Actors in Water Governance: Barriers and Bridges for Coordination

Abstract

Multiple actors across different institutional levels play a role in water governance. The coordination of these actors is important for effective water governance. However, the joining together of multiple actors can have several implications, such as a redistribution of power across actors, a change in democratic control and citizen influence as well as shifting accountability structures. These implications can involve different barriers and bridges that might impede or foster coordination. Through qualitative and quantitative methods, we assess the following barriers and bridges for coordination: (1) reputational power in terms of who is perceived as important for coordination in the water sector; (2) democratic legitimacy in terms of actors’ value of local control of water services; and (3) accountability in terms of the regional actors’ capacity to steer in the water sector. This article focuses on three cases in a Swiss region that has experienced water provision challenges due to its highly fragmented water supply structures. We find that reputational power serves as a bridge in our three cases: when the actors responsible for water supply regard potential coordination partners as important, then we observe coordination. In contrast, we do not find conclusive evidence to support the assumption that a fear of losing local control is a barrier for coordination. Instead, our results indicate that accountability, in the form of vertical steering by the regional actors, serves as a bridge for coordination, and that this could help mitigate some of the potentially negative effects of democratic legitimacy perceptions: through convening local actors or providing positive incentives to municipalities to work together, regional actors can foster coordination.

Socio-Technical Challenges Towards Data-Driven and Integrated Urban Water Management: A Socio-Technical Network Approach

“…Social actors managing UWS elements in a catchment area may further belong to different organizational entities (e.g., several municipalities or an authority), especially in countries where UWS are managed by public sector organizations, as for example, in Germany, Switzerland, or the United States. In these countries, it is not uncommon that several municipalities are responsible for managing their respectively owned parts of the sewer system (Lieberherr and Ingold 2019). Such organizational fragmentation at the municipal level can hinder the efficient and integrated management of UWS (Roy et al, 2008).…”

The Challenges of Water Management and Governance in Cities

“…For effective water governance, the coordination of multiple actors across different institutional levels is important. In a Swiss region, Lieberherr et al [15] observed the importance of reputational power, i.e., a higher degree of coordination took place when the actors responsible for water supply regarded potential coordination partners as important. Likewise, democratic legitimacy is important, i.e., the stronger the region's capacity to steer, the stronger the coordination.…”

Livestock Farming at the Expense of Water Resources? The Water–Energy–Food Nexus in Regions with Intensive Livestock Farming

“…The second resource is water in the form of groundwater and surface water, which is a common-pool resource and influenced by the food system in manifold ways [16]. The integration of water-related policies in other policy fields remains a challenge and in many cases results in the pollution or overharvesting of water resources [19,31,32]. Though integrated water resource management is gaining scholarly and political relevance, there are still important deficiencies when it comes to the concrete implementation [11].…”