Advertisement

Sustainability Science

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 1155–1166 | Cite as

Hydro-social arrangements and paradigmatic change in water governance: an analysis of the sustainable development goals (SDGs)

  • Viviana WieglebEmail author
  • Antje Bruns
Case Report
  • 404 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Sustainability Transitions, Management, and Governance

Abstract

SDG 6 presents a global water agenda and an important opportunity to steer development trajectories towards a water-secure world. Based on semi-structured interviews and a political ecology perspective, this study takes water and SDG 6 as a focal point to analyze the shift from MDGs to SDGs in terms of underlying governance paradigms and policy change dynamics. Results indicate that the water-related SDG constitutes an important shift of UN policies in the realms of development cooperation and sustainable development policies by merging these two strands. While the MDGs were largely framed in line with conventional governance and management approaches, SDG 6 portrays a more holistic and inclusive agenda, which is also reflected in actor arrangement changing within the international water community. Nevertheless, ‘state-hydraulic paradigm’ approaches are still prevalent within Goal 6 and current implementation. To stimulate a more fundamental paradigm change towards a socio-hydrological perspective, the analysis suggests to acknowledge the wider political environment of water challenges.

Keywords

SDGs Water governance Policy and paradigm change Hydro-social cycle 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research has been funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) under the reference number 01 LN 1316 A. We would like to thank all members of the Governance and Sustainability Lab at Trier University who commented on earlier versions of this article as well as two anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback. We would also like to thank all our interview partners who voluntarily shared their time and knowledge to make this research possible.

Supplementary material

11625_2017_518_MOESM1_ESM.docx (28 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 28 KB)

References

  1. Bakker K (2003) An uncooperative commodity: privatizing water in England and Wales. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakker K (2009) Water. In: Castree N, Demeritt D, Liverman D, Rhoads B (eds) A companion to environmental geography. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, pp 515–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakker K (2012) Water: political, biopolitical, material. Soc Stud Sci 42(4):616–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnes J, Alatout S (2012) Water worlds: introduction to the special issue of Social Studies of Science. Soc Stud Sci 42(4):483–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Batchelor C (2007) Water governance literature assessment. International Institute for Environment and Development: http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/G02523.pdf?. Retrieved 16 March 2016
  6. Biermann F, Betsill M, Gupta J, Kanie N, Lebel L, Liverman D, Schroeder H, Siebenhüner B; with contributions from Conca K, da Costa Ferreira L, Desai B, Tay S, Zondervan R (2009) Earth system governance: people, places and the planet. Science and Implementation Plan of the Earth System Governance Project. Earth System Governance Report 1, IHDP Report 20, BonnGoogle Scholar
  7. Budds J (2009) Contested H2O: science, policy and politics in water resources management in Chile. Geoforum 40(3):418–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Castree N, Braun B (2001) Social nature: theory, practice and politics. Wiley-Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Cortner HJ, Moote MA (1994) Trends and issues in land and water resources management: setting the agenda for change. Environ Manag 18(2):167–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. European Commission (2017) The sustainable development goals. European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/policies/sustainable-development-goals_en. Retrieved 27 Aug 2017
  11. Falkenmark M (1997) Society’s interaction with the water cycle: a conceptual framework for a more holistic approach. Hydrol Sci J 42(4):451–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Falkenmark M, Rockström J (2004) Balancing water for humans and nature: the new approach in ecohydrology. Earthscan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Forsyth T (2004) Critical political ecology: the politics of environmental science. Routledge, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gläser J, Laudel G (2013) Life with and without coding: two methods for early-stage data analysis in qualitative research aiming at causal explanations. Forum Qual Soc Res 14(2)Google Scholar
  15. Gleick PH (2000) A look at twenty-first century water resources development. Water Int 25(1):127–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gupta J, Pahl-Wostl C (2013) Global water governance in the context of global and multilevel governance: its need, form, and challenges. Ecol Soc 18(4):53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik J (1992) Analyse verbaler Daten: Über den Umgang mit qualitativen Daten. Westdeutscher Verlag, OpladenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kaika M (2003) The water framework directive: a new directive for a changing social, political and economic European framework. Eur Plan Stud 11(3):299–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kuhn TS (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  20. Linton J (2014) Modern water and its discontents: a history of hydrosocial renewal. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Water 1(1):111–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Linton J, Budds J (2014) The hydrosocial cycle: defining and mobilizing a relational-dialectical approach to water. Geoforum 57:170–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Loftus A (2007) Working the socio-natural relations of the urban waterscape in South Africa. Int J Urban Reg Res 31(1):41–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mayring P (2008) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken. Beltz, WeinheimGoogle Scholar
  24. Molle F (2007) Scales and power in river basin management: the Chao Phraya River in Thailand. Geogr J 173(4):358–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. OECD (2016) Better policies for sustainable development 2016: a new framework for policy coherence. OECD. http://www.oecd.org/publications/better-policies-for-sustainable-development-2016-9789264256996-en.htm. Retrieved 26 Aug 2017
  26. Pahl-Wostl C (2015) Water governance in the face of global change: from understanding to transformation. Springer International Publishing, SwitzerlandCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pahl-Wostl C, Conca K, Kramer A, Maestu J, Schmidt F (2013) Missing Links in Global Water Governance: a processes-oriented analysis. Ecol Soc 18(2):33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Palonen K (2003) Four times of politics: policy, polity, politicking, and politicization. Alternatives 28(2):171–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Swyngedouw E (1999) Modernity and hybridity: nature, regeneracionismo, and the production of the Spanish waterscape, 1890–1930. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 89(3):443–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Swyngedouw E (2004) Social power and the urbanization of water: flows of power. University Press Oxford, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  31. United Nations (2016) Progress towards the sustainable development goals—Report of the Secretary-General. UN Economic and Social Council. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=E/2016/75. Retrieved 10 Nov 2016
  32. United Nations (2017) Progress towards the sustainable development goals—report of the Secretary-General. UN Economic and Social Council. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=E/2017/66&Lang=E. Retrieved 29 Aug 2017
  33. UN-Water (2015) Indicators and monitoring. UN-Water. http://www.unwater.org/sdgs/indicators-and-monitoring/en/. Retrieved 28 March 2015
  34. Vörösmarty CJ, Hoekstra AY, Bunn SE, Conway D, Gupta J (2015) Fresh water goes global. Science 349(6247):478–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Governance and Sustainability Lab, Faculty of Regional and Environmental SciencesTrier UniversityTrierGermany

Personalised recommendations