Advertisement

Water Resources Management

, Volume 27, Issue 13, pp 4425–4441 | Cite as

The Added Value of Understanding Informal Social Networks in an Adaptive Capacity Assessment: Explorations of an Urban Water Management System in Indonesia

  • Silva Larson
  • Kim S. Alexander
  • Riyanti Djalante
  • Dewi G. C. Kirono
Article

Abstract

Social networks play an important role in environmental governance regimes, and they are a key to the adaptive capacity of systems that deal with complex, contextual and multi-faceted issues. Urban water systems are typical examples of complex systems facing many pressures, such as increased population, water quality deterioration, and climate change. This paper explores social networks of the key stakeholders engaged in urban water management, in Makassar City, Indonesia, in the context of exploring ways to improve management of an increasingly complex urban water system. Three social networks were explored; those constituted by formal and informal interactions and networks perceived by stakeholders to be “ideal”. Formal networks were identified through an examination of the legislative instruments and government agencies’ documents relating to water provision in Makassar, while the informal and “ideal” networks were investigated in collaboration with the stakeholders. The research found that the informal social network was more extensive than were the formally required networks, and the investigation of informal networks created a potentially more robust and adaptive water management system than would have occurred through inclusion of formal institutional arrangements. We suggest that in examination of the adaptive capacity of an urban water system, one also considers the informal arrangements and linkages, as this additional information about the system is necessary to enhance our understanding of potential adaptation of water management and improved urban water systems.

Keywords

Adaptive capacity Complex adaptive systems Institutional arrangements Integrated urban water management (IUWM) Makassar Perceptions of water system 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by the AusAID CSIRO Research for Development Alliance’s project entitled “Climate adaptation through sustainable urban development”. Appreciation is expressed for significant contributions from the CSIRO project team members (in particular, Grace Tjandraatmadja) and research partners from the Hasanuddin University in Makassar (Profs Roland Barkey, Amran Ahmad, Mary Selintung, Ananto Yudono, Dharmawan Salman and Kaimuddin Mole, and the students). Figure 1 was kindly prepared by Muhammad Nur Iman. This study would not be possible without generous contribution of time by project stakeholders themselves. Useful comments on previous drafts were provided by Ms Liana Williams, Dr Tom Measham and Dr Tony Darbas.

References

  1. Agrawal A, Gibson CC (1999) Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of community in natural resource conservation. World Dev 27:629–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. AIP (2010) Introducing the Indonesia infrastructure initiative. Prakarsa: Journal of the Indonesia Instructure Initiative. Australia Indonesia Partnership, JakartaGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexander KS, Moglia M, Miller C (2010) Water needs assessment: learning to deal with scale, subjectivity and high stakes. J Hydrol 388:251–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Armitage DR, Plummer R, Berkes F, Arthur RI, Charles AT, Davidson-Hunt IJ, Diduck AP, Doubleday N, Johnson DS, Marschke M, McConney P, Pinkerton E, Wollenberg E (2009) Adaptive co-management for social–ecological complexity. Front Ecol Environ 6:95–102Google Scholar
  5. Bäckstrand K (2002) Civic Science for sustainability. Reframing the role of scientific experts, policymakers and citizens in environmental governance. Proceeding of the knowledge for sustainability. Challenges for social science, 6–7 December, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  6. Barkey RA, Achmad A, Kaimuddin, Selintung M, Yudono A, Salman D (2011) Review on water service provision in Makassar city, Indonesia. Hasanuddin University, Makassar, Indonesia. A report submitted to CSIRO, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  7. Berkes F, Folke C (eds) (1998) Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Bodin Ö, Crona BI (2009) The role of social networks in natural resource governance: what relational patterns make a difference? Glob Environ Chang 19:366–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bodin Ö, Crona B, Ernstson H (2006) Social networks in natural resources management: what is there to learn from a structural perspective? Ecol Soc 11:r2Google Scholar
  10. Bonacich P (1987) Power and centrality: a family of measures. Am J Sociol 92:1170–1182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Freeman LC (2002) UCINET 6 for windows: software for social network analysisGoogle Scholar
  12. BPS Makassar (2007) Makassar in number. Makassar, Sulawesi, IndonesiaGoogle Scholar
  13. Carlsson L, Berkes F (2005) Co-management: concepts and methodological implications. J Environ Manage 75:65–76Google Scholar
  14. CV Globalindo Konsultama (2006) State of environment of Makassar city. Makassar, Sulawesi, Indonesia (In Bahasa Indonesia)Google Scholar
  15. Dietz T, Ostrom E, Stern PC (2003) The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302:1907–1912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dimadama Z, Zikos D (2010) Social networks as Trojan horses to challenge the dominance of existing hierarchies: knowledge and learning in the water governance of Volos, Greece. Water Resour Manag 24(14):3853–3870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ernstson H, Barthel S, Andersson E, Borgström ST (2010) Scale-crossing brokers and network governance of urban ecosystem services: the case of Stockholm. Ecol Soc 15(4):28Google Scholar
  18. Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, Norberg J (2005) Adaptive governance of social-ecological system. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30:441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Freeman L (1979) Centrality in social networks. Conceptual clarifications. Soc Networks 1:215–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Friedmann J (1998) The new political economy of planning: the rise of civil society. In: Douglass M, Friedmann J (eds) Cities for citizens: planning and the rise of civil society in a global age. Wiley, Chichester, pp 19–35Google Scholar
  21. GoI (2004) Undang Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 7 Tahun 2004 Tentang Sumber Daya Air. Government of IndonesiaGoogle Scholar
  22. Hanneman RA, Riddle M (2005a) Introduction to social network methods: chapter 10. Centrality and power. http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/nettext/C10_Centrality.html. Accessed June 2011
  23. Hanneman RA, Riddle M (2005b) Introduction to social network methods: chapter 4. Working with NetDraw to visualize graphs. http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/nettext/C4_netdraw.html. Accessed June 2011
  24. Kirono DGC, Larson S, Tjandraatmadja G, Leitch A, Neumann L, Maheepala S, Barkey R, Achmad A, Selintung M (2013) Adapting to climate change through urban water management: a participatory case study in Indonesia. Reg Environ Chang. doi: 10.1007/s1011301304983 Google Scholar
  25. Larson S (2010) Designing robust water planning institutions in remote regions: a case of Georgina and Diamantina catchment in Australia. Water Policy 12:357–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Larson S, Brake L (2011) Natural resources management arrangements in the Lake Eyre Basin: an enabling environment for community engagement? Rural Soc 21:32–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Larson S, Stone-Jovicich S (2011) Community perceptions of water quality and current institutional arrangements in the Great Barrier Reef Region of Australia. Water Policy 13:411–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Larson S, Alexander K, Djalante R, Tjandraatmadja G, Barkey R, Kirono D (2010a) Climate adaptation through sustainable urban development in Makassar, Indonesia. Report from Stakeholder Workshop - October 2010. CSIRO AusAId Alliance Project. Makassar, CSIRO, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  29. Larson S, Measham TG, Williams LJ (2010b) Remotely engaged? Towards a framework for monitoring the success of stakeholder engagement in remote regions. J Environ Plan Manag 53:827–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leavitt H (1951) Some effects of certain communication patterns on group performance. J Abnorm Soc Psych 46:38–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mitchell RK, Agle BR, Wood DJ (1997) Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Acad Manag Rev 22:853–886Google Scholar
  32. Moglia M, Perez P, Burn S (2010) Modelling an urban water system on the edge of chaos. Environ Model Softw 25:1528–1538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Moglia M, Cook S, Sharma A, Burn S (2011) Assessing decentralised water solutions: towards a framework for adaptive learning. Water Resour Manag 25:217–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. ODA (1995) Guidance note on how to do stakeholder analysis of aid projects and programmesGoogle Scholar
  35. Olsson P, Gunderson LH, Carpenter S, Ryan P, Lebel L, Folke C, Holling CS (2006) Shooting the rapids: navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 11:18Google Scholar
  36. Orr P, Colvin J, King D (2007) Involving stakeholders in integrated river basin planning in England and Wales. Water Resour Manag 21:331–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ostrom E (2008) Frameworks and theories of environmental change. Glob Environ Chang 18:249–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ostrom E (2010) Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Global Environmental Change 20(4):550–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pahl-Wostl C (2009) A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Glob Environ Chang 19:354–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pelling M, High C (2005a) Understanding adaptation: what can social capital offer assessments of adaptive capacity? Glob Environ Chang A 15:308–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pelling M, High C (2005b) Social learning and adaptation to climate change. Disaster studies working paper 11. Benfield Hazard Research Centre, LondonGoogle Scholar
  42. Pelling M, High C, Dearing J, Smith D (2008) Shadow spaces for social learning: a relational understanding of adaptive capacity to climate change within organisations. Environ Plan A 40:867–884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Preston BL, Stafford-Smith M (2009) Framing vulnerability and adaptive capacity assessment: discussion paper. CSIRO Climate Adaptation Flagship Working paper No. 2. Available online at: http://www.csiro.au/files/files/ppgt.pdf. Accessed December 17, 2009
  44. Ribot JC (2002) Democratic decentralization of natural resources: institutionalizing popular participation. World Resources Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  45. Sandström A, Carlsson L (2008) The performance of policy networks: the relation between network structure and network performance. Pol Stud J 36:497–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schiffer E, Hauck J (2010) Net-map: collecting social network data and facilitating network learning through participatory influence network mapping. Field Method 22:231–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Smajgl A, Larson S (2007) Institutional dynamics and natural resource management. In: Smajgl A, Larson S (eds) Sustainable resource use: institutional dynamics and economics. Earthscan, London, pp 9–26Google Scholar
  48. Stanghellini PSL (2010) Stakeholder involvement in water management: the role of the stakeholder analysis within participatory processes. Water Policy 12:675–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stein C, Ernston H, Barron J (2011) A social network approach to analyzing water governance: the case of the Mkindo catchment, Tanzania. Phys Chem Earth 36:1085–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Subandi R (2005) Towards the shifting paradigm of urban water supply policy in Indonesia. First policy forum on urban environmental management in Southeast Asia, Pathumthani, Thailand, Southeast Asia Urban Environmental Management Applications (SEA-UEMA) Project, Asian Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  51. Warner J (2005) Multi-stakeholder platforms: integrating society in water resource management? Ambiente Soc 8:4–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wiek A, Larson KL (2012) Water, people, and sustainability—a systems framework for analyzing and assessing water governance regimes. Water Resour Manag 26(11):3153–3171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wondolleck JM, Yaffee SL (2000) Making collaboration work: lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Silva Larson
    • 1
    • 4
  • Kim S. Alexander
    • 1
    • 5
  • Riyanti Djalante
    • 2
  • Dewi G. C. Kirono
    • 3
  1. 1.CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, Climate Adaptation FlagshipClayton SouthAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Environment and GeographyMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia
  3. 3.CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Climate Adaptation FlagshipAspendaleAustralia
  4. 4.AquaEnergie LLC, USA and School of BusinessJames Cook UniversityAustralia
  5. 5.University of WollongongWollongongAustralia

Personalised recommendations