Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Requirements for adaptive governance of groundwater ecosystem services: insights from Sandveld (South Africa), Upper Guadiana (Spain) and Spree (Germany)

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Regional Environmental Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The over-abstraction of aquifers and the modification of landscape–water systems often result in the degradation of groundwater resources and the loss of related ecosystem services. Many of these problems are associated with failure of governance and management regimes. Thus, groundwater resources require innovative approaches that deal with system complexity moving governments toward adaptive and integrated management. Vertical (hierarchical) and horizontal (cross-sectoral) integration structures are crucial characteristics of adaptive governance and support sustainable management of groundwater ecosystem services. The research objective of this article is to investigate linkages between these integration structures, the governance regime and the state of groundwater ecosystem services across three case studies: Sandveld (South Africa), Upper Guadiana (Spain) and Spree (Germany). First, we developed a set of criteria indicating vertical and horizontal integration and then applied a conceptual and analytical approach, the Management and Transition Framework, specifically developed to support a systematic and consistent investigation of policy and management processes. Results indicate that higher degrees of integration during management activities do not identify a direct improvement of groundwater ecosystem services. But evidence highlights that integration (1) opens up the political arena for environmental perspectives, (2) increases the quality of groundwater and conservation plans, (3) accelerates the implementation of policies, (4) mitigates conflicts between different groundwater users and (5) increases the awareness of different ecosystem services. Finally, we conclude that compared with other natural resources, groundwater management still lacks participation, multi-level interactions and sectoral integration, especially at higher levels of management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A regime is here described as the whole complex of technologies, institutions, environmental factors and paradigms that are highly connected and constitute the base for the functioning of the management system targeted to fulfill a societal function (Pahl-Wostl 2009).

Abbreviations

AA:

Action Arena

AS:

Action Situation

BPP:

Biodiversity best practices

DWA:

Department of Water Affairs (of South Africa)

GCBC:

Greater Cederberg Biodiversity Corridor

GES:

Groundwater ecosystem services

GRSP:

Gewässerrandstreifenprojekt (Riparian Land Projekt Spreewald)

IWRM:

Integrated Water Resources Management

MA:

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

MTF:

Management and Transition Framework

RBA:

River Basin Authority

SPUGB:

Special Plan for the Upper Guadiana basin

TSD:

Total System Database

UGB:

Upper Guadiana basin

References

  • Archer E, Conrad J, Münch Z, Opperman D, Tadross M, Venter J (2009) Climate change, groundwater and intensive commercial farming in the semi-arid northern Sandveld, South Africa. J Integr Environ Sci 6(2):139–155. doi:10.1080/19438150902916589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashton PJ, Turton AR, Roux DJ (2006) Exploring the government, society, and science interfaces in integrated water resource management in South Africa. Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education 135(2006):28–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakker K, Kooy M, Shofiania NE, Martijn EJ (2008) Governance failure: rethinking the institutional dimensions of urban water supply to poor households. World Dev 36(10):1891–1915. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.09.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergkamp G, Cross K (2006) Groundwater and ecosystem services: towards their sustainable use. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on groundwater sustainability (ISGWAS), Alicante, Spain, 24–27 Jan 2006, pp 177–193

  • Brauman KA, Daily GC, Ka’eo Duarte T, Mooney HA (2007) The nature and value of ecosystem services: an overview highlighting hydrologic services. Annu Rev Environ Resour 32:67–98. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.32.031306.102758

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bromley J, Cruces J, Acreman M, Martínez L, Llamas MR (2001) Problems of sustainable groundwater management in an area of over-exploitation: the Upper Guadiana Catchment, Central Spain. Internal Journal of Water Resources Development 17(3):379–396. doi:10.1080/07900620120065156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke J, Moench M (2000) Groundwater and society: resources, tensions and opportunities. United Nations Publication, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Carmona G, Varela-Ortega C, Bromley J (2011) The use of participatory object-oriented bayesian networks and agro-economic models for groundwater management in Spain. Water Resour Manage 25(5):1509–1524. doi:10.1007/s11269-010-9757-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter SR, DeFries R, Dietz T, Mooney HA, Polasky S, Reid WV, Scholes RJ (2006) Millennium ecosystem assessment: research needs. Science 314(5797):257–258. doi:10.1126/science.1131946

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • CHG [Confederación Hidrográfica del Guadiana] (2006) Régimen de explotación para el ano 2007 de la unidad hidrogeológica de la Mancha Occidental y de un perímetro adicional de la unidad hidrogeológica de la sierra de Altomira. GHC, Ciudad Real, Spain

  • Council of Canadian Academies (2009) The sustainable management of groundwater in Canada. Expert panel on groundwater. Report to the Government of Canada

  • Daily GC (1997) Nature’s services—societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island, Washington

  • Danielopol DL, Griebler C, Gunatilaka A, Notenboom J (2003) Present state and future prospects for groundwater ecosystems. Environ Conserv 30(2):104–130. doi:10.1017/S0376892903000

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, Norberg J (2005) Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30:441–473. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster S, Garduno H, Tuinhof A, Tovey C (2009) Strategic Overview Series Number 1: Groundwater governance—conceptual framework for assessment of provisions and needs. World Bank GW MATE Briefing Paper

  • Gómez-Baggethun E, de Groot R (2010) Natural capital and ecosystem services: the ecological foundation of human society. Issues in Environmental Science and Technology (30). Ecosystem Services. Royal Society of Chemistry. doi: 10.1039/9781849731058-00105

  • Gunderson LH, Holling CS (2001) Resilience and adaptive cycles. In: Gunderson L, Holling CS (eds) Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island, Washington, pp 25–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Holling CS (1978) Adaptive environmental assessment and management. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Holling CS, Meffe GK (1996) Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conserv Biol 10(2):328–337. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10020328.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huitric M, Walker B, Moberg F, Österblom H et al (2009) Biodiversity, ecosystem services and resilience—governance for a future with global changes. Background report for the scientific workshop Biodiversity, ecosystem services and governance—targets beyond 2010, Tjärnö, Sweden, 4–6 Sept 2009. Albaeco, Stockholm, Sweden

  • Huntjens P, Pahl-Wostl C, Grin J (2010) Climate change adaptation in European river basins. Reg Environ Change 10(4):263–284. doi:10.1007/s10113-009-0108-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irwin F, Ranganathan J (2008) Action agenda for sustaining ecosystem services. In: Ranganathan J, Munasinghe M, Irwin F (eds) Policies for sustainable governance of global ecosystem services. Washington DC, pp 21–69

  • Knieper C, Kastens B, Holtz G, Pahl-Wostl C (2010) Analysing water governance in heterogeneous case studies—experiences with a database approach. Environ Sci Policy 13(7):592–603. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2010.09.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knüppe K, Pahl-Wostl C (2011) A framework for the analysis of governance structures applying to groundwater resources and the requirements for the sustainable management of associated ecosystem services. Water Resour Manage 25(13):3387–3411. doi:10.1007/s11269-011-9861-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krysanova V, Dickens C, Timmerman J, Varela-Ortega C et al (2010) Cross-comparison of climate change adaptation strategies across large river basins in Europe, Africa and Asia. Water Resour Manage 24(14):4121–4160. doi:10.1007/s11269-010-9650-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee KN (1999) Appraising adaptive management. Conserv Ecol 3(2):3. [online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss2/art3/

    Google Scholar 

  • Loring AP, Chapin FS, Gerlach SC (2008) The services-oriented architecture: ecosystem services as a framework for diagnosing change in social ecological systems. Ecosystems 11(3):478–489. doi:10.1007/s10021-008-9136-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MA [Millennium Ecosystem Assessment] (2005) Introduction and conceptual framework. Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessment. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Maimone M (2004) Defining and managing sustainable yield. Ground Water 42(6):809–814

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeill P, Chapman S (2005) Research methods. Routledge, Abingdon

    Google Scholar 

  • Meinzen-Dick R (2007) Beyond panaceas in water institutions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:15200–15205

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Metzger MJ, Schröter D, Leemans R, Cramer W (2008) A spatially explicit and quantitative vulnerability assessment of ecosystem service change in Europe. Reg Environ Change 8(3):91–107. doi:10.1007/s10113-008-0044-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mukherji A, Shah T (2005) Groundwater socio-ecology and governance: a review of institutions and policies in selected countries. Hydrogeol J 13(1):328–345. doi:10.1007/s10040-005-0434-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Münch Z, Conrad J (2006) Remote sensing and GIS based determination of groundwater dependent ecosystems in the Western Cape, South Africa. Hydrogeol J 15(1):19–28. doi:10.1007/s10040-006-0125-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (2005) Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Pahl-Wostl C (1995) The dynamic nature of ecosystems: chaos and order entwined. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Pahl-Wostl C (2009) A conceptual framework for analyzing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Glob Environ Chang 19(3):354–365. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.06.001

  • Pahl-Wostl C, Holtz G, Kastens B, Knieper C (2010) Analysing complex water governance regimes: the management and transition framework. Environ Sci Pol 13(7):571–581. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2010.08.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pusch M, Hoffmann A (2000) Conservation concept for a river ecosystem (River Spree, Germany) impacted by flow abstraction in a large post-mining area. Landscape Urban Plan 51(2–4):165–176. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00107-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers P, Hall AW (2003) Effective water governance, TEC Background Paper, Stockholm, Global Water Partnership

  • Ross A, Martínez-Santos P (2009) The challenges of groundwater management: case studies from Spain and Australia. Reg Environ Chang 10(4):299–310. doi:10.1007/s10113-009-0086-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schenk A, Hunziker M, Kienast F (2007) Factors influencing the acceptance of nature conservation measures—a qualitative study in Switzerland. J Environ Manage 83(1):66–79. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.01.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steube C, Richter S, Griebler C (2006) First attempts towards an integrative concept for the ecological assessment of groundwater ecosystems. Hydrogeol J 17(1):23–35. doi:10.1007/s10040-008-0346-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO [United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation] (2006) Non-renewable groundwater resources – a guidebook on socially-sustainable management for water-policy makers. [online] http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001469/146997e.pdf

  • Varela-Ortega C, Blanco-Gutiérrez I, Swartz CH, Downing TE (2011) Balancing groundwater conservation and rural livelihoods under water and climate uncertainties: an integrated hydro-economic modelling framework. Glob Environ Chang 21(2):604–619. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.12.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin R (1994) Case study research: design and methods, 2nd edn. Sage Publishing, Beverly Hills

    Google Scholar 

  • Young OR (2002) The institutional dimensions of environmental change: fit, interplay, and scale. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all of our interview partners in South Africa, Spain and Germany for sharing their expertise and providing very important and valuable insights into the case study regions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Environmental Systems Research, University of Osnabrück, Barbarastraße 12, 49076, Osnabrück, Germany

    Kathrin Knüppe & Claudia Pahl-Wostl

Authors
  1. Kathrin Knüppe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Claudia Pahl-Wostl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kathrin Knüppe.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 167 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Knüppe, K., Pahl-Wostl, C. Requirements for adaptive governance of groundwater ecosystem services: insights from Sandveld (South Africa), Upper Guadiana (Spain) and Spree (Germany). Reg Environ Change 13, 53–66 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-012-0312-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-012-0312-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation