Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Published in:
The Challenge of Water Governance Read chapter Read first chapter

2015 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

6. Multi-level and Cross-Scale Governance

Author : Claudia Pahl-Wostl

Published in: Water Governance in the Face of Global Change

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Governing water implies governance of a complex social-ecological system at and across different scales in space and time. The spatial scale selected for governance has implications for both the biophysical boundaries that are taken into consideration and the administrative level of the actors involved in a governance system. This chapter summarizes the development of research and policy discourses on the ideal level at which to focus water governance. Systems analysis has been used to determine an appropriate scale for dealing with a governance problem. The scale could also be the subject of political discourse since actors may have different reasons for up- or down-scaling a particular water-related issue. On the basis of current scientific understanding, multi-level and cross-scale water governance is promoted. Water issues can rarely be dealt with at one scale only. I therefore argue in favour of polycentric governance combining decentralization with effective coordination of decision centres as the normative governance model. Finally the chapter elaborates on insights from and methods for structured analyses of modes of cross-scale coordination.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
previous chapter Governance Modes
next chapter Shaping Human—Environment Interactions
Footnotes
1
Securitization of water policy refers to a process whereby political actors transform water issues into matters of security. It is a politicization of water governance that is not primarily rooted in material but in political arguments. Securitization of water policy has been prevalent in the Middle East (Fischhendler 2015).
 
3
Good governance is characterized by being accountable, transparent, responsive, equitable and inclusive, effective and efficient, follows the rules of law, participatory, consensus oriented (UNESCAP 2009).
 
5
Australia, Belgium, Canada, Chile, France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, UK (England), USA (Colorado).
 
6
Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru.
 
Literature
Ammon, G., Fischer, M., Hickmann, T., & Stemmermann, K. (Eds.). (1996). Föderalismus und Zentralismus: Europas Zukunft zwischen dem deutschen und dem französischen Modell (Vol. 11, Schriftenreihe des Europäischen Zentrums für Föderalismus-Forschung). Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos Publishers.
Andersson, K. P., & Ostrom, E. (2008). Analyzing decentralized resource regimes from a polycentric perspective. Policy Science, 41, 71–93.CrossRef
Bernauer, T., & Siegfried, S. (2008). Compliance and performance in international water agreements: The case of the Naryn/Syr Darya Basin. Global Governance, 14, 479–502.
Bodansky, D. (2010). The International climate change regime: The road from Copenhagen. Harvard: Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements.
Borja, Á., Galparsoro, I., Solaun, O., Muxika, I., Tello, E. M., Uriarte, A., et al. (2006). The European water framework directive and the DPSIR, a methodological approach to assess the risk of failing to achieve good ecological status. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 66(1–2), 84–96. doi:10.​1016/​j.​ecss.​2005.​07.​021 CrossRef
Borowski, I. (2004). Public participation in the Elbe Basin. Case study report produced under Work Package 5. Osnabrück: University of Osnabrück.
Cohen, A., & Davidson, S. (2011). An examination of the watershed approach: Challenges, antecedents, and the transition from technical tool to governance unit. Water Alternatives, 4(1), 1–14.
Conca, K. (2006). Governing water: Contentious transnational politics and global institution building. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.
Costejà, M., Font, N., Rigol, A., & Subirats, J. (2002). The evolution of the national water regime in Spain. Barcelona: Eu.
Dombrowsky, I. (2008). Integration in the management of international waters: economic perspectives on a global policy discourse. Global Governance, 14, 455–478.
EEA. (2010). The European environment—state and outlook 2010: Synthesis. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.
Fischhendler, I. (2015). The securitization of water discourse: Theoretical foundations, research gaps and objectives of the special issue. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 1–11. doi:10.​1007/​s10784-015-9277-6
Global Water Partnership (GWP). (2000). Integrated water resources management. In G. W. Partnership (Ed.), Technical advisory committee background papers (Vol. 4). Stockholm: Global Water Partnership.
Grande, E. (Ed.). (2000). Wie problemlösungsfähig ist die European Union? Regieren im europäischen Mehrebenensystem. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag.
Gupta, J. (2008). Global change: Analyzing scale and scaling in environmental governance. In O. Young, L. King, & H. Schröder (Eds.), Institutions and environmental change: Principal findings, applications, and research frontiers. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
Gupta, J., & Pahl-Wostl, C. (2013). Global water governance in the context of global and multi-level governance: Its need, form, and challenges. Ecology and Society, 18(4), 53. doi:10.​5751/​ES-05952-180453 CrossRef
Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2003). Unraveling the central state but how? Types of multi-level governance. American Political Science Review, 97, 233–243.
Hooper, B. P. (2005). Integrated river basin governance: Learning from international experiences. London: IWA Publishing.
Huntjens, P., Pahl-Wostl, C., Rihoux, B., Schlüter, M., Flachner, Z., Neto, S., et al. (2011). Adaptive water management and policy learning in a changing climate: A formal comparative analysis of eight water management regimes in Europe, Africa and Asia. Environmental Policy and Governance, 21(3), 145–163. doi:10.​1002/​eet.​571 CrossRef
Impress. (2003). Analysis of pressures and impacts. Common implementation strategy for the water framework directive. Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive. Guidance Document (Vol. Guidance Document Nr. 3.).
IPCC. (1992). Climate change: The IPCC 1990 and 1992 assessments: Overview and policymaker summaries Canada: Intergovernmental panel on climate change.
IPCC. (2014). Summary for policymakers. In C. B. Field, V. R. Barros, D. J. Dokken, K. J. Mach, M. D. Mastrandrea & T. E. Bilir et al. (Eds.), Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: Global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of working group II to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Jeffrey, P., & Gearey, M. (2006). Integrated water resources management: Lost on the road from ambition to realisation? Water Science and Technology, 53(1), 1–8.CrossRef
Katz, D., & Fischhendler, I. (2011). Spatial and temporal dynamics of linkage strategy: Arab-Israeli water negotiations. Political Geography, 30(1), 13–24.CrossRef
Knüppe, K., & Pahl-Wostl, C. (2013). Requirements for adaptive governance of groundwater ecosystem services: Insights from Sandveld (South Africa), Upper Guadiana (Spain) and Spree (Germany). Regional Environmental Change, 13(1), 53–66. doi:10.​1007/​s10113-012-0312-7 CrossRef
Lebel, L. (2006). The politics of scale in environmental assessment. In W. V. Reid, F. Berkes, T. Wilbanks, & D. Capistrano (Eds.), Bridging scales and knowledge systems concepts and applications in ecosystem assessment (pp. 37–58). Washington: Island Press.
Lebel, L., Garden, P., & Imamura, M. (2005). The politics of scale, position, and place in the governance of water resources in the Mekong region. Ecology and Society, 10(2), 18.
Levin, S. A. (1999). Fragile dominion—complexity and the commons. Cambridge, UK: Perseus Publishers.
Lowi, M. (1993). Water and power: The politics of a scarce resource in the Jordan River Basin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marshall, G. R., Connell, D., & Taylor, B. M. (2013). Australia’s Murray-Darling Basin: A century of polycentric experiments in cross-border integration of water resources management. International Journal of Water Governance, 1, 197–218. doi:10.​7564/​13-IJWG17 CrossRef
Miller, J. H., & Page, S. E. (2007). Complex adaptive systems: An introduction to computational models of social life. Princeton, USA: Princeton University Press.
Moss, T. (2003). Solving problems of ‘fit’ at the expense of problems of ‘interplay’? The spatial reorganisation of water management following the EU water framework directive. In H. Breit, A. Engels, T. Moss & M. Troja (Eds.), How institutions change. Perspectives on Social learning in global and local environmental contexts (pp. 85–121). Opladen: Leske+Budrich.
Mostert, E., Pahl-Wostl, C., Rees, Y., Searle, B., Tàbara, D., & Tippett, J. (2007). Social learning in European river-basin management: Barriers and fostering mechanisms from 10 river basins. Ecology and Society, 12(1).
Newson, M. D. (1997). Land, water and development: Sustainable management of river basin systems. London: Routledge.
Norman, E. S., Bakker, K., & Cook, C. (2012). Introduction to the themed section: Water governance and the politics of scale. Water Alternatives, 5(1), 52–61.
OECD. (2011). Water governance in OECD countries: A multi-level approach, OECD studies on water. In OECD (Ed.), OECD studies on water. Paris.
OECD. (2012). Water Governance in Latin America and the Caribbean: A Multi-level Approach. In OECD (Ed.), OECD studies on water. Paris.
Ostrom, E. (1972). Metropolitan reform: Propositions derived from two traditions. Social Science Quarterly, 53, 474–493.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons. The evolution of institutions for collective action (Political Economy of Institutions and Decisions). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ostrom, E. (2001). Vulnerability and polycentric governance systems. IHDP (International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change) Newsletter Update, 3(1), 3–4.
Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Ostrom, E. (2010b). Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 20, 550–557.CrossRef
Ostrom, E. (2012). Nested externalities and polycentric institutions: Must we wait for global solutions to climate change before taking actions at other scales? Economic Theory, 49, 353–369. doi:10.​1007/​s00199-010-0558-6 CrossRef
Ostrom, E., Parks, R. B., & Whitaker, G. (1978). Patterns of metropolitan policing. Cambridge, MA, USA: Ballinger.
Ostrom, V., Tiebout, C. M., & Warren, R. (1961). The organization of government in metropolitan areas: A theoretical inquiry. American Political Science Review, 55, 831–842.CrossRef
Pahl-Wostl, C. (1995). The dynamic nature of ecosystems: Chaos and order entwined. Chichester: Wiley.
Pahl-Wostl, C. (2002). Polycentric integrated assessment [social learning, multi-scale stakeholder processes, participatory integrated assessment, evolutionary change in social systems.]. Integrated Assessment, 3(2–3), 220–232.CrossRef
Pahl-Wostl, C. (2007a). Requirements for adaptive water management. In C. Pahl-Wostl, P. Kabat & J. Möltgen (Eds.), Adaptive and integrated water management. Coping with complexity and uncertainty (pp. 1–22). Heidelberg: Springer.
Pahl-Wostl, C. (2007b). Transition towards adaptive management of water facing climate and global change. Water Resources Management, 21(1), 49–62.
Pahl-Wostl, C. (2009). A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environmental Change, 19, 354–365.CrossRef
Pahl-Wostl, C., Gupta, J., & Petry, D. (2008). Governance and the global water system: A theoretical exploration. Global Governance, 14, 419–435.
Pahl-Wostl, C., Hoff, H., Meybeck, M., & Sorooshian, S. (2002). The role of global change research for aquatic sciences. Aquatic Sciences, 64(4), iv–vi. doi:10.​1007/​PL00012595
Pahl-Wostl, C., Lebel, L., Knieper, C., & Nikitina, E. (2012). From applying panaceas to mastering complexity: Toward adaptive water governance in river basins. Environmental Science and Policy, 23, 24–34.CrossRef
Plummer, R., Spiert, A., FitzGibbon, J., & Imhof, J. (2013). The expanding institutional context for water resources management: The case of the Grand River watershed. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 30, 227–244.CrossRef
Rogelj, J., Nabel, J., Chen, C., Hare, W., Markmann, K., Meinshausen, M., et al. (2010). Copenhagen accord pledges are paltry. Nature, 464(7292), 1126–1128. doi:10.​1038/​4641126a
Rosenau, J. N. (2004). Strong demand, huge supply: Governance in an emerging epoch. In I. Bache & M. Flinders (Eds.), Multi-level governance (pp. 31–48). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Sendzimir, J., Flachner, Z., Pahl-Wostl, C., & Knieper, C. (2010). Stalled regime transition in the upper Tisza River Basin: The dynamics of linked action situations. Environmental Science and Policy, 13(7), 604–619. doi:10.​1016/​j.​envsci.​2010.​09.​005 CrossRef
Sendzimir, J., Magnuszewski, P., Flachner, Z., Balogh, P., Molnar, G., Sarvari, A., et al. (2007). Assessing the resilience of a river management regime: Informal learning in a shadow network in the Tisza River Basin. Ecology and Society, 13(1), 11.
Smeets, E., & Weterings, R. (1999). Environmental indicators: Typology and overview. EEA technical reports. Copenhagen: European Environmental Agency (EEA).
Swyngedouw, E. (1997). Neither global nor local: ‘Glocalization’ and the politics of scale. In K. Cox (Ed.), Spaces of globalization: Reasserting the power of the local (pp. 137–166). New York, NY, USA: Guilford.
Swyngedouw, E. (2000). Authoritarian governance, power, and the politics of rescaling. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 18(1), 63–76.CrossRef
Tilman, D. (1999). The ecological consequences of changes in biodiversity: A search for general principles. Ecology, 80(5), 1455–1474.
Tsebelis, G. (2002). Veto players: How political institutions work. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRef
UNESCAP. (2009). What is good governance? Bangkok, Thailand: United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific.
Varady, R. G., & Iles-Shih, M. (2011). Global water initiatives: What do the experts think? In A. K. Biswas & C. Tortajada (Eds.), Impacts of megaconferences on the water sector (pp. 53–102). Berlin: Springer.
Vogel, E. (2012). Parcelling out the watershed: The recurring consequences of organising Columbia River management within a basin-based territory. Water Alternatives, 5(1), 161–190.
Vörösmarty, C. J., Pahl-Wostl, C., Bunn, S., & Lawford, R. (2013). Global water, the anthropocene and the transformation of science. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(6), 539–550.CrossRef
Welch, S., & Kennedy-Pipe, C. (2004). Multi-level governance and international relations. In I. Bache & M. Flinders (Eds.), Multi-level governance (pp. 127–144). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Young, O. R. (2002). The institutional dimensions of environmental change: Fit, interplay, and scale. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Young, O. R. (2011). Land use, environmental change, and sustainable development: The role of institutional diagnostics. International Journal of the Commons, 5(1), 66.
Metadata
Title
Multi-level and Cross-Scale Governance
Author
Claudia Pahl-Wostl
Copyright Year
2015
Book
Water Governance in the Face of Global Change

Print ISBN: 978-3-319-21854-0

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-21855-7

Copyright Year: 2015

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21855-7_6