Integrated river basin management in rapidly urbanizing areas: a case of Shenzhen, China

Research Article


The rapid urbanization of China is causing a burden on their water resources and hindering their sustainable development. This paper analyzes effective methods to integrated river basin management (IRBM) using Longgang River basin of Shenzhen as an example, which is the city with the fastest rate of urbanization in China and even the whole world. Over the past 20 years, China has undergone a population boom due to the increase of immigrant workers and rapid development of laborintensive industries, which led to the sharp increase of water consumption and sewage discharge. However, the construction of the water infrastructure is still lagging far behind the environmental and social development, with only 32.7% of sewage in the district being treated. Currently, every water quality indicator of the Longgang River basin was unable to meet the required corresponding environmental standards, which further aggravated the water shortages of the region. Thus, an analytical framework is proposed to address the IRBM of the study area. The problems with the current management system include the lack of decentralization in decision-making, lack of enforcement with redundant plans, weak management capacity, financial inadequacy, and a poor system of stakeholder participation. In light of the principles of IRBM and the situation of the region, corresponding measures are put forward, including an increase of power given to sub-district offices, fewer but more feasible plans, capacity building among stakeholders, a combination of planning and marketing for overcoming financial inadequacy, and profound reform in the public participation system. The framework and institutional suggestions could inform similar processes in other representative river basins.


integrated river basin management (IRBM) model Longgang River basin Shenzhen decentralization stakeholder participation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Li S. Research on Carrying Capacity of Urban Water Resource and Its Adjusting Method. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Beijing: Peking University, 2003 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kok J L, Kofalk S, Berlekamp J, Hahn B, Wind H. From design to application of a decision-support system for integrated river-basin management. Water Resources Management, 2009, 23(9): 1781–1811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barton D N, Saloranta T, Moe S J, Eggestad H O, Kuikka S. Bayesian belief networks as a meta-modelling tool in integrated river basin management—Pros and cons in evaluating nutrient abatement decisions under uncertainty in a Norwegian river basin. Ecological Economics, 2008, 66(1): 91–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hirschfeld J, Dehnhardt A, Dietrich J. Socioeconomic analysis within an interdisciplinary spatial decision support system for an integrated management of the Werra River Basin. Limnologica, 2005, 35(3): 234–244Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Roncoli C, Kirshen P, Etkin D, Sanon M, Somé L, Dembélé Y, Sanfo B J, Zoungrana J, Hoogenboom G. From management to negotiation: technical and institutional innovations for integrated water resource management in the Upper Comoé River Basin, Burkina Faso. Environmental Management, 2009, 44(4): 695–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jaspers F G W. Institutional arrangements for integrated river basin management. Water Policy, 2003, 2003(5): 77–90Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    CCICED. Promoting Integrated River Basin Management and Restoring China’s Living Rivers. Beijing: China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development, 2004Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tortajada C. Institutions for integrated river basin management in Latin America. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 2001, 17(3): 289–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nakamura T. Ecosystem-based river basin management: Its approach and policy-level application. Hydrological Processes, 2003, 17(14): 2711–2725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nunneri C, Hofmann J. A participatory approach for integrated river basin management in the Elbe catchment. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 2005, 62(3): 521–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Manariotis I D, Yannopoulos P C. Adverse effects on Alfeios River Basin and an integrated management framework based on sustainability. Environmental Management, 2004, 34(2): 261–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hooper B P. Covenant action to facilitate integrated river basin management. Water S A, 2008, 34(4): 456–460Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rajabu K R M. Use and impacts of the river basin game in implementing integrated water resources management in Mkoji subcatchment in Tanzania. Agricultural Water Management, 2007, 94(1–3): 63–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Surridge B, Harris B. Science-driven integrated river basin management: A mirage? Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 2007, 32(3): 298–312Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wandschneider P R. Managing river systems: centralization versus decentralization. Natural Resources Journal, 1984, 24(October): 1043–1066Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Myers J L, Well A D. Research Design & Statistical Analysis (2nd edition). New Jersey, USA: Routledge, 2002Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ostrom E. Understanding Institutional Diversity. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sui D Z, Zeng H. Modeling the dynamics of landscape structure in Asia’s emerging desakota regions: a case study in Shenzhen. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2001, 53(1–4): 37–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yin K. Water Environmental Capacity Technical Report of Shenzhen. Shenzhen: Shenzhen Academy of Environmental Science, 2005 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    South China Institute of Environmental Sciences, Environmental Protection Bureau of Longgang District. Water Environment Improvement Strategy of Longgang District. Shenzhen: South China Institute of Environmental Sciences and Environmental Protection Bureau of Longgang District, 2004 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shenzhen Water Affairs Bureau. Shenzhen Water-Supply Source Planning Revision. Shenzhen: Shenzhen Water Affairs Bureau, 2004 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Peking University Shenzhen Graduate School, Environmental Protection Bureau of Longgang District. Revision of Environmental Plan of Longgang District. Shenzhen: Peking University Shenzhen Graduate School and Environmental Protection Bureau of Longgang District, 2008 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences. Ecological City Construction Plan of Shenzhen. Beijing: Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, 2007 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Statistics Bureau of Longgang District. Economic and Social Development Bulletin of Longgang District 2007. Shenzhen: Statistics Bureau of Longgang District, 2008 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Haslam S M. The Historic River: Rivers and Culture Down the Ages.Cambridge: Cobden of Cambridge Press, 1991Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    van Hofwegen P J M, Jaspers F G W. Analytical Framework for Integrated Water Resources Management—Guidelines for Assessment of Institutional Framework. London: Taylor & Francis, 1999Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    White G. Reflections on the 50-year international search for integrated water management. Water Policy, 1998, 1(1): 21–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kiser L L, Ostrom E. The three worlds of action: a metatheoretical synthesis of institutional approaches. In: McGinnis M D, editor. Polycentric Games and Institutions: Readings from the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ostrom E, Gardner R, Walker J. Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Smajgl A, Leitch A, Lynam T. Outback Institutions: An Application of the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) Framework to Four Case Studies in Australia’s Outback. DKCRC Report 31. Alice Springs: Desert Knowledge Cooperative Research Centre, 2009Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lemos M C, Deoliveira J. Can water reform survive politics? Institutional change and river basin management in Ceará, northeast Brazil. World Development, 2004, 32(12): 2121–2137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Griffiths M. The European Water Framework Directive: An Approach to Integrated River Basin Management. European Water Management Online: European Water Association; 2002Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jones T. Elements of Good Practice in Integrated River Basin Management. Brussels, Belgium: World Wildlife Fund, 2001Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mody J. Achieving accountability through decentralization: lessons for integrated river basin management.World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3346, 2004Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wang Y. Diagnosis and recommendations for transjurisdictional water pollution management in China. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering in China, 2007, 1(4): 401–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Besley T, Coate S. Centralized versus Decentralized Provision of Local Public Goods: A Political Economy Analysis. Cambridge, USA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1999Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Barrow J C. River basin development planning and management: a critical review. World Development, 1998, 26(1): 171–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ostrom E. Governing the Commons: the Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Yan B. Exploitation and practice of the regional sustainable development—a case study of Shanjiang Lake project in Jiangxi province. Green China, 2004, (6): 50–53 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bird R M. Decentralizing infrastructure: For good or ill? Washington D C: World Bank, 1994Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mance G, Raven P J, Bramley M E. Integrated river basin management in England and Wales—a policy perspective. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 2002, 12(4): 339–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Bedan E S, Clausen J C. Stormwater runoff quality and quantity from traditional and low impact development watersheds (1). Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 2009, 45(4): 998–1008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Makarewicz J C, Lewis T W, Bosch I, Noll M R, Herendeen N, Simon R D, Zollweg J, Vodacek A. The impact of agricultural best management practices on downstream systems: soil loss and nutrient chemistry and flux to Conesus Lake, New York, USA. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 2009, 35: 23–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO), Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) and Retention Treatment Basin (RTB) Discharge 2008 Annual Report. Michigan, USA, 2008Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Su Q, Qin H, Zhao Z. Modeling effects of regional industrial structure adjustment on water resource balance and water quality improvement. China Environmental Science, 2009, 29(7): 767–772 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mostert E. The Allocation of Tasks and Competencies in Dutch Water Management: Discussions, Developments and Present State. Delft: RBA Centre, 1998Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rogers P, Bhatia R, Huber A. Water as a Social and Economic Good: How to Put the Principle into Practice. Stockholm, Sweden: Technical Advisory Committee, Global Water Partnership, 1998Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Holden P, Thobani M. Tradable water rights: a property rights approach to improving water use and promoting investment. Latin American Journal of Economics, 1995, 32(97): 263–290Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ostrom E. Crossing the great divide: coproduction, synergy, and development. World Development, 1996, 24(6): 1073–1087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hawley D, Raven P J, Anstey K L, Crisp S, Freeman D, Cullis J. Riverside Explorer: an educational application of river habitat survey information. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 2002, 12(4): 457–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wen T K, Mokhtar M B. An appropriate institutional framework towards integrated water resources management in Pahang River basin, Malaysia. European Journal of Scientific Research, 2009, 27(4): 536–547Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Environmental Sciences and EngineeringPeking UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations