Power in Collaborative Approaches to Governance for Water: A Systematic Review

Brisbois, Marie Claire; Loë, Rob C. de

doi:10.1080/08941920.2015.1080339

Cited by 87 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 48 publications

(73 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Neither inclusiveness nor socially just and sustainable outcomes are a given (nor necessarily more likely) under polycentric design. Key actors are often omitted from collaborative arrangements, in which powerful actors tend to prevail (Brisbois & de Loë, 2016;García-López & Arizpe, 2010). Outcomes are often unequally distributed, in ways that reproduce existing power inequalities and injustices (Martínez-Alier, Temper, Del Bene, & Scheidel, 2016).…”

Section: From Polycentric Governance To Polycentric Strugglesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This project follows from previous calls for closer attention to the structure, function and effectiveness of polycentric governance and its challenges (Wyborn, 2015). It also draws on broader debates about a more critical/politicized institutional analysis that accounts for power-laden conflicts over environmental governance arrangements-who participates, who is heard, who wins and who loses-and related questions of democracy, participation and equality (Brisbois & de Loë, 2016;Clement, 2010;Gruby & Basurto, 2013;Jedd & Bixler, 2015;Kashwan, 2017;Klenk, Reed, Lidestav, & Carlsson, 2013;Paloniemi et al, 2015). Indeed, real participation, empowerment, accountability, and social and environmental justice are precisely the issues that many environmental social movements are demanding in our current context of socioecological crisis (Asara, 2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Polycentric struggles: The experience of the global climate justice movement

Tormos-Aponte

García-López

2018

Env Pol Gov

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What is the relationship between social movements and polycentric governance? The concept of polycentricity has been at the center of recent debates in environmental governance. While most of this work has analyzed polycentric arrangements in relation to collaborative and adaptive governance, some have recently focused on how political conflicts shape these arrangements. In this paper we build on this work through Luther Gerlach's forgotten framework of polycentric social movements to undertake the task of politicizing polycentricity. This task entails expanding the analytical focus of institutional analyses of polycentricity and examining the social group politics of social movements. To this end, we present a case study of the climate justice movement and its relation to climate change governance. We analyze whether and to what extent the movement has embodied polycentric arrangements throughout its history, and to what effects. We show that show that, in seeking to address the multiscalar nature of environmental problems and the limits of existing institutional arrangements, climate justice groups are increasingly organized in a polycentric fashion. Climate justice groups mobilize multiple strands of environmental justice movements from the global North and South, as well as from indigenous and peasant rights movements, and it is organized as a decentralized network of semiautonomous, coordinated units. We find that this strategy generates new opportunities and challenges for the movement, and thus has important implications for its effectiveness in achieving these transformations. Lastly, we find that through these polycentric arrangements, movements such as that for climate justice are able to exert simultaneous influence on multiple sites of environmental governance, from the local to the global, furthering increased polycentricity in formal institutional arrangements.

show abstract

Section: From Polycentric Governance To Polycentric Strugglesmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Polycentric struggles: The experience of the global climate justice movement

Tormos-Aponte

García-López

2018

Env Pol Gov

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The thematic area we present here, however, departs from the assumption that the members of the system are already in place, emerging out of siloed prescribed job descriptions, but also that innovative arrangements may emerge out of an entanglement of understandings about what the 'other' is doing in the system. These can be seen as 'collaborative approaches,' where understandings emerged from collective interactions among scientists, managers and other stakeholders [53,63,64].…”

Section: Democratised Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Global Water Governance and Climate Change: Identifying Innovative Arrangements for Adaptive Transformation

Zurita

Thomsen

Holbrook

et al. 2018

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A convoluted network of different water governance systems exists around the world. Collectively, these systems provide insight into how to build sustainable regimes of water use and management. We argue that the challenge is not to make the system less convoluted, but rather to support positive and promising trends in governance, creating a vision for future environmental outcomes. In this paper, we analyse nine water case studies from around the world to help identify potential 'innovative arrangements' for addressing existing dilemmas. We argue that such arrangements can be used as a catalyst for crafting new global water governance futures. The nine case studies were selected for their diversity in terms of location, scale and water dilemma, and through an examination of their contexts, structures and processes we identify key themes to consider in the milieu of adaptive transformation. These themes include the importance of acknowledging socio-ecological entanglements, understanding the political dimensions of environmental dilemmas, the recognition of different constructions of the dillema, and the importance of democratized processes.

show abstract

“…Power has been identified as a significant and under-researched area of contemporary water governance (Brisbois & de Loë, 2015) and will be an important dimension of relations between actors within a governance network as well as between the state and network actors.…”

Section: Michel Foucault First Coined the Term Governmentality In A Smentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Like trust, leadership has been widely recognised as an essential element of successful collaboration (Huxham & Vangen, 2005;Keast et al, 2004;Mandell & Keast, 2009;McGuire, 2006) and collaboration requires new forms of leadership to work across organisational boundaries (see Ansell & Gash, 2012). While governments are often perceived to hold the greatest power (Brisbois & de Loë, 2015), collaborations can facilitate access to additional knowledge, resources and relationships (Huxham, 2003).…”

Section: Clarifying Network Terminologymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Metagovernance of Australian Aater Policy: Practices, Rationales and Outcomes

Eberhard¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

2018The metagovernance of Australian water policy: practices, rationales and outcomes The metagovernance of Australian water policy: practices, rationales and outcomes iii List of published worksThe following works were published during the candidature period of this thesis and are relevant to its content:Dale, A., Vella, K., Pressey, R. L., Brodie, J., Gooch, M., Potts, R., & Eberhard, R. (2016).Risk analysis of the governance system affecting outcomes in the Great Barrier Reef. Eberhard, R., Thorburn, P., Rolfe, J., Taylor, B., Ronan, M., Weber, T., . . . McCosker, K. (2017). Scientific Consensus Statement 2017: A synthesis of the science of landbased water quality impacts on the Great Barrier Reef, Chapter 4: Management options and their effectiveness. Brisbane: State of Queensland.Stockwell, B., Eberhard, R., Bycroft, P., & Coutts, J. (2016). Reef Plan Best Management Program Monitoring and Evaluation Review and Practice change monitoring, evaluation reporting and improvement framework. Brisbane, Australia: Watershed Australia Waterhouse, J., Schaffelke, B., Bartley, R., Eberhard, R., Brodie, J., Star, M., . . . Kroon, F. (2017). 2017 Scientific Consensus Statement: Land use impacts on Great Barrier Reef water quality and ecosystem condition. Brisbane: Queensland Government.The metagovernance of Australian water policy: practices, rationales and outcomes Yet the practice of collaborative governance has been shown to be costly, timeconsuming and highly-uncertain. Evidence of the benefits is inconclusive, and debate about appropriate performance measures ongoing. This thesis explores the discrepancy between collaborative governance as recommended good policy practice, and its use in ongoing water policy conflicts in Australia. In so doing, this research aspires to contribute to understanding how public policy decision-making processes about water and other environmental resources can be improved.This chapter introduces the research context (section 1.2), the research problem (section 1.3) and the research question and objectives (section 1.4). The research approach is briefly outlined (section 1.5) and the significance of the research highlighted (section 1.6). Finally, this chapter presents an outline of the rest of the thesis. RESEARCH CONTEXTAustralian water resources are amongst the most variable in the world, with low rates of rainfall and runoff (Letcher & Powell, 2011), and much of Australia's water resources are inaccessible or unsuitable for human use (McKay, 2005).Australia uses a high (and growing) proportion of its water for irrigated agriculture (Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2016a).In the Australian federation, the states have primary responsibility for land and water resource management. In recent decades, the federal government has become more involved in brokering water reform and supporting community-based natural resource management (Robins, 2007).The early development of Australian water resources was closely tied to a regional development ethic. The Murray-Darling Basin, ...

show abstract

Power in Collaborative Approaches to Governance for Water: A Systematic Review

Abstract: Article (Accepted Version) http://sro.sussex.ac.uk Brisbois, Marie Claire and de Loë, Rob C (2016) Power in collaborative approaches to governance for water: a systematic review. Society and Natural Resources, 29 (7). pp. 775-790.

Cited by 87 publications

References 48 publications

Polycentric struggles: The experience of the global climate justice movement

Polycentric struggles: The experience of the global climate justice movement

Global Water Governance and Climate Change: Identifying Innovative Arrangements for Adaptive Transformation

The Metagovernance of Australian Aater Policy: Practices, Rationales and Outcomes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About