international society of city and regional...

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

[email protected]

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,

[email protected]

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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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