international society of city and regional...
Post on 11-May-2018
214 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
International Society of City and Regional Planners
Association Internatonale des Urbanistes
Internationale Gesellschaft der Stadt- und Regionalplaner
Asociación International de Urbanistas
Proceedings of the 50th ISOCARP Congress
Gdynia, Poland, 23-26 September 2014
Urban Transformations: Cities and Water
Editor: Amos Brandeis
©ISOCARP 2014
Produced and published by ISOCARP
ISBN: 978-94-90354-30-5
Cover picture: © Cover Photo Tadeusz Urbaniak/ZMPG-a S.A, Poland
Authors are responsible for the content of the short outlines and the full papers.
Authors are listed in alphabetical order in each track.
ISOCARP Head Office
P.O. Box 983
2501 CZ The Hague
The Netherlands
Tel: +31-70-346-2654
Fax: +31-70-361-7909
isocarp@isocarp.org
www.isocarp.org
1
Repp et al., Ways of integrating water and land management at the urban-rural interface, 50th
ISOCARP Congress 2014
1
Ways of integrating water and land management at the urban-rural interface
Annegret REPP*, Nadin GAASCH, Daniel HERING, Timothy MOSS, Matthias NAUMANN,
Bernd SURES, Thomas WEITH
*corresponding author: Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research, Müncheberg, Germany,
annegret.repp@zalf.de
Author ID from the General Rapporteur: 244
Brief synopsis
Land use and water demands are characterized by dense interdependencies across the urban-rural
interface. Joint research on Sustainable Land Management takes an integrative and trans-sectoral
perspective, tackling these urban-rural linkages and bridging disciplinary boundaries. Several research
projects provide examples for modes of integrative land and water management and hence for
advancing planning instruments and governance approaches at the urban-rural interface.
Key words
land management, water governance, functional governance, land use conflicts
1 Background: Linkages of water management and land management
Water management is shaped by and evokes complex urban-rural interlinkages. In many
cases, urban regions are reliant on the supply of drinking water by their rural surroundings in
order to cover the own market. At the same time, waste water is transported from residential
areas to rural surroundings due to the location of centralised wastewater treatment plants far
from the city centres, the discharge of treated wastewater into surface water or the irrigation
of agricultural land. Besides the interfaces of demand and supply, water basins do not take
urban-rural boundaries into account, with the physical boundaries of water basins being hard
to define. Recurrent flood events in Europe highlight the aspect of upstream and downstream
riparian and point out the necessity of a large-scale approach, in particular.
Land use demands and resulting questions of sustainable land management are strongly
connected to water supply and water management. On the one hand, water availability
determines types, intensity and patterns of land use. On the other hand, housing
development, agriculture and nature protection are main drivers influencing the quantity and
quality of the resource water (Moss 2004, 87). Thus the interplay of water management with
spatial planning, agricultural policy and environmental policy needs to be considered
adequately. Integrated water management represents an approach that bears in mind large-
scale interactions in an interdisciplinary and multi-level way. The adoption of the European
Water Framework Directive (WFD) in 2000 advanced the integrated approach and
emphasised the relevance of multi-level and cross-sectoral governance. Governance is
employed here “as a collective term for new modes of governing which extend beyond
hierarchical forms of control” (Moss 2004, 86). Further, “water governance refers to the range
of political, social, economic and administrative systems that are in place to develop and
456
Repp et al., Ways of integrating water and land management at the urban-rural interface, 50th
ISOCARP Congress 2014
2
manage water resources, and the delivery of water services, at different levels of society”
(Rogers and Hall, 2003, 7; according to the definition of the Global Water Partnership).
Rogers and Hall specify that an “effective governance of water resources and water service
delivery will require the combined commitment of government and various groups in civil
society, particularly at local/community levels, as well as the private sector” (2003, 17). The
WFD ought to be a good approach for effective governance, combining two different policy
styles: ‘command-and-control’ and the interactive, negotiation based approach (Moss 2004,
89).
But at the same time, institutional challenges exist in implementing the WFD. Although water
authorities tend to approve a more integrated approach of water management in general,
not all are open to new forms of governance, e.g. “practising a pro-active communication
policy with the affected parties” (Moss 2004, 92). Pahl-Wostl et al. point out that „many
problems in water management are more associated with governance failures than with the
resource base” (2010, 571). Moss identifies ‘misfits’ of water management and defines them
as “mismatches abound between the geographical extent of an environmental resource and
the territorial scope of the institutions affecting its use” (Moss 2012). Institutions are “systems
of established and embedded social rules that structure social interactions” (Hodgson 2006,
18). Bakker at al. (2008) analyse ‘governance failures’ in water management. Thus, a misfit
between territorial boundaries and functional interaction can be identified.
For handling misfits of water management, Moss stresses that “overlapping social,
economic, political, and physical spaces […] requires paying less attention to the structure of
an authority responsible for managing a river basin and far more to the interactions among
the multiple organizations affecting water use within a basin” (2012). “Assessing the
adaptability of existing institutions to pressures for change cannot be limited to determining
straight fit or misfit. It entails, rather, identifying areas where fit or misfit exist, […], and
exploring how the shifting context of an implementation process way contribute to increasing
or reducing the scope for greater institutional fit.” (Moss 2004, 93)
A further approach towards coping with current challenges of water management is to
consider the adaptive capacity of management systems that determines the efficiency of
governance: “Adaptive management is here defined as a systematic process for improving
management policies and practices by systemic learning from the outcomes of implemented
management strategies and by taking into account changes in external factors in a pro-active
manner (Pahl Wostl et al. 2010, 573). Huntjens et al. stress that “higher levels of policy
learning lead to more advanced adaptation strategies” (2012, 75; cp. Huntjens 2011). Also
Pahl-Wostl et al. emphasise the importance of learning in multi-actor settings (2010, 573; cp.
Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007). Further, they accentuate context-dependent integrated solutions as a
prerequisite for spatial and institutional fit (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2010, 572).
However, Moss (2012) refers to the growing body of literature that highlights “problems of
poor collaboration between water and land-use planning”. Research has so far mainly
focused on sectoral aspects or on subspaces of governing water or land use, e.g. coastal
areas, river catchment areas or flood management. Also, urban-rural interactions, though
playing a crucial role for integrated regional supply chains, have been scarcely considered,
as an analysis of concepts and instruments of regional development and spatial planning
shows (Repp et al. 2012). The established dichotomic view of urban and rural seems to be
one reason for that.
457
Repp et al., Ways of integrating water and land management at the urban-rural interface, 50th
ISOCARP Congress 2014
3
Against that background, the paper provides an analytical approach to a better
understanding of problems in water management integrating other water-related objectives.
For researching institutional settings, the analytical approach of fit, interplay and scale
(Young 2002) is supplemented by the perspective of urban-rural interactions. The
perspective on urban-rural linkages enables the integration of functional interactions that are
necessary to cope with physical flows like water. The better understanding of flows and
institutional settings bears potential to advance the discussion about functional governance
as a promising approach for handling land use conflicts.
The second chapter will explain the analytical framework. Challenges for governance at the
urban-rural interface are presented in chapter three. In chapter four, current challenges of
water management are outlined. Building on that, innovative solutions on how to cope with
governance gaps will be presented in chapter five, taking two case studies as an example.
Finally, implications for governing urban-rural interactions are discussed in chapter six.
2 Analytical framework
The analytical framework of this paper refers to the approach of institutional fit, interplay and
scale, as applied by Young (2002). He uses the framework to analyse environmental regimes
and human-environment-interactions. Besides some weaknesses like the overlapping resp.
incoherence of the three dimensions (cp. Vatn and Vedeld 2012), the approach allows for a
systematic identification of institutional gaps as drivers for land use conflicts.
The dimension fit deals “with congruence or compatibility between ecosystems and
institutional arrangements created to manage human activities affecting these systems.”
(Young 2002, 20). In short, misfits (or mismatches) are incongruities between environmental
problems and regimes. The dimension interplay refers to the cooperation of institutions.
Young differentiates interplay between institutions (horizontal interplay) and among
institutions operating at the same level (vertical interplay) (2002, 23). The third dimension,
scale, describes the “level at which phenomena occur in the dimensions of space and time”
(Young 2002, 26). Spatial scale regarding political science refers to the local, national, and
international level. Temporal scale points out the time horizon of institutional processes.
Adopting the approach of Young for the paper’s purposes, it is specified by categories of
governance, as they were employed by von Haaren and Moss (2011). The classification of
categories of governance and the dimensions fit, interplay and scale is presented in Table 1.
Although this classification might be ambiguous with regard to practical relevance (cp. Moss
2012; Vatn and Vedeld 2012), it proves helpful for the analytical discourse.
Table 1: Classification of analytical dimensions of governance (own source based on Young
2002; von Haaren and Moss 2011)
fit interplay scale
object constellation of actors scope of activity
aim orientation modes of governance and instruments
time horizon
institutional resources
458
Repp et al., Ways of integrating water and land management at the urban-rural interface, 50th
ISOCARP Congress 2014
4
In order to qualify the analysis of institutional gaps with regard to the context of urban-rural
interaction, the matrix is added by this perspective. Thus the urban-rural perspective is
correlated with the classification presented in Table 1. Table 2 presents the final analytical
framework and exemplifies the analysis. The dichotomy of the categories urban and rural is
explicitly used in order to expose expected differences of water management in urban and
rural areas. This helps to identify institutional gaps that are determined by the functionality of
flows.
The analytical framework (cp. Table 2) will be tested by two case studies. The first case
study, derived from the project ELaN, analyses water management in the German counties
(Bundesländer) Berlin and Brandenburg. ELaN focusses on the stabilization of water
balances in this metropolitan region due to technological innovations in water management
combined with nutrient management. In particular, the reuse of treated wastewater is
analysed. The second case study is situated in the Ruhr region and is part of the KuLaRuhr
project. KuLaRuhr provides integrated solutions for the structural transformation of the region
that was considerably shaped by the mining industry. One focus lies on the restoration of the
Emscher river that was used mainly as an open sewer system for more than a century.
Both projects presented below are part of the German funding measure “Sustainable Land
Management”, financed by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF
2008). The funding measure comprises 13 joint projects within Module B, working on the
development of innovative system solutions for sustainable land management in different
regions in Germany. “Land” within the context of the funding measure calls for a broader
understanding besides the meaning of soil and land area. According to Davy (2010, 89f.) the
subject matter comprises land as territorial value, use value, existence value and exchange
value. Due to the high variety of involved actors and complex interactions one main aspect of
research refers to handling complexity by inter- and transdisciplinary methods (cp. Klein et al.
2001). Public actors, companies or civil society actors are seen as starting points, nuclei, and
development partners for the implementation of sustainable solutions in land management.
The projects are ongoing, with final results being expected in 2015.
Table 2: The analytical framework of fit, interplay and scale within the context of urban-rural
interactions (own source)
fit interplay scale
object constellation of actors scope of activity
urban:
drinking water,environmental services of water resources
rural:
drinking water,environmen-tal services; water-related products like wood and food
urban:
urban policy andadministration; engineers (waterworks)
rural:
local land owners;regional policies; EU agriculture,environment and rural development policy; WFD;associations (lobby groups)
urban:
administrative units
rural:
administrative and functional units; from county level to local level up to site scale
459
Repp et al., Ways of integrating water and land management at the urban-rural interface, 50th
ISOCARP Congress 2014
5
aim orientation modes of governance and instruments
time horizon
urban:
sanitary environmental engineering services for the public; flood protection; recreation;transport
rural:
water protection, balance of water, supply of drinking water; securing food and wood production; flood protection; recreation;transport
urban:
EU regulations and urban statutes, compulsory connection; cost recovery
rural:
financial incentives and compensations;EU-regulations
urban:
long-term investments in technical infrastructure
rural:
long-term timetables ofWFD and FD; annual decisions onagricultural production
institutional resources
urban:
sanitary environmental engineeringmostly cost recovery
rural:
diversity of stakeholders with different, sometimes competing resources: strong agricultural lobby vs. nature protection with less financial resources
3 Challenges for governance at the urban-rural interface
The pronounced intensity of challenges related to land and water at the urban-rural interface
has been exemplified above. The question remains what these challenges arise from and
how they can be adequately addressed. For that purpose, we first intend to provide a brief
clarification of the nature of urban-rural linkages and what they are constituted of.
However, a clear definition of urban-rural linkages has not been agreed upon yet. Rather, an
array of terms, among them urban-rural linkages, interactions or interrelations, are being
used synonymously (ESPON 2005; Haase and Tötzer 2012; Stead 2002; Tacoli 1998). To
date, there have been very few studies that analysed urban-rural linkages from a
comprehensive perspective, taking interlinkages between sectors into account. Stead (2002)
authored one of the first studies that provided a systematic compilation of the dimensions of
urban-rural linkages. However, characteristics and spatial implications of more complex
linkages like intertwined energy and material flows or knowledge linkages have not
sufficiently been considered yet. Moreover, the dichotomic terminology implies the existence
of two different categories, also finding their expression in various attempts to develop
typologies of space according to urban and rural categories (e.g. OECD 2011). This
ambiguity has not only shaped the perception of spaces considerably but has also influenced
460
Repp et al., Ways of integrating water and land management at the urban-rural interface, 50th
ISOCARP Congress 2014
6
essential categories of the governance setting. The predominant practice of separate
instruments for ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ subspaces impedes a comprehensive approach that
accounts for the actual interdependencies at the urban-rural interface.
These linkages, however, depict manifold challenges for governance modes at the urban-
rural interface. Repp et al. (2012) provide an assessment of dimensions of these urban-rural
linkages and the existing governance setting in Germany as part of research on Sustainable
Land Management. The role of urban-rural linkages in shaping spatial development
processes has recently been emphasised by policy makers at different scales (OECD 2013;
BBSR & DV 2012).
It becomes apparent that this largely path-dependent governance setting is not adequately
prepared to deal with ‘new’ and complex challenges related to land and water management,
e.g. fluctuations between aridity and heavy rainfall events through climate change. Moreover,
the urban-rural interdependence of processes connected to the water cycle and of water
requirements for land use, households and economic activities face a fragmented regulatory
landscape. This situation can be attributed to three major gaps that hinder an interlocking of
the existing governance modes: First, this is a lack of interplay, reflecting trans-sectoral
approaches. While trans-sectoral modes could allow for a sufficient flexibility to deal with
complex management problems, competences for governing water and land remain
fragmented, being organised mainly along disciplinary boundaries. With regard to the
characteristics of the German planning system, this implies that comprehensive planning and
sectoral planning – for transport, waste disposal, nature protection sites, among others, -
while being obliged to ensure a reciprocal information process (Gegenstromverfahren),
operate largely independently from each other in the phase of policy design.
Second, the dependence of governance competences on administrative entities hinders
trans-boundary processes that account for linkages across these institutionally defined
boundaries. This refers to both the dimensions of fit and of interplay, encompassing a lack of
congruence between land and water related spatial processes and institutional regimes as
well as between institutions in a horizontal way. This is particularly relevant for urban-rural
linkages that do per se extend beyond these entities. For example, while a significant
number of cooperation arrangements has been developed at different spatial scales and in
different organisational forms, in most cases they remain informal instruments without a
sufficient long-term character or legal competences. This inadequate coverage of urban-rural
spaces has thus also evoked quests for more targeted governance modes, both at EU level
(e.g. Integrated Territorial Investment as a new mode of targeted cohesion policy; EC 2014)
and on national levels (e.g. BBSR 2012), as well as by OECD policy advisors (OECD 2013)
in recent years.
These spatial linkages also emphasize the third gap of vertical/multi-level interlocking, with
competences being not only tied to administrative entities but also to different – often
hierarchical ‒ spatial scales, ranging from the municipal to the EU level and beyond to
international agreements. This situation thus seizes the dimension of scale and the
dimension of interplay in a vertical way at the same time. It can be exemplified by the
situation in Germany, with planning guidelines regarding sustainable spatial development
being developed on national and regional levels. Municipalities, however, conclusively decide
on a number of aspects regarding their territory. This may lead to a weakened
implementation of these general guidelines, e.g. when it comes to balancing space for
461
Repp et al., Ways of integrating water and land management at the urban-rural interface, 50th
ISOCARP Congress 2014
7
housing or commercial development and for the protection of open space and environmental
services like groundwater recharge. Another example is provided by the implications of the
water framework directive WFD that has been issued at EU level but requires implementation
at subsequent spatial scales. Its alignment to river basins, constituting functionally defined
spatial entities, however, requires both transsectoral and transboundary cooperation, as
outlined above.
As the analytical framework that has been developed in the previous chapter shows, these
three gaps can be attributed to an array of constellations of scale, fit and interplay with
regard to interactions along the urban-rural continuum.
4 Challenges of water management
There is a high diversity of studies that analyse challenges of water management (e.g.
Bakker et al. 2008, Rogers and Hall 2008, Pahl-Wostl and Kranz 2010, Huntjens et al. 2011,
Borgström et al. 2006, Folke et al. 2007). The adoption of the WFD and linked problems of
implementation advanced the discussion about institutional gaps. In the following, challenges
of cross-sectoral and functional governance in water management are outlined, referring to
the study by von Haaren and Moss (2011). They analysed water-related institutions in
Germany in order to define potentials but also challenges of cross-sectoral cooperation. They
compared the following institutions: water management, environmental protection, agriculture
and spatial planning. The results of this analysis will be shortly summarized according to fit,
interplay and scale (cp. chapter 2.2).
Regarding the fit of water-related institutions, the results show that the objects and the aim
orientation differ considerably. Whereas water management focuses on a relatively narrow
object like water protection and sanitary environmental engineering, the objects of nature
protection and spatial planning are more comprehensive. In contrast, the objects of
agriculture are primarily economically oriented, increasingly reflecting also the relevance of
ecosystem services over the last decade. The evident differences of objects and aim-
orientation evoke challenges of integrated water protection. In particular, conflicting aims
between land management and water management foster problems of fit. Spatial planning
can take the chance to assume an integrating and moderating function for a comprehensive
sustainable development. A stronger consideration of ecosystem services might help to
improve cooperation and minimize conflicts.
Regarding the interplay of water-related institutions, the results show unequal constellations
of actors that obtain different competences and are subject to different constellations of
power. The dominant commercially oriented actors in agriculture are in contrast to state
institutions that implement aims of water management, nature protection and spatial
planning. Furthermore, agriculture is supported by a powerful lobby. While water
management and nature protection dispose of strong lobbies, too, they are not as powerful
as agricultural associations. Besides these unbalanced power constellations, the coexistence
of governance modes fosters the lack of interplay between water management and water-
related institutions. In general, the character of governance modes tends to shift from
regulative decision making towards processes of negotiation and participation. However, the
aims and their implementation often remain sectoral. Also do the effects of implementation
differ: Whereas agriculture exerts influence with financial incentives without adequately
reflecting other land use demands, water management, nature protection and spatial
462
Repp et al., Ways of integrating water and land management at the urban-rural interface, 50th
ISOCARP Congress 2014
8
planning mainly operate through legal regulation. Correspondingly, agriculture has better
access to financial and human resources than spatial planning and nature protection.
Finally, regarding the scale of water-related institutions, the results show divergent time
horizons for planning and implementation. Water as well as nature protection are determined
by stringent, long-range time horizons of the EU. Sanitary environmental engineering
organizes long-term investments, being strongly economically driven. Agriculture is strictly
oriented toward the programming period of the CAP. As opposed to this, the preparation
process of regional development plans is not limited in time and predominantly demand-
oriented. Furthermore, the decision-making authorities are institutionalised on different
levels. In particular spatial planning is institutionalised weakly, with the strongest
competences residing at the local level. One main problem of scale lies in the
implementation of measures being tied to sectoral and administrative boundaries. To sum
up, the institutional analysis shows current divergences in fit, interplay and scale. In particular
von Haaren and Moss (2011) point out challenges of an integrated approach to bring
together current status and the definition of aims.
The following examples will provide some evidence on how these governance challenges are
being addressed by selected approaches on sustainable land management at the urban-rural
interface of land and water.
5 System solutions for an integrative land and water management at the urban-rural
interface
5.1 ELaN: Institutional settings for reuse of waste water: The example of Berlin-
Brandenburg
5.1.1 Project background
The research project ‘ELaN – Development of integrated land management through
sustainable water and resource use in North-East Germany’ aims to develop a spatially
differentiated and sectorally integrated perspective on the transition of both wastewater and
energy systems at the interface of renewable energy and wastewater disposal technologies.
The Berlin-Brandenburg region is confronted with various challenges in land and water
management as well as in energy management. Against this backdrop the ELaN project is
exploring ways of implementing the use of treated wastewater as an integrated, multi-
purpose solution for these various challenges. Firstly, the spreading of treated wastewater is
supposed to help to stabilize the region’s water balance. Secondly, the irrigation of biomass
crops could contribute to meeting the regional demand for biomass, thereby minimizing
conflict over land use, and to reducing dependence on imports and fluctuating prices. Thirdly,
the projects aims to develop sustainable forms of land use for problematic sites, such as
degraded fenland and former irrigation fields. Fourthly, the recycling of nutrients from
wastewater and its use for the production of a fertilizer (MAP – magnesium ammonium
phosphate) is not only supposed to establish new regional material cycles but also to
enhance regional economic development. Fifthly, the ELaN project explores ways of
reordering the relationship between the city of Berlin and its rural hinterland by reconfiguring
the demand and supply side of energy supply and wastewater disposal. Finally, the
development of new forms of land use, water management and infrastructure connectivity
facilitates more participatory modes of local and regional governance.
463
Repp et al., Ways of integrating water and land management at the urban-rural interface, 50th
ISOCARP Congress 2014
9
5.1.2 Challenges and system solutions
The aim of the ELaN project is to interlink water infrastructure and energy infrastructure in
theory and practice, thus reconfiguring regional infrastructures in Berlin-Brandenburg. This
implies an analysis of the institutional status-quo of water management in this region.
The analysis shows that global debates on liberalization and privatization have also affected
the institutional structure of water management in Berlin-Brandenburg. During the 1990s
several municipalities, mostly larger cities, privatized their water utilities. The case of the
Berlin Water Company (BWB) is the most prominent example. BWB was partially privatized
in 1999. The secretive nature of this process as well as rapidly rising water fees led to
massive dissatisfaction, public protests and, ultimately, the political decision to re-
municipalize BWB in 2013. Re-municipalization is occuring also in other German
infrastructure sectors, especially in the energy market (Matecki and Schulten 2013). In
particular, wastewater disposal is a core responsibility of German municipalities. The
regulatory framework is set by regulations on the European level, such as the EU Water
Framework Directive or directives concerning urban waste water treatment, on the federal
level, such as the Water Resources Law (Wasserhaushaltsgesetz) and the regional level of
the Bundesland, such as the Brandenburg Water Law (Brandenburgisches Wassergesetz).
The main actors of wastewater treatment and disposal are, however, the over 400
municipalities in Brandenburg (Naumann 2014, p. 55f.). Municipalities are free to mandate
their own municipal enterprise (Eigenbetrieb), one of the 80 municipal federations
(Zweckverband) or a private operator for wastewater disposal. The supervision of
wastewater utilities is the responsibility of local water authorities (Untere Wasserbehörden),
which are part of the public administration of the 14 administrative districts (Landkreise) in
Brandenburg.
Also the energy sector in Brandenburg is affected by institutional changes. These include the
establishment of new municipal or re-municipalised energy utilities, efforts for the
decentralization of energy planning and provision as well as different forms of civil society
involvement (Becker et al. 2012). The installation of new energy facilities for windfarms,
biogas plants and solar farms has often provoked local conflicts over the use of land (Becker
et al. 2012). It is indicative that the government of Brandenburg has introduced “acceptance
and participation” as one of four pillars to its Energy Strategy (MWE 2012). The governance
of the energy sector also involves different scales of regulation. The European Union and its
directives on services in the internal market has been a major driver for the liberalization of
European energy markets. The German federal government applies European directives via
national regulation, but has also introduced its own Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) to
promote renewable energies. The Bundesland Brandenburg has formulated its own “Energy
strategy” (MWE 2012) and supports the development of regional energy concepts at the level
of administrative districts (Naumann 2014, 57f.). At the local level there exist numerous
energy cooperatives as well as bio-energy villages (Becker et al. 2012, 46ff.).
The idea of ELaN is for innovative wastewater and energy infrastructures to advance more
sustainable forms of water and land management and to promote new forms of cooperation
between cities and the surrounding countryside, particularly relevant for Brandenburg given
its high degree of spatial disparities. Nevertheless, the idea to connect wastewater and
energy infrastructures through the use of treated wastewater faces difficulties, which crucially
limit the wider implementation of wastewater reuse in the region.
464
Repp et al., Ways of integrating water and land management at the urban-rural interface, 50th
ISOCARP Congress 2014
10
In particular, the intent of a new approach to urban-rural linkages, mediated by infrastructure
systems, confronts major challenges. A common approach for managing water and energy
infrastructures between the city of Berlin and the surrounding region of Brandenburg is only
slowly evolving (Infrastruktur & Umwelt und Beratungs- und Servicegesellschaft Umwelt
2011, 19). Currently the Joint Spatial Planning Department is working on a spatial planning
concept for energy and climate protection for the Berlin-Brandenburg region. However, up to
now plans for integrated regional development for utilities which serve cities and regions with
energy and wastewater services are absent in Brandenburg. At the local scale the major
challenge revolves around enrolling the different elements of water reuse in one location, i.e.
the availability of wastewater, existing pipes, suitable land and demand for biomass (Kröger
et al. 2012). This illustrates the complex relationship between cities, as sites of the
production of wastewater and of the use of energy, and the countryside, as (potential) sites
of the use of treated wastewater and the production of energy crops.
The missing urban-rural interactions are also attributed by huge institutional asymmetries
between the regulation of wastewater disposal and of energy supply. Except for a few multi-
utilities in Brandenburg both sectors are strictly separated regarding the provision of
services. The political responsibility for each sector is also divided between the Ministry of
Environment, Health and Consumer Protection (for wastewater disposal) and the Ministry of
Economics and European Affairs (for energy). While there are (still) considerable subsidies
and other incentives available for renewable energy facilities there is no such programme for
innovations in the wastewater sector.
Further challenges are the strict prohibition of spreading treated wastewater for reasons of
groundwater protection by the institutional and legal framework in Brandenburg, missing
economic incentives for the use of treated wastewater and less acceptance of new forms of
wastewater disposali.
5.1.3 Discussion/Conclusion
The project aims to provide answers to local challenges pertaining to land management,
energy supply and wastewater treatment and use in the Berlin-Brandenburg region. In
exploring new spaces for innovation within the context of existing regulations on wastewater
it represents an example of “governance by experiment” (Bos and Brown 2012). Following
Bulkeley and Broto (2012), attempts to reuse treated wastewater in the region can be
regarded as a threefold experiment: a) a governance experiment based on (temporary)
exemptions from existing requirements, b) a socio-technical experiment starting in the
“niches” of former irrigation fields and degraded fenland and involving new modes of
wastewater disposal and social learning and c) a strategic experiment in which future land
and water management is being discussed in “living laboratories”.
The regional experiences presented in this paper have revealed that nexus approaches
require a reordering and strengthening of urban-rural linkages, including an institutional
framework that is capable of reaching beyond existing administrative borders. Water, energy
and land management are not inherently bound to the territories of municipalities, counties
(Landkreise) or Länder, yet most regulations which govern them certainly are. Reshaping the
infrastructural relations between the city and the countryside will thus need governance
structures and procedures capable of spanning cities and surrounding rural areas as well as
encouraging cross-sectoral integration. One example could be the transfer of the model of
urban multi-utilities (Stadtwerke) to the regional level (Regionalwerke).
465
Repp et al., Ways of integrating water and land management at the urban-rural interface, 50th
ISOCARP Congress 2014
11
Finally, the study shows that the transformation of wastewater and energy infrastructures is
often a highly conflictual process. The local benefits of infrastructural transitions, as many
local energy conflicts in Brandenburg illustrate, are not equally distributed. Hence,
participation and local acceptance will be crucial issues for future efforts to reconfigure
infrastructures.
5.2 Restoration of an open sewer system: The example of the Emscher region
5.2.1 Background
The Ruhr metropolitan region (North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany) has been shaped by
structural change following the decline of the mining and heavy industry that have long been
characteristic for the area. This transition has led to new infrastructure challenges (logistics,
transport, water and energy management) and demands new strategies, but at the same
time offers new opportunities for sustainable development of the region, including technical,
societal and ecological progress. The joint project KuLaRuhr is contributing to the
development of strategies of sustainable land, water and energy management and to
improving the attractiveness and quality of life in this urban region.
One of the prime infrastructure projects in the Ruhr area is the conversion of the Emscher
system. For more than a century, the river Emscher and most of its tributaries were concrete
channels and open waste waterways transporting the sewage of more than 2.5 million
people. Due to the end of coal mining in the Ruhr metropolitan region which is associated
with a significant reduction of subsidence caused by mining it now will be possible to convert
the open sewers into underground culverts and to transport the collected wastewater to
central wastewater treatment plants. In a large scale project, streams in the catchment are
now being restored by first building underground culverts, followed by reconstructing the
channel bed and the streams’ riparian environment. The conversion of the Emscher river
system is a project spanning across decades and facing many challenges. Apart from
transportation of sewage also access water originating e.g. from heavy rainfalls has to be
collected and discharged efficiently to prevent flooding. Accordingly, the ultimate goal of this
conversion process is to upgrade the Emscher region significantly through projects extending
well beyond the river itself (www.eglv.de). KuLaRuhr contributes to analysing the effects of
the Emscher restoration on biodiversity and ecosystem services and to sharpening strategies
for future restoration efforts.
5.2.2 System solution
The conversion of the Emscher river requires the involvement of a variety of stakeholders
interests that are directly affected by the status of the river, in rural as well as in urban areas
in the Ruhr region. Federal state governments, municipalities, local residents, investors,
water suppliers and representatives of nature protection are to be taken into consideration.
Also the aspect of upstream and downstream riparian is to be recognized adequately. The
institutionalization of the regional water board “Emschergenossenschaft / Lippeverband”
aimed at bringing together this diversity of interests, moderating the discourses and
organising the sets of measures. Multi-level governance is the main approach for handling
this complexity and existing governance challenges.
Led by the regional water board “Emschergenossenschaft/Lippeverband”, the “Emscher
Future” Master Plan has been developed in continuous dialogue with neighboring cities and
466
Repp et al., Ways of integrating water and land management at the urban-rural interface, 50th
ISOCARP Congress 2014
12
districts, with industry and business, the relevant government authorities and many other
organisations and institutions (www.eglv.de). The Emscher Future Master Plan led to a
harmonized understanding of aims, procedure and time horizon of the Emscher restoration
project.
As a result of the planning process, the river is now being restored along an 80-kilometre
stretch in the middle of Europe’s biggest conurbation, demanding for an investment of 4.5
billion euros. Consequently, it is one of Europe’s biggest infrastructure projects. The
restoration is mainly composed of three steps: First, centralized wastewater treatment plants
have been constructed. Second, more than 400 km of underground wastewater conduits are
being built, of which 220 km are already completed. Finally, the ecological quality of the
Emscher and its tributaries is being improved by remodeling the channels and floodplain
areas (www.eglv.de).
The effects of this revitalisation on the ecological quality of the Emscher system can be
measured with a wide variety of parameters. For instance, benthic invertebrates (small
organisms living at the bottom of a river) are reliable indicators of water quality and habitat
quality. The restored stretches are now step by step recolonised by sensitive organisms,
depending on their dispersal ability (Stemplewski & Sommerhäuser 2010, Winking et al.
2013, Winking et al. 2014). Several of the restored stretches in the Emscher tributaries have
already reached good ecological potential, the quality target for Heavily Modified Water
Bodies, such as urban rivers.
5.2.3 Discussion
While a large proportion of the Emscher tributaries have already been restored and their
ecological quality is constantly improving, the Emscher itself still needs to be revitalised.
Technical challenges remain, but the Emscher Future Master Plan succeeded to achieve a
common understanding of aims and approaches between the various actors and
stakeholders. The ecological results are already promising, but time is required to allow for a
river ecosystem to develop, including the colonization with organisms and the establishment
of ecosystem processes.
6 Conclusions and future prospects on governing urban-rural interactions
The further development of Young’s approach of fit, interplay and scale, considering also
urban and rural perspectives, proves to be very helpful for the analytical discourse of
functional governance for land and water management. The dichotomy of the categories
urban and rural is explicitly used in order to expose expected differences in urban and rural
areas. This helps to identify institutional gaps determined by the functionality of flows.
Institutional gaps become apparent regarding the management of the resources land and
water in an integrative way. They are caused by misfits of land management requirements
and administrative boundaries as well as by missing interplay at vertical and horizontal scale.
Although integrative approaches like the WFD play an increasing role, territorial and sectoral
perspectives still dominate governance settings for land and water use.
Both case studies taken as examples in this paper, show the necessity of an adequate
consideration of urban-rural interaction on a large scale, in order to provide system solutions
that match current land management challenges. They thus provide a contribution to
467
Repp et al., Ways of integrating water and land management at the urban-rural interface, 50th
ISOCARP Congress 2014
13
advancing planning and governance towards linking so far mostly unconnected thematic
fields, like governing the restoration of river basins or re-using sewage water in an urban-
rural context. They point out challenges of functional governance, and highlight approaches
coping with governance gaps at the same time. Main aspects of functional governance are
the flexibility and openness of administrative structures for trans-sectoral cooperation
developing context-dependent integrated solutions. Institutionalised structures, like the
„Emschergenossenschaft/Lippeverband”, can take a coordinating and moderating role.
Public participation, institutional learning as well as the access to and the distribution of
knowledge are urgent prerequisites for functional governance from a multi-level perspective.
Urban-rural linkages, in particular, constitute an essential spatial framework for tackling these
dimensions and developing a functional perspective on land and water management. In that
regard, urban-rural linkages do not represent interactions between two distinct subspaces
but the result of dynamic interactions in regional contexts that are simultaneously influenced
by global interdependencies. Moreover, urban-rural spaces are not only linked through flows
of goods and people, but also through flows of information and knowledge as well as of land
use demands and power constellations. However, character and consequences of these
urban-rural linkages are only partly known, mainly with regard to uni-dimensional aspects,
while more complex linkages have not been adequately grasped so far.
To conclude, the perspective of functional governance enables a more integrative, adaptive
and thus sustainable use of resources, in particular regarding mobile resources like water.
Nevertheless, functional governance has to take established administrative structures and
their competences and institutional embeddedness into account. In consequence, the
recombination of governance instruments is one key aspect of sustainable land management
with regard to trans-sectoral and trans-boundary perspectives on functional linkages in
space. The integration of implications of urban-rural linkages in designing governance
settings enables an evidence-based consideration of processes of flexible adaptation and
recombination.
The further development of the analytical approach, applied in this paper, will contribute to
specify the concept of functional governance. It will reflect on the capacity of functional
approaches and on interfaces between functional and territorial governance.
468
Repp et al., Ways of integrating water and land management at the urban-rural interface, 50th
ISOCARP Congress 2014
14
7 References
Bakker, K.; Kooy, M.; Shofiani, N. E.; Martijn, E.-J., 2008: Governance Failure: Rethinking
the Institutional Dimensions of Urban Water Supply to Poor Households. World
Development, 36 (10), pp. 1891–1915. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.09.015
BBSR Bundesinstitut für Bau-, Stadt- und Raumforschung, 2012: Stadt-Land-
Partnerschaften. Wachstum und Innovation durch Kooperation. Online:
http://www.bbsr.bund.de/BBSR/DE/Veroeffentlichungen/BMVBS/Sonderveroeffentlichungen/
2012/DL_StadtLandPartnerschaften.pdf
BBSR Bundesinstitut für Bau-, Stadt- und Raumforschung; DV Deutscher Verband für
Wohnungswesen, Städtebau und Raumordnung, 2012: Partnership for sustainable rural-
urban development: existing evidences. Online: http://www.deutscher-
verband.org/cms/fileadmin/medias/PDF_Verband/RURBAN_Study_fin_120224.pdf
Becker, S.; Gailing, L.; Naumann, M., 2012: Neue Energielandschaften – Neue
Akteurslandschaften. Eine Bestandsaufnahme im Land Brandenburg. Berlin: Rosa-
Luxemburg-Stiftung (rls Studien).
Borgström, S. T.; Elmqvist, T.; Angelstam, P.; Alfsen-Norodom, C., 2006. Scale mismatches
in management of urban landscapes. Ecology and Society, 11, 2, 16.
Online: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art16/
Bos, A.; Brown, R., 2012: Governance experimentation and factors of success in socio-
technical transitions in the urban water sector. In: Technological Forecasting and Social
Change 79, 7, pp. 1340-1353.
Bulkeley, H.; Broto, V. C., 2012: Government by experiment? Global cities and the governing
of climate change. In: Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 38, 3, pp. 361-375.
Davy, B., 2012: Land Policy: Planning and the Spatial Consequences of Property. Farnham,
UK: Ashgate.
EC European Commission, 2014: Factsheet Integrated Territorial Investment. Cohesion
Policy 2014-2020. Online:
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/2014/iti_en.pdf
ESPON European Spatial Planning Observation Network, 2005: Urban-rural relations in
Europe. Final Report. Online:
http://www.espon.eu/export/sites/default/Documents/Projects/ESPON2006Projects/Thematic
Projects/UrbanRural/fr-1.1.2_revised-full_31-03-05.pdf
Folke, C.; Pritchard, L.; Berkes, F.; Colding, J.; Svedin, U., 2007. The problem of fit between
ecosystems and institutions: ten years later. Ecology and Society 12, 1, 30.
Online: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art30/
Haase, D.; Tötzer, T., 2012: Urban-rural linkages ‒ analysing, modelling, and under-standing
drivers, pressures, and impacts of land use changes along the rural-to-urban gradient. In:
Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 39, 2, pp. 194-197.
469
Repp et al., Ways of integrating water and land management at the urban-rural interface, 50th
ISOCARP Congress 2014
15
Hodgson, G. M., 2006: What Are Institutions? In: Journal of Economic Issues, 40, 1, pp. 1-
25. Online: http://www.geoffrey-hodgson.info/user/image/whatareinstitutions.pdf
Huntjens. P.; Pahl-Wostl, C.; Rihoux, B.; Schlüter, M.; Flachner, Z.; Neto, S.; Koskova, R.;
Dickens, C.; Kiti, I. N., 2011: Adaptive Water Management and Policy Learning in a
Changing Climate: A Formal Comparative Analysis of Eight Water Management Regimes in
Europe, Africa and Asia. In: Environmental Policy and Governance, 21, pp. 145–163.
doi: 10.1002/eet.571
Huntjens, P.; Lebel, L.; Pahl-Wostl, C.; Schulze, R.; Camkin, J.; Kranz, N., 2012: Institutional
design propositions for the governance of adaption to climate change in the water sector. In:
Global Environmental Change 22, 1, pp. 67-81.
Hüesker, F.; Moss, T.; Naumann, M., 2011: Managing Water Infrastructures in the Berlin-
Brandenburg Region between Climate Change, Economic Restructuring and
Commercialisation. In: Die Erde 142, 1-2, pp. 187-208.
Infrastruktur & Umwelt; Beratungs- und Servicegesellschaft Umwelt, 2011: Gemeinsames
Raumordnungskonzept Energie und Klima für Berlin und Brandenburg. Potsdam/Berlin: Joint
Spatial Planning Department of Berlin and Brandenburg.
Klein, J. T.; Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W.; Häberli, R., Bill, A.; Scholz, R. W.; Welti, M. E.,
2001: Transdisciplinarity: Joint Problem Solving Among Science, Technology, and Society.
Basel.
Kröger, M.; Rückert-John, J.; Schäfer, M., 2012: Wissensintegration im nachhaltigen
Landmanagement. Inter- und transdisziplinäre Problembeschreibung im Projektverbund
ELaN. Müncheberg: Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ELaN Discussion
Paper, 2).
Matecki, C.; Schulten, T. (eds.), 2013: Zurück zur öffentlichen Hand? Chancen und
Erfahrungen der Rekommunalisierung. Hamburg: VSA.
Moss, T., 2004: The governance of land use in river basins: prospects for overcoming
problems of institutional interplay with the EU Water Framework Directive. In: Land Use
Policy, 21, pp. 85-94.
Moss, T.; Newig, J., 2010: Multi-Level Water Governance and Problems of Scale. Setting the
Stage for a Broader Debate. In: Environmental Management, 46, pp. 1-6. doi:
10.1007/s00267-010-9531-1
Moss, T., 2012: Spatial Fit, from Panacea to Practice: Implementing the EU Water
Framework Directive. In: Ecology and Society, 17, 3, 2.
MWE Brandenburg Ministry of Economic and European Affairs, 2012: Energiestrategie 2030.
Potsdam: Brandenburg Ministry of Economic and European Affairs.
Naumann, M., 2014: Institutionelle Handlungszwänge und -möglichkeiten von
Infrastruktursystemen der Abwasserentsorgung und Energieversorgung. In: Moss, T.;
Nölting, B. (eds.): Mehrschichtige Institutionenanalyse zum nachhaltigen Landmanagement.
470
Repp et al., Ways of integrating water and land management at the urban-rural interface, 50th
ISOCARP Congress 2014
16
Chancen und Hemmnisse der Nutzung von gereinigtem Abwasser. Müncheberg: Leibniz
Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ELaN Discussion Paper, 7), pp. 55-66.
OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2011: OECD Regional
Typology. Online:
http://www.oecd.org/gov/regionaldevelopment/OECD_regional_typology_Nov2012.pdf
OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2013: Rural-Urban
Partnerships: An Integrated Approach to Economic Development. OECD Publishing.
Pahl-Wostl, C.; Craps, M.; Dewulf A.; Tabara, D.; Taillieu, T., 2007: Social Learning and
Water Resources Management. In: Ecology and Society, 12, 2, 5. Online:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art5/
Pahl-Wostl, C.; Holtz, G.; Kastens, B.; Knieper, C., 2010: Analyzing complex water
governance regimes: the Management and Transition Framework. In: Environmental Science
and Policy 13, pp. 571-581.
Pahl-Wostl, C; Kranz, N. (eds.), 2010: Water governance in times of change. In:
Environmental Science & Policy. Special Issue, 13, 7, pp. 567-660.
Repp, A.; Zscheischler, J.; Weith, Th.; Strauß, C.; Gaasch, N.; Müller, K., 2012: Urban-rurale
Verflechtungen. Analytische Zugänge und Governance-Diskurs. Müncheberg: Leibniz Centre
for Agricultural Landscape Research (Sustainable Land Management Discussion Paper, 7).
Online: http://modul-b.nachhaltiges-
landmanagement.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Dokumente/Diskussionspapiere/Repp2012_Urba
n-rurale_Verflechtungen.pdf
Rogers, P.; Hall, A. W., 2003: Effective Water Governance. TEC Background Papers, 7, p.
44. Online:
http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/4995/TEC%25207.pdf?sequence=1
Stead, D. (2002): Urban-Rural Relationships in the West of England. In: Built Environment
28, 4, pp. 299-310.
Stemplewski, J.; Sommerhäuser, M., 2010: Neue Artenvielfalt in Emschergewässern. Ein
Beitrag zur Biodiversität der Ballungsräume. In: Gewässer und Boden, 3, 12, p. 649-655.
Tacoli, C., 1998: Rural-urban interactions: a guide to the literature. In: Environment and
Urbanization 10, 1, pp. 147-166.
Vatn, A.; Vedeld, P., 2012: Fit, interplay, and scale: a diagnosis. In: Ecology and Society, 17,
4, 12. doi: 10.5751/ES-05022-170412
von Haaren, C.; Moss, T., 2011: Voraussetzungen für ein integriertes Management:
Koordination und Kooperation der wasserrelevanten Akteure und Organisationen in
Deutschland. In: von Haaren, C.; Galler, C. (eds.): Zukunftsfähiger Umgang mit Wasser im
Raum. Forschungs- und Sitzungsberichte der ARL, pp. 67-81.
Weith, T., Schulz, K., Gaasch, N., Seppelt, R., Werntze, A., Eppink, F. , 2010: Towards
Integration: Sustainable Land Management. A new German Research Funding Measure. In:
Local Land & Soil News, 34/35 II/10, pp. 21-22.
471
Repp et al., Ways of integrating water and land management at the urban-rural interface, 50th
ISOCARP Congress 2014
17
Winking, C.; Korte, T.; Lorenz, A., 2013: Die Wiederbesiedlung urbaner Fließgewässer in
einem Teileinzugsgebiet der Emscher nach erfolgten ökologischen Verbesserungen. In:
Korrespondenz Wasserwirtschaft, 6, 6, pp. 301-317.
Winking, C.; Lorenz, A.; Sures, B.; Hering, D., 2014: Recolonisation patterns of benthic
invertebrates: A field investigation of restored former sewage channels. In: Freshwater
Biology, in press.
Young, O., 2002: The institutional dimensions of environmental change. Fit, Interplay, and
Scale. The MIT Press.
iThe facilities of the ELaN project for spreading treated wastewater on the fenland site have been
damaged several times. There is clearly a need for a broad public debate on a “wastewater transition”, comparable to that on the energy transition in Germany, in order to improve acceptance.
472
top related