To support the transition to integrated, naturebased river-basin management, institutions supporting such strategies and practices need to be established while existing institutions hindering the transition need to be gradually broken down and replaced (Fig. 1). Institutions play a vital role in transitions since they are the rules which determine the range of acceptable behaviour in society and how interactions are organised (North, 1990). This study draws lessons from the influence of different institutional frameworks in transitions towards nature-based river management by comparing institutional developments in the Dutch "Room for the River” programme and the Flemish “Plan Sigma”.

Complex knowledge from different stakeholders is vital to solve increasingly complex societal challenges (Stock & Burton, 2011). However, stakeholders involved in Self Supporting River Systems (SSRS, 2025), experience that integration and utilization of such knowledge is challenging. To start solving such barriers, different stakeholders need to understand each other's knowledge explicitly, preventing potential biases, cherry picking, and misinterpretation, to facilitate efficient and transparent transdisciplinary knowledge processes (Nonaka and Takeuchi., 1995; Derksen., 2014). When combining knowledge among stakeholders, barriers can arise due to differences in understanding, and valuation of knowledge deriving from differing perceptions, goals and workways (Böcher and Krott., 2016; Spaapen and van Drooge., 2011; Derksen., 2014; de Vries et al., 2024). E.g., scientists use knowledge to describe and explain the world, policymakers to influence development, and companies to earn and solve practical problems, all implying different criteria and valuations for knowledge (Böcher and Krött., 2016; Derksen, 2014). Additionally, knowledge can be disseminated in sub-optimal ways, possibly also due to different preferred disseminationstructures (Muhonenet al.,2018; Benneworth and Olmos-Penuela., 2018; Spaapen and van Drooge., 2011). As such, the innovative capacity of knowledge depends significantly on politics, established structures and rules, funding, and partnership patterns (Ahmed et al, 2023; Nonaka and Takeuchi., 1995). For innovation capacity of SSRS to be improved, there is a need to understand barriers to knowledge uptake.

Offshore wind farm development is a is a highly complex process. The societal and political pressure to implement is high while environmental responses and future developments in the global energy network are uncertain. Moreover, many interests in maritime space are at stake. The dependency on knowledge for decision-making is high, but the capacity to use knowledge is limited. In this paper we investigate the role of ecosystem knowledge in offshore wind farm planning and management. We have identified 4 types of research arenas: (1) government driven (e.g., monitoring programs) (2) subsidized research (national or EU), (3) industrial or PPS (Public-private partnerships), and (4) research by universities. This study considers the way in which knowledge from different arenas is or could be taken up and used in policy. We identify that particularly government-driven research (monitoring) is used in policymaking. The analysis of policy documents, in-depth expert interviews and focus groups reveals that the distance between knowledge developers and knowledge users may differentiate from purely transactional relations to co-production-relations. However, co-production is rare beyond the monitoring programs directly initiated by the government agencies.