Landscape and Urban Planning 80 (2007) 23–33 Ecosystem management and the conservation of river–floodplain systems Brack W. Hale a,∗ , Michael S. Adams a,b a Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, 550 N. Park Street, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706, USA b Department of Botany, 430 Lincoln Drive, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706, USA Received 3 March 2006; received in revised form 12 April 2006; accepted 25 May 2006 Available online 30 June 2006 Abstract Conserving and protecting remnant natural river–floodplain systems require novel approaches, such as ones that employ concepts embodied by ecosystem management. This study examines the correspondence of the structure and policies of two relatively new conservation schemes in river–floodplain systems, the Lower Wisconsin State Riverway and the Middle Elbe Biosphere Reserve, with an idealized model of ecosystem management. Employing a framework derived from several major works about ecosystem management, this study finds differences among the approaches each reserve employs. The Lower Wisconsin State Riverway stands out due to its longitudinal zonation, its level of cooperation with stakeholders, and its organizational structure. On the other hand, the Middle Elbe Biosphere Reserve stands out in its monitoring and research programs, as well as its public outreach. Despite these differences, both reserves show a strong similarity with ideal ecosystem management and provide promising models for the conservation of river–floodplain systems. © 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Ecosystem management; Conservation; Lower Wisconsin State Riverway; Middle Elbe Biosphere Reserve 1. Introduction Natural river–floodplain systems provide important ecolo- gical and socio-economic services. However, intact river– floodplain systems are rare as both rivers and their flood- plains have been heavily modified by human uses (Tockner and Stanford, 2002). Recognition of the importance of protecting the remaining systems has grown in recent decades due to a better understanding of the inherent values of natural systems and the need to provide references for the restoration of more degraded systems (Ward et al., 1999). The high levels of human use and presence in these systems render them unsuitable for tra- ditional conservation schemes, such as the national park model (Batisse, 1997; Shafer, 1999). Over the past few decades, sev- eral novel approaches to conserve river–floodplain systems have been developed and implemented (Palmer, 1986; Benke, 1990; Br¨ auer and Loz´ an, 1996). However, little evaluation of these approaches has occurred. This study uses a framework based ∗ Corresponding author at: Franklin College Switzerland, Via Ponte Tresa 29, CH-6924 Sorengo, Switzerland. Tel.: +41 91 985 2260 (O); fax: +41 91 994 4117. E-mail addresses: brack.hale@duke.edu (B.W. Hale), msadams@wisc.edu (M.S. Adams). on the concept of ecosystem management to evaluate two newer approaches to river–floodplain conservation: the Lower Wiscon- sin State Riverway on the Wisconsin River and the Middle Elbe Biosphere Reserve on the Elbe River. Natural river–floodplain systems perform key ecological functions (Naiman and D´ ecamps, 1997; Tockner and Stanford, 2002). The systems contain some of the most diverse habi- tats on earth, possessing a vast number of plant and animal species. Some species also use river corridors for migration and refuge. Further, these systems play an important role in nutrient cycling, filtering water running off from the uplands and transforming nutrients in floodwaters, which temporarily reside on the floodplain (Pinay et al., 1991; Tabacchi et al., 1998). These systems also possess important socio-economic values (Costanza et al., 1997; Ewel, 1997; Postel and Carpenter, 1997). River–floodplain systems provide recreation areas for bird lovers, hunters, anglers, and water sport enthusiasts. Their rich soils, accumulated during natural flooding events, have historically sustained agriculture and forestry interests. Their capacity as flood buffers reduces downstream flooding. Lastly, nutrient cycling lowers excessive levels of nutrients and sedi- ments from run-off, which protects receiving water bodies from eutrophication and lowers water treatment costs for downstream communities relying on river water. 0169-2046/$ – see front matter © 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.05.002