Water Resources Management

, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp 565–581 | Cite as

Boundary Judgments in Water Governance: Diagnosing Internal and External Factors that Matter in a Complex World

  • Rob C. de LoëEmail author
  • James J. Patterson


Governance failures are widely recognized as a key reason why, despite sustained attention over previous decades, many longstanding water problems continue to go unsolved around the world. A major challenge in analyzing and addressing water governance problems is making “boundary judgments” in the face of complexity. Improving water governance requires accounting for a diverse and sometimes unclear set of internal and external factors that cause water problems. For example, drivers, actors, and institutions implicated may be both “internal” or “external” to a water governance system, depending on how problem boundaries are delineated. This problem confronts researchers and practitioners alike, and although recognition is growing, it remains extremely challenging to practically address. Diagnostic approaches are needed to deal with the complexity of contemporary water governance problems. In this paper, we propose a practical diagnostic approach to support structured, context-specific, critical diagnostic inquiry. We build on complementary initiatives emerging in other fields, paying particular attention to external factors that are often neglected, while being sensitive to the capacity constraints of policymakers and practitioners. The approach is flexible in allowing for either cursory or in-depth analysis as appropriate in a given situation. This allows for the identification of tangible improvements and “small wins” to improve water governance systems within a bigger-picture perspective of the diverse causes of water governance problems. Innovatively, we take a user-oriented perspective to support researchers and policymakers in practice, and break new ground in providing tractable tools for dealing with complexity in water governance.


Water governance Boundary judgments Diagnostic approaches Institutional analysis External factors Social-ecological systems framework Systemic approaches 



This work was supported by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (453-2014-0959). The authors would like to thank the members of the Water Policy and Governance Group who provided constructive feedback on earlier drafts, and external reviewers who helped us sharpen and clarify the arguments.


  1. Allan JA (2005) Water in the environment/socio-economic development discourse: sustainability, changing management paradigms and policy responses in a global system. Gov Oppos 40:181–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benson D, Rouillard JJ, Gain AK (2015) Water governance in a comparative perspective: from IWRM to a 'nexus' approach? Water Altern 8:756–773Google Scholar
  3. Blomquist W, Calbick KS, Dinar A (2005) Institutional and Policy Analysis of River Basin Management. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3525. World Bank, Agriculture and Rural Development Department, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  4. Campbell H, Anderson J, Luckert M (2016) Public Policies and Canadian Ethanol Production: History and Future Prospects for an Emerging Industry. Biofuels 7:117–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Challies E, Newig J, Lenschow A (2014) What role for social-ecological systems research in governing global teleconnections? Glob Environ Chang 27:32–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Checkland P, Scholes J (1999) Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Wiley, West SussexGoogle Scholar
  7. Conca K (2006) Governing Water: Contentious Transnational Politics and Global Institution Building. Global Environmental Accord: Strategies for Sustainability and Institutional Innovation. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Cox M (2011) Advancing the diagnostic analysis of environmental problems. Int J Commons 5:346–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. de Loë RC, Patterson JJ (2017) Rethinking water governance: moving beyond water-centric perspectives in a connected and changing world. Nat Resour J 57:75–99Google Scholar
  10. Franco J, Mehta L, Veldwisch GJ (2013) The global politics of water grabbing. Third World Q 34:1651–1675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Galaz V, Tallberg J, Boin A, Ituarte-Lima C, Hey C, Olsson P, Westley F (2017) Global governance dimensions of globally networked risks: the state of the art in social science research. Ris Hazards Crisis Public Policy 8:4–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Garcia M, Portney K, Islam S (2016) A question driven socio-hydrological modeling process. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 20:73–92. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Garrick D, De Stefano L, Fung F, Pittock J, Schlager E, New M, Connell D (2013) Managing hydroclimatic risks in federal rivers: a diagnostic assessment. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical & Engineering Sciences 371:20120415.
  14. Hinkel J, Cox ME, Schlüter M, Binder CR, Falk T (2015) A diagnostic procedure for applying the social-ecological systems framework in diverse cases. Ecol Soc 20:32–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ho JC, Michalak AM (2017) Phytoplankton blooms in Lake Erie impacted by both long-term and springtime phosphorus load. J Great Lakes Res 43:221–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hoekstra AY (2009) Water security of nations: how international trade affects national water scarcity and dependency. In: Jones JAA, Vardanian TG, Hakopian C (eds) Threats to Global Water Security. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 27–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huitema D, Meijerink S (2009) Water Policy Entrepreneurs: A Research Companion to Water Transitions around the Globe. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, CheltenhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Huitema D, Meijerink S (2014) The Politics of River Basin Organisations Coalitions, Institutional Design Choices and Consequences. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ingram HM, Mann DE, Weatherford GD, Cortner HJ (1984) Guidelines for improved institutional analysis in water resources planning. Water Resour Res 20:323–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. International Joint Commission (2014) A Balanced Diet for Lake Erie: Reducing Phosphorous Loadings and Harmful Algal Blooms. International Joint Commission, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  21. Ison R (2010) Systems Practice: How to Act in a Climate-Change World. Springer, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kiser LL, Ostrom E (1982) Three worlds of action: a metatheoretical synthesis of institutional approaches. In: Strategies of Political Inquiry. Sage, Beverly Hills, pp 179–222Google Scholar
  23. Lewison RL, Rudd MA, Al-Hayek W, Baldwin C, Beger M, Lieske SN, Jones C, Satumanatpan S, Junchompoo C, Hines E (2016) How the DPSIR framework can be used for structuring problems and facilitating empirical research in coastal systems. Environ Sci Pol 56:110–119Google Scholar
  24. McGinnis MD (2011) Networks of adjacent action situations in polycentric governance. Policy Stud J 39:51–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McGinnis MD, Ostrom E (2014) Social-ecological system framework: initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecol Soc 19:30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Medema W, McIntosh BS, Jeffrey PJ (2008) From premise to practice: a critical assessment of integrated water resources management and adaptive management approaches in the water sector. Ecol Soc 13:29–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Michalak AM, Anderson EJ, Beletsky D, Boland S, Bosch NS, Bridgeman TB, Chaffin JD, Cho K, Confesor R, Daloglu I, Depinto JV, Evans MA, Fahnenstiel GL, He L, Ho JC, Jenkins L, Johengen TH, Kuo KC, Laporte E, Liu X, McWilliams MR, Moore MR, Posselt DJ, Richards RP, Scavia D, Steiner AL, Verhamme E, Wright DM, Zagorski MA (2013) Record-setting algal bloom in Lake Erie caused by agricultural and meteorological trends consistent with expected future conditions. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110:6448–6452Google Scholar
  28. Ostrom E (2005) Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  29. Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325:419–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ostrom E (2011) Background on the Institutional Analysis and Development framework. Policy Stud J 39:7–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pahl-Wostl C (2017) Governance of the water-energy-food security nexus: A multi-level coordination challenge. Environ Sci Policy.
  32. Pahl-Wostl C, Holtz G, Kastens B, Knieper C (2010) Analyzing complex water governance regimes: the Management and Transition Framework. Environ Sci Policy 13:571–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pahl-Wostl C, Lebel L, Knieper C, Nikitina E (2012) From applying panaceas to mastering complexity: toward adaptive water governance in river basins. Environ Sci Policy 23:24–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Parkes MW, Morrison KE, Bunch MJ, Hallström LK, Neudoerffer RC, Venema HD, Waltner-Toews D (2010) Towards integrated governance for water, health and social-ecological systems: the watershed governance prism. Glob Environ Change 20:693–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Poirier B, de Loë RC (2010) Analysing water institutions in the 21st century: guidelines for water researchers and professionals. J Nat Resour Policy Res 2:229–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Reed MG, Bruyneel S (2010) Rescaling environmental governance, rethinking the state: a three-dimensional review. Prog Hum Geogr 34:646–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rockström J, Falkenmark M, Folke C, Lannerstad M, Barron J, Enfors E, Gordon L, Heinke J, Hoff H, Pahl-Wostl C (2014) Water Resilience for Human Prosperity. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Scavia D, Kalcic M, Logsdon Muenich R, Read JL, Aloysius N, Bertani I, Boles C, Confesor R, DePinto J, Gildow M, Martin J, Redder T, Robertson D, Sowa S, Wang YC, Yen H (2017) Multiple models guide strategies for agricultural nutrient reductions. Front Ecol Environ 15:126–132Google Scholar
  39. Sojamo S, Keulertz M, Warner J, Allan A (2012) Virtual water hegemony: the role of agribusiness in global water governance. Water Int 37:169–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Streeck W, Thelen K (eds) (2005) Beyond Continuity: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  41. Tortajada C (2010) Water governance: a research agenda. Int J Water Resour Dev 26:309–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ulrich W (1993) Some difficulties of ecological thinking, considered from a critical systems perspective: a plea for critical holism. Systems. Practice 6:583–611Google Scholar
  43. Ulrich W (2000) Reflective Practice in the Civil Society: the contribution of critically systemic thinking. Reflective Pract 1:247–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. United States Environmental Protection Agency GLNPO (2017) U.S. Action Plan for Lake Erie: Commitments and Strategy for Phosphorous Reduction (Draft). Environmental Protection Agency, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  45. van Meerkerk I, Van Buuren A, Edelenbos J (2013) Water managers' boundary judgments and adaptive water governance. An analysis of the Dutch Haringvliet Sluices Case. Water Resour Manag 27:2179–2184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wallis PJ, Ison RL (2011) Appreciating institutional complexity in water governance dynamics: a case from the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. Water Resour Manag 25:4081–4097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Watson SB, Miller C, Arhonditsis G, Boyer GL, Carmichael W, Charlton MN, Confesor R, Depew DC, Höök TO, Ludsin SA, Matisoff G, McElmurry SP, Murray MW, Richards RP, Rao YR, Steffen MM, Wilhelm SW (2016) The re-eutrophication of Lake Erie: Harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. Harmful Algae 56:44–66Google Scholar
  48. Wiek A, Larson KL (2012) Water, people, and sustainability - a systems framework for analyzing and assessing water governance regimes. Water Resour Manag 26:3153–3171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wyborn C, Dovers S (2014) Prescribing adaptiveness in agencies of the state. Glob Environ Change 24:5–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Young OR (2008) Institutions and environmental change: the scientific legacy of a decade of IDGEC research. In: Young OR, King LA, Schroeder H (eds) Institutions and Environmental Change: Principal Findings, Applications, and Research Frontiers. The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 3–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Environment, Resources and SustainabilityUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  2. 2.Water Policy and Governance GroupUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations