Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Epistemic forms of integrated water resources management: towards knowledge versatility

  • Published:
Policy Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the past two decades, integrated water resources management (IWRM) has come to represent a dominant policy narrative in the field of water policy and governance. However, IWRM has come under strong criticism in recent years for what critics see as a poor record of implementation and heavy emphasis on technocratic solutions. We outline how the present debate around IWRM has become narrowly construed by focusing exclusively on IWRM as an analytical and prescriptive concept. We argue that this narrow conceptualization of IWRM, or the prescriptive epistemic form, which sets forth a set of guidelines for implementation in accordance with the logic of instrumentality, has in part resulted in a stalemate manifested in less research on the subject and scarcer attention of policy makers. To help advance beyond the stalemate, we propose two additional epistemic forms: discursive, as a point of reference for the discussion of power and values in water management and practical, or experiential and context-based understanding of water management. Recognizing this diversity of epistemic forms of IWRM to include the discursive and practical can create a shared space for multiple conflicting epistemologies and allow ways of knowing of non-expert stakeholders, thereby lessening the polarized nature of the discourse. Our typology of three epistemic forms—prescriptive, discursive and practical—offers public policy scholars a heuristic tool to approach policy concepts from multiple dimensions. Recognizing multiple epistemic forms requires new skills from policy workers and analysts, as well as institutional arrangements for articulating and translating across these forms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agranoff, R., & Radin, B. A. (1991). The comparative case study approach in public administration. In J. L. Perry (Ed.), Research in public administration (Vol. I, pp. 203–231). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agyenim, J., & Gupta, J. (2012). IWRM and developing countries: Implementation challenges in Ghana. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 47, 46–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, M. J. (2013). A hybrid space: enabling epistemological diversity in socio-ecological problem-solving. Policy Sciences, 46, 179–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartley, T., Andersson, K., Jagger, P., & van Laerhoven, F. (2008). The Contribution of Institutional Theories to Explaining Decentralization of Natural Resource Governance. Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal, 21(2), 160–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, T., & Pahl-Wostl, C. (2013). UN–Water and its role in global water governance. Ecology and Society, 18(3), 3. doi:10.5751/ES-05564-180303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biswas, A. (2004). Integrated Water Resources Management: a Reassessment. Water International, 29(2), 248–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biswas, A. (2008). Integrated Water Resources Management: Is It Working? International Journal of Water Resources Development, 24(1), 5–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biswas, A., Varis, O., & Tortajada, C. (2005). Integrated water resources management in south and south-east Asia. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouteligier, S. (2011). Exploring the agency of global environmental consultancy firms in earth system governance. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 11, 43–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brugnach, M., & Ingram, H. (2012a). Rethinking the Role of Humans in Water Management: Toward a New Model of Decision-Making. In B. R. Johnston (Ed.), Water, cultural diversity and environmental change: Emerging trends, sustainable futures? (pp. 49–64). Berlin, Germany: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brugnach, M., & Ingram, H. (2012b). Ambiguity: the challenge of knowing and deciding together. Environmental Science & Policy, 15, 60–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. L. (1998). Institutional analysis and the role of ideas in political economy. Theory and Society, 27(3), 377–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chene, J. (2009). Introduction: Integrated Water Resources Management: Theory versus practice. Natural Resources Forum, 33, 2–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colebatch, H. (2006). What work makes policy? Policy Sciences, 39, 309–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conca, K. (2006). Governing water: Contentious transnational politics and global institution building. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, C., & Bakker, K. (2012). Water security: Debating an emerging paradigm. Global Environmental Change, 22(1), 94–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook, N., & Wagenaar, H. (2012). Navigating the Eternally Unfolding Present: Toward an Epistemology of Practice. The American Review of Public Administration, 42(1), 3–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delli Priscoli, J. (2012). Reflections on the nexus of politics, ethics, religion and contemporary water resources decisions. Water Policy, 14, 21–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, M. (1986). How Institutions think. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J. S. (1997). The politics of the earth: Environmental discourses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekbladh, D. (2002). “Mr. TVA”: Grass-roots development, David Lilienthal, and the rise and fall of the Tennessee Valley Authority as a symbol for U.S. Overseas Development, 1933–1973. Diplomatic History, 26(1), 335–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elmore, R. (1979). Backward mapping: Implementation Research and Policy Decisions. Political Science Quarterly, 94(4), 601–616.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engle, N., Johns, O., Lemos, M., & Nelson, D. R. (2011). Integrated and adaptive management of water resources: Tensions, legacies, and the next best thing. Ecology and Society, 16(1), 19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falkenmark, M. (2005). Towards hydrosolidarity: Ample opportunities for human ingenuity. Stockholm: Stockholm Water Symposia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feitelson, E. (2012). What is water? A normative perspective. Water Policy, 14, 52–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M., Khademian, A., & Schneider, A. (2006). Ways of knowing and inclusive management practices. Public Administration Review, 66(s1) (December Supplement), 89–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feller, J. M. (2008). Collaborative management of Glen Canyon Dam: The elevation of social engineering over law. 8 NEV. L.J. 896.

  • Fischer, F. (1993). Citizen participation and the democratization of policy expertise: From theoretical inquiry to practice. Policy Sciences, 26, 165–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F. (1995). Evaluating public policy. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flyvbjerg, B. (2004). Phronetic planning research: theoretical and methodological reflections. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(3), 283–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. (2007). Epistemological Bricolage: How Practitioners Make Sense of Learning. Administration & Society, 39, 476–496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galaz, V. (2007). Water governance, resilience and global environmental change—a reassessment of integrated water resources management (IWRM). Water Science and Technology, 56(4), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerlak, A. K., & Heikkila, T. (2011). Building a Theory of Learning in Collaboratives: Evidence from the Everglades Restoration Program. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(4), 619–644.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerlak, A. K., Varady, R. G., Petite, O., & Haverland, A. C. (2011). Hydrosolidarity and beyond: can ethics and equity find a place in today’s water resource management? Water International, 36(3), 251–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerlak, A. K., & Wilder, M. (2012). Exploring the Textured Landscape of Water Insecurity and the Human Right to Water. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 54(2), 4–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Water Partnership (GWP). (2000). IWRM toolbox. Retrieved 15 May, 2007, from http://www.gwpforum.org/servlet/PSP?chStartupName=_water. Stockholm: Global Water Partnership.

  • Global Water Partnership (GWP). (2004). IWRM plans and water efficiency plans by 2005: Why, what and how?. Stockholm: Global Water Partnership.

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Water Partnership (GWP). (2005). Catalyzing change: A handbook for developing IWRM and water efficiency strategies. Stockholm: Global Water Partnership.

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Water Partnership/Technical Advisory Committee (GWP/TAC). (2000). Integrated water resources management. Stockholm: Global Water Partnership.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, B. E., & Butler, W. H. (2011). Collaborating for Transformative Resilience: Shared Identity in the US Fire Learning Network. In Bruce E. Goldstein (Ed.), Collaborative resilience: Moving from crisis to opportunity (pp. 339–358). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grigg, N. S. (1999). Integrated Water Resources Management: Who Should Lead, Who Should Pay? Journal of American Water Resources Association, 35(3), 527–534.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, J. (2010). Driving forces in global freshwater governance. In D. Huitema & S. Meijerink (Eds.), Water policy entrepreneurs: A research companion to water transitions around the globe (pp. 37–61). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guston, D. H. (2001). Boundary Organizations in Environmental Policy and Science: An Introduction. Science, Technology and Human Values, 26, 399–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hajer, M. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological modernization and the policy process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hajer, M., & Versteeg, W. A. (2005). Decade of Discourse Analysis of Environmental Politics: Achievements, Challenges, Perspectives. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 7, 177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, P. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: the case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics, 25(3), 275–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, P. A., & Taylor, R. C. R. (1996). Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44(5), 936–957.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, L. (2008). Water rich, resource poor: intersections of gender, poverty and vulnerability in newly irrigated areas of south-eastern Turkey. World Development, 36(12), 2643–2662.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasman, R., Jan Klerk, W., Schoemaker, M., & Smits, E. (2013), SimBethel: Designing a serious game on flood risk management and housing/urban development for the most urbanized island of the California Delta, student research project. Delft University of Technology. Retrieved on 15 November, 2013 from http://californiawaterblog.com/2013/11/18/board-game-wakens-delta-islanders-on-flood-risks/.

  • Heikkila, T., & Gerlak, A. K. (2013). Building a Conceptual Approach to Collective Learning: Lessons for Public Policy Scholars. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3), 484–511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hornidge, A., Ul Hassan, M., & Mollinga, P. (2009). ‘Follow the innovation’—A joint experimentation & learning approach to transdisciplinary innovation research. Bonn: ZEF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huitema, D., & Meijerink, S. (2009). Understanding and managing water policy transitions: a policy science perspective. In D. Huitema & S. Meijerink (Eds.), Water policy entrepreneurs: A research companion to water transitions around the globe (pp. 23–37). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingram, H. (2013). No universal remedies: design for contexts. Water International, 38(1), 6–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingram, H., & Lejano, R. (2009). Transitions: transcending multiple ways of knowing water resources in the United States. In D. Huitema & S. Meijerink (Eds.), Water policy entrepreneurs: A research companion to water transitions around the globe (pp. 61–79). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Conference on Water and Environment (ICWE). (1992). The Dublin statement on water and sustainable development.

  • Jeffrey, P. (2007). Critical perspectives on IWRM theory and practice. A CAIWA conference workshop.

  • Jeffrey, P., & Gearey, M. (2006). Integrated Water Resources Management: lost on the road from ambition to realization? Water Science and Technology, 53(1), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jochn-Clausen, T., & Fugl, J. (2001). Firming up the conceptual basis of Integrated Water Resources Management. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 17(4), 501–511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonker, L. (2002). Integrated water resources management: theory, practice, cases. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 27, 719–720.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaljonen, M., Varjopuro, R., Giełczewski, M., & Lital, A. (2012). Seeking policy-relevant knowledge: a comparative study of the contextualisation of participatory scenarios for the Narew River and Lake Peipsi. Environmental Science & Policy, 15(1), 72–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kidd, S., & Shaw, D. (2007). Integrated water resource management and institutional integration: realising the potential of spatial planning in England. The Geographical Journal, 17(4), 312–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lach, D., Ingram, H., & Rayner, S. (2005). Maintaining the status quo: How Institutional norms and practices create conservative water organizations. Texas Law Review, 83, 2027–2053.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lejano, R., & Ingram, H. (2009). Collaborative networks and new ways of knowing. Environmental Science & Policy, 12, 653–662.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lejano, R., Ingram, M., & Ingram, H. (2013). The power of narratives in environmental networks. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lejano, R., & Leong, C. (2012). A Hermeneutic Approach to Explaining and Understanding Public Controversies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22, 793–814.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemaire, O., Moneyron, A., & Masson, J. (2010). Interactive Technology Assessment and Beyond: the Field Trial of Genetically Modified Grapevines at INRA-Colmar. PLoS Biology, 8(11), e1000551.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lendvai, N., & Stubbs, P. (2009). Assemblages, Translation, and Intermediaries in South-East Europe. Policy Reconsidered: Meaning, Politics and Practices. In S. Hodgson & Z. Irving (Eds.). Bristol, UK: Bristol Policy Press.

  • Lenton, R., & Muller, M. (2009). Integrated water resources management in practice: Better management for development. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leventon, J., & Antypas, A. (2012). Multi-level Governance, Multi-level Deficits: The Case of Drinking Water Management in Hungary. Environmental Policy and Governance, 22(4), 253–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levi-Strauss, C. (1966). The savage mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCulloch, C. (2009). The Water Resources Board: England and Wales’ Venture into National Water Resources Planning, 1964-1973. Water Alternatives, 2, 461–475.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medema, W. (2006). IWRM and adaptive management: Synergy or conflict, Newater Project.

  • Medema, W., McIntosh, B., & Jeffrey, P. (2008). From premise to practice: A critical assessment of integrated water resources management and adaptive management approaches in the water sector. Ecology and Society, 13(2), 29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, B. (1997). Resource and environmental management. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, B. (2005). Integrated water resources management, institutional arrangements, and land-use planning. Environment and Planning A, 37, 1335–1352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, B. (2008). Resource and environmental management: Connecting the academy with practice. Canadian Geographer, 52, 131–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molle, F. (2009). River-basin Planning and Management: The Social Life of a Concept. Geoforum, 40(3), 484–494.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molle, F. (2011). Implementing integrated river basin management in the red river basin, Vietnam: A solution looking for a problem? Water Policy, 13, 518–534.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mollinga, P., Dixit, A., & Athukorala, K. (2006). Integrated water resources management global theory, emerging practice, and local needs. New Delhi: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moss, T. (2010). Intermediaries and the Governance of Urban Infrastructures in Transition. In S. Guy, S. Marvin, W. Medd, & T. Moss (Eds.), Shaping urban infrastructures intermediaries and the governance of socio-technical networks (pp. 17–35). London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mukhtarov, F. (2008). Intellectual History and Current Status of Integrated Water Resources Management: a Global Perspective. In C. Pahl-Wostl, P. Kabat, & J. Möltgen (Eds.), Adaptive and integrated water management: Coping with complexity and uncertainty. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mukhtarov, F. (2009). The hegemony of integrated water resources management: A study of policy translation in England, Turkey and Kazakhstan. Budapest: Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy, Central European University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mukhtarov, F. (2012). Rethinking the travel of ideas: Policy translation in the water sector. Policy & Politics. doi:10.1332/030557312X655459.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mukhtarov, F., & Gerlak, A. (2013). River basin organizations in the global water discourse: An exploration of agency and strategy. Global Governance, 19(2), 301–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Öktem, K. (2005). Reconstructing the geographies of nationalism: Nation, space and discourse in twentieth century Turkey. Doctor of Philosophy thesis, The Approach of Geography and Environment. Oxford: University of Oxford.

  • Osseweijer, P. (2006). A short history of talking biotech: Fifteen years of iterative action research in institutionalizing scientists’ engagement in public communication. Earth and life sciences. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pahl-Wostl, C., Gupta, J., & Petry, D. (2008). Governance and the global water system: A theoretical exploration. Global Governance, 14(4), 419–435.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petit, O., & Baron, C. (2009). Integrated water resources management: From general principles to its implementation by the state. The case of Burkina Faso. Natural Resources Forum, 33, 49–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahaman, M., & Varis, O. (2005). IWRM: evolution, prospects and future challenges. Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy, 1(1), 15–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O., Webler, T., Rakel, H., Daniel, P., & Johnson, B. (1993). Public participation in decision making: a three-step procedure. Policy Sciences, 26(2), 189–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saravanan, V., McDonald, T., & Mollinga, P. (2009). Critical review of Integrated Water Resources Management: Moving beyond polarised discourse. Natural Resources Forum, 33, 76–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (2007). Ways of knowing: Implications for public policy. Annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.

  • Scott, J. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human conditions have failed. Newhaven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, C. A., Varady, R. G., Meza, F., Montaña, E., de Raga, G. B., Luckman, B., et al. (2012). Science-Policy Dialogues for Water Security: Addressing Vulnerability and Adaptation to Global Change in the Arid Americas. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 54(3), 30–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, N. (1997). Review essay: Reason after meaning: Charles Taylor, Philosophical Arguments. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995). Philosophy Social Criticism, 23, 131–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susskind, L., Camacho, A. E., & Schenk, T. (2010). Collaborative Planning and Adaptive Management in Glen Canyon: A Cautionary Tale. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, 35, 1–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tenbensel, T. (2006). Policy knowledge for policy work. In H. Colebatch (Ed.), The work of policy: An international survey (pp. 199–215). Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tremblay, H. (2011). A clash of paradigms in the water sector? Tensions and synergies between integrated water resources management and the human rights-based approach to development. Natural Resources Journal, 51, 307–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). (1994). Agenda 21: Programme of action for sustainable development: Rio declaration on environment and development. New York: United Nations Environmental Programme.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Water (UN-Water). (2008). Status report on integrated water resources management and water efficiency plans. New York: The Commission on Sustainable Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Water (UN-Water). (2012). The UN-water status report on the application of integrated approaches to water resource management. Stockholm: UNEP, UNDP, GWP.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Water (UN-Water). (2013). Theatre of the absurd: Is there a happy ending to the tragedy (of the commons)? Retrieved on 15 November, 2013 from http://www.unwater.org/water-cooperation-2013/events/theater-of-the-absurd/en/, Geneva, UN-Water.

  • van Kerkhoff, L. (2013). Integrated research: concepts of connection in environmental science and policy. Environmental Science & Policy, 8(5), 452–463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagenaar, H. (2004). ‘Knowing’ the rules. Administrative work as practice. Public Administration Review, 64, 643–656.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagenaar, H., & Cook, N. (2003). Understanding policy practices: action, dialectic and deliberation in policy analysis. In M. Hajer & H. Wagenaar (Eds.), Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding governance in the network society (pp. 139–171). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walther, P. (1987). Against idealistic beliefs in the problem-solving capacities of integrated resource management. Environmental Management, 11(4), 430–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warner, J. (2006). More Sustainable Participation? Multi-Stakeholder Platforms for Integrated Catchment Management. Water Resources Development, 22(1), 15–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watkins, K. (2006). Human development report. Beyond scarcity: Power, poverty and the global water crisis. New York: United Nations Development Programme.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weible, C. T., Heikkila, T., de Leon, P., & Sabatier, P. (2012). Understanding and influencing the policy process. Policy Sciences, 45(1), 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westley, F. R., Tjornbo, O., Schultz, L., Olsson, P., Folke, C., Crona, B., & Bodin, Ö. (2013). A theory of transformative agency in linked social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 18(3), 27. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05072-180327.

  • White, G. (1998). Reflections on the 50-year International Search for Integrated Water Management. Water Policy, 1, 21–27.

  • Wilder, M., & Howlett, M. (2013). The politics of policy anomalies: Bricolage and the hermeneutics of paradigms, prepared for presentation to the American Political Science Association. Retrieved on November 15, 2013 from. https://www.google.az/?gws_rd=cr&ei=k36KUs_iH9HJswba6oDACw#q=The+Politics+of+Policy+Anomalies:++Bricolage+and+the+Hermeneutics+of+Paradigms%2C+Prepared+for+Presentation+to+the+American+Political+Science+Association.

  • Yanow, D. (2009). Ways of knowing: Passionate humility and reflexive practice in research and management. The American Review of Public Administration, 39, 579–601.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Public and International Affairs, Azerbaijan Diplomatic Academy, Baku, Azerbaijan

    Farhad Mukhtarov

  2. Department of Biotechnology, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Farhad Mukhtarov

  3. International Studies Association and Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA

    Andrea K. Gerlak

Authors
  1. Farhad Mukhtarov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrea K. Gerlak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Farhad Mukhtarov.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mukhtarov, F., Gerlak, A.K. Epistemic forms of integrated water resources management: towards knowledge versatility. Policy Sci 47, 101–120 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-013-9193-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-013-9193-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation