Efficient and resilient governance of social–ecological systems

Erickson, Adam

doi:10.1007/s13280-014-0607-7

Cited by 17 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In other words, establish clear decision and process rules. Everyone also needs to be clear about his or her role and responsibilities within the process to avoid overlaps and fragmentation over who does what, or what is expected, as this can erode ownership of the problem (Dobbie et al, 2016;Erickson, 2015;Bettini et al, 2013). Clear methods for evaluating and measuring outcomes are also important to assess the extent to which actions undertaken have been successful and therefore what has changed (Biddle and Koontz, 2014;Mandarano and Paulsen, 2011).…”

Section: How To Design the Process?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A clear and strong vision is needed (Alegre et al, 2015;Erickson, 2015;Bohnet, 2010). If everyone pulls in different directions, and it's unclear what the end goal is, momentum may wane.…”

Section: How To Keep the Process On Track?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1, 2, 5, 12, 14, 18, (Erickson, 2015), or too large an amount of money expected upfront (Alegre et al, 2015), can also make collaboration more appealing.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

22 reasons why collaborations fail: Lessons from water innovation research

Porter

Birdi

2018

Environmental Science & Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ReuseThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence. This licence allows you to distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon the work, even commercially, as long as you credit the authors for the original work. More information and the full terms of the licence here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing eprints@whiterose.ac.uk including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. Bold and inventive solutions are urgently needed to safeguard the future use of water. In response, collaborativeinnovation is increasingly championed. If stakeholders including water utilities, supply-chain companies, research institutions and local communities work together, share their experiences and pool ideas, meaningful change could happen, it's argued. But effective collaboration is far from easy. For every incentive that drives collaboration forward, another barrier blocks its path. Whilst the literature offers many possible factors that influence the success (or failure) of collaborative-innovations, it remains unclear which factors are most important, where the highest agreement and disagreement exists, and if accommodating one factor creates problems for another. This is important because its not always practical, nor necessary, to apply everything from the academic literature. In this paper, we report findings from an international systematic literature review that brings together a range of studies that cross the water collaboration and water innovation divide. We identify 22 broad themes that are spread (unevenly) across the entire collaborative-innovation process; highlight how the level of attention given to each theme varies greatly; and where disagreement exists. Our research provides practical insights on how to create more effective collaborative-innovations in water and where future research should be directed.

show abstract

Section: How To Design the Process?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A clear and strong vision is needed (Alegre et al, 2015;Erickson, 2015;Bohnet, 2010). If everyone pulls in different directions, and it's unclear what the end goal is, momentum may wane.…”

Section: How To Keep the Process On Track?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

22 reasons why collaborations fail: Lessons from water innovation research

Porter

Birdi

2018

Environmental Science & Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, Lopez-Gunn (2003) compares the types of rules developed by different regional water authorities in Spain. Likewise, Erickson (2015) compares state-level water management and funding policies in USA. "Participation and stakeholder involvement" is often interpreted as a key component of water governance, as reflected in the high number of publications (N = 41) focusing on it.…”

Section: Governance Elements Being Comparedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similarly, there is no single framework that is widely used for comparative analyses of water governance. More than half of researchers substantially modified existing frameworks, or developed their own framework from existing theory, and then used this to compare cases (e.g., Heikilla 2004, Erickson 2015). Nevertheless, digging more deeply into the frameworks that are used as base material to create modified frameworks, the influence of Elinor Ostrom on the field of comparative water governance becomes clear.…”

Section: Conceptual Basis Of Comparative Water Governance Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative studies of water governance: a systematic review

Özerol¹,

Kruijf²,

Brisbois³

et al. 2018

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Governance is key to tackling water challenges and transforming water management under the increasing pressures of competing water uses and climate change. Diverse water governance regimes have evolved in different countries and regions to regulate the development and management of water resources and the provision of water services. Scholars and policy analysts have been comparing these water governance regimes to analyze elements and processes, to assess performance, or to draw lessons. Although the number of such studies has increased since the 1980s, no comprehensive synthesis exists. We present such a synthesis by conducting a systematic review of the emerging field of comparative water governance studies, and we critically reflect on how water governance is defined, conceptualized, and assessed in different contexts. Based on the resultant insights, we identify four areas for future research:(1) improving the balance between small-, medium-, and large-N studies that are used in comparative studies of water governance; (2) conducting longitudinal comparisons of water governance to identify temporal governance trends and patterns; (3) expanding the geographical coverage of the comparisons to include underrepresented countries and regions, focusing more broadly on the global South; and (4) addressing the issues of justice, equity, and power, which are becoming increasingly important in tackling the water governance challenges that are exacerbated by the effects of climate change, industrialization, and urbanization.

show abstract

Defining “water resilience”: Debates, concepts, approaches, and gaps

Rodina

2018

WIREs Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Resilience is increasingly applied the context of water systems, and water governance more broadly, in response to climate change impacts, hydrologic variability and uncertainty associated with various dimensions of global environmental change. However, the meanings, applications and implications of resilience as it relates to water governance are still poorly understood. Drawing on a systematic scoping review of the peer‐reviewed academic literature, this paper addresses the questions: how is resilience framed in relation to water systems and water governance, how are diverse resilience framings (re)shaping ideas and trends in water management, and what are the associated implications? The analysis found that the resilience‐informed water governance literature remains fragmented and predominantly centered on conventional approaches and framings of water planning, with a predominant focus on engineering resilience in water supply infrastructure. A recently emerging engagement with resilience in the water governance literature, however, draws on more diverse framings and theories and calls for a shift towards more integrative and ecologically‐centered thinking in water governance. Despite this, significant empirical and conceptual gaps remain, particularly around the integration of the various subsectors of water governance and, more importantly, around the institutional and governance dimensions of building water resilience. This article is categorized under: Engineering Water > Planning Water Human Water > Water Governance

show abstract

Efficient and resilient governance of social–ecological systems

Cited by 17 publications

References 27 publications

22 reasons why collaborations fail: Lessons from water innovation research

22 reasons why collaborations fail: Lessons from water innovation research

Comparative studies of water governance: a systematic review

Defining “water resilience”: Debates, concepts, approaches, and gaps

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About