Governance Experiments in Water Management: From Interests to Building Blocks

Science and Engineering Ethics

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 755-774

  Doorn, Neelke ^a  

^a DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Climate adaptation; Governance experiment; Interests; Stakeholder participation; Values; Water governance

Indexed keywords

WATER;

CLIMATE CHANGE; ETHICS; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; MANAGEMENT; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; STANDARDS; WATER SUPPLY;

CLIMATE CHANGE; POLICY MAKING; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; WATER; WATER SUPPLY;

EID: 84922181200     PISSN: 13533452     EISSN: 14715546     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11948-015-9627-3     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Avant, D., Finnemore, M., et al. (2009). Who governs the globe?. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. Bos, J. J., & Brown, R. R. (2012). Governance experimentation and factors of success in socio-technical transitions in the urban water sector. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(7), 1340–1353.
3. Brunner, R. D., Steelman, T. A., et al. (2005). Adaptive governance: Integrating science, policy and decision-making. New York: Columbia University Press.
4. Bulkeley, H., & Castan Broto, V. (2013). Government by experiment? Global cities and the governing of climate change. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 38(3), 361–375.
5. CAST. (2005). Agricultural ethics (issue paper). Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) (pp. 1–12).
6. CRED. (2009). Disaster data: A balanced perspective. Brussels: Cred Crunch, Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED).
7. Doorn, N. (2010). A procedural approach to distributing responsibilities in R&D networks. Poiesis & Praxis. International Journal of Technology Assessment and Ethics of Science, 7(3), 169–188.
8. Doorn, N. (2012). Exploring responsibility rationales in Research and Development (R&D). Science, Technology and Human Values, 37(3), 180–209.
9. Doorn, N. (2013). Wide reflective equilibrium as a normative model for responsible governance. NanoEthics, 7(1), 29–43.
10. Driesssen, P. J., & Van Rijswick, F. M. W. (2011). Normative aspects of climate adaptation policies. Climate Law, 2(4), 559–581.
11. Dryzek, J. S. (1997). The politics of the earth: Environmental discourses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12. Dryzek, J. S., & Niemeyer, S. (2006). Reconciling pluralism and consensus as political ideals. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 634–649.
13. EEA. (2010). Mapping the impacts of natural hazards and technological accidents in Europe: An overview of the last decade (European Environment Agency). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
14. Ernst, H. R. (2003). Chesapeake Bay blues: Science, politics, and the struggle to save the bay. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
15. Farrelly, M., & Brown, R. (2011). Rethinking urban water management: Experimentation as a way forward? Global Environmental Change, 21(2), 721–732.
16. Felt, U., Wynne, B., et al. (2007). Taking European knowledge society seriously. Report of the expert group on science and governance to the Science, Economy and Society Directorate, Directorate-General for Research, European Commission. Brussels, Directorate-General for Research, Science, Economy and Society.
17. Gieryn, T. F. (2006). City as truth-spot: Laboratories and field-sites in urban studies. Social Studies of Science, 36(1), 5–38.
18. Glenna, L. L. (2010). Value-laden technocratic management and environmental conflicts: The case of the New York City watershed controversy. Science, Technology and Human Values, 35(1), 81–112.
19. Gross, M. (2010). Ignorance and surprise: Science, society, and ecological design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20. Grunwald, M. (2006). The swamp: The Everglades, Florida, and the politics of paradise. New York: Simon and Schuster.
21. Hassing, J., Ipsen, N., Clausen, T. J., Larsen, H., & Lindgaard-Jørgensen, P. (2009). Integrated water resources management in action. United Nations World Water Assessment Programme. UNESCO, Paris.
22. Heems, K., & Kothuis, B. (2012). Flood safety: Managing vulnerability beyond the myth of dry feet. A socio-cultural perspective on how the Dutch cope with the threat of flooding (E-publication). Amsterdam: Waterworks. www.waterworks.nu.
23. Heintz, D. H., Hagemeier-Klose, M., et al. (2012). Towards a risk governance culture in flood policy: Findings from the implementation of the “Floods Directive” in Germany. Water, 4(1), 135–156.
24. Herbold, R. (1995). Technologies as social experiments: The construction and implementation of a high-tech waste disposal site. In A. Rip, T. Misa, & J. Schot (Eds.), Managing technology in society: The approach of constructive technology assessment (pp. 185–198). London and New York: Pinter.
25. Hoffman, M. J., & Ba, A. (2005). Introduction: Coherence and contestation. In A. Ba & M. J. Hoffman (Eds.), Contending perspectives on global governance: Coherence, contestation and world order (pp. 1–14). London: Routledge.
26. Hoffmann, M. J. (2011). Climate governance at the crossroads: Experimenting with a global response after Kyoto. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
27. Hoogma, R. (2002). Experimenting for sustainable transport: The approach of strategic niche management. London: Spon Press.
28. IPCC. (2013). Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. In T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, & P. M. Midgley (Eds.), Working group 1 contribution to the fifth assessment report of the IPCC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29. Jacobs, J. F., Van de Poel, I. R., et al. (2010). Sunscreens with titanium dioxide (TiO2) nano-particles: A societal experiment. Nanoethics, 4, 103–113.
30. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Zoido-Lobatón, P. (1999). Governance matters. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
31. Kline, B. (2007). First along the river: A brief history of the US environmental movement. Lanham, MA: Rowan & Littlefield Publishers.
32. Krohn, W., & Weyer, J. (1994). Society as a laboratory: The social risks of experimental research. Science and Public Policy, 21(3), 173–183.
33. Maasen, S., & Weingart, P. (2005). Democratization of expertise? Exploring novel forms of scientific advice in political decision-making. Dordrecht: Springer.
34. Martin, M. W., & Schinzinger, R. (2005). Ethics in engineering. New York: McGraw-Hill.
35. McHugh, D. (2006). Wanting to be heard but not wanting to act? Addressing political disengagement. Parliamentary Affairs, 59(3), 546–552.
36. Mouffe, C. (1999). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? Social Research, 66(3), 745–758.
37. Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38. Newig, J., Challies, E., et al. (2014). What role for public participation in implementing the EU floods directive? A comparison with the water framework directive, early evidence from germany and a research agenda. Environmental Policy and Governance, doi:10.1002/eet.1650.
39. Nye, M., Tapsell, S., et al. (2011). New social directions in UK flood risk management: Moving towards flood risk citizenship? Journal of Flood Risk Management, 4(4), 288–297.
40. OECD. (2011). Water governance in OECD countries: A multi-level approach. OECD studies on water. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/9789264119284-en.
41. OECD. (2014). Water governance in the Netherlands: Fit for the future? OECD studies on water. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/9789264102637-en.
42. Pahl-Wostl, C. (2007). Transitions towards adaptive management of water facing climate and global change. Water Resources Management, 21(1), 49–62.
43. Perhac, R. M. (1998). Comparative risk assessment: Where does the public fit in? Science, Technology and Human Values, 23(2), 221–241.
44. Raadgever, G. T., Mostert, E., et al. (2012). Learning from collaborative research in water management practice. Water Resources Management, 26(11), 3251–3266.
45. Rahaman, M. M., & Varis, O. (2005). Integrated water resources management: Evolution, prospects and future challenges. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy, 1(1), 15–21.
46. Rahaman, M. M., Varis, O., & Kajander, T. (2004). EU water framework directive vs. integrated water resources management: The seven mismatches. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 20(4), 565–575.
47. Raven, R., Van den Bosch, S., et al. (2007). Transitions and strategic niche management: Towards a competence kit for practitioners. International Journal of Technology Management, 51(1), 57–74.
48. Reed, M. S., Evely, A. C., et al. (2010). What is social learning? Ecology and Society, 15(4), r1.
49. Rikoon, J. S., & Goedeke, T. L. (2000). Anti-environmentalism and citizen opposition to the Ozark man and the biosphere reserve. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.
50. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.
51. Sagoff, M. (2002). On the value of natural ecosystems: The catskills parable. Philosophy & Public Policy Quarterly, 22(1/2), 10–16.
52. Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Towards the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books.
53. Soncini-Sessa, R. (Ed.) (2007). Integrated and participatory water resources management: Practice (Vol. 1, Part B). Elsevier: Amsterdam.
54. Toonen, T. A. J., & Doorn, N. (2015). Good governance for the commons: Design for legitimacy. In M. J. Van den Hoven, S. Miller, & T. W. M. Pogge (Eds.), The design turn in applied ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
55. UNDP. (1997). Governance for sustainable human development: A UNDP policy document. New York: United Nations Development Programme.
56. UNDP. (2014). Governance for sustainable development: Integrating governance in the post-2015 development framework. Discussion paper, United Nations Development Programme, New York.
57. Van de Poel, I. R. (2009). The introduction of nanotechnology as a societal experiment. In S. Arnaldi, A. Lorenzet, & F. Russo (Eds.), Technoscience in progress: Managing the uncertainty of nanotechnology (pp. 129–142). Amsterdam/Washington: IOS Press.
58. Van der Brugge, R., & Rotmans, J. (2007). Towards transition management of European water resources. Water Resources and Management, 21(1), 249–267.
59. Van Kersbergen, K., & Verbeek, B. (2004). “Governance” as a bridge between disciplines: Cross-disciplinary inspiration regarding shifts in governance and problems of governability, accountability and legitimacy. European Journal of Political Research, 43(2), 143–171.
60. Van Rijswick, H. F. M. W., & Havekes, H. J. M. (2012). European and Dutch water law. Groningen: Europe Law Publishing.
61. Warner, J. F., Van Buuren, A., et al. (Eds.). (2013). Making space for the river: Governance experiences with multifunctional river flood management in the US and Europe. London: IWA Publishing.
62. Wilshusen, P. R., Brechin, S. R., et al. (2003). Contested nature: Conservation and development at the turn of the twenty-first century. In S. R. Brechin, P. R. Wilshusen, C. L. Fortwangler, & P. C. West (Eds.), Contested nature: Promoting international biodiversity with social justice in the twenty-first century. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
63. Woods, D. (2008). Stakeholder involvement and public participation: A critique of water framework directive arrangements in the United Kingdom. Water and Environment Journal, 22(4), 258–264.
64. Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
65. Young, I. M. (2006). Responsibility and global justice: A social connection model. Social Philosophy and Policy, 23(1), 102–130.