Managing water through change and uncertainty: comparing lessons from the adaptive co-management literature to recent policy developments in England

Whaley, Luke

doi:10.1080/09640568.2015.1090959

Cited by 9 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Prior literature from resilience (Berkes & Folke, 1994) to social‐ecological systems (Basurto et al, 2013; Karpouzoglou et al, 2016; Leslie et al, 2015; Ostrom, 2009), and adaptive management (Akamani, 2016; Holling, 1978; Karpouzoglou et al, 2016; Whaley & Weatherhead, 2016) acknowledges the difficulties of implementing natural resource governance actions and measuring related outcomes across multiple scales and sectors. Importantly, watershed data, governance levels, socio‐economic data, culturally grounded context (Sterling et al, 2017), and even disciplinary foci may be mismatched.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We also measured social dimensions of group processes as fundamental to decision‐making and governance effectiveness. We asked respondents' perceptions about the group's level of collaboration, as “adaptive management without collaboration lacks legitimacy” (Berkes, 2009, p. 1698), and to what extent groups could find common goals and employ common strategies especially in contexts of change and uncertainty (Whaley & Weatherhead, 2016). Most collaborative groups maintain political inclusivity to explore value and position differences of demographics, scales, and knowledge bases (Blackstock et al, 2012; Smedstad & Gosnell, 2013).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Relating social networks, ecological health, and reservoir basin governance

Trebitz

Wulfhorst

2020

River Research & Apps

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Columbia River Basin is a complex social‐ecological system, spanning political, legal, socio‐economic, geographic, and biophysical boundaries. Outreach to others in social networks develops fundamental communications needed for sustainable collaborations in adaptive management. However, operationalizing and comparing measures of social processes and outcome success in biophysical indicators remains challenging for resource managers. Using survey‐based research, we examined the interactions for water resource governance of five Columbia River reservoir basins in the northwestern US and Canada: Lakes Chelan, Roosevelt, Pend Oreille, Koocanusa, and člq'etkw (Flathead). Respondents included: water resource professionals working for Tribes/First Nations, federal, state, or provincial departments in water quality and/or fisheries, and people who engage in the networks on behalf of area businesses, government offices, public services, non‐profit organizations, and other entities. Perceived social process metrics in these governance networks included the levels of collaboration and inclusiveness, common goals, common strategies, identifying issues, implementing action, and the adequacy of available scientific data. We evaluated social measures relative to participant‐reported changes in physical lake health indicators. Qualitative data‐enhanced understanding of basin‐specific differences. Correlations of social by ecological measures varied widely between basins. Even moderate to strong functionality parameters did not scale well from individual to cross‐basin levels, as many correlations vanished with data aggregated. However, data analysis at the basin scale revealed important variability across the region in scope and governance functionality. Process indicators such as identifying issues and implementing action yielded stronger relationships for 10‐year horizons than for 2 years, reflecting the lag‐time in resource action.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relating social networks, ecological health, and reservoir basin governance

Trebitz

Wulfhorst

2020

River Research & Apps

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Referring to the different views of management presented in the article by Whaley & Weatherhead (2016), we can observe several of the mechanisms through which the process of co-management evolves, such as the setting up of flexible institutions that operate within and across scales of organization (creation of structures such as the GBO to make diagnoses for each sub-basin and to initiate actions with farmers), and the importance of social learning based on dialogue between scientists, managers, policymakers and farmers, whereby locally produced data serve to draw attention to and highlight the relationship between farming practices and nitrate pollution, and initiate action. Has monitoring surface-water status effectively given a signal to trigger action?…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality standards and monitoring as water management tools: the case of nitrogen in rivers in France and Brittany

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Water quality standards (QS) and river monitoring are widely accepted as preventive management strategies for the preservation of watercourses and at the same time they are criticized for imposing universal threshold values, leading to regulatory rather than voluntary action. Based on the example of nitrate, the article explains how QS applications are the result of national or regional negotiations, with no direct link to the scientific foundations underlying the development of these tools. These conflicting perceptions and how these tools are actually used are illustrated by the situation in Brittany. Here, the monitoring network and actions to prevent increasing nitrate concentrations in rivers form part of regional programs set up jointly by all the main stakeholders. However, while QS can act as an alarm signal, their effectiveness depends on local political support, which depends on the extent to which river quality is recognized as a key factor in regional development.

show abstract

“…While the practical experience is gradually growing, the field of expertise as a whole is still dominated by science focusing on, amongst others, the development of rational approaches for dealing with uncertainty (Wise et al 2014 ). Policymakers, politicians, and other decision-makers are increasingly interested in information on the practical applicability of these approaches and scientists do try to meet this demand (Bradfield et al 2016 ; Ben-Haim 2015 ; Convery and Wagner 2016 ; Derbyshire and Wright 2017 ; Dewulf and Termeer 2015 ; Kwakkel et al 2016 ; Lempert et al 2016 ; Lyons and Davidson 2016 ; Maier et al 2016 ; Whaley and Weatherhead 2016 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lessons learned from applying adaptation pathways in flood risk management and challenges for the further development of this approach

Bloemen

Reeder

Zevenbergen

et al. 2017

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Worldwide, an increase in flood damage is observed. Governments are looking for effective ways to protect lives, buildings, and infrastructure. At the same time, a large investment gap seems to exist—a big difference between what should necessarily be done to curb the increase in damage and what is actually being done. Decision-makers involved in climate adaptation are facing fundamental (so-called deep) uncertainties. In the course of time, the scientific community has developed a wide range of different approaches for dealing with these uncertainties. One of these approaches, adaptation pathways, is gaining traction as a way of framing and informing climate adaptation. But research shows that “very little work has been done to evaluate the current use of adaptation pathways and its utility to practitioners and decision makers” (Lin et al. 2017, p. 387). With this paper, the authors, as action researchers and practitioners involved in two of the world’s largest real-life applications of this approach in flood risk management, aim to contribute to filling in that gap. Analysis of the experience in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands in long-term planning in flood risk management shows that the adaptation pathways approach is effective in keeping decision processes going forward, to the final approval of a long-term plan, and helps increase awareness about uncertainties. It contributes to political support for keeping long-term options open and motivates decision-makers to modify their plans to better accommodate future conditions. When it comes to implementing the plans, there are still some major challenges, yet to be addressed, amongst others: the timely detection of tipping points in situations with large natural variability, the inclusion of measures that prepare for a switch to transformational strategies, and the retention of commitment of regional and local authorities, non government organizations, and the private sector, to climate adaptation as national policies move from blueprint planning to adaptive plans. In delivering this feedback, the authors hope to motivate the scientific community to take on these challenges.

show abstract

Managing water through change and uncertainty: comparing lessons from the adaptive co-management literature to recent policy developments in England

Cited by 9 publications

References 67 publications

Relating social networks, ecological health, and reservoir basin governance

Relating social networks, ecological health, and reservoir basin governance

Quality standards and monitoring as water management tools: the case of nitrogen in rivers in France and Brittany

Lessons learned from applying adaptation pathways in flood risk management and challenges for the further development of this approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About