Community Engagement in Oregon Water Governance: Evaluating a State Water Policy and a Collaborative Q Methodology Research Project

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Clare McClellan
Keyword(s):  
Community Engagement ◽  
Water Policy ◽  
Q Methodology ◽  
Water Governance ◽  
Research Project ◽  
State Water

Water Governance and Management in Indus Basin - Challenges & Threats

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marium Sara Minhas Bandeali
Keyword(s):  
Water Management ◽  
Civil Society ◽  
Water Resources ◽  
Water Policy ◽  
Water Governance ◽  
Sustainable Use ◽  
Water Security ◽  
Sampling Technique ◽  
The State ◽  
Indus Basin

Water governance and management are important challenges for the River Indus Basin in Pakistan. Water governance refers to social, political and economic factors that influence water management. The water scarcity and water security are a major concern for the state to control its water resources. The study aims to give Sindh water policy by exploring the challenges to Indus Basin in managing water resources and to identify opportunities Indus Basin can look to improve water management. Interviews were conducted from water experts and analysts having 5 years’ experience or more in the water sector of Pakistan through a semi-structured self-developed questionnaire using purposive sampling technique and transcripts were analyzed using thematic content analysis. The findings show that increasing population, climatic change and rising demand of water are major challenges Indus is facing and Indus with time is getting water-scarce therefore need strong institutions, civil society and legislatures to ensure equitable distribution of water and maintain the ecosystem. The study emphasizes that water governance and management are necessary for sustainable use of water. Pakistan, the water stress country needs to address ‘governance’ at a wider scale to solve problems in the Indus Basin for the livelihood of people. The research will benefit the state, water experts, institutions as well as civil society to promote efficient use of water in Indus Basin.

Integrated watershed management in Quebec (Canada): a participatory approach centred on local solidarity

2006 ◽  
Vol 53 (10) ◽  
pp. 301-307 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Baril ◽  
Y. Maranda ◽  
J. Baudrand
Keyword(s):  
Water Policy ◽  
Integrated Management ◽  
Water Governance ◽  
Public Consultation ◽  
Master Plan ◽  
Integrated Water Management ◽  
The Government ◽  
Development Perspective ◽  
Initial Process

The Quebec Water Policy was launched in November 2002 in support of reform of the water governance. One of the government commitments is to gradually implement watershed-based management for 33 major watercourses located primarily in the St. Lawrence plain. At the local and regional levels, watershed organizations are responsible for implementing integrated management, from a sustainable-development perspective, by preparing a master plan for water (MPW), which will include watercourses, lakes, wetlands and aquifers. These watershed organizations rely on public consultation, as well as local and regional expertise, on the responsibilities for water of the municipalities and regional county municipalities of the territory, as well as those of the ministries and other government agencies. They are also required to observe national priorities regarding protection, restoration, and development of water resources and to comply with relevant guidelines, directives, standards, regulations, and legislation. The role of watershed organizations is to act as planning and consultation tables. Government representatives are present, on the initial process, as the facilitator and for scientific and technical support. They do not have, at this moment, any voting or decisional rights. After two years, integrated water management mobilized water stakeholders on watersheds and they are on their way to initiating their first MPW.

scholarly journals Assessing Water Shortage through a Balance Model among Transfers, Groundwater, Desalination, Wastewater Reuse, and Water Demands (SE Spain)

Water ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 1009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Jodar-Abellan ◽  
Patricia Fernández-Aracil ◽  
Joaquín Melgarejo-Moreno
Keyword(s):  
Water Policy ◽  
Water Distribution ◽  
Water Governance ◽  
Wastewater Reuse ◽  
Water Shortage ◽  
Balance Model ◽  
Se Spain ◽  
Water Demands ◽  
Interbasin Transfers ◽  
Increasing Demand

Currently, water demands are increasing notoriously, spreading the pressure on available water resources around the world in both quantity and quality. Similarly, the expected reduction of natural water inputs, due to climate change, depicts a new level of uncertainty. Specifically, Southeast Spain presents water scarcity due to its aridity—irregular and scarce precipitation and high evapotranspiration rates—combined with the competition between several water demands: environment, agricultural dynamics, urban-tourist activities, and industry. The study area of this work is the most relevant functional urban area of Alicante province (SE Spain), where the administration of water management is carried out by a range of authorities at different levels as the consequence of a complex historical development of water governance schemes: at the national, regional, and local levels. This study analyzes 21 municipalities and proposes a conceptual model which was developed by including different origins of water inputs—surface resources, groundwater, desalination, wastewater reuse, or interbasin transfers—and water demands with information obtained from 16 different sources. Our main results denote a relevant water deficit of 72.6 hm3/year even when one of the greatest rates of desalinated water and reused wastewater in Europe are identified here. This negative balance entails restrictions in urban development and agricultural growth. Thus, presented results are noteworthy for the water policy makers and planning authorities, by balancing the demand for water among various end users and providing a way for understanding water distribution in a context of scarcity and increasing demand, which will become one of the most challenging tasks in the 21st century.

scholarly journals The Water Governance Reform Framework: Overview and Applications to Australia, Mexico, Tanzania, U.S.A and Vietnam

Water ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 137 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Grafton ◽  
Dustin Garrick ◽  
Ana Manero ◽  
Thang Do
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Water Policy ◽  
Water Governance ◽  
Supply And Demand ◽  
Public Access ◽  
Reform Process ◽  
Freshwater Ecosystem ◽  
Policy Cycle ◽  
Governance Reform ◽  
Trade Offs

The world faces critical water risks in relation to water availability, yet water demand is increasing in most countries. To respond to these risks, some governments and water authorities are reforming their governance frameworks to achieve convergence between water supply and demand and ensure freshwater ecosystem services are sustained. To assist in this reform process, the Water Governance Reform Framework (WGRF) is proposed, which includes seven key strategic considerations: (1) well-defined and publicly available reform objectives; (2) transparency in decision-making and public access to available data; (3) water valuation of uses and non-uses to assess trade-offs and winners and losers; (4) compensation for the marginalized or mitigation for persons who are disadvantaged by reform; (5) reform oversight and “champions”; (6) capacity to deliver; and (7) resilient decision-making. Using these reform criteria, we assess current and possible water reforms in five countries: Murray–Darling Basin (Australia); Rufiji Basin (Tanzania); Colorado Basin (USA and Mexico); and Vietnam. We contend that the WGRF provides a valuable approach to both evaluate and to improve water governance reform and, if employed within a broader water policy cycle, will help deliver both improved water outcomes and more effective water reforms.

scholarly journals 3511 Adapting Community Engagement Studios to Accommodate Participants from Diverse and Rural/Frontier Communities

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (s1) ◽  
pp. 81-82
Author(s):  
Barbara Heather Coulter ◽  
Brieanne Witte ◽  
Louisa A Stark
Keyword(s):  
Health Disparities ◽  
Community Engagement ◽  
Staff Member ◽  
Research Participation ◽  
Community Leader ◽  
Research Project ◽  
Rural And Urban ◽  
Dissemination Of Research ◽  
Strongly Agree ◽  
Almost All

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Our goals in developing adaptations to the Community Engagement Studio model have been to: (1) enable investigators to consult with as broad a range of community “experts” (stakeholders) as possible, (2) make Studio participation feasible for stakeholders from rural and frontier areas, (3) create a safe environment for stakeholders from communities facing health disparities, who have had low participation in research, and (4) enable stakeholders to speak in the language in which they are most comfortable. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We have used several strategies to enable investigators to gain input from stakeholders in rural and frontier areas. If the research focuses on rural populations, we hold the Studio at a central location, usually at a restaurant in a private room, if this is available. If the investigator wants to hear from both rural and urban residents, we use videoconferencing via Skype or FaceTime when individuals have enough bandwidth to support it and/or feel comfortable using this technology. For those who have dial-up or no internet access, we provide a conference call line Trusting relationships are essential to creating a safe space in which stakeholders from communities facing health disparities can provide consultations to researchers. When an investigator wishes to consult with stakeholders from one racial/ethnic community, we contract with a leader or trusted member of that community to recruit appropriate stakeholders. The Studio is co-facilitated by a CCET staff member and a community leader in the community’s preferred language, with the leader translating for the CCET staff member. For Studios that involve stakeholders from multiple communities and that are conducted in English, we provide translators, if appropriate. Stakeholders using translation may be present in the room with other Studio participants or may be on the phone. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Of the 35 Studios we have held, five have been held in rural locations and another five have included one or more rural/frontier stakeholders participating via phone or videoconferencing. Six Studios have been co-facilitated with community leaders and four others have included translators. Almost all Studios we have held in English have included individuals representing diverse communities. Anonymous surveys completed at the end of Studios show that participants report the following on 5-point Likert scales:. The facilitator managed the allotted time so that my voice was heard (67% strongly agree; 33% agree). The relevant experts were present at the Studio (78% strongly agree; 22% agree). I was satisfied with the Studio session (78% strongly agree; 22% agree). The Studio process was worth my time (89% strongly agree; 11% agree). The feedback provided by the community experts will improve the research project (68% strongly agree; 44% agree). Participants were also asked what they felt was their contribution to the research project. Among the most common themes were: increased researcher’s understanding of the community, increased researcher’s sensitivity to the community, provided feedback on the feasibility of the project, provided ideas on recruiting research participants, provided ideas for how to use the project results to benefit the community, and provided ideas on how to inform the community about the project. All participants said that they would participate in a Studio again. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Studies at all stages in the research life cycle can be strengthened through consultations with community experts. These stakeholders can inform needs assessments, provide input on study design, supply critical information on supports and barriers to research participation, review study instruments for readability and cultural appropriateness, provide feedback on recruitment and educational materials, and inform dissemination of research results, among others. These consultations provide the most benefit to researchers when they include the voices of as broad a range of stakeholders as possible. We have shown that it is feasible to include stakeholders who live in rural and frontier areas in Studio consultations. We also have developed successful methods for holding Studio consultations with stakeholders who are members of communities facing health disparities and who speak multiple languages. This expanded representation in Community Engagement Studios strengthens research studies.

Risks, Uncertainty and Climate Confusion in the Murray–Darling Basin Reforms

2016 ◽  
Vol 03 (03) ◽  
pp. 1650038 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Alexandra
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Water Policy ◽  
Water Governance ◽  
Climate Science ◽  
Cultural Construction ◽  
Policy Integration ◽  
Institutional Settings ◽  
Murray Darling Basin ◽  
Financial Consequences ◽  
Key Dimensions

Risks and uncertainties arising from climate change are increasingly recognized as significant challenges for water governance. To support adaptive approaches, critical examinations of water policy practices and rationalities are needed. This paper focuses on the treatment of climate change in Australia’s Murray–Darling Basin (MDB) reforms over the past decade. While the MDB faces potentially significant drying trends due to climate change no reductions in future water availability due to climate change were formalized in the 2012 Basin Plan — a regulatory instrument agreed to by Australia’s National Parliament. The background, key dimensions and possible reasons for this decision are examined. Possible reasons for not formally reducing water deemed available in the future include the complexity and uncertainty of climate science, the cultural construction of “climate normal” based on long-term averages, and institutional settings that reinforce dominant “hydro-logical” approaches and rationalities. Minimizing the political, legal and financial consequences of attributing reductions in water allocations to climate change are also potential reasons. The case of the MDB, as outlined in this paper, demonstrates some of the ways climate change is causing systemic challenges for adaptive water governance, and that innovative approaches need to be embraced, including better processes for institutionalizing science/policy integration.

Environmental water governance in federal rivers: opportunities and limits for subsidiarity in Australia's Murray–Darling River

Water Policy ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. 915-936 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dustin Garrick ◽  
Rosalind Bark ◽  
Jeff Connor ◽  
Onil Banerjee
Keyword(s):  
Water Policy ◽  
Economies Of Scale ◽  
Water Governance ◽  
Recovery Process ◽  
Environmental Water ◽  
Irrigated Agriculture ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Reform Process ◽  
National Interests ◽  
Subsidiarity Principle

A reform process is underway in the Murray–Darling Basin (Australia) to reallocate water from irrigated agriculture to the environment. The scale, complexity and politics of the recovery process have prompted interest in the role of local environmental water managers within state and federal governance arrangements. This paper examines prospects for a local role in environmental water management through the lens of the subsidiarity principle: the notion that effective governance devolves tasks to the lowest level with the political authority and capacity to perform them. The article defines and applies the subsidiarity principle to assess evolving federal–state–local interactions in environmental water policy, planning and practice in Australia's Murray–Darling River. In this context, subsidiarity is useful to clarify institutional roles and their coordination at a whole-of-river level. This analysis demonstrates opportunities for a local role in information gathering, innovation and operational flexibility to respond to opportunities in real time. It identifies significant limits to local action in upstream–downstream tradeoffs, economies of scale, capacity building and cost sharing for basin-wide or national interests, and accountability mechanisms to balance local, state and national rights and responsibilities. Lessons are relevant internationally for regions confronting complex allocation tradeoffs between human and environmental needs within multi-jurisdictional federal systems.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document