This paper has two major purposes. First, it presents argument and evidence related to the suitability of using Policy Delphi in the formulation of national or federal water policy. Much of the associated discussion is organized in terms of a comparison of Delphi purpose and structure with those of other Idea Generating Strategies (IGSs). Second, it presents argument and evidence related to the value of expert opinion, and its role as an integral component of any Policy Delphi application. Associated discussion focuses on the identification and declaration of expert sampling criteria in the context of water and other policy. In addition, a recommendation is presented to consultants, managers, stategists, and others who must regularly synthesize divergent opinion and evidence and bring forth policy statements. The conclusions indicate that a Policy Delphi has no structural elements that would limit its application to water policy development or other environmental management problems that demand definition.

No abstract

No abstract

Source water protection (SWP) efforts in many jurisdictions focus primarily on protecting municipal groundwater wells through a highly technical process known as wellhead protection planning (WHPP). Less attention has been given to implementing a broader approach for protecting groundwater supplies both within and outside municipal wellhead protection areas through stewardship and other approaches that engage diverse stakeholders. Technical approaches to drinking-water safety are necessary, but increasingly it is recognized that they are not sufficient in the context of a complex problem such as groundwater protection. There is growing recognition globally that solutions to complex problems require decision-making processes that involve the integration of expert science, local knowledge and community beliefs and values. In this paper, the example of groundwater protection in the Region of Waterloo, Ontario, is used to illustrate how collaborative approaches can facilitate the integration of scientific and local knowledge with existing community beliefs and values. Factors drawn from the academic and empirical literature are identified and used to evaluate the contribution of stakeholders to program development and implementation.Pour plusieurs juridictions, la protection des sources d'approvisionnement en eau souterraine est essentiellement basée sur la protection des aires d'alimentation des puits municipaux selon un programme de protection technique appelé « Protection des puits d'approvisionnement ». De manière générale, une attention moindre est consacrée à une démarche de protection au sens large des ressources en eau souterraine à l'intérieur et l'extérieur des aires d'alimentation des puits municipaux. Les divers approches de protection de l'eau potable sont nécessaires mais on reconnaît, de plus en plus, qu'elles ne sont pas suffisantes pour un problème complexe comme la protection des ressources en eau souterraine. Il y a une reconnaissance mondiale que les solutions à ces problèmes exigent un processus décisionnel nécessitant l'intégra-tion des connaissances scientifiques avec le savoir et les enjeux locaux ainsi que les croyances et les valeurs de la population. Cette article présente un exemple de protection de l'eau souterraine situé dans la région de Waterloo en Ontario. Cet exemple a été choisi pour illustrer que les démarches collaboratives peuvent faciliter l'intégration des connaissances scientifiques avec le savoir et les enjeux locaux en tenant compte des croyances et des valeurs de la population. Une revue de littérature a permis de recenser différents critères d'évaluation qui ont été retenus afin d'évaluer la contribution des différents intervenants au développement et à la mise en oeuvre du programme de protection.

No abstract

Irrigation is an important contributor to global food security. However, it also contributes to a number of serious water management problems in countries around the world, including groundwater subsidence, reduced water quality, salinization and degraded ecosystems. Steps are being taken to modernize irrigation, both in terms of technologies and institutions. Importantly, while improvements within the irrigation sector are critical, they alone will not ensure the continued sustainability of the sector because irrigation contributes to, and is affected by, the larger challenge of ensuring water security. In this paper, we explore the concept of water security and link it to irrigation through examining the link between water allocation and water security. Economic instruments, we argue, are an important part of strategies to improve allocative efficiency and thus they promote water security -but on their own they are not sufficient. Rather, we suggest that water security as a multi-dimensional challenge must be approached from the broader perspective of improved governance. In this context, attention is needed to considerations such as transparency in decision making; equity in stakeholder involvement; integration among related systems (e.g., land and water, water and economy); the scale of decision making; and the balance between state and non-state actors.

No abstract

Institutional barriers (as opposed to technical challenges) were identified in the early 1980s as being at the root of many of the world's most challenging water resource problems. To what extent does this claim hold true today? We investigate and report on some major developments which have occurred in the field of institutional analysis over the past 25 years. An article published by Helen Ingram and colleagues in 1984 offering practical advice for water planners undertaking institutional analyses, provides the lens through which we examine changes in the field. Major developments since that article was published include an increasing sensitivity to the importance of context, a heightened awareness of the complex nature of social-ecological systems, and a growing appreciation of the dynamic nature of institutions. Much of the advice offered by Ingram and her colleagues continues to be sound, but we suggest that new insights from the past 25 years of work in this field can enhance the challenge of institutional analyses.Institutions are often among the most formidable obstacles to the development and implementation of feasible water resource programs. (Ingram et al., 1984)