Analyzing complex water governance regimes: the Management and Transition Framework

Pahl‐Wostl, Claudia; Holtz, Georg; Kastens, Britta; Knieper, Christian

doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2010.08.006

Cited by 361 publications

(211 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

206

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…They cannot exist only at the farm level but also at the levels of local supply chains and natural resource management institutions. Thus, implementing the agroecological transition requires considering and integrating interconnected processes and organisational levels in ecological systems, for example, from populations and communities to the landscape (Rabbinge and de Wit 1989), as well as in entire humantechnology-environment (or social-ecological) systems (Pahl-Wostl et al 2010). Due to the nature and level of necessary changes, the development of biodiversity-based agriculture cannot resort to simple incremental agronomic innovations such as increasing the efficiency of production factors.…”

Section: Challenges Of the Transition To Biodiversity-based Agricultumentioning

confidence: 99%

Designing agroecological transitions; A review

Duru

Thérond

Fares

2015

Agron. Sustain. Dev.

366

230

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Concerns about the negative impacts of productivist agriculture have led to the emergence of two forms of ecological modernisation of agriculture. The first, efficiency-substitution agriculture, aims to improve input use efficiency and to minimise environmental impacts of modern farming systems. It is currently the dominant modernisation pathway. The second, biodiversity-based agriculture, aims to develop ecosystem services provided by biological diversity. It currently exists only as a niche. Here we review challenges of implementing biodiversity-based agriculture: managing, at the local level, a consistent transition within and among farming systems, supply chains and natural resource management. We discuss the strengths and weaknesses of existing conceptual frameworks developed to analyse farming, socialecological and socio-technical systems. Then we present an integrative framework tailored for structuring analysis of agriculture from the perspective of developing a territorial biodiversity-based agriculture. In addition, we propose a participatory methodology to design this agroecological transition at the local level. This design methodology was developed to support a multi-stakeholder arena in analysing the current situation, identifying future exogenous changes and designing (1) targeted territorial biodiversity-based agriculture, (2) the pathway of the transition and (3) the required adaptive governance structures and management strategies. We conclude by analysing key challenges of designing such a complex transition, developing multi-actor and multidomain approaches based on a combination of scientific and experiential knowledge and on building suitable boundary objects (computer-based and conceptual models, indicators, etc.) to assess innovative systems designed by stakeholders.

show abstract

Section: Challenges Of the Transition To Biodiversity-based Agricultumentioning

confidence: 99%

Designing agroecological transitions; A review

Duru

Thérond

Fares

2015

Agron. Sustain. Dev.

366

230

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our reflection applies to practitioners who have already decided to begin the transition. Consequently, we do not deal with necessary changes in farmers' representations, beliefs, and values that involve the so-called second and third learning loops and the associated methods for their development (see Argyris and Schön 1992;Pahl-Wostl et al 2010). To address the three key questions, we first examine the main concepts, principles, and scientific approaches for biodiversity-based agriculture from both the agricultural and ecological literature (Section 2).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It requires site-, space-, and time-specific agricultural practices and production systems (Godfray et al 2010;Koohafkan et al 2011;Power 2010). It requires considering and integrating interconnected processes and organization levels in ecological systems, from, e.g., populations and communities to the landscape (Rabbinge and de Wit 1989), as well as in entire human-technologyenvironment (or social-ecological) systems (Pahl-Wostl et al 2010). Thus, the development of biodiversity-based agriculture most often requires redesigning (R) farming systems (Hill 1998).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to implement biodiversity-based agriculture to enhance ecosystem services: a review

Duru

Thérond

Martin

et al. 2015

Agron. Sustain. Dev.

460

283

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intensive agriculture has led to several drawbacks such as biodiversity loss, climate change, erosion, and pollution of air and water. A potential solution is to implement management practices that increase the level of provision of ecosystem services such as soil fertility and biological regulation. There is a lot of literature on the principles of agroecology. However, there is a gap of knowledge between agroecological principles and practical applications. Therefore, we review here agroecological and management sciences to identify two facts that explain the lack of practical applications: (1) the occurrence of high uncertainties about relations between agricultural practices, ecological processes, and ecosystem services, and (2) the site-specific character of agroecological practices required to deliver expected ecosystem services. We also show that an adaptive-management approach, focusing on planning and monitoring, can serve as a framework for developing and implementing learning tools tailored for biodiversity-based agriculture. Among the current learning tools developed by researchers, we identify two main types of emergent support tools likely to help design diversified farming systems and landscapes: (1) knowledge bases containing scientific supports and experiential knowledge and (2) model-based games. These tools have to be coupled with well-tailored field or management indicators that allow monitoring effects of practices on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Finally, we propose a research agenda that requires bringing together contributions from agricultural, ecological, management, and knowledge management sciences, and asserts that researchers have to take the position of "integration and implementation sciences."

show abstract

“…Achieving normative legitimacy is key to TM because how stakeholders frame the problems, processes and solutions affecting socio-technical systems affects the role of knowledge within them (Meadowcroft, 2007;Loorbach 2010;Smith and Stirling 2010;Voß and Bornemann 2011). In water management, the highly interconnected nature of water across different levels of government, social customs and legal histories further complicates transitions due to the number and nature of participants affected by changes (Pahl-Wostl et al 2010;Pahl-Wostl et al 2011). Olsson et al (2006) point out that complicated scenarios are often aided by "shadow networks," such as civil society partnerships, that have evolved outside of formal arrangements in ways that can provide valuable institutional models, and alternate sources of legitimacy, during transitions.…”

Section: Wostl 2002; Priscoli 2004)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Water Management and the Procedural Turn: Norms and Transitions in Alberta

Schmidt

2014

Water Resour Manage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Analyzing complex water governance regimes: the Management and Transition Framework

Cited by 361 publications

References 22 publications

Designing agroecological transitions; A review

Designing agroecological transitions; A review

How to implement biodiversity-based agriculture to enhance ecosystem services: a review

Water Management and the Procedural Turn: Norms and Transitions in Alberta

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About