governance spaces for sustainable river management

Governance Spaces for Sustainable River Management

Claire Gregory*, Gary Brierley and Richard Le HeronSchool of Environment, The University of Auckland

Abstract

There is widely documented evidence that rivers are one of the most degraded ecosystem typeson the planet. As a consequence, concerted efforts have been made to improve the health of riversystems in many parts of the world. Moves towards sustainable management approaches reflecttransitions beyond the imposition of ‘command-and-control’ approaches towards ecosystem-framed applications. Although this transition is now well-understood in intellectual terms, there islittle evidence of a genuine shift in practice and associated outcomes. Governance frameworksunderpinning management practices have been identified as a key limitation in catalysing this tran-sition. This paper provides an overview of governance frameworks and practices which underpinriver management goals. Middle-ground governance frameworks that facilitate the interaction oftop-down and bottom-up approaches are promoted as this structure allows for values and pro-cesses operating across multiple spatial and temporal scales to be included in management. Casestudies from New Zealand, Canada and England are used to demonstrate the diversity of gover-nance spaces that middle-ground initiatives can occupy, reflecting the unique socio-ecological andinstitutional trajectory of any given catchment. Middle-ground organisations at the catchment scaleprovide a focal meeting point to pool resources and set goals for decentralised, reflexive structures.This transition in practice is critical if contemporary top-down approaches are to be modified tofoster adaptive ecosystem-based applications that incorporate participatory decision-making at acatchment scale. These considerations are vital if appropriate platforms are to be established tomaximise efforts for sustainable river management.

Introduction

Concern for river ecosystem health around the world is now widespread, with thesesystems recognised as one of the most degraded ecosystem types on the earth (Brierleyand Fryirs 2008; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). Despite long and widespreadrecognition, degradation continues (e.g. Palmer 2009). It is increasingly apparent thatthe governance frameworks which mediate the relationships between society and riversystems are not achieving their intended mandate of promoting healthy ecosystemsthrough sustainable practices (Biermann et al. 2009). Hillman (2009) questions whethera genuine commitment to reformative practices is truly underway. Several commentatorshave highlighted the importance of developing appropriate governance frameworks infacilitating changes to the mediation between environment–society relationships (e.g.Brierley et al. 2006; Huitema et al. 2009; Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007; Watson et al. 2007).Indeed, Redclift (1997) argues that consideration must be given to the governing insti-tutions and organisations we hand future generations, alongside the environment itself.However, there is still a great uncertainty surrounding the precise institutional processesand mechanisms which are required to enable sustainable river management initiatives(Watson et al. 2007). The definition of ‘sustainable river management’ as used in thispaper refers to the need improve and ⁄or maintain river health, so that river systems can

Geography Compass 5/4 (2011): 182–199, 10.1111/j.1749-8198.2011.00411.x

ª 2011 The AuthorsGeography Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

continue to provide ecosystem goods and services into the future. Governance frame-work is used to define the structure of the relationships between actors and institutionsin regards to managing river systems.

The aim of this paper is to explore governance spaces which best support movestowards sustainable river management. Particular attention will be paid to the scale atwhich these spaces are located. This will be achieved by firstly reviewing the changes inacademic perspectives that underpin river management practice. Secondly, a review ofgovernance frameworks and practices in river management is provided, using three casestudies to highlight how governance frameworks and practices shape how sustainable rivermanagement is achieved and maintained. Lessons learnt from these case studies are usedto aid understanding of the range of governance spaces, and the governance frameworksthat fashion the scale at which these spaces are located and interact with other spatialscales.

From Engineering Approaches Towards Sustainable River Management

Human alteration of river systems dates back thousands of years (Newson 2009). Ashydraulic understanding increased, river management goals were defined by the minimi-sation of flooding risks, while maximising water supplies for irrigation, power and domes-tic use (Allan et al. 2008; Karr and Chu 2000; Newson 2009). Lachapelle et al. (2003)have termed this approach ‘technocratic utilitarianism’, and likewise, Holling and Meffe(1996) and Clark (2002) termed this era ‘command and control’, where hydraulic andeconomic efficiency dominated management thought. Ecosystem values were overlookedand the unravelling of ecological and physical systems went largely unnoticed (Karr andChu 2000). Societal connections to rivers were also reduced, as reflected by Haslam(1991), this era produced ‘a gap, a distance, between man and the use of the river, so thatthe river has been set aside, indeed vandalised in the name of progress’ (p. 303).

A paradigm shift from engineering ‘command-and-control’ approaches to river man-agement, towards sustainable approaches to river management framed in terms of ecosys-tem perspectives has been widely traced (e.g. Clark 2002; de Groot and Lenders 2006;Hillman and Brierley 2005; Newson 2009). From this literature, four dimensions are con-sidered to encompass sustainable river management: a move towards catchment-scaleplanning (as opposed to reach-scale applications); increasing community participationin decision-making; incorporating ecosystem science; and adaptive management (seeFigure 1).

CATCHMENT-SCALE PLANNING

A large number of biophysical and hydraulic processes interact at the catchment scale,with a myriad of linkages in any given system. Consequently, no one reach of a catch-ment can be considered in isolation of wider catchment processes (Brierley and Fryirs2005; Everard and Powell 2002; Palmer et al. 2005). When relating this to management,it is vital that reach-scale aspirations for a given reach are considered in light of aspira-tions for other reaches within the catchment, building upon knowledge of wider catch-ment-scale processes. The development of a vision statement is a useful tool to build apicture of what can be achieved for the catchment as a whole (Gregory and Brierley2010; Hillman and Brierley 2005). Ignorance of these factors can lead to unanticipatedeffects which can further degrade the system and can pose risks to local communities(Brierley and Fryirs 2009; Fryirs and Brierley 2009).

Governance spaces for river management 183

ª 2011 The Authors Geography Compass 5/4 (2011): 182–199, 10.1111/j.1749-8198.2011.00411.xGeography Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

ECOSYSTEM-BASED APPROACHES

Sustainable river management gives explicit recognition of the unique biophysical diver-sity, complexity and behaviour within a catchment (Clark 2002). Social and biophysicalsystems are linked through the identification of common themes to both systems (e.g.resilience and connectivity, see Folke et al. 2002; Gunderson 1999; Hillman et al. 2008;Olsson et al. 2006). River systems viewed in this light are regarded as living, dynamic,adjusting systems (Everard and Powell 2002). This represents a move towards integratedmanagement of socio-ecological system, each of which is contextualised in its place-spe-cific history (recognising no two systems are the same), and has a future-focus whichrespects this past (Brierley and Fryirs 2008).

PARTICIPATORY APPROACHES

Societal engagement and participation are pillars of sustainable river management. Multi-stakeholder processes increase long-term effectiveness of management intervention. Thisincorporates local knowledge and a sense of ownership of management activities by localcommunities (Abers 2007; Fabricius et al. 2007; Petts 2006). Community goals and aspi-rations also frame what can realistically be achieved, as management initiatives will onlyenjoy success over the long term if they are supported by those who use river resources,and who provide financial and political support (Allan et al. 2008; Margerum 1999; Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007). Local communities are often best placed to take action upon localissues, as they are able to undertake implementation and monitor applications, and do sowith an ‘ethic of care’ to maintain the success of interventions (Carr 2002). Recognitionof these benefits prompts a governance framework for river management which allowsfor ‘bottom-up’ perspectives, enabling local communities to own management decisionsand actions (Carr 2002).

Fig. 1. Dimensions of sustainable river management.

184 Governance spaces for sustainable river management


ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

Biophysical processes of river systems are innately complex and uncertain. Sustainableriver management goals try to work with this variability, rather than trying to suppress it(Clark 2002; Hillman et al. 2008; Newson and Clark 2008). This allows the river systemto adapt and adjust to changing conditions (e.g. through climate change, flood events),without changing fundamentally (Folke et al. 2002). Adaptive management recognises thisvariability through designing management goals as experiments, with active reflection fol-lowing implementation, followed by the incorporation of learning back to redefine theinitial goals. This does not mean management actions are administered in an ad hoc man-ner, rather goals are planned and purposeful, and learning is deliberate (Allan et al. 2008).This strengthens understanding of human–nature interactions, in turn increasing know-ledge underpinning actions to increase socio-ecological resilience (Fabricius et al. 2007;Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007).

It should be noted that the notion of paradigm shifts is contested. It has been consid-ered that paradigm shifts occur as an immediate, distinctive shift in thought; however, itis now understood by some that change occurs unevenly, with sometimes long transitionperiods (Chalmers 1999). Hillman (2009) has suggested that technical and scientificknowledge underpinning river management has undergone change, but this change hasnot yet been integrated within institutions and practices. The next sections discuss therole of governance in integrating the ideals of sustainable river management into practice.

Role of Governance in River Management Practice

Governance has been identified as holding the key to ‘enabling and facilitating necessarytransformation processes’ (Pahl-Wostl 2002, 394) towards achieving greater sustainabilityin river management. Current governance frameworks are typified by top-downapproaches, with a focus on site-specific construction to create more stable and hydrauli-cally efficient channels to provide notional certainty and protection (Hillman and Brierley2005; Newson 2009). Such thinking contrasts greatly to the processes and outcomes ofsustainable river management. Hence, it presents challenges in defining a governancespace for sustainable river management because:

1 The requirements of a broader, catchment-scale focus combine a wide array of socio-ecological values (Hillman and Brierley 2005).

2 Participatory decision-making necessitates a diffusion of power from central govern-ments, and engenders a broader array of actors into decision-making (Genskow 2009;Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007; Plummer and FitzGibbon 2006).

3 A radical reconceptualisation of uncertainty promotes moving from an ethos whereintechnological applications assert control over river systems [referred to as ‘technofix’ byHiggs (2003)], towards adaptive approaches which promote inherent ecosystem vari-ability, negating the ideals of top-down approaches (Clark 2002; Everard and Powell2002; Folke et al. 2002; Fryirs and Brierley 2009; Newson and Clark 2008).

The next sections outline advances in environmental governance more broadly, followedby an appraisal of the current literature which has examined governance of river systems,highlighting the above challenges.



Environmental Governance

Shifts in broader environmental governance literature provide some insight into appropri-ate alternative governance frameworks for sustainable river management. Several recentreviews pertaining to environmental governance (e.g. Ali-Khan and Mulvihill 2008;Himley 2008; Jordan 2008) document a move from ‘government’ to ‘governance’,reflecting a less centralised mode of organisation and politics and hollowing out of thestate (Galaz et al. 2008). This shift does not suggest ‘governing without government’,rather it recognises the emergence of innovative forms of governing which have devel-oped as alternatives to hierarchical forms of control (Moss 2004). These may include laws,official policies, organisational structures, informal institutions and rules that are followedin practice (Huitema et al. 2009), while governments retain an integral role (Zaelke et al.2005). Governance is a networked practice, as power is exerted through a number ofinterconnected actors, whose knowledge and resources are recognised (Kemp et al.2005). These networks operate at a number of scales and sites (Himley 2008), and createa governance landscape which is highly dynamic, multi-sectored and multi-level (Brunck-horst and Reeve 2006). The characteristics of governance which separate it from ‘govern-ment’ include the engagement of a wide range of actors (including state, private and civilsociety), increased interaction between private and public actors and increased relianceupon informal mechanisms of coordination (Pierre 1999).

Current institutional arrangements have a strong tendency to protect existing condi-tions, while resisting change (Harich 2010; Moss and Monstadt 2008). This ‘system goal’of maintaining the status quo must be examined if institutional changes are to address theway in which human systems and ecosystems are mediated (Harich 2010). Beyond thisrecognition, more fluid approaches to governance identify that boundaries between actorsand institutions become blurred, and effective networks foster pluralistic knowledge crea-tion within more flexible institutions (Plummer and Armitage 2007). In contrast to tradi-tional structures that promote ecologically uninformed crisis induced policy making,polycentric structures nurture diversity, allowing for creative responses, innovation andexperimentation, promoting collaborative learning in the face of uncertainty (McGinnis2000).

If scale(s) at which environmental issues are created, shaped, regulated and contestedare ignored, management will continue along unsustainable trajectories (Bulkeley 2005).As scales are socially and politically constructed, any application of scale needs to recog-nise that there will be a continual re-working and negotiating of scale and scale relation-ships. This concept recognises that networks can operate between actors at differentscales, moving beyond mere aggregation ⁄disaggregation of scale, where power is held atone particular institutional level, to frameworks in which multiple and dynamic interac-tions between scales are catalysed (Adger et al. 2003; Ferreyra and Beard 2007). Critiquesof previous studies analysing governance frameworks for sustainability suggest that toomuch emphasis has been placed on local-scale considerations, to the extent that widersocial, economic and political processes that affect local issues are overlooked (e.g. Bulke-ley and Betsill 2005; Gibbs and Jonas 2000). ‘Multi-level governance’ perspectives explic-itly recognise these wider forces acting upon the local (Bulkeley and Betsill 2005).

Such a perspective posits environmental governance within a broader governance land-scape. Laws, policies, institutions and networks between actors create ‘spaces’ withinwhich river management can operate. Fluid forms of governance open up new and highlyvaried ‘spaces’ for environmental governance. In some parts of the world, regionallycentred spaces of governance have recently emerged, arising from the ethos of ‘thinking



globally, acting locally’ (O’Riordan 2004). Bulkeley and Betsill (2005) adopt a broaderframework, recognising the ‘changing geographies of environmental governance charac-terised by increasingly complex vertical linkages between state institutions and the emer-gence of new political spaces’ (p. 59). To be effective, governance spaces cannot belimited to one scale, and the number of actors at different levels will be context specific.

Governance Spaces for Sustainable River Management

Hillman (2009) questions the degree to which sustainable river management goals arebeing realised on the ground. Others suggest that ‘deep engineering’ approaches havebeen merely replaced by ‘ecological engineering’ applications (Gosselin 2008). Whilethere have been radical changes to the science which informs management practice, therehave been limited radical changes to the social and political underpinnings of manage-ment (Eden and Tunstall 2006). The literature is littered with critiques of catchment-scale, participatory approaches, describing accounts of limited success in achievingappropriate working relationships among a broad array of actors at a catchment scale(Brunckhorst and Reeve 2006). Various factors that have been identified in these appar-ent failings include an inability to forge relationships between actors due to inability tosolve conflict (e.g. McDonald et al. 2004); lack of common language rendering commu-nication between actors difficult (Benda et al. 2002); local-scale issues becoming lost atthe catchment scale (Blomqvist and Schlager 2005); lack of trust and suspicion betweenactors (e.g. Warner 2006); playing out of unequal power relationships (Molle 2007);defining the catchment boundary and defining who and who is not involved in the‘catchment community’ (Ferreyra and Beard 2007; McDonald et al. 2004; O’Neill 2005);biophysical concerns not being framed in a socially acceptable light (Brierley et al. 2006;Eden and Tunstall 2006; McDonald et al. 2004; Newson and Large 2006; Spink et al.2010). While the inappropriateness of the catchment scale as an appropriate unit to basegovernance decisions has been commonly criticised as central to these concerns (e.g.Blomqvist and Schlager 2005), it may also be argued that the underlying structures andprocesses of communication and networks between actors at different scales may serve tostrengthen existing equal power relationships (Adger et al. 2003). Ultimately, however,management frameworks that fail to appreciate and work with catchment-scale biophysi-cal linkages are destined to be unsustainable (Fryirs and Brierley 2009). A parallel litera-ture has been identified which examines governance frameworks which support inclusive,catchment-framed management applications.

Using the example of Germany’s response to imposition of the European Union’sWater Framework Directive (WFD), Moss (2004) traced the emergence of ‘cooperationagreements’. Traditionally, river management in Germany was largely based aroundadministrative units, however under the WFD, planning and management are requiredaround hydraulically defined catchments. In this instance, ‘cooperation agreements’ haveemerged between differing institutional levels and horizontally across institutions, begin-ning to engage in dialogue and management applications. Through this analysis, it wasconcluded that a pure fit ⁄non-fit binary is not fruitful when examining potential net-works between actors; rather processes need to be understood in terms of ‘framing andre-framing logics of action’ (p. 93). Similarly, Healy (2005) illustrated using an Australianexample that re-alignment of nature–society relationships requires the facilitation of cross-institutional relationships. Such approaches recognise that there is not a complete changeof actors and institutions involved in management; however, relationships and responsibil-ities will be altered.



Multi-scale relationships have been explored through the notion of ‘middle-ground’approaches (Carr 2002; Hillman and Brierley 2005), recognizing a need to reconcile top-down with bottom-up approaches (Adger et al. 2003). While ‘top-down’ approacheshave clear deficiencies, they do demonstrate positive attributes (see Table 1). Bottom-upapproaches have been recognised as an alternative to top-down frameworks, as they offerlocally embedded and owned practices and solutions; however, drawbacks have also beenidentified (see Table 1) (e.g. Carr 2002) . Middle-ground can entail a continuum ofapproaches, with a broad aim of realising the benefits of both top-down (large scale polit-ical processes), with locally embedded bottom-up (grassroots and community processes) atecologically meaningful scales (e.g. the catchment), while minimising the drawbackswhich these approaches offer alone (Table 1) (Brierley and Fryirs 2005). This essentiallyallows strategic alignment of community-based projects within catchment-scale initiatives,allowing these local efforts to be structured within a catchment framework, while linkingeffectively within regional, national and international policy (Hillman and Brierley 2005;Lovell et al. 2002). Vital to the success of middle-ground is recognition by governmentsto provide a supportive and enabling policy environment, allowing devolution of controlto lower levels of organisation. Alongside devolution, capacity-building opportunitiesmust be provided, technical support engaged, and assistance provided to disadvantagedareas to ensure informed and equitable decision-making (Bonnell and Koontz 2007;

Table 1. Procedures and practices of top-down, bottom-up and middle-ground models ofgovernance and the potential and limiting factors. (Adapted from Carr 2002; Brierley andFryirs 2005).

Top-down Bottom-up Middle-ground

Procedures ⁄ practice Solutions to specificproblems by nationalgovernments.Reductionist approachto problem solving

Locally formedsolutions to localissues

Intersection of local andgovernment interests atan ecologicallymeaningful scale

Potential for: Awareness of broaderforces acting uponlocal practice; efficientuse of resources

Awareness of localconditions; localownership ofproblems

Integrating benefits oftop-down andbottom-up, networkingbetween state and localcommunities providingflexibility andresponsiveness;pro-active, integratedsolutions to issues

Limiting factors Lack of awareness oflocal conditions;emphasis onlarger ⁄ nationallysignificant areas;short-term actionswithin political cycles;siloed departmentalstructure; reductionistframing of issues andprospective solutions,with typically purebiophysical focus

Duplication of effortand inefficientresource use; inabilityto see broaderecosystem picture;groups do not haveability to mature ⁄adapt to changingconditions;perception that lackexpertise to manageenvironment

Potential for no one toown issues;middle-groundorganisations to be‘stuck in the middle’



Genskow 2009). Middle-ground approaches do not represent a merger or cooption ofstewardship by government agencies; rather they offer a framework upon which dynamicpartnerships between actors at different scales, which are traditionally disparate, can beachieved. It represents a space within which there is not mere reconciliation of left orright politics or suggestions of compromise, rather a space to openly share and debateissues and values (Carr 2002).

Along similar lines, the work of ‘intermediaries’ highlights the importance of recognis-ing the specificity and uniqueness of local contexts to the ‘emergence of local waterspaces’ (Medd and Marvin 2008, 296). Intermediaries have been defined in relation towater resources governance by Medd and Marvin (2008) as ‘deliberately positioned to actin between by bringing together and mediating between different interests’ (p. 282).Intermediaries play a role in developing fluidity, constructing sustainable practices intodifferent contexts. Their work ‘across different scales of practice involves a complex arrayof negotiation, (re)representation and translation of what ‘‘sustainable water management’’becomes in relation to different contexts’ (p. 296). Intermediaries serve to create the con-ditions and opportunities for relationships to be forged, recognising that these do notalways self-emerge; rather enabling spaces need to be constructed.

Case Studies: Governance Frameworks Underpinning Sustainable River Management

This section highlights the experience of three river management initiatives previouslyexplored in the literature, which have been recognised for their efforts in moving towardssustainable river management ideals (e.g. finalists of the Theiss Riverprize1). Examplesselected from New Zealand, Canada and England capture variation in institutional andpolicy settings, degrees of environmental degradation and pressures upon uses of the river.The material provided here is not intended to be comprehensive; rather it is used tohighlight the divergent governance spaces which foster sustainable river management indiffering environmental, socio-economic and political contexts. These case studies high-light evidence for the performance of middle-ground approaches for sustainable rivermanagement, identifying elements of relationships which have promoted the realisation ofsustainability practices. Two key questions are examined:

• Can decentralised frameworks foster sustainable river management at the catchmentscale through middle-ground approaches?

• Is there diversity in the governance spaces within which these frameworks operate?

A brief overview of each case study is provided in Table 2. This table provides high-levelclaims outlining who is involved in the middle-ground, the stimulus for this configura-tion of relationships and the vision ⁄key goals of each. This recognises that frameworksare affected by the purpose and mandate of the initiative (Underdal 2008). Further detailsof each initiative are provided below, with lessons learned for middle-ground applicationshighlighted within Boxes 1–3.

PROJECT TWIN STREAMS, NEW ZEALAND

In New Zealand, river management has been devolved to Regional and Local govern-ments through the Resource Management Act (1991). National level involvement inriver management is limited, as there is no mandate from the national level for catch-ment-scale planning, and ecological health guidelines are restricted to water level and



Table 2. Overview of case studies.

Project Twin Streams,New Zealand (Trotman2007)

Mersey BasinCampaign, England(Wright and Bendell2005)

Grand RiverConservationAuthority, Canada(Veale 2004)

Size (km2) 100 4680 6800Population 100,000 5,000,000 925,000Vision ⁄ key goalsfor initiative

Vision: ‘Working togetherfor healthy streams andstrong communities:creating a sustainablefuture’

Key goals:• Improve water quality• Encouraging sustainable

waterside regeneration• Engaging public,

private, community andvoluntary sector

Vision: ‘A healthy andsustainable naturalenvironment in theGrand River watershed’

Actors involvedin governance

Local Council (WaitakereCity Council); localcommunity groups;Regional Council(Auckland RegionalCouncil)

National government;Campaign Board(comprised regionalstakeholders such asEnvironment Agency,Utility Company);Charitable Trust (HealthyWaterways Trust);Business Foundation;Community voluntarygroups

Grand River ConservationAuthority board;Province of Ontario;local and regionalmunicipalities; increasingnumber of local partners

Key stimulus forinitiative

Need for improvedstormwatermanagement forexpanding city

Water quality issues;deteriorating socialconditions

Increased development;flood and drought issues

Defining initialfeatures ofgovernancespace

Resource ManagementAct (1991) requires tomitigate againstnegative effects ofstormwater.

Waitakere City Councildeclared itself an‘Ecocity’, which meantcouncil wascommitted toimproving localecosystems

Space initiated by MichaelHeseltine (Secretary ofState for theEnvironment), whopetitioned the Thatchergovernment to supporta ‘Campaign’ to improvewater quality within theMersey catchment(including surroundingland), which would inturn encouragewaterside economicregeneration

Local municipalitiesworking together duringfloods of the early 1900sto alleviate damage.Conservation AuthoritiesAct (1946) legislated forthese municipalities towork together

Key competingdemands ⁄ valueson river system

Economic and residentialgrowth; maintaining andcreating habitat; Maoricultural values

Improvement of waterquality; economicregeneration; increasingrecreationalopportunities

Controlling waterquantity to avoidflooding and drought;maintaining drinkingwater quality;recreationalopportunities (notablytrout fishery)



quality variables (Bosselmann and Grinlinton 2002; Gunningham 2008). Project TwinStreams began in 2003 as an initiative by the Waitakere City Council to deal with flood-ing and water quality issues in local streams through an integrated management approachto stormwater, drinking water, sewage and groundwater. Financial resourcing becameavailable through the regional infrastructure funding body to implement innovativeapproaches to stormwater management, which included improving local river systemswhile encouraging public participation. Waitakere City Council saw this funding as anopportunity to enact some of the principles outlined within their ‘Ecocity’ strategy (Trot-man 2007). While the initiative was initially managed within the local council, a commu-nity development partnership approach has emerged, creating a space for local andregional government to interact with community members. Community engagement hasbeen achieved through ‘contracting’ planting work to five local community organisations(e.g. schools, local businesses, churches), with the vision that these groups would imple-ment planting works within their area while educating the community about widerstormwater sustainability and river health issues (Trotman 2007). The Regional Councilhas provided guidance and support for the development of integrated water managementwithin a community partnership framework. Only limited interaction with the nationallevel government has occurred, with sporadic investments of money for specific objec-tives (Gregory and Brierley 2010). At the request of local communities, planning is cur-rently underway between community, local and regional councils and Iwi2 towards along-term goal of community governance of the programme when the current fundingexpires in 2012. Box 1 provides a key lesson of middle-ground provided by Project TwinStreams.

GRAND RIVER CONSERVATION AUTHORITY, ONTARIO, CANADA

In Canada, water resources, including rivers, are managed through the Provincial govern-ments. Municipal and Regional governments also have a role in water managementthrough meeting water supply and wastewater needs and land-use planning (Plummeret al. 2005). Catchment-scale planning in Ontario is encouraged by the ConservationAuthorities Act (1946), which in the Grand River catchment created the Grand ValleyConservation Authority (GVCA) in 1948. The GVCA focused upon reforestation, land-use problems, wild life and recreation within the catchment (Shrubsole 1992). Prior tothis legislation, the Grand River Conservation Commission Act was passed in 1932. Thisallowed any five municipalities within the catchment to implement the financial, legaland administrative arrangements required to implement the Finlayson Report.3 Five

Box 1: Lessons of Middle-ground from Project Twin Streams – Locally Embedded Middle-ground.

Project Twin Streams represents a locally embedded middle-ground. Unlike many catchments, thiscatchment is located within a boundary of a single local authority. This, combined with the relativelylow population, creates a small network of actors, compared with a catchment that crosses many politi-cal boundaries. Consequently, network development has focussed on partnership between the localgovernment and community groups. Broader linkages to regional and national processes are createdand maintained through advisors to the project.

In New Zealand, there is very little direction for local governments to direct participatory processes inenvironmental management; however, Gunningham (2008) recognises this absence as providing a‘policy space for experimentation’ (p. 23). The Waitakere City Council has been able to creatively utiliseits funding to engage the community and extend moves to improve the health of the river. It would havebeen unlikely for the Council alone to have the capacity to do if this funding had not been available.



municipalities agreed to form the first Grand River Conservation Commission (GRCC)and a charter was granted in 1934 (Shrubsole 1992). A second Grand River ConservationCommission Act passed in 1938 gave the Commission responsibility for investigation, con-struction and operation of reservoirs throughout the catchment (Shrubsole 1992). This part-nership was prompted by severe flooding and drought in the early 1900s. By the 1960s,confusion mounted over the roles of the GVCA and the GRCC, resulting in their amal-gamation in 1966 to form the Grand River Conservation Authority (GRCA) (Plummeret al. 2005).

Plummer et al. (2005) identify a gradual shift towards increasing community involve-ment alongside municipal and provincial government through the 1980s. This is exempli-fied by the involvement of the province, municipalities and public participation indeveloping the Grand River Basin Water Management Study, which was coordinated bythe Grand River Implementation Committee (a committee of provincial agencies and theGRCA) during the 1980s. Further expansion of the actors involved in river managementoccurred through the 1990s, as the heritage planning document, ‘The Grand Strategy’was developed, where the GRCA was viewed as the coordinator which supported com-munity members and groups to share knowledge and develop solutions for river issues(Veale 2004). Box 2 illustrates that existing governance spaces can be modified to enablesustainable river management goals.

MERSEY BASIN CAMPAIGN, ENGLAND

Heavy water pollution within the Mersey and rising social unrest within the North Westof England during the early 1980s led to the central government establishing the MerseyBasin Campaign in 1985 (Wright and Bendell 2005). The array of actors involved in theCampaign has been traced by a number of authors, including Medd and Marvin (2008),Moss et al. (2009) and Wright and Bendell (2005). While the directive for the campaigncame from the national level, the Mersey Basin Campaign was established as a collabora-tive partnership campaign, as it was thought that this would engender a greater range ofstakeholders compared to delivery by central government (Medd and Marvin 2008). TheCampaign was structured from the beginning as an independent chair, who led partnersincluding the (then publicly owned, but latterly private-owned) water authority, local

Box 2: Lessons of Middle-ground from Grand River Conservation Authority – Making the Most ofExisting ‘Spaces’.

The Grand River Conservation Authority demonstrates that existing spaces for governance can be usedto deliver sustainable river management. While the earlier GRCC was established in 1934, long beforeideals of sustainable river management were recognised, a structure was put in place which was ableto be modified to reflect changes in technical and scientific understanding. In particular, the develop-ment of the GRIC illustrates relationships between the GRCA and provincial agencies paved the way foreffective and efficient development of integrative and comprehensive plans, which were at the sametime incorporative of public concerns (Plummer et al. 2005). If a new governance structure was to becreated, it would largely duplicate the space which the GRCA currently occupies.

The GRCA highlights the importance of an organisation to be flexible. They have been able to adaptfrom a largely ‘command-and-control’ mindset throughout the 1930s–1980s, which was evident in thecreation of dams to mitigate against flooding and drought, to a mindset which looks to improvethe health of the river and maximise recreational benefits. This flexibility is also evident in the ability ofthe organisation to maintain its viability despite the province withdrawing support from the mid-1990sonwards (Plummer et al. 2005).



government bodies, along with representatives and professional advisors from non-gov-ernment organisations, and later industry partners began to join. The EnvironmentAgency (then the National Rivers Authority) also became involved, due to their regula-tory role over river health. These groups are represented through the Mersey Basin Cam-paign Council, who provide strategic advice and approve annual corporate plans.Additionally, the campaign comprised a Business Foundation manages the business andfinancial matters; the ‘Healthy Waterways Trust’, who are a registered environmentalbody and provide charitable funds for the campaign; and five advisory groups who pro-vide guidance for policy development and further campaign initiatives. At a local level,the Campaign is represented in the form of ‘Action Partnerships’, with which partnershipsare forged with local communities. The specific organisation of these initiatives variesbetween different local circumstances (Medd and Marvin 2008; Wright and Bendell2005).

In 1996, the Campaign was ‘privatised’, limiting ties to the central government. Thiswas viewed as necessary to develop more effective engagement with the private and vol-untary sectors government (Wright and Bendell 2005). The European Union WFD hasprovided legislative support for the goals and participatory approach of the Mersey BasinCampaign to river management, and connections have been made through EuropeanUnion research initiatives (Riley and Tyson 2006). Box 3 highlights a key lesson for mid-dle-ground frameworks from the Mersey Basin Campaign, reflecting upon their ability topool resources and enable action.

Discussion

The three middle-ground institutions highlighted above enable community aspirations tobe recognised and incorporated in ecologically meaningful management applications atthe catchment scale. Strategic planning must look beyond local-scale issues to considerbroader processes at play, as regional, national and international processes that influenceriver management impact upon relative prioritisation of activities (Gibbs and Jonas 2000).All three institutions involve actors from the community to the regional scale and in thecase of the Mersey Basin Campaign, directly incorporate actors from the national scale.Providing a site for these networks to intersect has also allowed a pooling and exchangingof resources, creating opportunities for action which would not otherwise occur throughan ethos of innovation and experimentation (see Box 3).

The three case studies highlight the diversity of governance spaces which river man-agement occupies. Such spaces have emerged through differing processes, whether

Box 3: Lessons of Middle-ground from the Mersey Basin Campaign – Pooling and Enabling.

The structure of the Mersey Basin Campaign was characterised by a partnership approach. As identifiedby Medd and Marvin (2008), ‘fluid’ relationships have allowed decentralisation and incorporation ofextended networks, broadening the number of actors involved over time. This increase in the numberof actors involved has meant that the Mersey Basin Campaign was able to pool resources and maximisebenefits, is exemplified by a ratio of government funding to funding provided by partners of 1:7 (EkosConsulting 2006).

In reflecting upon their work, the Mersey Basin Campaign suggest that they are ‘enablers’ – throughtheir partnership approach, they are able to disseminate knowledge between partners, and facilitategroups to carry out action on the ground. They have characterised the governance space in the NorthWest of England by encouraging, educating and providing support for other groups to deliver rivermanagement goals (Mersey Basin Campaign 2010).



through government intervention (in the case of the Mersey Basin Campaign), the provi-sion of funding (Project Twin Streams) or through existing structures (GRCA). Thisdiversity is demonstrative of the diversification of environmental governance spaces, andthe re-thinking of scalar relationships through hybrid forms of governance (Bulkeley2005). This diversity also reflects a broad array of factors, including the variation in thehistorical trajectory of river management in the area, contemporary policy, resourcesavailable and the willingness of partners to work together. Consequently, not only con-temporary factors shape governance spaces but also effective frameworks will build uponinstitutional trajectories, capitalising upon existing networks to develop sustainable rivermanagement.

These interventions are not regulatory (although the GRCA does have some regulatoryfunctions), or strictly guided by policy, allowing a degree of flexibility through time as tothe aims and scope of these catchment-level interventions. This flexibility also allows afocal point for negotiating and the management effort to be sustained through times ofinstitutional change. All three case studies have experienced periods when the relativeinfluence of institutions at different scales will change (e.g. flexibility of the GRCA dem-onstrated in Box 2). With this insight, efforts need to be made to enhance the profession-alism of river practitioners. Secure positions and job opportunities and structures withinthese middle-ground organisations are vital to the maintenance of sustainability efforts soaspirations may be maintained through periods of change (Brierley and Fryirs 2008; Newson2009). This does not replace the work of volunteers. Rather, it recognises the skills ofindividuals who are effectively able to weave differing aspirations together, linking thesewith top-down policies. It also highlights the importance of inclusion in facilitating par-ticipatory decision-making. The security of these positions allows an institutional memoryto develop, further enhancing prospects for reflexive organisations (Jacobs 2002). Furtherresearch is required to provide a more nuanced understanding of how networks of multipleactors enable ideals of participation, adaptiveness and succession planning, resourcing andsustaining the leadership that is required to keep ‘making it happen’.

The exemplars provided all demonstrate practical application of the four dimensions ofsustainable river management identified in Figure 1. Middle-ground frameworks haveemerged to support:

• Management at the catchment scale, with visions and underlying plans which considercatchment-scale processes.

• Ecosystem-based visions and goals, where the unique biophysical character of thecatchment is considered in relation to the place-specific history.

• Involvement of a broad array of actors in decision-making and implementation, with aview to be as inclusive as possible.

• Adaptive management by allowing a degree of flexibility and reflection in decision-making processes, enabling organisations to respond to institutional change and learnfrom past actions to inform future planning.

In enabling these dimensions, the development of catchment-specific frameworks whichengender locally owned responses to issues has been vital. It is unlikely that the opportu-nities which enabled these initiatives to emerge would have been as effective if a pre-scribed framework had been imposed. Just as importantly, these various alliances wouldnot have been able to respond to the local aspirations and resources embedded withincommunities. It is important to note that experimentation to build middle-groundinitiatives is necessarily a lengthy process. Reconfigurations of relationships require an



adjustment phase, as responsibilities are understood, and the capacity to undertake theseadjustments is developed. Changes from a command-and-control mindset towards a moresustainable framework also require a shift in institutional culture. With such significantchanges, it cannot be expected that each of the elements underpinning sustainable rivermanagement will be immediately realised. While negotiation and relationship buildingshould not be at the expense of moving forward and implementing actions which lead tomore sustainable river management, such goals will not be realised unless due regard isgiven to the importance of relationship building and efforts to maintain momentum oncegains have been achieved.

Conclusion

It is now clear that if we are to depend upon river ecosystems for goods and services intothe future, efforts are required to balance more carefully biophysical, social, cultural andeconomic goals for river management. Traditional governance frameworks need to bealtered to enact this reorientation of management goals, recognising that the spatial andtemporal scales and the scope of actors involved in decision-making have now broadened(e.g. Biermann et al. 2009; Genskow 2009; Medd and Marvin 2008; Moss 2004; Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007). Middle-ground frameworks have the potential to offer representationof multiple scales and actors required for this transition, which top-down and bottom-upframeworks fail to deliver in their own right (e.g. Carr 2002; Hillman and Brierley2005). To date, there has been little understanding of the performance of middle-groundgovernance to deliver sustainable river management goals and processes.

As demonstrated by the case material, middle-ground approaches provide a frameworkwhich structures and facilitates networking of actors and institutions across an array ofspatial scales. Such frameworks may occupy a range of governance spaces, reflecting theinherent place values and institutional trajectories of any given catchment. This highlightsthe importance of avoiding a panacea approach to developing governance structures forsustainable river management goals, as this is unlikely to capture institutional and socio-ecological diversity. A ‘one-size fits all approach’ will lead to inappropriate configurationsof actor networks, ultimately compromising the attainment of objectives towards the sus-tainable management of river systems into the future. An adaptive, experimental ethospromotes the development of decentralised and reflexive networks as the most appropri-ate configurations for each catchment. This may take considerable time and resources toestablish, but institutional configurations which enable notions of sustainable river man-agement are vital if sustainability objectives are to be met in the future.

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by a Top Achiever Doctoral Scholarship through the TertiaryEducation Commission, New Zealand. The authors would like to thank Dr Karen Fisherand two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments.

Short Biographies

Claire Gregory’s research interests lie in the governance of river systems and the intersec-tion of biophysical and social river science. Her previous work explored the process ofvision development and implementation in river rehabilitation initiatives, which has beenrecently published in Area. Her current PhD work is examining the diversity of gover-



nance spaces sustainable river management can occupy. She holds a Bachelor of Science(Honours) and Master of Science from the University of Auckland. She is currently basedin Auckland, and may be reached by e-mail, [email protected].

Professor Gary Brierley is presently Chair of Physical Geography in the School ofEnvironment at the University of Auckland, New Zealand. He completed his undergrad-uate degree in Geography at Durham University, UK, his postgraduate work at SimonFraser University, Canada, and his post-doctoral work at the Australian National Univer-sity. He worked for fifteen years at Macquarie University, prior to moving to Aucklandin 2005. His research focuses primarily on the use of river science to guide managementapplications, especially concerns for ecosystem management, river conservation/rehabilita-tion and integrated catchment management. His recent research interests have alsoexpanded into environmental justice. He is co-developer, along with Kirstie Fryirs, of theRiver Styles framework, and together with Kirstie he has written and/or edited twomajor books: ‘‘Geomorphology and River Management’’ (Blackwell, 2005) and ‘‘RiverFutures’’ (Island Press, 2008). Gary is presently Section Editor (Geomorphology) for Geo-graphy Compass having previously been Section Editor for the Environment and Societysection of the journal. He is also Chair of the Geomorphology Commission of the Inter-national Geographical Union.

Professor Richard Le Heron (FRSNZ) is an economic geographer who draws on poststructural and political economy insights to enliven his research, teaching and supervision.His research presently focuses on nature-society questions and the development of indivi-dual and institutional capacities and capabilities to address policy, industry, communityand civil society challenges. He regularly co-supervises trans-disciplinary doctoral theseswith biophysical scientists from AgResearch, NIWA and Landcare. He is co-PI on theMarsden funded ‘Biological Economies: Knowing and making new rural value relations’(20102012), an AI on the University of Auckland Thematic Research Initiative’s projecton ‘Anchor organizations, sustainability and new forms of leadership in transformingAuckland’ (20102011), and a co-author of the New Zealand Social Science DelegateReport on International Perspectives on Social Science (2010) dealing with opportunitiesfor New Zealand. In recent years Richard has been active in the TEC funded BRCSS(Building Research Capabilities in the Social Sciences) initiative, chair of the InternationalGeographical Union Research Commission on ‘The dynamics of economic spaces’ andsince July 2010 the Royal Society of New Zealand’s Vice President (Social Science andHumanities). He holds a Master of Arts from Massey University and a PhD from theUniversity of Washington.

Notes

* Correspondence address: Claire E. Gregory, School of Environment, The University of Auckland, Private Bag92019, Auckland, New Zealand. E-mail: [email protected].

1 Awarding of the International Theiss Riverprize by the International Riverfoundation is based upon the demon-stration of outcomes relating to whole of catchment aquatic ecosystem health, through programmes which includeprocesses to ensure value for money and accountability, inclusiveness (engaging all relevant interest groups andgenuine participation of all relevant levels of government, community and industry), innovation and progresstowards sustainable outcomes (International RiverFoundation 2007).2 Iwi is the Maori (indigenous people of New Zealand) term for tribal unit.3 The Finlayson Report was also called the ‘Report on Grand River Drainage’ compiled by the provincial govern-ment and the municipalities of the catchment, to address flood protection, minimum flows and sewerage dilution(Shrubsole 1992).



References

Abers, R. N. (2007). Organizing for governance: building collaboration in Brazilian river basins. World Development35 (8), pp. 1450–1463.

Adger, W., et al. (2003). Governance for sustainability: towards a ‘thick’ analysis of environmental decision making.Environment and Planning A 35 (6), pp. 1095–1110.

Ali-Khan, F. and Mulvihill, P. (2008). Exploring collaborative environmental governance: perspectives on bridgingand actor agency. Geography Compass 2 (6), pp. 1974–1994.

Allan, C., Curtis, A., Stankey, G. and Shindler, B. (2008). Adaptive management and watersheds: a social scienceperspective. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 44 (1), pp. 166–175.

Benda, L. E., et al. (2002). How to avoid train wrecks when using science in environmental problem solving.BioScience 52 (12), pp. 1127–1136.

Biermann, F., et al. (2009). Earth system governance: people, places, and the planet. Science and implementation plan of theEarth System Governance Project. Earth System Governance Report 1, IHDP Report 20. Bonn: The Earth SystemGovernance Project.

Blomqvist, W. and Schlager, E. (2005). Political pitfalls of integrated watershed management. Society & NaturalResources 18 (2), pp. 101–117.

Bonnell, J. E. and Koontz, T. M. (2007). Stumbling forward: the organisational challenges of building and sustain-ing collaborative watershed management. Society and Natural Resources 20 (2), pp. 153–167.

Bosselmann, K. and Grinlinton, D. (eds) (2002). Environmental law for a sustainable society. Auckland: New ZealandCentre for Environmental Law.

Brierley, G. and Fryirs, K. (2005). Geomorphology and river management: applications of the River Styles Framework.Oxford: Blackwell.

Brierley, G. and Fryirs, K. (eds) (2008). Moves towards an era of river repair. In: River futures: an integrative scientificapproach to river repair. Washington: Island Press, pp. 3–15.

Brierley, G. and Fryirs, K. (2009). Don’t fight the site: three geomorphic considerations in catchment-scale riverrehabilitation planning. Environmental Management 43 (6), pp. 1201–1218.

Brierley, G., Hillman, M. and Fryirs, K. (2006). Knowing your place: an Australasian perspective on catchment-framed approaches to river repair. Australian Geographer 37 (2), pp. 131–145.

Brunckhorst, D. and Reeve, I. (2006).A geography of place: principles and application for defining ‘eco-civic’resource governance regions. Australian Geographer 37 (2), pp. 147–166.

Bulkeley, H. (2005). Reconfiguring environmental governance: towards a politics of scales and networks. PoliticalGeography 25 (8), pp. 875–902.

Bulkeley, H. and Betsill, M. M. (2005). Rethinking sustainable cities: multilevel governance and the ‘urban’ politicsof climate change. Environmental Politics 14 (1), pp. 42–63.

Carr, A. (2002). Grass roots and green tape: principles and practices of environmental stewardship. Sydney: Federation Press.Chalmers, A. (1999). What is this thing called science? St Lucia, Qld: University of Queensland Press.Clark, M. (2002). Dealing with uncertainty: adaptive approaches to Sustainable river management. Aquatic Conserva-

tion: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 12 (4), pp. 347–363.Eden, S. and Tunstall, S. (2006). Ecological versus social restoration? How urban river restoration challenges but

also fails to challenge the science - policy nexus in the United Kingdom. Environment and Planning C: Governmentand Policy 24 (5), pp. 661–680.

Ekos Consulting (2006). Evaluation of the Mersey Basin Campaign: final report. Glasgow: Government Office North West.Everard, M. and Powell, A. (2002). Rivers as living systems. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems

12 (4), pp. 329–337.Fabricius, C., Folke, C., Cundill, G. and Schultz, L. (2007). Powerless spectators, coping actors, and adaptive

co-managers: a synthesis of the role of communities in ecosystem management. Ecology and Society 12 (1).[Online]. Retrieved on 1 December 2008 from: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art29/.

Ferreyra, C. and Beard, P. (2007). Participatory evaluation of collaborative and integrated water management:insights from the field. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 50 (2), pp. 271–296.

Folke, C., et al. (2002). Resilience and sustainable development: building adaptive capacity in a world of transfor-mations. Ambio 31 (5), pp. 437–440.

Fryirs, K. and Brierley, G. (2009). Naturalness and place in river rehabilitation. Ecology and Society 14 (1). [Online].Retrieved on 31 May 2009 from: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/vol14/iss1/art20/.

Galaz, V., et al. (2008). The problem of fit among biophysical systems, environmental and resource regimes, andbroader governance systems: insights and emerging challenges. In: Young, O., King, L. and Schroeder, H. (eds)Institutions and environmental change: principal findings, applications, and research frontiers. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp.147–186.

Genskow, K. (2009). Catalyzing collaboration: Wisconsin’s agency-initiated basin partnerships. Environmental Man-agement 43 (3), pp. 411–424.

Gibbs, D. and Jonas, A. (2000). Governance and regulation in local environmental policy: the utility of a regimeapproach. Geoforum 31 (3), pp. 299–313.



Gosselin, F. (2008). Redefining ecological engineering to promote its integration with sustainable development andtighten its links with the whole of ecology. Ecological Engineering 32 (3), pp. 199–205.

Gregory, C. and Brierley, G. (2010). Development and application of vision statements in river rehabilitation: theexperience of Project Twin Streams, New Zealand. Area 42 (4), pp. 468–478.

de Groot, W. T. and Lenders, H. J. (2006). Emergent principles for river management. Hydrobiologia 565 (1), pp.309–316.

Gunderson, L. (1999). Resilience, flexibility and adaptive management – antidotes for spurious certitude? Conserva-tion Ecology 3 (1). [Online]. Retrieved 8 December 2008 from: http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss1/art7.

Gunningham, N. (2008). Innovative governance and regulatory design: managing water resources. Christchurch: Land CareResearch.

Harich, J. (2010). Change resistance as the crux of the environmental sustainability problem. System DynamicsReview 26 (1), pp. 35–72.

Haslam, S. M. (1991). The historic river: rivers and culture down the ages. Cambridge: Cobden.Healy, S. (2005). Toward a vocabulary for speaking of the engagement of things into discourse. Journal of Environ-

mental Policy & Planning 7 (3), pp. 239–256.Higgs, E. (2003). Nature by design: people, natural process, and ecological restoration. Cambridge: MIT Press.Hillman, M. (2009). Integrating knowledge: the key challenge for a new paradigm in river management. Geography

Compass 3 (6), pp. 1988–2010.Hillman, M. and Brierley, G. (2005). A critical review of catchment-scale stream rehabilitation programmes. Progress

in Physical Geography 29 (1), pp. 50–70.Hillman, M., Brierley, G. and Fryirs, K. (2008). Restoring uncertainty: translating science into management prac-

tice. In: Brierley, G. and Fryirs, K. (eds) River futures: an integrative scientific approach to river repair. Washington:Island Press, pp. 255–272.

Himley, M. (2008). Geographies of environmental governance: the nexus of nature and neoliberalism. GeographyCompass 2 (2), pp. 433–451.

Holling, C. and Meffe, G. (1996). Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Con-servation Biology 10 (2), pp. 328–337.

Huitema, D., et al. (2009). Adaptive water governance: assessing the institutional prescriptions of adaptive (co-)management from a governance perspective and defining a research agenda. Ecology and Society 14 (1), 26 pp.[Online]. Retrieved on 20 May 2009 from: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art26/.

International RiverFoundation (2007). River heroes: lessons from Rhiess Riverprize winners and finalists 1999–2006. Bris-bane: International Riverfoundation.

Jacobs, W. J. (2002). The Mekong River Commission: transboundary water resources planning and regional secu-rity. The Geographical Journal 168 (4), pp. 354–364.

Jordan, A. (2008). The governance of sustainable development: taking stock and looking forwards. Environment andPlanning C: Government and Policy 26 (1), pp. 17–33.

Karr, J. R. and Chu, E. W. (2000). Sustaining living rivers. Hydrobiologia 422–423, pp. 1–14.Kemp, R., Parto, S. and Gibson, R. (2005). Governance for sustainable development: moving from theory to prac-

tice. International Journal of Sustainable Development 8 (1), pp. 12–30.Lachapelle, P., McCool, S. and Patterson, M. (2003). Barriers to effective natural resource planning in a ‘‘messy’’

world. Society and Natural Resources 16 (6), pp. 473–490.Lovell, C., Mandondo, A. and Moriarty, P. (2002). The question of scale in integrated natural resource manage-

ment. Conservation Ecology 5 (2), 25 pp. [Online]. Retrieved on 4 June 2006 from: http://www.consecol.org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/vol5/iss2/art25/.

Margerum, R. D. (1999). Integrated environmental management: the foundations for successful practice. Environ-mental Management 24 (2), pp. 151–166.

McDonald, A. L., Stuart, N., Haycock, N. E. and Chalk, E. A. (2004). Rivers of dreams: on the gulf between the-oretical and practical aspects of an upland river restoration. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 29 (3),pp. 257–281.

McGinnis, M. (ed.) (2000). Polycentric games and institutions. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.Medd, W. and Marvin, S. (2008). Making water work: intermediating between regional strategy and local practice.

Environment and Planning D 26 (2), pp. 280–299.Mersey Basin Campaign. Five verbs used to describe how the campaign operates. [Online]. Retrieved on 9 June

2010 from: http://www.merseybasin.org.uk/.Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.Molle, F. (2007). Scales and power in river basin management: the Chao Phraya River in Thailand. Geographical

Journal 173 (4), pp. 358–373.Moss, T. (2004). The governance of land use in river basins: prospects for overcoming problems of institutional

interplay with the EU Water Framework Directive. Land Use Policy 21 (1), pp. 85–94.Moss, T., Medd, W., Guy, S. and Marvin, S. (2009). Organising water: The hidden role of intermediary work.

Water Alternatives 2 (1), pp. 16–33.



Moss, T. and Monstadt, J. (2008). Coping with complexity: lessons for policy development, project managementand research. In: Moss, T. (ed.) Restoring floodplains in Europe: policy contexts and project experiences. London: IWA,pp. 317–337.

Newson, M. D. (2009). Land, water and development: sustainable and adaptive management of rivers. 3rd ed. Wiltshire:Routledge.

Newson, M. D. and Clark, M. J. (2008). Uncertainty and the sustainable management of restored rivers. In: Darby, S.and Sear, D. (eds) River restoration: managing the uncertainty in restoring physical habitat. Chichester: Wiley, pp. 287–301.

Newson, M. D. and Large, A. (2006). ‘Natural’ rivers, ‘hydromorphological quality’ and river restoration: a chal-lenging new agenda for applied fluvial geomorphology. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 31 (13), pp. 1606–1624.

Olsson, P., et al. (2006). Shooting the rapids: navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecologicalsystems. Ecology and Society 11 (1), 18 pp. [Online]. Retrieved on 24 November 2008 from: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art18/.

O’Neill, K. (2005). Can watershed management unite town and country? Society and Natural Resources 18 (3), pp.241–253.

O’Riordan, T. (2004). Environmental science, sustainability and politics. Transactions of the Institute of British Geogra-phers 29 (2), pp. 234–247.

Pahl-Wostl, C. (2002). Towards sustainability in the water sector – the importance of human actors and processesof social learning. Aquatic Sciences – Research Across Boundaries 64 (4), pp. 394–411.

Pahl-Wostl, C., et al. (2007). Managing change toward adaptive water management through social learning. Ecologyand Society 12 (2), 18 pp. [Online]. Retrieved on 1 September 2008 from: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art5/.

Palmer, M. (2009). Reforming watershed restoration: science in need of application and applications in need of sci-ence. Estuaries and Coasts 32 (1), pp. 1–17.

Palmer, M., et al. (2005). Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology 42 (2), pp.208–217.

Petts, J. (2006). Managing public engagement to optimise learning: reflections from urban river restoration. HumanEcology Review 13 (2), pp. 172–181.

Pierre, J. (1999). Models of urban governance: the institutional dimension of urban politics. Urban Affairs Review 34(3), pp. 372–396.

Plummer, R. and Armitage, D. (2007). Crossing boundaries, crossing scales: the evolution of environment andresource co-management. Geography Compass 1 (4), pp. 834–849.

Plummer, R. and FitzGibbon, J. (2006). People matter: the importance of social capital in the co-management ofnatural resources. Natural Resources Forum 30 (1), pp. 51–62.

Plummer, R., Splers, A., FitzGibbon, J. and Imhof, J. (2005). The expanding institutional context for waterresources management: the case of the Grand River watershed. Canadian Water Resources Journal 30 (3), pp. 227–244.

Redclift, M. (1997). Postscript: sustainable development in the 21st century: the beginning of history? In: Baker, S.,Kousis, M., Richardson, D. and Young, S. (eds) The politics of sustainable development: theory, policy and practicewithin the European Union. London: Routledge, pp. 259–268.

Riley, C. and Tyson, J. M. (2006). Europe’s Water Framework Directive: discovering hidden benefits. Water Scienceand Technology 53 (10), pp. 269–276.

Shrubsole, D. (1992). The Grand River Conservation Commission: history, activities, and implications for watermanagement. The Canadian Geographer 36 (3), pp. 221–236.

Spink, A., et al. (2010). Has river rehabilitation begun? Social perspectives from the Upper Hunter catchment,New South Wales, Australia. Geoforum 41 (3), pp. 399–409.

Trotman, R. (2007). Project Twin Streams: the story so far. Waitakere: Waitakere City Council.Underdal, A. (2008). Determining the causal significance of institutions: accomplishments and challenges. In:

Young, O. R., King, L. A. and Schroeder, H. (eds) Institutions and environmental change: principal findings, applica-tions, and research frontiers. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 49–78.

Veale, B. (2004). A decade in the Canadian heritage river system: a review of the grand strategy. Cambridge: Grand RiverConservation Authority.

Warner, J. F. (2006). More sustainable participation? Multi-stakeholder platforms for integrated catchment manage-ment. Water Resources Development 22 (1), pp. 15–35.

Watson, N., Walker, G. and Medd, W. (2007). Critical perspectives on integrated water management. The Geo-graphical Journal 173 (4), pp. 297–299.

Wright, A. and Bendell, B. (2005). Mersey Basin Campaign: a partnership approach to river basin management. In:Ostfeld, A. and Tyson, J. (eds) River Basin Restoration and Management. London: IWA, pp. 21–28.

Zaelke, D., Stilwell, M. and Young, O. (2005). Compliance, rule of law and good governance – what reasondemands: making law work for sustainable development. In: Zaelke, D., Kaniaru, D. and Kruzikova, E. (eds)Making law work: environmental compliance and sustainable development. London: Cameron May, pp. 29–45.



governance spaces for sustainable river management

Documents