This article provides an evidence-based and policy-relevant contribution to understanding the phenomenon of policy learning and its structural constraints in the field of river basin management, in particular related to coping with current and future climatic hazards such as floods and droughts. This has been done by a formal comparative analysis of eight water management regimes, by using multi-value qualitative comparative analysis, focusing on the relationship between regime characteristics (as explanatory variables) and different levels of policy learning (as output value). This research has revealed the importance of the sociocognitive dimension, as an essential emerging property of complex adaptive governance systems. This socio-cognitive dimension depends on a specific set of structural conditions; in particular, better integrated cooperation structures in combination with advanced information management are the key factors leading towards higher levels of policy learning. Furthermore, this research highlights a number of significant positive correlations between different regime elements, thereby identifying a stabilizing mechanism in current management regimes, and this research also highlights the necessity of fine-tuning centralized control with bottom-up approaches.

Global sources of change offer unprecedented challenges to conventional river management strategies, which no longer appear capable of credibly addressing a trap: the failure of conventional river defense engineering to manage rising trends of disordering extreme events, including frequency and intensity of floods, droughts, and water stagnation in the Hungarian reaches of the Tisza River Basin. Extreme events punctuate trends of stagnation or decline in the ecosystems, economies, and societies of this river basin that extend back decades, and perhaps, centuries. These trends may be the long-term results of defensive strategies of the historical river management regime that reflect a paradigm dating back to the Industrial Revolution: "Protect the Landscape from the River." Since then all policies have defaulted to the imperatives of this paradigm such that it became the convention underlying the current river management regime. As an exponent of this convention the current river management regimes' methods, concepts, infrastructure, and paradigms that reinforce one another in setting the basin's development trajectory, have proven resilient to change from wars, political, and social upheaval for centuries. Failure to address the trap makes the current river management regime's resilience appear detrimental to the region's future development prospects and prompts demand for transformation to a more adaptive river management regime. Starting before transition to democracy, a shadow network has generated multiple dialogues in Hungary, informally exploring the roots of this trap as part of a search for ideas and methods to revitalize the region. We report on how international scientists joined one dialogue, applying system dynamics modeling tools to explore barriers and bridges to transformation of the current river management regime and develop the capacity for participatory science to expand the range of perspectives that inform, monitor, and revise learning, policy, and the practice of river management.

This paper describes a new gaming tool that allows players (e.g. water managers and farmers) to explore the consequences of their interactions in managing river floodplains. To facilitate the process of creating and testing new policies that would help to accommodate disordering events, e.g. floods, we developed a system dynamics model of floodplain agriculture that drives an interactive game. The Floodplain Management Game can be used as an educational resource, knowledge elicitation technique or transition management tool for agriculture and river management. The key feature is that it unites technical (problem-solving) and relational issues in one game. In multiple areas it has proven a useful tool for participants to experience the challenges of policy-making for managing rivers as well as for floodplain agriculture and for scientists to examine how stakeholders make decisions about such options.

No abstract