Comparison of Institutional Arrangements for River Basin Management in Eight Basins

Blomquist, William; Dinar, Ariel; Kemper, Karin

doi:10.2139/ssrn.757225

Cited by 9 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Blomquist et al, 2005;Warner, 2006;Verhallen et al, 2007;Hooper, 2010). Blomquist et al, 2005;Warner, 2006;Verhallen et al, 2007;Hooper, 2010).…”

Section: Iwrm Institutionsunclassified

“…The surrounding governance structure of the basin should provide stable conditions for IWRM. Support-generating capacity: In order to be effective, IWRM arrangements must be supported by sufficient human and financial resources (Blomquist et al, 2005;Warner, 2006;Warner and Verhallen, 2007;Hooper, 2010). Support-generating capacity: In order to be effective, IWRM arrangements must be supported by sufficient human and financial resources (Blomquist et al, 2005;Warner, 2006;Warner and Verhallen, 2007;Hooper, 2010).…”

Section: Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Support-generating capacity: In order to be effective, IWRM arrangements must be supported by sufficient human and financial resources (Blomquist et al, 2005;Warner, 2006;Warner and Verhallen, 2007;Hooper, 2010). The arrangement has to be a mutually desired development by local and central actors; it cannot be pushed through either exclusively top down or bottom up (Blomquist et al, 2005;Warner, 2006;Currie-Alder, 2007;Butterworth et al, 2010;Benson et al, 2012). The arrangement has to be a mutually desired development by local and central actors; it cannot be pushed through either exclusively top down or bottom up (Blomquist et al, 2005;Warner, 2006;Currie-Alder, 2007;Butterworth et al, 2010;Benson et al, 2012).…”

Section: Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To facilitate this process, a skilled and charismatic individual or organization is required to take on leadership (Blomquist et al, 2005;Warner, 2006). Fraser Basin in Canada, see Blomquist et al, 2005). Fraser Basin in Canada, see Blomquist et al, 2005).…”

Section: Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bressers and Kuks, 2004;Blomquist et al, 2005). First, these cases allow the comparison of two divergent types of coordination platform in a similar institutional setting, namely two regions in the same federal country.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Evaluating Conditions for Integrated Water Resource Management at Sub‐basin Scale. A Comparison of the Flemish Sub‐basin Boards and Walloon River Contracts

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Integrated water resource management (IWRM) has long been advocated in academia and politics but appears difficult to pursue in practice. Defenders of IWRM call for governance institutions adapted to hydrological boundaries, but these would be at odds with existing administrative ones. In this paper, we investigate how coordination platforms at sub-basin scale can contribute to IWRM. Most IWRM literature focuses on the catchment scale. It is however acknowledged by several authors that coordination is also needed at a lower level. Through document analysis and semi-structured interviews, a comparison is made of the Flemish sub-basin boards and the Walloon river contracts, two types of coordination platform in different regions of Belgium. Belonging to the same federal state, they form valuable cases to compare divergent systems rooted in similar administrative settings.A number of key factors appear to contribute to the effectiveness of the coordination platforms, as it is perceived by their stakeholders. These factors are a clear but flexible legislative framework, (financial) support of a higher government rather than commandand-control steering, the personal commitment of their coordinators, an independent status of their staff, a sense of urgency and a good connection with civil society and the wider public.

show abstract

“…Blomquist et al, 2005;Warner, 2006;Verhallen et al, 2007;Hooper, 2010). Blomquist et al, 2005;Warner, 2006;Verhallen et al, 2007;Hooper, 2010).…”

Section: Iwrm Institutionsunclassified

Section: Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Evaluating Conditions for Integrated Water Resource Management at Sub‐basin Scale. A Comparison of the Flemish Sub‐basin Boards and Walloon River Contracts

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Polycentricity in the water–energy nexus: A comparison of polycentric governance traits and implications for adaptive capacity of water user associations in Spain

Villamayor-Tomás

2018

Env Pol Gov

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper assesses the merits of polycentricity by looking at the water–energy nexus in the Spanish irrigation sector. In the last few decades, the Spanish electricity and water governance systems have transitioned from relatively monocentric, top‐down arrangements to arrangements that exhibit traits of polycentricity. This paper characterizes both governance systems against a series of polycentricity traits and provision and production activities. It then assesses the merits of the systems against the capacity of water user associations (WUAs) to adapt to water and electricity supply dynamics. The study relies on quantitative and archival data collected from a set of 38 irrigation systems located in north‐east Spain as well as secondary data from the broader water, energy and irrigation sectors. As illustrated in the analysis, WUAs can play a key role in integrating the management of water and electricity. They do so locally, via a diversity of institutional and operational adaptations. This role, however, requires sufficient levels of autonomy, clear rules that shape the interactions between WUAs and other water and electricity actors, and a relatively competitive environment.

show abstract

Archetypical barriers to adapting water governance in river basins to climate change

Oberlack

Eisenack

2017

Journal of Institutional Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Can we explain barriers to adaptation of collective action to changes in the natural environment? One reason for adaptation is the impacts of climate change. Ample case study evidence shows that such adaptation is rarely a smooth process. However, generalisable patterns of how and why barriers arise remain scarce. The study adopts a collective action perspective and the archetypes approach in a meta-analysis of 26 selected publications to explain how barriers arise in specific conditions. Focusing on adaptation of water governance in river basins, the study finds 21 reappearing patterns. Less well-established patterns relate to water property rights, hydrological standards, adaptation externalities, non-climatological uncertainty and vertical coordination. Results further show how barriers impede collective action in specific ways. The paper precisely introduces the archetypes approach, and shows that reported problems in adapting collective action under climate change arise from attributes of actors and pre-existing institutions rather than biophysical characteristics.

show abstract

Comparison of Institutional Arrangements for River Basin Management in Eight Basins

Cited by 9 publications

References 10 publications

Evaluating Conditions for Integrated Water Resource Management at Sub‐basin Scale. A Comparison of the Flemish Sub‐basin Boards and Walloon River Contracts

Evaluating Conditions for Integrated Water Resource Management at Sub‐basin Scale. A Comparison of the Flemish Sub‐basin Boards and Walloon River Contracts

Polycentricity in the water–energy nexus: A comparison of polycentric governance traits and implications for adaptive capacity of water user associations in Spain

Archetypical barriers to adapting water governance in river basins to climate change

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About