No abstract

This article provides an evidence-based and policy-relevant contribution to understanding the phenomenon of policy learning and its structural constraints in the field of river basin management, in particular related to coping with current and future climatic hazards such as floods and droughts. This has been done by a formal comparative analysis of eight water management regimes, by using multi-value qualitative comparative analysis, focusing on the relationship between regime characteristics (as explanatory variables) and different levels of policy learning (as output value). This research has revealed the importance of the sociocognitive dimension, as an essential emerging property of complex adaptive governance systems. This socio-cognitive dimension depends on a specific set of structural conditions; in particular, better integrated cooperation structures in combination with advanced information management are the key factors leading towards higher levels of policy learning. Furthermore, this research highlights a number of significant positive correlations between different regime elements, thereby identifying a stabilizing mechanism in current management regimes, and this research also highlights the necessity of fine-tuning centralized control with bottom-up approaches.

A cross-comparison of climate change adaptation strategies across regions was performed, considering six large river basins as case study áreas. Three of the basins, namely the Elbe, Guadiana, and Rhine, are located in Europe, the Nile Equatorial Lakes región and the Orange basin are in África, and the Amudarya basin is in Central Asia. The evaluation was based mainly on the opinions oí policy makers and water management experts in the river basins. The adaptation strategies were evaluated considering the following issues: expected climate change, expected climate change impacts, drivers for development oí adaptation strategy, barriers for adaptation, state oí the implementation oí a range oí water management measures, and status oí adaptation strategy implementation. The analysis oí responses and cross-comparison were performed with rating the responses where possible. According to the expert opinions, there is an understanding in all six regions that climate change is happening. Different climate change impacts are expected in the basins, whereas decreasing annual water availability, and increasing frequency and intensity oí droughts (and to a lesser extent floods) are expected in all oí them. According to the responses, the two most important drivers for development of adaptation strategy are: climate-related disasters, and national and international policies. The following most important barriers for adaptation to climate change were identified by responders: spatial and temporal uncertainties in climate projections, lack of adequate financial resources, and lack of horizontal cooperation. The evaluated water resources management measures are on a relatively high level in the Elbe and Rhine basins, followed by the Orange and Guadiana. It is lower in the Amudarya basin, and the lowest in the NEL región, where many measures are only at the planning stage. Regarding the level of adaptation strategy implementation, it can be concluded that the adaptation to climate change has started in all basins, but progresses rather slowly.

This paper contains an assessment and standardized comparative analysis of the current water management regimes in four case-studies in three European river basins: the Hungarian part of the Upper Tisza, the Ukrainian part of the Upper Tisza (also called Zacarpathian Tisza), Alentejo Region (including the Alqueva Reservoir) in the Lower Guadiana in Portugal, and Rivierenland in the Netherlands. The analysis comprises several regime elements considered to be important in adaptive and integrated water management: agency, awareness raising and education, type of governance and cooperation structures, information management and-exchange, policy development and-implementation, risk management, and finances and cost recovery. This comparative analysis has an explorative character intended to identify general patterns in adaptive and integrated water management and to determine its role in coping with the impacts of climate change on floods and droughts. The results show that there is a strong interdependence of the elements within a water management regime, and as such this interdependence is a stabilizing factor in current management regimes. For example, this research provides evidence that a lack of joint/participative knowledge is an important obstacle for cooperation, or vice versa. We argue that there is a twoway relationship between information management and collaboration. Moreover, this research suggests that bottom-up governance is not a straightforward solution to water management problems in large-scale, complex, multiple-use systems, such as river basins. Instead, all the regimes being analyzed are in a process of finding a balance between bottom-up and top-down governance. Finally, this research shows that in a basin where one type of extreme is dominant-like droughts in the Alentejo (Portugal) and floods in Rivierenland (Netherlands)-the potential impacts of other extremes are somehow ignored or not perceived with the urgency they might deserve.Keywords Standardized comparative analysis Á Adaptive and integrated water management (AIWM) Á Water management regime Á River basin management Á Climate change adaptation Á Floods Á Droughts Á Hungary Á Portugal Á Netherlands Á Ukraine