The remaining categories all contain between four and seven publications. Our selection includes 27 publications that did not fall within one of the predefined categories. These publications focus on diverse issues such as coastal recreational water quality, water quality in urban and rural areas, and comparison of user- vs. For the selected publications, we analyzed whether and how water governance was defined. Of the publications, 31 do not provide a definition of water governance or of a specific aspect or form of governance.
In addition, definitions of the following aspects or forms of governance were provided in three publications each: groundwater governance, multilevel governance, collaboration or collaborative governance, and integrated water resources management. Only two publications propose their own definition of water governance.
First, Pahl-Wostl et al. These include water rights, pricing, decentralization, accountability, integration, private sector participation, user group participation, and organizational basis of water management, among others. Only one existing definition of water governance, which is the definition by the United Nations Development Programme UNDP , is cited in two publications. All other existing definitions 18 in total are cited only once.
Understanding nutrient throughput of operational RAS farm effluents to support semi-commercial aquaponics: Easy upgrade possible beyond controversies. Where the content of the eBook requires a specific layout, or contains maths or other special characters, the eBook will be available in PDF PBK format, which cannot be reflowed. Newig and Fritsch present a meta-analysis of 47 participatory governance cases. Ringler, F. For example, Wehn et al.
In eight publications, two different references are cited when providing a definition of water governance. This result implies that there is no common approach to defining water governance within studies of comparative water governance.
However, this situation may be partially explained by the emphasis of comparative studies on varying aspects or forms of governance, rather than a broad, encompassing definition of water governance. To understand what is being compared, we identified eight different categories of water governance elements Table 4. These governance elements are based on Rogers and Hall , one of the most-cited publications that elaborates on the principles and conditions of water governance. We used these concepts as the basis for categorizing the multiple elements of water governance; however, we did not apply them to evaluate the governance systems.
For example, Lopez-Gunn compares the types of rules developed by different regional water authorities in Spain. Likewise, Erickson compares state-level water management and funding policies in USA. However, the issues investigated in relation to participation vary significantly. For example, Wehn et al. Benson et al. For example, Scott systematically compares physical water quality indicators to determine whether collaborative governance processes actually produce the improved environmental outcomes that they are assumed to create. We expected frameworks to play an important role in comparative studies.
For example, Van Buuren et al. Other existing frameworks that were identified are all used just once. No single framework emerged that is widely used for comparative analyses of water governance in its original form. There was significant diversity in the frameworks used after modifications or adaptations. For example, Huntjens et al. In seven publications, authors construct new frameworks through an inductive approach.
In these cases, the comparative framework is developed as a result of the comparative analysis instead of using a predefined framework to guide comparisons. For example, Lebel et al. These fit measures are then compared across geographical settings. These articles contained enough information for the review team to conduct a review, but required close reading of the study results to determine what authors were comparing.
For example, Brown et al. However, they do so without clearly describing the elements they compared. Here, we focus on the empirical cases that are compared in the reviewed publications. We examine why the cases are selected, where they are located, what boundaries are used to delineate cases, and what data and methods are used. During the review process, we collected qualitative information about the rationale behind the selection of empirical cases for comparison.
Four general, partly overlapping categories emerged as we refined the review matrix. Silveira et al. They compare two cases that are very similar two sub-basins of the same river basin as well as two sub-basins that are similar but differ in terms of physical and governance characteristics European vs. Chinese catchments.
For example, Mosello examine adaptive capacity across developed and developing country cases. Meijerink and Huitema compared 16 diverse cases to extract the change strategies of policy entrepreneurs in water transitions. However, most of studies that cite data availability as a case selection rationale also indicate other rationales. For example, Newig and Fritsch explain that, although completeness of information was their main selection criterion, they used a diversity of cases in terms of political issues, scales, and societal contexts as other criteria.
For example, Yu et al. The reasoning for selecting these cases is not explained in the publication. For all reviewed publications, we identified the locations of the compared cases in terms of their macroregions and countries Fig. From this analysis, it can be discerned that Europe cases and Asia cases are by far the most represented macroregions. In contrast, USA and Australia are the most-studied countries, with 25 and 22 cases, respectively, although they are both in other macroregions.
The Netherlands is the most-studied country in Europe 21 cases , whereas China is the most-studied country in Asia 20 cases. It is also worth noting that, in some publications, the European Union EU is treated as a single unit of analysis to compare it with federal political systems such as in USA and Australia e. Also of interest is that the single states of the USA are sometimes compared with other countries. This means that there are some cases where the jurisdictional comparison is not between similar administrative units but, for example, between a subnational unit and a national unit, or a national unit and a multinational unit.
Publications were also analyzed with regard to the jurisdictional and hydrological boundaries applied to delineate cases. We found that 85 publications use jurisdictional boundaries, 18 publications use hydrological boundaries, and 31 publications use both hydrological and jurisdictional boundaries to delineate cases Fig.
For example, Pahl-Wostl et al. In one publication Edelenbos et al.
From the publications that apply jurisdictional boundaries either exclusively or in combination with hydrological boundaries , countries are used to define case boundaries in 42 of these publications. Multinational boundaries 9 publications are the least common. The number of cases compared varies widely, ranging between 2 and More than 50 cases are compared in only three publications Heikkila , Scott , Zingraff-Hamed et al.
We categorized the publications with regard to the use of primary and secondary data. Primary data implies that original data are collected directly by the researchers involved, e. For these publications, data were collected mainly using qualitative methods such as interviews and document analysis.
In addition, a few publications are based on large- N surveys e. We also identified one publication for which the authors conducted field experiments Ibele et al. Only seven publications are based exclusively on secondary data. These data were sometimes obtained for research purposes by other authors Doorn or by the authors themselves Pahl-Wostl and Knieper , de Boer et al. In several publications, the authors use data that were collected by others for organizational purposes Herrala et al.
Finally, 24 publications used both primary and secondary data, whereas 15 publications did not provide detailed information about how data, most notably documents, were collected and analyzed. To obtain an improved understanding of the methods that are used in comparative water governance analysis, we made a distinction among three broad categories of methods: 1 qualitative methods, 2 quantitative methods, and 3 set-theoretic methods Table 5. Set-theoretic methods are studied as a separate category because they focus on membership scores of elements in sets.
These methods are particularly useful when comparison aims to draw attention to complex causal patterns. One of the most well-known set-theoretic methods applied in water governance research is qualitative comparative analysis. It is often applied to the analysis of a mid-sized number of cases, but can also be used to analyze a large number of cases Schneider and Wagemann In 17 publications, four to six cases are compared.
Three publications compare a mid-sized number of cases 11— To allow for a more systemic approach or comparison, authors sometimes use systematic coding of data e. In addition, comparisons are sometimes made using categories to rank the cases systematically e. The quantitative methods that are applied include descriptive statistics e.
For example, Chai and Schoon use data envelopment analysis to measure the efficiency of government spending, and use qualitative comparative analysis to compare data for 20 counties in south China. In 12 publications, both quantitative and qualitative methods are used. Pahl-Wostl et al. Zingraff-Hamed et al. We also identified three publications that combine quantitative methods with methods for qualitative comparative analysis. For example, Scott uses hierarchical linear regression modeling to compare collaborative watershed groups.
Dinar and Saleth use descriptive statistics to compare water institutions across 43 countries. Newig and Fritsch present a meta-analysis of 47 participatory governance cases.