Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Implications of Complexity For Integrated Resources Management
The Implications of Complexity For Integrated Resources Management
www.elsevier.com/locate/envsoft
Abstract
Integrated environmental resources management is a purposeful activity with the goal to maintain and improve the state of an environmental
resource affected by human activities. In many cases different goals are in conflict and the notion ‘‘integrated’’ clearly indicates that resources
management should be approached from a broad perspective taking all potential trade-offs and different scales in space and time into account.
However, we are yet far from putting into practice integrated resources management fully taking into account the complexity of human-tech-
nology-environment systems. The tradition of resources management and of dealing with environmental problems is characterized by a command
and control approach. The increasing awareness for the complexity of environmental problems and of human-technology-environment systems
has triggered the development of new management approaches. The paper discusses the importance of focusing on the transition to new man-
agement paradigms based on the insight that the systems to be managed are complex adaptive systems. It provides arguments for the role of
social learning processes and the need to develop methods combining approaches from hard and soft systems analysis. Soft systems analysis
focuses on the importance of subjective perceptions and socially constructed reality. Soft systems methods and group model building techniques
are quite common in management science where the prime target of management has always been the social system. Resources management is
still quite slow to take up such innovations that should follow as a logical consequence of adopting an integrated management approach. Inte-
grated water resources management is used as example to provide evidence for the need to implement participatory and adaptive management
approaches that are able to cope with increasing uncertainties arising from fast changing socio-economic conditions and global and climate
change. Promising developments and future research directions are discussed. The paper concludes with pointing out the need for changes
in the scientific community to improve the conditions for interdisciplinary, system-oriented and trans-disciplinary research.
! 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Complexity; Mental models; Group model building; Adaptive management; Soft systems analysis; Complex adaptive systems; Social learning
1364-8152/$ - see front matter ! 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2005.12.024
562 C. Pahl-Wostl / Environmental Modelling & Software 22 (2007) 561e569
judged from a long-term perspective many policies showed The insight emerging from these examples that environ-
unexpected side-effects. To name just a few: mental problems should be addressed from a wider perspective
taking into account complexities, non-linearities and the limits
" Flood control efforts such as levee and dam construction of control is not really new. As already pointed out by Ludwig
have led to more severe floods by preventing the natural et al. (1993) in the case of fisheries management, it seems to
dissipation of excess water in flood plains. The cost of be more appropriate to think of resources managing humans
flood damage has increased as the flood plains were devel- than the converse. They make a strong argument against the
oped by people who believed they were safe (McPhee, illusion of control of environmental problems. The idea of
1989; Green et al., 2000). adaptive management has been introduced in resources man-
" Pesticides and herbicides have stimulated the evolution of agement for quite some time (Holling, 1978; Walters, 1986;
resistant pests and weeds, killed of natural predators, and Pahl-Wostl, 1995; Lee, 1999). It is based on the insight that
accumulated up the food chain to poison fish, birds and the ability to predict future key drivers as well as system be-
possibly humans. haviour and responses are inherently limited. But the imple-
" Programs to increase the capacity of roads designed to re- mentation of consequences for policies is quite slow. It is
duce congestion have increased traffic, delays, and pollu- argued here that the major reason for the slow pace in change
tion by attracting more people to drive with the car and is not the absence of alternative management strategies but
by providing incentives for a spatial segregation of work- rather the obstacles encountered in the transition process to-
place, residential and shopping areas (Sterman, 2000). wards new management paradigms. To better understand the
" Policies of fire suppression have increased the size and se- nature of the transition process it is useful to contrast current
verity of forest fires. Rather than frequent, small fires, fire management paradigms with alternative approaches and to in-
suppression leads to the accumulation of dead wood and vestigate the importance of learning processes at different
other fuels leading to larger, hotter, and more dangerous scales both for new management styles and for the transition
fires, often consuming the oldest and largest tress that pre- towards them.
viously survived fires unharmed (Gardner et al., 1985). The operations research and engineering approach to man-
" High security standards for heavily subsidized water sup- agement has been mainly characterized by a control paradigm
ply systems designed to meet maximum daily demand (e.g. Lewis, 1992; Franklin et al., 1994). Some assumptions
have led to quite expensive and inflexible systems and to that are important to implement management as control in
exaggerated expectations of the public regarding the pro- a system are:
vision of services at no cost (Tillman et al., 1999,2001).
1. A system can exist in a finite set of states and each state
In all these cases policy makers, resource managers and en- can be uniquely characterized by observation.
gineers underestimated the importance of feedback effects, 2. Based on this characterization one can devise a unique set
non-linearities, time delays and changes in human behaviour of control measures to move the system from one state to
as a consequence of policy interventions. Human actors typi- another state.
cally tend to reduce the complexity and dimensions if they 3. Uncertainties in the state transition functions can be quan-
are confronted with a problem to be tackled (Sterman, 2000; tified by probabilities.
Vennix, 1996). What may be more appropriately described 4. Risks are quantified by multiplying the probability of an
as a messy problem situation is often compressed into a de- event with the magnitude of the expected damage.
scription of a well-defined problem with simple causeeeffect
relationships. Open loop structures that behave quite ‘‘be- Technical systems are constructed such that they can be
nignly’’ are assumed instead of feedback cycles. The problem controlled. However, human-technology-environment systems
of traffic congestion and the corresponding dissatisfaction of are more appropriately described as complex adaptive systems
car drivers for example have been attributed to a lack of where different paradigms have to be used. What are the con-
road capacity. However, such a simplifying approach is mis- sequences if one takes into account that one deals with com-
leading. It helps to handle the problem, may be successful in plex adaptive systems both regarding the systems to be
the short-term but the negative effects of long-term conse- managed and the learning and decision making processes
quences may often outweigh short-term benefits. What has that are the essence of the management process? Complex
been neglected in the traffic example was the fact that more adaptive systems (CAS) are characterized by self-organiza-
and better roads provide an incentive for people to use the tion, adaptation, heterogeneity across scales and distributed
car more often and abandon public transport, to move to control (Casti, 1997; Kauffman, 1995; Pahl-Wostl, 1995).
a place where they depend on the car, etc. Hence it is crucial The state space is not closed and predictable but open and
to develop methods that allow exploring all possible scenarios evolving. Development may be path and context dependent.
of the co-evolutionary development of humanetechnologye The system attempts to escape external pressures by adapta-
environment systems that may result from policy interven- tion in changing its internal structure. The system itself is in
tions, methods that allow to categorize different policy constant change. Regarding the assumptions of a control par-
problems and that allow to develop and apply appropriate adigm one can note that properties of CAS are not in agree-
management strategies. ment with the assumptions made above:
C. Pahl-Wostl / Environmental Modelling & Software 22 (2007) 561e569 563
1. The state of a system and correspondingly the effect of in- complexity of problems fully into account has increased and
terventions at a certain moment in time depend on history the frame of analysis has partly changed. One may talk of so-
and context. Systems are hierarchical and not all system cially constructed problem domains. The frame of reference
properties can be observed. Due to non-linear, evolution- determines how a problem is conceptualized (Shackley
ary processes and innovation entirely new system states et al., 1996). Such a socially constructed problem domain sta-
may be observed in the future without historical analog. bilizes itself. Institutions are developed, technologies are im-
2. Complex adaptive systems escape attempts of external plemented based on a shared paradigm. Hence, any
control by adaptation and human beings may behave dif- transition to a new management regime requires collective
ferently than anticipated, they evolve and learn. learning processes and new methods are required that allow
3. For some extreme states it may be impossible to quantify to analyse the origins and importance of socially constructed
transition probabilities. Non-linear developments may ren- reality and the impediments for a change.
der probabilistic judgements exceedingly difficult. Regarding the social construction of reality and the origin
4. Some risks are related to ethical issues and require risk di- of subjective perceptions, it is useful to introduce here two
alogues. Here the concept of uncertainty has to be replaced concepts: frames and mental models. More than one definition
by the concept of ambiguity (Dewulf et al., 2005) People exists for frames and mental models and sometimes the dis-
judge risks differently based on their perception of being tinction is blurred (Doyle and Ford, 1998; Sterman, 2000;
able to influence risks. Dewulf et al., 2005). In the current paper the following dis-
tinction is made: A mental model refers to a specific mental
Remaining within the concepts of dynamic systems and representation of information about reality. A frame refers to
optimization one can illustrate the difference between the the context into which such a mental model is embedded
paradigms using the metaphor of a fitness landscape where hills and which gives sense and meaning to it. Differences in fram-
refer to desirable states and valleys to states to be avoided. The ing are one of the key reasons for problems in communication
control paradigm is based on finding optimal solutions in among actors. Two people may engage in a conversation: one
a constrained and rigid state space. The learning and evolution- acts in a power frame (goal to dominate the conversation) the
ary paradigm is based on finding methods to support navigation other in a cooperation frame (goal to engage in a collaborative
in a fitness landscape that is continuously changing. It is impor- relationship). They will interpret each other’s arguments very
tant to develop and apply methods to choose the appropriate differently and hold contradicting expectations about each oth-
management approach for the problem to be tackled. er’s behaviour. People make judgements about motives other
It is claimed that the learning paradigm has to be applied actors hold. Hence the framing of the goal of a negotiation
for management problems which are considered to be complex processdthe role of different actors, their position, their views
which implies that: on what is at stake are key factors and determine entirely the
outcome of a process.
e The system to be managed is a many component, multi- Fig. 1 represents the role of mental models and frames in
level system with internal degrees of freedom with the processing of information. People hold internal representa-
non-linear behaviour, threshold effects and multiple and tions, mental models of reality. Mental models are assumed to
evolving basins of attraction. be quite enduring structures of the internal representation of
e The actors in the system hold different perspectives and a real system (Doyle and Ford, 1998, 1999; Sterman, 2000).
world views. Decision stakes are high and conflicts of in- Such mental models may be shaped by the role of actors in
terest likely. a social system, their previous experience and cognitive biases
e Management objectives are not clearly defined and/or can
be interpreted differently by different stakeholder groups.
Bounded Framing -
Rationality Social Role
2. Complexity and ‘‘reality’’: the importance of Cognitive Bias Experience
learning processes
that result from heuristics that allow human beings to survive development come mainly from management science (De
and act in a very complex and partly unpredictable world. Geus, 1992; Lane, 1992; Vennix, 1999; Van der Heijden,
Mental models determine the processing of information which 1996). The parentheses indicate that the distinction between
is selective. Experience may help to construct a context from facts and subjective perceptions is a gradual transition rather
few pieces of information, to draw analogies to previous situ- than a distinction between two polar and well-defined
ations and select a type of response and behaviour that is categories.
deemed to be appropriate based on previous experience. In such a process, mental models that are factually wrong,
Sometimes selective information processing may prevent should be corrected. Actors may hold erroneous and divergent
learning and the adaptation to a changing environment; this views on the magnitudes of effects, causal relationships and
applies for individuals, for enterprises or for scientific conclusions drawn from statistical inference. The requirement
organizations. for learning is the acceptance of factual knowledge. A group
Human beings have a confirmation bias; they search for and of actors have to agree on the soundness of facts provided
selectively process information confirming their beliefs (Evans, by the analyst. The soundness of the scientific method used
1990). Sometimes beliefs may be proved to be wrong by factual for deriving the data should be the prime criterion; this may
knowledge. Sometimes beliefs about the social environment not always be guaranteed. Finding agreement is easier for em-
may support the construction of social reality and influence it pirical data than finding agreement for results derived from
(e.g. expectations about the behaviour of others). If one believes simulation models. The latter contain already embedded as-
for example that other actors in a negotiation process are not sumptions that may be questioned. Methods to improve the
willing to cooperate one is full of distrust which may trigger sound use of factual knowledge in a stakeholder group are
a corresponding behaviour from the other side. for example the elicitation of mental models by different tech-
Mental models should be corrected if they are factually niques (e.g. mental mapping, system dynamics approaches)
wrong; this requires first an agreement among actors on the and the subsequent comparison of such models with results de-
soundness of the factual knowledge which may provided by rived from factual analyses. Such an elicitation process can be
observation, technical expert knowledge scientific empirical the first step of a group model building processes (Vennix,
analyses or modelling exercises. Mental models may be linked 1996; Sterman, 2000; Pahl-Wostl, 2002a; Hare and Pahl-
to normative assumptions, values and preferences which deter- Wostl, 2002). Developing models in a group model building
mine the interpretation of knowledge and embed it in a frame process is of particular importance if uncertainties and deci-
of reference. In this case a change of mental models requires sion stakes are high and more than one interpretation can be
processes of reflection and negotiation. Hence we need to derived from model results.
combine hard and soft systems approaches and put strong em- More demanding than correcting mental models that are
phasis on the role of different types of learning in management factually wrong are those situations when mental models de-
processes. termine and stabilize a socially constructed reality in a group.
Table 1 illustrates the differences between hard and soft Examples may be the perception of a messy problem situation
system approaches in systems science. Whereas hard system or norms and rules of good practice shared in a group of prac-
approaches emphasize factual knowledge and the role of the titioners (e.g. water managers). People may hold for example
analyst as external observer, soft system approaches empha- a mental model of the role of a scientist or engineer. Such
size subjective perceptions and the role of the analyst as par- mental representations shape the social exchange in a group,
ticipant in a process of social learning. Similarly the role of determine expectations and behaviour.
models is different in the two approaches. Whereas in the Methods to facilitate learning in such situations include be-
hard system approach, models serve to represent the relation- havioural simulations or group model building exercises
ships of variables in the real world, in the soft systems ap-
proach models serve to structure the debate. Analysis Actor Network
Analysis Data
- participatory Process
Fig. 2 schematically represents a combination of hard and
soft system approaches in model and scenario development.
Pioneers in this field of participatory model and scenario
“Perceptions “Facts”
Mental Models”
Table 1
Comparison between hard and soft systems approaches (after Checkland,
1989) „SOFT“ „HARD“
Model Structure
Hard Soft
Objective Given Problematic
Focus Reality how to do it Perceptions what and how
Scenarios
Models Of X relevant to Y Of pure purpose to structure
a debate
Fig. 2. The overall approach of combining ‘‘soft’’ subjective perceptions and
Paradigm Optimising goal seeking Learning
‘‘hard’’ factual knowledge in a participatory group model building process.
Expert External expert Participative (facilitator)
The parentheses indicate that the distinction between soft and hard elements
System Exist in the world In the process of inquiry
of knowledge is of gradual nature with a blurred interface.
C. Pahl-Wostl / Environmental Modelling & Software 22 (2007) 561e569 565
combined with role playing games (e.g. Barreteau et al., 2001; in a number of case studies in nine European countries
Den Exter and Specht, 2003; Duijn et al., 2003; Pahl-Wostl, (more information and reports available on the webpage:
2002b). In such gaming approaches the social interactions be- www.harmonicop.info;). The major objective of the Harmon-
tween the participants are the driving force for the simulations. iCOP project is to increase the understanding of participatory
By adopting another role than in real life, actors may start to river basin management in Europe. It aims to generate prac-
improve their understanding for perspectives of other actors. tically useful information about and improve the scientific
The games enable the participants to reflect on the way in base of social learning and the role of IC (information and
which the decisions are taken and identify needs for change. communication) tools in river basin management and support
The methods outlined above are quite common in manage- the implementation of the European Water Framework
ment science where the prime target of management has al- Directive.
ways been the social system. Resources management is still Elements of social learning for river basin management can
quite slow to take up such innovations that should follow as be summarized as:
a logical consequence of adopting an integrated management
approach. But developments are promising as illustrated below " Build up shared problem perception in a group of actors
for the example of integrated water resources management. and the ability to communicate about different point of
view.
3. The example of integrated water management " Build trust for self-reflection: recognition of individual
mental frames and images and how they pertain to deci-
3.1. The role of participation in integrated water sion making.
management " Recognize mutual dependencies and interactions.
" Reflect on assumptions about the dynamics and causee
Water management has traditionally been characterized by effect relationships in the basin.
a control paradigm that is now slowly changing. Such change " Reflect on subjective valuation schemes.
is partly attributable to the need to implement integrated water " Engage in collective learning and decision processes.
resources management (IWRM) and to the insight that water
management faces increasing uncertainties from climate The notion of social learning has been used in quite differ-
change and fast changing socio-economic boundary condi- ent meanings to refer to processes of learning and change of
tions. Integrated water management should provide a frame- individuals and social systems. In the influential work of Ban-
work for integrated decision-making, where we strive to: (1) dura (1977) social learning refers to individual learning based
assess the nature and status of the water resource; (2) define on observation of others and their social interactions within
short-term and long-term goals for the system; (3) determine a group, e.g. through imitation of role models. It assumes an
objectives and actions needed to achieve selected goals; (4) iterative feedback between the learner and their environment,
assess both benefits and costs of each action; (5) implement the learner changing the environment, and these changes af-
desired actions; (6) evaluate the effects actions and progress fecting the learner.
toward goals; and (7) re-evaluate goals and objectives as This approach is too narrow to embrace all the learning pro-
part of an iterative process. This sequence sounds quite logical cesses of relevance in resources management. Of major inter-
and straightforward to implement. However, integration and est in this respect is the concept of ‘‘communities of practice’’
new approaches to manage risks in the light of increasing developed by Wenger (1998) emphasizing learning as partici-
uncertainties require transformation processes in institutional pation. Individuals engage in actions and interactions that have
resource regimes and management style. Technical solutions to be embedded in culture and history. Such interactions are
are no longer sufficient to tackle the intricate problems we influenced by and may change social structure and, at the
face today. Equally important are issues of good governance, same time, the individual gains experience situated in a con-
with the human dimension in a prominent place. Scaling issues text. Such learning processes confirm and shape the identity
need to be explored to understand the complex dynamics of of the individual in its social surroundings. They confirm
institutional resource regimes and to improve the match be- and change social practice and the associated interpretation
tween biophysical and actor based scales. The strong tradition of the environment.
of local and regional water resources management has to be Such a broad understanding of social learning that is rooted in
combined with integrative river basin approaches and an the more interpretative strands of the social sciences charac-
embedding of them into a perspective of global change. This terizes also the approach adopted by the HarmoniCOP project.
necessitates linking research areas that have up to now devel- Fig. 3 represents the framework for social learning developed
oped rather independently with little exchange among them in the HarmoniCOP project to account for learning processes
and social learning of different stakeholder groups. in water resources management (Craps, 2003). The concept of
Currently the concept of social learning and its practical social learning was developed in HarmoniCOP that has two
application in water management are under investigation in pillars. The pillars relate to the processing of factual information
the European FP5 project HarmoniCOP. The HarmoniCOP (content management) and engaging in processes of social
(Harmonizing Collaborative Planning) project has developed exchange (social involvement). Social involvement refers to es-
testable hypotheses on social learning that are investigated sential elements of social processes such as the framing of the
566 C. Pahl-Wostl / Environmental Modelling & Software 22 (2007) 561e569
Context
Process
Outcomes
Fig. 3. Conceptual framework for social learning in resources management. Information and communication technology tools may play a decisive role in support-
ing and shaping relational practices that link social involvement and content management. This implies also a new role for simulation models in such processes.
More explanation in the text.
problem, the management of the boundaries between different a participatory approach but on expert knowledge guiding
stakeholder groups or the type of negotiation strategies chosen. management decisions. Stakeholders are mainly informed or
ICT (information, communication, technology) tools play engaged in consultation processes. Involvement and co-deci-
a key role (Maurel, 2005) in promoting relational practices. sion-making is far from being realized in practice which is
They may elaborate and provide well balanced information a certain impediment to implementing new water policies.
for the debate in ways that are relevant for the stakeholders The European Union is particularly active in the area of Inte-
and that allows collective learning, helps to elicit perspectives grated Water Resources Management regarding the implemen-
and behaviours of stakeholders, to make them explicit to the tation of innovative water policies (European Water Framework
others and facilitate relational practices, e.g. participative Directive and the European Water Initiative). During the 5th
mapping, role playing games, behavioural simulations. Framework Programme more than 30 million euros have been
Currently the importance of social learning and the role of spent to fund projects related to IWRM and the development
ICT tools are investigated in nine case studies on participatory of integrated catchment models. However, most of the projects
water management related to the implementation of the Euro- have little interaction with stakeholders during model develop-
pean Water Framework Directive in nine European countries. ment and include decision makers and water management au-
The goal is to investigate if social learning takes place, how it thorities as potential ‘‘endusers’’ at the end of the process of
is promoted and what its implications are on the goal of devel- tool development. This corresponds to the ‘‘hard system ap-
oping river basin management plans and of managing the river proach’’ and the corresponding perception on the role of models
basin in a more sustainable way. Case studies focus on differ- in the whole process of river basin management. The Harmoni-
ent scales (local to trans-boundary) and in particular on the in- COP project starts from the perspective of social learning and
teraction between scales. Social learning includes processes at the role of stakeholder perspectives in river basin management
the level of local committees up to negotiation processes in and by investigating how ICT tools and models can be used to
trans-boundary basins and their mutual influence. The knowl- support learning processes. This corresponds to the soft systems
edge about the interactions between scales and the type of in- approach. Currently the two approaches coexist without much
stitutional settings that are required to promote them is still interaction. This situation should be changed in order to increase
quite limited. First results clearly indicate the importance of the use of models in river basin management and to move to-
culture, regional context and the reigning management para- wards more participatory management approaches as required
digm on social learning processes. Preliminary results support by innovative water policies.
findings from the MANTRA East project (Timmerman and The HarmoniCA concerted action tries to bridge the gap
Langaas, 2003) providing strong evidence that water manage- between science and policy with specific emphasis on the im-
ment in most European countries is not yet based on plementation of the European Water Framework Directive. A
C. Pahl-Wostl / Environmental Modelling & Software 22 (2007) 561e569 567
number of interactive workshops provided evidence that the Two new EU projects (AquaStress and NeWater) currently
perception of model developers on the importance of models in the phase of implementation under the umbrella of the 6th
and the perception of policy makers on the current role of Framework Programme of the European Union are based on
models in water management diverge considerably (Hare, such a new water management paradigm. NeWaterdnew
2005). Whereas model developers consider the management approaches to adaptive water management under uncertain-
of complex river basins to be impossible without model tydfocuses on the transition to adaptive water management
support, policy makers are quite suspicious towards complex building on the concept that management is a learning process
models they do not understand. In particular the high degree in complex adaptive systems.
of uncertainty in model predictions and the possibility to The focus on the transition to adaptive water management
have more than one valid model structure describing the reflects the insight that understanding the transition is the
same complex environmental problem were perceived by most crucial point for adaptive water management. The adap-
policy makers as issues of major concern. The participants tive water management regime to be achieved will depend on
of the workshops identified as one possibility to improve the the path chosen. Given the interdependent nature of social,
role of models in IWRM to establish in general a closer link technical and environmental processes change must be based
between stakeholder participatory processes and model on a collective learning process. The approach for social learn-
development. These results indicate that a paradigm shift in ing introduced in the previous section strongly suggests that
understanding the nature of water management and using the the social capital and governance structure generated depends
role of models is really on its way. on the quality of the learning process implemented in the tran-
sition phase.
3.2. The transition to adaptive water management The NeWater project has a strong methodological compo-
nent. New methods will be tested in a number of case studies
Another development pointing in a similar direction of in Europe, Africa and Central Asia. Much emphasis will be
a paradigm shift is the increasing popularity of adaptive water given to assess key drivers of global change and the vulnera-
management. The idea of adaptive management has been in- bility of river basins. The practitioners in a basin will play
troduced in resources management for quite some time already a crucial role in guaranteeing that the methods developed
but has only more recently become of major interest in water meet the demands from the practitioners and take into account
management (Holling, 1978; Walters, 1986; Pahl-Wostl, 1995; concerns and expertise in a basin. They will benefit from being
Lee, 1999; Walker et al., 2002; Richter et al., 2003). It is based able to direct research efforts to the issues of most relevance to
on the insight that in the management of natural resources the them. Based on a joint assessment, suitable methods and tools
ability to predict future key drivers, as well as system behav- for improved basin management will be developed and tested.
iour and responses, is inherently limited. As a consequence, in The 6th Framework Programme of the European Union of-
particular authors working in the area of ecosystem manage- fers major advantages important to pursue the type of research
ment suggested that resources management should be based described in the previous sections that can be summarized as:
on experiment that test well-defined hypotheses about system
behaviour and the consequences of management interventions. e Possibilities for interdisciplinary projects where disci-
The outcomes of such experiments should then feed into plines can be chosen to meet the demands of the complex
a learning cycle that allows changing and improving manage- problems under investigation instead of being constrained
ment strategies when new scientific knowledge and insights by the disciplinary structure characterizing many funding
become available. agencies.
Adaptive management can more generally be defined as e Strong stakeholder participation and participatory action
a systematic process for continually improving management research.
policies and practices by learning from the outcomes of imple- e Direct combination between basic and applied research
mented management strategies. The most effective form of and tool development for practitioners.
adaptive management employs management programs that e New opportunities for publiceprivate partnerships.
are designed to experimentally compare selected policies or e Possibility to include case studies from Europe, Africa,
practices, by evaluating alternative hypotheses about the sys- and Central Asia.
tem being managed. As it is defined in the approach promoted
here adaptive management has as another targetdits goal is to 4. Conclusions and overall developments
increase the adaptive capacity of the (water) system. It is
aimed at integrated system design. The problem to be tackled The paper emphasized the need to take complexity into ac-
is to increase the ability of the whole humanetechnologye count in resources management and to develop appropriate
environment system to respond to change rather than reacting methods for doing so in different situations. We need ap-
to undesirable impacts of change. Hence it is a pro-active man- proaches that allow characterizing messy problems and finding
agement style. Increasing the ability for change includes for solutions to deal with them in an adequate manner. These are
example increasing the use of small-scale technology or com- situations in which there are large differences regarding the
bining formal regulations with informal institutional settings perceptions of the nature of the problem, the need for action
(Pahl-Wostl, in press). and what type of action should be done. Such differences arise
568 C. Pahl-Wostl / Environmental Modelling & Software 22 (2007) 561e569
on one hand from uncertainties in the factual knowledge base Ecological economics has established itself with much success
and on the other hand from ambiguities in problem framing as a society at the interface between natural and social systems
and diversities in the perception of the nature of the problem. (www.ecologicaleconomics.org;). The resilience alliance has
It is important to have a sound base for using the appropriate renamed its highly cited journal from ‘‘Ecological Conserva-
methods since participatory processes are resource intensive. tion’’ to ‘‘Ecology and Society’’.
Duijn et al. (2003) suggested a categorization of different All these promising developments are clear indications for
problem situations along two dimensions. If there is little con- the fast emerging field of studying the complexity of coupled
sensus about knowledge and the values and aims involved, socio-ecological systems. We can expect to witness major
policy making as interactive learning process is of particular progress in the years to come.
importance. In the case of a high degree of consensus about
knowledge and the values and aims involved, policy making
can proceed as management in the classical sense. However, Acknowledgements
as pointed out before the framing of the problem in a stake-
holder group may not correspond to the real nature of the The work reported from the HarmoniCOP project has been
problem situation. Hence, a sound analysis for categorizing financially supported by the European Commission under the
a problem situation and the stakeholders involved and their in- contract number EVK1-CT-2002-00120.
terests, is highly recommended for any environmental man-
agement problem.
The paper is based on the assumption that processes of so- References
cial learning are required for sustainable resources manage-
ment in a complex and uncertain world. As Bormann et al. Bandura, A., 1977. Social Learning Theory. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
(1994) pointed out ‘‘Adaptive management is learning to man- NJ.
age by managing to learn’’. But such learning must be embed- Barreteau, O., Bousquet, F., Attonaty, J.-M., 2001. Role-playing games for
ded in a better understanding of multi-scale processes of opening the black box of multi-agent systems: method and lessons of its
application to Senegal River Valley irrigated systems. Journal of Artificial
humaneenvironment interactions. Societies and Social Simulation 4. <http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/JASSS/4/
The research questions to be tackled in understanding the 2/5.html>.
complex dynamics and the management of humanetechnolo- Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C. (Eds.), 2002. Navigating Social-Ecological
gyeenvironment systems are highly intellectually challenging Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge
and new insights are in major demand from the policy side. University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Bormann, B.T., Cunningham, P.G., Brookes, M.H., Manning, V.W.,
Hence, we need the best and highly skilled people to address Collopy, M.W., 1994. Adaptive Eecosystem Management in the Pacific
these burning questions. At the same time the incentives in the Northwest. USDA For. Serv. Gen, Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-341, 22 pp.
scientific community to go in this direction are quite small. Casti, J., 1997. Reality Rules I & II. Picturing the World in Mathematics: The
The opportunities for doing basic research tackling interdisci- Fundamentals, the Frontier. Wiley, Chichester.
plinary questions are very slim. Hence we need a transition in Craps, M. (Ed.), 2003. Social Learning in River Basin Management. Report of
Workpackage 2 of the HarmoniCOP Project. <http://www.harmonicop.info>.
science as well! De Geus, A., 1992. Modeling to predict or to learn? European Journal for Op-
The research agenda outlined in the previous sections is erations Research 59, 1e5.
based on new partnerships between science and society. We Dewulf, A., Craps, M., Bouwen, R., Taillieu, T., Pahl-Wostl, C., 2005. Inte-
need more emphasis to promote interdisciplinary research. grated management of natural resources: dealing with ambiguous issues,
The prevailing structure of the disciplinary scientific commu- multiple actors and diverging frames. Water. Science and Technology
52, 115e124.
nity is an impediment to the development of cutting-edge pio- Den Exter, K., Specht, A., 2003. Assisting stakeholder decision making using
neering research in this field. Most faculties at universities are system dynamics group model-building. <http://www.regional.org.au/au/
still organized in disciplinary structures. Funding agencies are apen/2003/papers/108denexterk.htm>.
not well prepared to handle proposals crossing disciplinary Doyle, J.K., Ford, D.N., 1998. Mental models concepts for system dynamics
boundaries. However, scientific breakthroughs and the devel- research. System Dynamics Review 14, 3e30.
Doyle, J.K., Ford, D.N., 1999. Mental models concepts revisited: some
opment of new fields occur when different disciplines meet. clarifications and a reply to Lane. System Dynamics Review 15,
Certain progress has been made (e.g. the life sciences); the 411e415.
deep divide between the social and the natural sciences has Duijn, M., Immers, F.A., Waaldijk, F.A., Stoelhorst, H.J., 2003. Gaming Ap-
yet to be overcome. However, new innovative approaches proach Route 26: a combination of computer simulation, design tools and
are urgently needed to support sustainable strategies for deal- social interaction. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 6.
<http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/JASSS/6/3/7.html>.
ing with complex socio-environmental problems. Evans, J., 1990. Bias in Human Reasoning: Causes and Consequences. Psy-
A number of promising developments can be noted. New chology Press, UK.
societies start to emerge and prosper. TIAS, The Integrated Franklin, G.F., Powell, D.J., Emani-Naeini, A., 1994. Feedback Control of Dy-
Assessment Society, was recently founded (www.tias-we- namic Systems, third ed. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
b.info;). Its aim is to promote research on methods for the in- Gardner, P.D., Cortner, H.J., Widaman, K.F., 1985. Forest user attitudes toward
alternate fire management policies. Environmental Management 9, 303e312.
tegration of knowledge on a problem domain from different Green, C.H., Parker, D.J., Tunstall, S.M., 2000. Assessment of flood control
sources and for understanding complex societal learning and and management options. Thematic Review IV.4, prepared as an input to
decision making processes required to deal with the problem. the World Commission on Dams, Cape Town, <http://www.dams.org>.
C. Pahl-Wostl / Environmental Modelling & Software 22 (2007) 561e569 569
Hare, M., 2005. The Use of Models to Support the Participatory Elements of Pahl-Wostl, C., 2004. Self-regulation of limnetic ecosystems. In:
the EU Water Framework Directive: Creating a dialogue between Policy O’Sullivan, P.E., Reynolds, C.S. (Eds.), The Lakes Handbook. Blackwell
Makers and Model Makers. Harmoni-CA report HCA-WP5-2004-04/Final Science, pp. 583e608.
Version, Osnabrueck, University of Osnabrueck. <available at www.har- Pahl-Wostl, C. Transition towards adaptive management of water facing cli-
moni-ca.info>. mate and global change. Water Resources Research, in press.
Hare, M.P., Pahl-Wostl, C., 2002. Stakeholder categorisation in participatory Richter, B.D., Mathews, R., Harrison, D.L., Wigington, R., 2003. Ecologically
integrated assessment processes. Integrated Assessment 3 (1), 50e62. sustainable water management: managing river flows for ecological integ-
Hartvigsen, G., Kinzig, A., Peterson, G., 1998. Use and analysis of complex rity. Ecological Applications 13, 206e224.
adaptive systems in ecosystem science: overview of special section. Eco- Senge, P., 1990. The Fifth Discipline. Doubleday, New York.
systems 1, 427e430. Shackley, S., Wynne, B., Waterton, C., 1996. Imaging complexity: the
Holling, C.S. (Ed.), 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Manage- past, present and future potential of complex thinking. Futures 28, 201e225.
ment. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Sterman, J.D., 2000. Business Dynamics: System Thinking and Modeling for
Kauffman, S., 1995. At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of a Complex World. McGraw-Hill.
Self-Organization and Complexity. Oxford University Press, New York. Tillman, D., Larsen, T., Pahl-Wostl, C., Gujer, W., 1999. Modelling the actors in
Lane, D.C., 1992. Modelling as learning: a consultancy method for enhancing water supply systems. Water Science and Technology 39, 203e211.
learning in management teams. European Journal of Operations Research Tillman, D., Larsen, T., Pahl-Wostl, C., Gujer, W., 2001. Interaction analysis
59, 64e84. of the stake-holders in watersupply systems. Water Science and Technol-
Lee, K.N., 1999. Appraising adaptive management. Conservation Ecology 3, ogy 43, 319e326.
3e16. Timmerman, J., Langaas, S., 2003. Environmental Information in European
Lewis, F.L., 1992. Applied Optimal Control and Estimation. Prentice Hall. Transboundary Water Management. IWA Publishing, UK.
Levin, S.A., 1998. Ecosystems and the biosphere as complex adaptive systems. Van der Heijden, K., 1996. Scenarios, The Art of Strategic Conversation.
Ecosystems 1, 431e436. Wiley, Chichester.
Ludwig, D., Hilborn, R., Walters, C., 1993. Uncertainty, resource exploitation, Walker, B., Carpenter, S., Anderies, J., Abel, N., Cummings, G., Janssen, M.,
and conservation: lessons from history. Science 260, 17e18. Lebel, L., Norberg, J., Peterson, G.D., Pritchard, R., 2002. Resilience
Maurel, P. (Ed.), 2005 include reference to paper to be published in the same management in social-ecological systems: a working hypothesis for a par-
special issue. ticipatory approach. Conservation Ecology 6 (1), 14 (online:). <http://
McPhee, J., 1989. The Control of Nature. HarperCollins, Toronto. www.consecol.org/vol6/iss1/art14/main.html>.
Pahl-Wostl, C., 1995. The Dynamic Nature of Ecosystems: Chaos and Order Walters, C., 1986. Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. Macmil-
Entwined. Wiley & Sons, Chichester. lan, New York.
Pahl-Wostl, C., 2002a. Participative and stakeholder-based policy design and Vennix, J., 1996. Group Model Building. Wiley.
modeling processes. Integrated Assessment 3 (1), 3e14. Vennix, J., 1999. Group model-building: tackling messy problems. System
Pahl-Wostl, C., 2002b. Towards sustainability in the water sector e the impor- Dynamics Review 15, 379e401.
tance of human actors and processes of social learning. Aquatic Sciences Wenger, E., 1998. Communities of Practice; Learning, Meaning, and Identity.
64 (4), 394e411. Cambridge University Press.