Boundary work for implementing adaptive management: A water sector application.

Boundary work, defined as effort to mediate between knowledge and action, is a promising approach for facilitating knowledge co-production for sustainable development. Here, we investigate a case study of knowledge co-production, to assess the applicability of boundary work as a conceptual framework to support implementing adaptive management in the water sector. We refer to a boundary work classification recently proposed by Clark et al., (2016), based on three types of knowledge uses, i.e. enlightenment, decision-, and negotiation-support, and three types of sources, i.e. personal expertise, single, and multiple communities of expertise. Our empirical results confirm boundary work has been crucial for the three types of knowledge use. For enlightenment and decision-support, effective interaction among knowledge producers and users was achieved through diverse boundary work practices, including joint agenda setting, and sharing of data and expertise. This initial boundary work eased subsequent knowledge co-production for decision-support and negotiations, in combination with stepping up of cooperation between relevant actors, suitable legislation and pressure for problem solving. Our analysis highlighted the temporal dimension matters - building trust around enlightenment first, and then using this as a basis for managing knowledge co-production for decision-, and negotiation support. We reconfirmed that boundary work is not a single time achievement, rather is a dynamic process, and we emphasized the importance of key actors driving the process, such as water utilities. Our results provide a rich case study of how strategic boundary work can facilitate knowledge co-production for adaptive management in the water sector. The boundary work practices employed here could also be transferred to other cases. Water utilities, as intermediaries between providers and beneficiaries of the important water-related ecosystem service of clean water provision, can indeed serve as key actors for initiating such boundary work practices.

[1]  R. Yin.  Case Study Research: Design and Methods , 1984 .

[2]  Beatrice Crona,et al.  On being all things to all people: Boundary organizations and the contemporary research university , 2012 .

[3]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  Theory Building From Cases: Opportunities And Challenges , 2007 .

[4]  Estelle Dominati,et al.  Natural capital and ecosystem services of soils. , 2013 .

[5]  P. Burger.  Embedded Case Study Methods: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Knowledge , 2001 .

[6]  M. Feldman,et al.  Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: From promise to practice , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[7]  B. Crona,et al.  Learning in Support of Governance: Theories, Methods, and a Framework to Assess How Bridging Organizations Contribute to Adaptive Resource Governance , 2012 .

[8]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  Institutional Ecology, `Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39 , 1989 .

[9]  Joost Vervoort,et al.  Participatory scenarios as a tool to link science and policy on food security under climate change in East Africa , 2013, Regional Environmental Change.

[10]  Hanna J. Cortner,et al.  Trends and issues in land and water resources management: Setting the agenda for change , 1994 .

[11]  C. Pahl-Wostl,et al.  Social Learning and Water Resources Management , 2007 .

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

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

[14]  J. Newig,et al.  Will participation foster the successful implementation of the water framework directive? The case of agricultural groundwater protection in northwest Germany , 2008 .

[15]  J. Newig,et al.  The Water Framework Directive and agricultural nitrate pollution: will great expectations in Brussels be dashed in Lower Saxony? , 2007 .

[16]  Christina V Haaren,et al.  Integrated landscape planning and remuneration of agri-environmental services. Results of a case study in the Fuhrberg region of Germany. , 2008, Journal of environmental management.

[17]  Christina von Haaren,et al.  Integrating ecosystem services and environmental planning: limitations and synergies , 2011 .

[18]  P. Gleick.  The changing water paradigm. A look at twenty-first century water resources development. , 2000 .

[19]  Blal Adem Esmail,et al.  Design and impact assessment of watershed investments: An approach based on ecosystem services and boundary work , 2017 .

[20]  P. Mollinga.  Boundary Work and the Complexity of Natural Resources Management , 2010 .

[21]  Simon A. Levin,et al.  Toward a Science of Sustainability: Report from Toward a Science of Sustainability Conference; Airlie Center ~ Warrenton, Virginia , 2010 .

[22]  R. Kates.  What kind of a science is sustainability science? , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[23]  Louis Lebel,et al.  Linking Knowledge and Action for Sustainable Development , 2006 .

[24]  Robert W. Kates,et al.  Sustainability and Sustainability Science , 2015 .

[25]  Heiko Gebauer,et al.  Market success of on-site treatment: a systemic innovation problem , 2013 .

[26]  T. Gieryn.  Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional , 1983 .

[27]  Sam Kayaga,et al.  Evaluating the Institutional Sustainability of an Urban Water Utility : A Conceptual Framework and Research Directions , 2013 .

[28]  William C. Clarka,et al.  Boundary Work for Sustainable Development : Natural Resource , 2011 .

[29]  A. Weale.  Embedded Case Study Methods: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Knowledge , 2003 .

[30]  P. Leroy,et al.  The Dutch Delta Committee as a boundary organisation , 2013 .

[31]  W. Clark,et al.  Boundary work for sustainable development: Natural resource management at the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[32]  C. Folke,et al.  Enhancing the Fit through Adaptive Co-management: Creating and Maintaining Bridging Functions for Matching Scales in the Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve, Sweden , 2007 .

[33]  Christina von Haaren,et al.  Social learning can benefit decision-making in landscape planning: Gartow case study on climate change adaptation, Elbe valley biosphere reserve , 2012 .

[34]  K. Zimmermann,et al.  ‘How Can We Explain Diversity in Metropolitan Governance within a Country?’ Some Reflections on Recent Developments in Germany , 2011 .

[35]  Fikret Berkes,et al.  Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. , 2009, Journal of environmental management.

[36]  R. Cowling,et al.  An operational model for mainstreaming ecosystem services for implementation , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[37]  C. Folke,et al.  Adaptive governance, ecosystem management, and natural capital , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[38]  A. Bryman.  Social Research Methods , 2001 .

[39]  B. Truffer,et al.  The impact of privatization on sustainability transitions: A comparative analysis of dynamic capabilities in three water utilities , 2015 .

[40]  David W. Cash,et al.  Knowledge systems for sustainable development , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[41]  Claudia Pahl-Wostl,et al.  The Growing Importance of Social Learning in Water Resources Management and Sustainability Science , 2008 .

[42]  Lekelia D. Jenkins,et al.  The role of bridging organizations in environmental management: Examining social networks in working groups , 2015 .

[43]  Other.  Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of The Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a Framework for Community Action in the Field of Water Policy (Water Framework Directive) , 2000 .