Integrating Knowledge: The Key Challenge for a New Paradigm in River Management

Abstract

Claims for the arrival of a new paradigm in river management argue that substantial progress has been made away from top‐down, reach‐scale engineering towards catchment‐scale planning, community participation, ecosystem science and adaptive management. Implementing these new principles is widely seen as essential in reversing damage to river systems and in promoting sustainable management. However, the appraisal of a shift in river management is far from straightforward across the range of biophysical and social contexts involved. Literature from the philosophy and sociology of science suggests that such transitions are usually patchy and uneven. In particular, a paradigm shift requires recognition and integration of three levels of knowledge: technical, scientific and what Aristotle referred to as ‘phronesis’– contextualised and place‐based wisdom built on experience and incorporation of cultural values. The application of these forms of knowledge to river management is considered by reference to recent reviews and case studies from Europe, North America and Australasia. The conclusion is that integration is still proving elusive. Claims for a wholesale paradigm shift in river management must therefore be treated with considerable caution.

The dynamics of interdisciplinary research fields: the case of river research

“…This type of transdisciplinary knowledge is considered necessary to advance river management next to techne or applied "know-how", as in art, craft or technology and episteme or "know-why", scientific knowledge that is universally applicable. Our results thus support Hillman's observation that claims for a paradigm shift based on the full inclusion of the three mentioned knowledge types in river management must be treated with considerable caution (Hillman 2009). Qualitative approaches to the development of river science (Van Hemert 2008; Van Hemert and Van der Meulen 2011), based on interviews and document analysis, often sketch a picture where wishes and aims dominate, and not so much the de facto trends in a research field.…”

“…(iii) Our analysis did not confirm that research on river issues in their societal context produces the type of knowledge referred to by Hillman (2009) as phronesis; i.e. contextual and place-dependent knowledge derived from practical experience and values at the local level and applied in a particular socio-political setting.…”

“…The complex societal context of riverine management issues not only demands understanding from the natural sciences but also from the social sciences including psychology, sociology, geography, political science, economics and policy studies (Vugteveen et al 2006;Pahl-Wostl et al 2007;Hillman 2009;Lenders and Knippenberg 2005;Brierley and Fryirs 2008;Surridge and Harris 2007). Thorp et al (2007) -in their presentation of the International Society for River Science (ISRS) -mention social science, economics, management and policy as relevant to river science next to hydrology & water resources, geomorphology, ecology and chemistry.…”

“…However, when considering water research, interdisciplinary integration is still relatively uncommon (Hillman 2009). This has been attributed to the "turbulent" boundaries among different disciplines, a qualification that refers to mutual misunderstandings between disciplinary cultures, and to a lack of effective communication .…”

Emerging geomorphic approaches to guide river management practices

“…Perhaps inevitably, however, the transition towards ecosystem-based approaches to river management has not been smooth or straightforward, and some authors contend that it is yet to be determined whether this transition in real or illusory (e.g. Hillman, 2009). Transitions have certainly taken different forms, and have occurred at varying extents/rates, in different parts of the world.…”