P. Vugteveen

Redefinition and elaboration of river ecosystem health : perspective for river management

This paper critically reviews developments in the conceptualization and elaboration of the River Ecosystem Health (REH) concept. Analysis of literature shows there is still no consistent meaning of the central concept Ecosystem Health, resulting in models (i.e. elaborations) that have unclear and insufficient conceptual grounds. Furthermore, a diverse terminology is associated with describing REH, resulting in confusion with other concepts. However, if the concept is to have merit and longevity in the field of river research and management, unambiguous definition of the conceptual meaning and operational domain are required. Therefore a redefinition is proposed, based on identified characteristics of health and derived from considering semantic and conceptual definitions. Based on this definition, REH has merit in a broader context of river system health that considers societal functioning next to ecological functioning. Assessment of health needs integration of measures of multiple, complementary attributes and analysis in a synthesized way. An assessment framework is proposed that assesses REH top-down as well as bottom up by combining indicators of system stress responses (i.e. condition) with indicators identifying the causative stress (i.e. stressor). The scope of REH is covered by using indicators of system activity, metabolism (vigour), resilience, structure and interactions between system components (organization). The variety of stress effects that the system may endure are covered by using biotic, chemical as well as physical stressors. Besides having a unique meaning, the REH metaphor has added value to river management by being able to mobilize scientists, practitioners and publics and seeing relationships at the level of values. It places humans at the centre of the river ecosystem, while seeking to ensure the durability of the ecosystem of which they are an integral part. Optimization of the indicator set, development of aggregation and classification methodologies, and implementation of the concept within differing international frames are considered main aims for future research.

Stakeholder value orientations in water management

Current water management issues are characterized by factual uncertainty, relating to limits of scientific knowledge, and value uncertainty, relating to the policy process of making subjective choices. Developing and informing approaches for integrated water management (IWM) requires bringing facts and values together. This study examines the way value orientations differentiate themselves among IWM stakeholders and assesses implications for the scientific support and policy context of integrated approaches. Using Q-methodology, we identify five orientations that represent characteristically different ways of valuing water systems and their management by stakeholders in terms of cognitive, ethical, and affective value priorities. The findings indicate that scientific support to substantiate IWM needs to be extended to include social sciences and that preferences regarding the outcome of policy strategies may differ between stakeholders due to divergent orientations. Decision makers can benefit from the understanding of different value orientations to resolve conflicts, develop planning scenarios, and build consensus.

Developing social-ecological system indicators using group model building

In many coastal regions, activities of multiple users present a growing strain on the ecological state of the area. The necessity of using integrative system approaches to understand and solve coastal problems has become obvious in the last decades. Integrated management strategies for social-ecological systems (SESs) call for the development of SES indicators that help (i) to identify and link the states and processes of social, economic and ecological subsystems and (ii) to balance different stakeholder objectives over the long-term within natural limits. Here we use a system dynamics modeling approach called group model building (GMB) as a diagnostic participative tool for understanding the determinants of characteristic SES issues in the Dutch Wadden Sea region and exploring salient SES indicators for management. We used GMB in two separate workshops for two distinct cases: sustainable mussel fisheries and tourism development. Follow-up online questionnaires elicited relevant variables for deriving SES indicators. In both modeling cases participants identified and connected the variables that expressed fundamental SES dynamics driving each issue. In the mussel fisheries model the central part of the structure was the interaction between the model variables ‘extent of mussel habitat with high natural value’, ‘mussel cultivation efficiency’, and ‘market supply’. In the tourism model a key driving force for explaining tourist development was the reciprocal relation between the model variables ‘natural value’, ‘experience value’, and ‘number of tourists’. Application of GMB revealed SES issue complexity and explicitly identified key linkages and potential SES indicators for policy and management in the Dutch Wadden Sea area. As a tool for stakeholder involvement in integrated coastal management the approach enables the joint building of system understanding and the exchange of individual perspectives. Participants agreed with the jointly created models and highly appreciated the way the structured approach facilitated communication and learning about complex and contested issues.

The dynamics of interdisciplinary research fields: the case of river research

Interdisciplinarity results from dynamics at two levels. Firstly, research questions are approached using inputs from a variety of disciplinary fields. Secondly, the results of this multidisciplinary research feed back into the various research fields. This may either contribute to the further development of these fields, or may lead to disciplinary reconfiguration. If the latter is the case, a new interdisciplinary field may emerge. Following this perspective, the scientific landscape of river research and river science is mapped to assess to which current river research is a multi-disciplinary endeavor, and to which extent it results in a new emerging (inter)disciplinary field of river science. The paper suggests that this two level approach is a useful method to study interdisciplinary research and, more generally, disciplinary dynamics. With respect to river research, we show that it is mainly performed in several fields (limnology, fisheries & fish research, hydrology & water resources, and geomorphology) that hardly exchange knowledge. The different river research topics are multidisciplinary in nature, as they are shared by different fields. However, river science does not emerge as an interdisciplinary field, and often-mentioned new interdisciplinary fields such as hydroecology or hydromorphology are not (yet) visible. There is hardly any involvement of social within river research. Finally, the field of ecology occupies a central position within river research, whereas an expected engineering field is shown absent. This together may signal the acceptance of the ecosystem-based paradigm in river management, replacing the traditional engineering paradigm.

Developing an effective adaptive monitoring network to support integrated coastal management in a multiuser nature reserve

We elaborate the necessary conceptual and strategic elements for developing an effective adaptive monitoring network to support Integrated Coastal Management (ICM) in a multiuser nature reserve in the Dutch Wadden Sea Region. We discuss quality criteria and enabling actions essential to accomplish and sustain monitoring excellence to support ICM. The Wadden Sea Long-Term Ecosystem Research project (WaLTER) was initiated to develop an adaptive monitoring network and online data portal to better understand and support ICM in the Dutch Wadden Sea Region. Our comprehensive approach integrates ecological and socioeconomic data and links research-driven and policy-driven monitoring for system analysis using indicators of pressures, state, benefits, and responses. The approach and concepts we elaborated are transferable to other coastal regions to accomplish ICM in complex social- ecological systems in which scientists, multisectoral stakeholders, resource managers, and governmental representatives seek to balance long-term ecological, economic, and social objectives within natural limits.

The duality of integrated water management: science, policy or both?

Integrated water management (IWM) is the mainstream approach for addressing and accommodating issues in current water management. Despite many elaborations, its meaning, interpretation and implementation are still debated. In this study, the meaning of IWM within the domains of science and policy is assessed by exploring its conceptual scope. Moreover, the rationale of IWM in both domains is compared and the different approaches are subjected to a thorough consideration. Emphasis is given to describing how science has elaborated IWM in a conceptual way. It is shown that in science, IWM is foremost a collection of theories and approaches surrounding resource and ecosystem management. It is argued that difficulties in scientific IWM development are attributed to different research traditions and dominant paradigmatic underpinnings. Taking the case of Dutch water policy, the article shows that IWM is multi-objective and adaptive, being functional in driving changes in the management process. Differences between science and policy in framing IWM may complicate the input of scientific knowledge into the policy process. Further, advancement of IWM depends on clarifying the different roles of science and policy in the framing process and consideration of the practice and nature of science itself.