This article uses a formal systematic review to examine the extent to which literature discussing collaborative approaches to water governance reflects understanding and awareness of power-related ...considerations. It makes the case that an analytical approach grounded in theory on power can facilitate assessment of the factors affecting collaboration by identifying the multiscalar, interrelated mechanisms through which power affects collaborative processes and outcomes. Through the review process, it became apparent that fully accounting for power will better enable scholars to link together seemingly disparate conditions for collaborative success (e.g., inclusion, decision-making power, capacity). A power-based approach also incorporates broad socioeconomic factors that fundamentally shape processes but often lie outside the analytical scope of local or regional studies on collaboration. Accounting for power, in the forms and scales identified, will result in better -designed, more effective collaborative approaches to water governance.
The policy Delphi is a method that uses iterative stages of data collection to reveal positions on an issue within a panel of people with relevant knowledge. Policy Delphi surveys have become popular ...in a variety of disciplines since the method was first proposed in this journal in 1970. In this paper, we benchmark the state-of-the-art in policy Delphi methods, focusing on strengths and limitations, and on innovative ways of addressing key shortcomings. We report findings from a systematic review of 63 empirical studies conducted between 1971 and the end of 2014 that used the policy Delphi method. We found little consistency in how studies have been designed and executed. The inherent flexibility of the method is a strength, but a lack of consistency in how it is used undermines the ability of analysts to generate accessible insights. Specifically, our analysis reveals limited use of validity and reliability tests, a blurring of conventional and policy Delphi rationales, diverse data collection and analysis techniques, and mixed quality when reporting the approach, format, and results for individual studies. Indeed, potential new users of the method will struggle to understand what a policy Delphi survey actually is. We conclude with advice for addressing key shortcomings in current policy Delphi practice.
•We report a systematic review of 63 studies using policy Delphi since 1971.•Policy Delphi is a promising tool for understanding complex policy issues.•Wide variation in study design and reporting undermines impact and effectiveness.•Promising innovations are counterbalanced by chaotic practices.•The method can be strengthened through respecting basic design principles.
Agricultural trade poses dilemmas for adaptive water governance as farmers and irrigation systems become integrated into global food value chains and are affected by their ongoing dynamics. The ...benefits and risks of agricultural trade and agrarian transitions are unevenly distributed, giving rise to complex interdependencies and externalities. Despite these growing linkages, the understanding of agricultural markets and their influence on water conflict and cooperation remains limited and dependent on context, which can lead to seemingly contradictory evidence. Progress has been hampered by boundary problems, disputed concepts, measurement issues, and divergent normative perspectives. Addressing these challenges will require that water governance scholars account more explicitly for agricultural trade when diagnosing collective action problems and assessing different modes of adaptive water governance. Drawing on the common-pool resource governance literature, we distinguish three separate, but interrelated, conceptual perspectives examining agricultural trade as an external factor in water governance: (1) market integration as a disturbance, (2) market integration as an opportunity, and (3) agricultural trade as a form of telecoupling with nested externalities. We compare these perspectives in terms of the externalities involved, their major claims about the relationship between market integration and collective action in the context of irrigation governance, and the broader implications for adaptive water governance. The comparison demonstrates the prevalence of institutional misfits and the common struggle of boundary shifting, i.e., matching water governance to the expanding problem-shed associated with agricultural markets. Institutional fit offers one important lens through which to consider the shifting boundaries (and actors) relevant for water governance, the scope and limits for strengthening fit through social learning, and the importance of nested governance to address nested externalities. These insights point the way for an agenda of research that examines the evolution of agricultural trade and adaptive water governance and pays explicit attention to the politics and power relations that shape who wins and loses and the different levers and entry points to improve management of the associated transitions and trade-offs. We conclude by arguing that future research should identify and examine pathways of adaptive water governance that strengthen processes of social learning and institutional nesting to address the external pressures and opportunities created by global food value chains.
We provide a systematic review of the adaptive comanagement (ACM) literature to (i) investigate how the concept of governance is considered and (ii) examine what insights ACM offers with reference to ...six key concerns in environmental governance literature: accountability and legitimacy; actors and roles; fit, interplay, and scale; adaptiveness, flexibility, and learning; evaluation and monitoring; and, knowledge. Findings from the systematic review uncover a complicated relationship with evidence of conceptual closeness as well as relational ambiguities. The findings also reveal several specific contributions from the ACM literature to each of the six key environmental governance concerns, including applied strategies for sharing power and responsibility and value of systems approaches in understanding problems of fit. More broadly, the research suggests a dissolving or fuzzy boundary between ACM and governance, with implications for understanding emerging approaches to navigate social-ecological system change. Future research opportunities may be found at the confluence of ACM and environmental governance scholarship, such as identifying ways to build adaptive capacity and encouraging the development of more flexible governance arrangements.
Contentious water problems are increasingly being addressed using collaborative approaches to governance. Despite trends toward more inclusive governance, governments continue to play important roles ...in the initiation of collaboration, provision of institutional and financial support, and approval and implementation of policies and decisions. This study used power theory to structure an analysis of the actions and motivations of the state at various stages in the policy making and decision making cycle. Research assessed the potential of collaboration to generate better social and environmental outcomes. Empirical cases in Ontario and Alberta, Canada, both characterized by the participation of powerful natural resource industries, were used to generate insights. Results reveal that the provincial governments exerted power from agenda setting through to implementation in response to socioeconomic, political and cultural stimuli at multiple scales in ways that reproduced existing power structures. The position and activities of the state, in these cases, challenged the potential of collaboration to achieve desired social and environmental outcomes.
In this policy perspective, we outline several conditions to support effective science–policy interaction, with a particular emphasis on improving water governance in transboundary basins. Key ...conditions include (1) recognizing that science is a crucial but bounded input into water resource decision-making processes; (2) establishing conditions for collaboration and shared commitment among actors; (3) understanding that social or group-learning processes linked to science–policy interaction are enhanced through greater collaboration; (4) accepting that the collaborative production of knowledge about hydrological issues and associated socioeconomic change and institutional responses is essential to build legitimate decision-making processes; and (5) engaging boundary organizations and informal networks of scientists, policy makers, and civil society. We elaborate on these conditions with a diverse set of international examples drawn from a synthesis of our collective experiences in assessing the opportunities and constraints (including the role of power relations) related to governance for water in transboundary settings.
Historically, groundwater policy development and implementation have been guided almost exclusively by expert science and traditional risk analysis. This approach has worked well for environmental ...problems that are relatively simple and predictable. Unfortunately, many of the environmental problems that are being faced by decision makers are complex. Complex environmental problems are a particular challenge because they are ‘quasi-scientific’, meaning that more than scientific knowledge needs to be considered during problem-solving processes. Groundwater protection is an important example of a complex environmental problem, and current research indicates that a broader and more inclusive risk analysis approach is needed. A key part of this broader approach is the involvement of members of affected communities in order to combine expert science, local knowledge, beliefs and values during problem-solving processes. This has been a challenge for the expert science community. In the context of groundwater protection, a shift is required to a more open and inclusive process of policy development and implementation. This report explores elements of the paradigm shift that appears to be taking place in the development and implementation of groundwater policy. First, criteria that qualify groundwater policy development as a complex environmental problem are presented. Second, concerns with addressing complex environmental problems using the current water management paradigm are discussed. Third, an alternative to the conventional approach—collaborative environmental problem-solving—is explored. Finally, examples are evaluated using key benchmarks for collaborative approaches that provide insight into the status of a paradigm shift regarding complex environmental problems
Canada’s Mackenzie River Basin (MRB) is one of the largest relatively pristine ecosystems in North America. Home to indigenous peoples for millennia, the basin is also the site of increasing resource ...development, notably fossil fuels, hydroelectric power resources, minerals, and forests. Three provinces, three territories, the Canadian federal government, and Aboriginal governments (under Canada’s constitution, indigenous peoples are referred to as “Aboriginal”) have responsibilities for water in the basin, making the MRB a significant setting for cooperative, transboundary water governance. A framework agreement that provides broad principles and establishes a river basin organization, the MRB Board, has been in place since 1997. However, significant progress on completing bilateral agreements under the 1997 Mackenzie River Basin Transboundary Waters Master Agreement has only occurred since 2010. We considered the performance of the MRB Board relative to its coordination function, accountability, legitimacy, and overall environmental effectiveness. This allowed us to address the extent to which governance based on river basin boundaries, a bioregional approach, could contribute to adaptive governance in the MRB. Insights were based on analysis of key documents and published studies, 19 key informant interviews, and additional interactions with parties involved in basin governance. We found that the MRB Board’s composition, its lack of funding and staffing, and the unwillingness of the governments to empower it to play the role envisioned in the Master Agreement mean that as constituted, the board faces challenges in implementing a basin-wide vision. This appears to be by design. The MRB governments have instead used the bilateral agreements under the Master Agreement as the primary mechanism through which transboundary governance will occur. A commitment to coordinating across the bilateral agreements is needed to enhance the prospects for adaptive governance in the basin.
Natural resource industries are increasingly significant actors in environmental decision-making. Possessing vast institutional and technical capacity, firms have an important role to play in 'new' ...governance strategies such as collaboration. These strategies are often based upon assumptions of equitable influence. This paper investigates the nature of resource industry participation in collaborative water governance in Canada, and the potential consequences of that participation as investigated using power theory. The study used comparative cases to reveal that resource industries are able to shape collaboration, and the issues collaborated upon, at multiple analytical levels both internal and external to the collaborative process in ways not available to other actors. Analysis also revealed that resource industry participation in collaboration did not reflect a commitment to engage in shared learning and the reexamination of values and interests as presupposed by collaborative theory. Collaboration is thus challenged in producing equitable, representative outcomes when resource industries participate.
► Epistemological anxiety towards local knowledge constrains its use in collaborative processes. ► Analyzed participants’ conceptualizations of local knowledge and role in collaborative processes. ► ...Participants conceptualized local knowledge broadly across a number of dimensions. ► State and local participants expressed reservations about the quality of local knowledge. ► Participants identified subsidiary role for local knowledge in collaborative processes.
A major challenge to integrating local knowledge into collaborative environmental governance processes stems from the underlying differences between positivist science and local knowledge; these differences often result in strong differences of opinion regarding which forms of knowledge are valid in environmental decision-making. Previous research on these issues has mainly focused on the attitudes of scientists towards local knowledge. Studies of the views of local and non-scientific actors regarding their own knowledge are much less common. Through a qualitative case study of water allocation planning in South Australia, we analyzed participants’ conceptualizations of local knowledge and the role of local knowledge in collaborative governance. We found that participants defined local knowledge broadly across a number of dimensions and that many acknowledged variability in the nature and quality of different types of local knowledge. While most recognized the value of local knowledge in supporting technical investigations and developing policies, very few participants identified a role for local knowledge in the early stages of the collaborative process (i.e., in framing problems or establishing research protocols). Previous research has highlighted “epistemological anxiety” among scientists and resource managers toward local knowledge as a significant barrier to its effective use in environmental decision-making. This study suggests that state and local actors, and scientists and non-scientists, share similar reservations about local knowledge and highlights the need for researchers and practitioners to take into account the attitudes of all types of participants when considering how to overcome the epistemological challenges related to integrating local knowledge into collaborative management.
PDF
