary judgments. These tight boundary judgments seemed to hamper the mutual learning process among a variety of stakeholders that is needed to realize adaptive water governance. We argue that wide boundary judgments enhance the chance of realizing adaptive practices and build upon exploration, learning, and connection.

[1]  C. Folke,et al.  Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience , 1998 .

[2]  C Pahl-Wostl,et al.  Integrated management of natural resources: dealing with ambiguous issues, multiple actors and diverging frames. , 2005, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[3]  Tim Beardsley,et al.  Shooting the Rapids , 1994 .

[4]  R. Flood,et al.  Rethinking the Fifth Discipline: Learning Within the Unknowable , 1999 .

[5]  Erik Mostert,et al.  Integrated Water Resources Management in The Netherlands: How Concepts Function , 2009 .

[6]  Claudia Pahl-Wostl,et al.  Maturing the New Water Management Paradigm: Progressing from Aspiration to Practice , 2011 .

[7]  Michael X Cohen,et al.  Harnessing Complexity: Organizational Implications of a Scientific Frontier , 2000 .

[8]  R. Stake.  The art of case study research , 1995 .

[9]  J. Norberg,et al.  ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE OF SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS , 2005 .

[10]  B. McKelvey,et al.  Complexity Leadership Theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era ! , 2007 .

[11]  Brian S. McIntosh,et al.  Synthesis, part of a Special Feature on New Methods for Adaptive Water Management From Premise to Practice: a Critical Assessment of Integrated Water Resources Management and Adaptive Management Approaches in the Water Sector , 2008 .

[12]  Catrien J.A.M. Termeer,et al.  Managing Perceptions in Networks , 1997 .

[13]  Cornelis Disco,et al.  Remaking “Nature”: The Ecological Turn in Dutch Water Management , 2002 .

[14]  J. A. de Bruijn,et al.  Process management , 2002 .

[15]  Jurian Edelenbos,et al.  Symposium on water governance. Prologue: water governance as a government’s actions between the reality of fragmentation and the need for integration , 2011 .

[16]  Jos G. Timmerman,et al.  Assessing Management Regimes in Transboundary River Basins: Do They Support Adaptive Management? , 2008 .

[17]  J. Edelenbos,et al.  Connective Capacities of Network Managers , 2013 .

[18]  H. De Bruijn,et al.  Process Management: Why Project Management Fails in Complex Decision Making Processes , 2005 .

[19]  C. S. Holling,et al.  Insight, part of a Special Feature on Exploring Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems Shooting the Rapids: Navigating Transitions to Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems , 2006 .

[20]  Jeroen C. J. H. Aerts,et al.  Research, part of a Special Feature on New Methods for Adaptive Water Management Managing Change toward Adaptive Water Management through Social Learning , 2007 .

[21]  G. Velde,et al.  Ecosystem responses in the Rhine-Meuse delta during two decades after enclosure and steps toward estuary restoration , 1997 .

[22]  Dennis Duchon,et al.  Organizational responses to complexity: the effect on organizational performance , 2000 .

[23]  Frank Boons,et al.  Transition through subsystem innovation? The case of traffic management , 2010 .

[24]  Claudia Pahl-Wostl,et al.  Adaptive Water Governance: Assessing the Institutional Prescriptions of Adaptive (Co-)Management from a Governance Perspective and Defining a Research Agenda , 2009 .

[25]  John W. Kingdon.  Agendas, alternatives, and public policies , 1984 .

[26]  Timothy J. Foxon,et al.  Governing long-term social–ecological change: what can the adaptive management and transition management approaches learn from each other? , 2009 .

[27]  Lasse Gerrits,et al.  The complexity of self-organization:: boundary judgments in traffic management , 2009 .

[28]  H. Maibom.  Social Systems , 2007 .

[29]  Lasse Gerrits,et al.  Managing complex governance systems: dynamics, self-organization and coevolution in public investments , 2009 .

[30]  Claudia Pahl-Wostl,et al.  Social learning: the key to integrated water resources management? , 2008 .

[31]  Joop Koppenjan,et al.  Managing Complex Networks: Strategies for the Public Sector , 1997 .

[32]  Werner Ulrich,et al.  Critical heuristics of social systems design , 1987 .

[33]  E. Klijn,et al.  Managing Uncertainties in Networks a Network Approach to Problem Solving and Decision Making , 2004 .

[34]  J. Edelenbos,et al.  Managing Stakeholder Involvement in Decision Making: A Comparative Analysis of Six Interactive Processes in the Netherlands , 2006 .