Advertisement

Methods and Cases

  • Laura Mae Jacqueline Herzog
Chapter
  • 23 Downloads

Abstract

The chapter lays out the methods applied to conduct the research and the case studies the study investigates. The chapter takes King et al.’s (1994) statement as starting point: “a research design is a plan that shows, through a discussion of our model and data, how we expect to use our evidence to make inferences” (King G, Keohane RO, Verba S, Designing social inquiry. Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton University Press, Princenton, NJ, 1994, p. 118). I first discuss the concepts of public policy analysis that inform the context of the research’s unit of analysis. The research focuses on actors’ cooperation, the unit of analysis, that happens within the management process of a CPR problem setting. Public policy analysis defines the policy problem the CPR problem represents, constitutionalizes the stage within the policy-making process that the CPR management process is located at, describes the potential solutions to the problem at hand and the way in which these solutions are put in place.

The social-ecological system framework (SESF) I introduce thereafter guides the research design and the operationalization of the dependent, independent, and control variables—both conceptually and technically. I further define the case study selection criteria and present the three case studies and the national and regional water laws that apply in each one. In the last two sub-chapters, I describe the data collection process and the data analysis methods of the research, that is, descriptive and inferential Social Network Analysis (SNA) and a most-similar case research design.

Keywords

Research design Public policy analysis Social-ecological system framework (SESF) Social Network Analysis (SNA) Exponential random graph models (ERGM) EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) Case study comparison 

References

Sources

  1. e-mail N° 1. Department Raum- und Umweltwissenschaften, field of Analytische und Ökologische Chemie, University of Trier, 10 November 2016Google Scholar
  2. Telephone call N° 1. Division “Protection des Eaux” of the Administration de la Gestion de l’Eau, Ministry for Durable Development and Infrastructure, Luxembourg, 22 November 2016Google Scholar
  3. Telephone call N° 3. Division “Innovation, Umwelt & Energie”, Industrie- und Handelskammer Rheinland-Pfalz, 12 December 2016Google Scholar
  4. Telephone call N° 4. DVGW NRW, 21 December 2016Google Scholar

Primary Literature

  1. Administration de la Gestion de l’Eau (2016) Distribution et responsabilités [online]. Grand-Duché de Luxembourg; Administration de la Gestion de l’Eau. Available from: https://eau.public.lu/eau_potable/production_distribution_responsabilites/Distribution-et-responsabilites/index.html. Accessed 25 Sept 2019
  2. agw, BWK NRW DWA NRW Städtetag NRW, Städte- und Gemeindebund NRW (2014) Memorandum für einen Schutz der Gewässer vor Spurenstoffen der agw, des BWK-Landesverbandes NRW, des DWA-Landesverbandes NRW, des Städte- und Gemeindebundes NRW und des Städtetages NRW. [online]. Available from: https://bwk-nrw.de/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/agw_memorandum_2014.pdf. Accessed 27 Sept 2019
  3. AWWR (2018) Trinkwassergewinnung an der Ruhr. Über 230 Mio. m3 Trinkwasser pro Jahr für die Menschen im Einzugsgebiet [online]. Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wasserwerke an der Ruhr (AWWR). Available from: https://www.awwr.de/trink-wassergewinnung/. Accessed 25 Sept 2019
  4. AWWR, Ruhrverband (2016) Ruhrgütebericht 2016. Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wasserwerke an der Ruhr (AWWR)/Ruhrverband, EssenGoogle Scholar
  5. BAFU (2012) Verursachergerechte Finanzierung der Elimination von Spurenstoffen im Abwasser - Änderung des Gewässerschutzgesetzes (GSchG). Auswertung der Vernehmlassung von April-August 2012. Bundesamt für Umwelt, BernGoogle Scholar
  6. bfv-trier (2019) Bezirks-Fischerei-Verband Trier 1922 e.V. (BFV-Trier) [online]. Available from: https://www.bfv-trier.de/. Accessed 25 Sept 2019
  7. BMBF (2019) Risikomanagement von neuen Schadstoffen und Krankheitserregern im Wasserkreislauf (RiSKWa) [online]. Available from: http://www.riskwa.de/de_1294.html. Accessed 25 Sept 2019
  8. BMBF, RiSKWa, FONA (n.d.) Sichere Ruhr. Das Projekt Sichere Ruhr - Was machen wir? [online]. Available from: https://sichere-ruhr.de/. Accessed 25 Sept 2019
  9. BMJV (2009) Gesetz zur Ordnung des Wasserhaushalts (Wasserhaushaltsgesetz). WHG. 31 July. Available from: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/whg_2009/WHG.pdf. Accessed 25 Sept 2019
  10. BMJV (2016) Verordnung zum Schutz der Oberflächengewässer (Oberflächengewässerverordnung). OGewV. 20 June. Available from: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/ogewv_2016/OGewV.pdf. Accessed 25 Sept 2019
  11. BMU (2016) Spurenstoffstrategie des Bundes [online]. Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsicherheit (BMU). Available from: https://www.bmub.bund.de/pressemitteilung/spurenstoffstrategie-des-bundes/. Accessed 23 Sept 2019
  12. BMU, UBA, Frauenhofer Institut Karlsruhe (2017) Empfehlungen des Stakeholder-Dialogs “Spurenstoffstrategie des Bundes” an die Politik zur Reduktion von Spurenstoffeinträgen in die Gewässer. Policy Paper: Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsicherheit (BMU)Google Scholar
  13. Braun C, Gälli R (2014) Mikroverunreinigungen aus Industrie und Gewerbe. Erste Grundlagenerhebungen mittels Umfragen bei den Kantonen zu vorhandenen Informationen. Bern, BMG Engineering AG, SchlierenGoogle Scholar
  14. Bundesversammlung der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft (1991) Bundesgesetz über den Schutz der Gewässer (Gewässerschutzgesetz). GSchG. 24 January. Available from: https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/19910022/201701010000/814.20.pdf. Accessed 25 Sept 2019
  15. Cercl’Eau (2010) Massnahme zur Verringerung der Mikroverunreinigungen in den Gewässern zum Schutze des Ökosystems und des Trinkwassers. Änderung der Gewässerschutzverordnung (GSchV; SR 814.201). Stellungnahme des Cercl’Eau, 28 AprilGoogle Scholar
  16. commons.wikimedia (2016) Map of ruhr [online]. Available from: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ruhr#/media/File:Verlaufskarte_Ruhr2.png. Accessed 25 Sept 2019
  17. Der Bundesrat (2017) Das Portal der Schweizer Regierung. Kollegium seit 1848 [online]. Available from: https://www.admin.ch/gov/de/start/bundesrat/geschichte-des-bundesrats/schweizer-regierung-zusammensetzung-seit-1848.html. Accessed 25 Sept 2019
  18. Der Schweizerische Bundesrat (1998) Gewässerschutzverordnung. GSchV. 28 October. Available from: https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/classified-compilation/19983281/201801010000/814.201.pdf. Accessed 25 Sept 2019
  19. EC (2017) Communication on a strategic approach to pharmaceuticals in the environment. Roadmap: European Commission (EC). Ares(2017)2210630, 28 AprilGoogle Scholar
  20. EU (2000) DIRECTIVE 2000/60/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policyGoogle Scholar
  21. EU (2001) DECISION No 2455/2001/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 20 November 2001 establishing the list of priority substances in the field of water policy and amending Directive 2000/60/ECGoogle Scholar
  22. EU (2008) DIRECTIVE 2008/105/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 16 December 2008 on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy, amending and subsequently repealing Council Directives 82/176/EEC, 83/513/EEC, 84/156/EEC, 84/491/EEC, 86/280/EEC and amending Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the CouncilGoogle Scholar
  23. EU (2013) DIRECTIVE 2013/39/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL of 12 August 2013 amending Directives 2000/60/EC and 2008/105/EC as regards priority substances in the field of water policyGoogle Scholar
  24. EU (2014) COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2014/101/EU of 30 October 2014 amending Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policyGoogle Scholar
  25. EU (2019a) EU member countries in brief [online]. European Union. Available from: https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/countries/member-countries_en. Accessed 25 Sept 2019
  26. EU (2019b) EU law. Regulations, Directives and other acts [online]. European Union. Available from: https://europa.eu/european-union/eu-law/legal-acts_en. Accessed 25 Sept 2019
  27. EU (2019c) About the EU. Countries [online]. Available from: https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/countries_en. Accessed 25 Sept 2019
  28. FLPS (2019) Fédération Luxembourgeoise des Pécheurs Sportifs [online]. Fédération Luxembourgeoise des Pécheurs Sportifs a.s.b.l. (FLPS). Available from: http://www.flps.lu/. Accessed 25 Sept 2019
  29. FV NRW (2018) Fischereiverband Nordrhein-Westfalen e.V. [online]. Fischereiverband Nordrhein-Westfalen e.V. Available from: https://www.fischereiverband-nrw.de/. Accessed 25 Sept 2019
  30. FV Saar (2010) Fischereiverband Saar, Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts [online]. Fischereiverband Saar KöR. Available from: https://www.fischereiverband-saar.de/. Accessed 25 Sept 2019
  31. HKBB (2012) Änderung des Gewässerschutzgesetzes. Mikroverunreinigungen: Spezialfinanzierung für ARA-Ausbau. Stellungnahme. Basel, 30 AugustGoogle Scholar
  32. ICPR (2019) Moselle-Saar. Moselle [online]. Internationale Kommission zum Schutz des Rheins (IKSR/ICPR). Available from: https://www.iksr.org/en/topics/rhine/sub-basins/moselle-saar/?sword_list%5B0%5D=mosel&cHash=38ddeb3d59cdb226b67f1d3f92215535. Accessed 25 Sept 2019
  33. IKSMS (n.d.-a) Das Einzugsgebiet von Mosel und Saar in der Flussgebietseinheit Rhein [online]. Internationale Kommissionen zum Schutze der Mosel und der Saar (IKSMS). Available from: http://www.iksms-cipms.org/servlet/is/20045/. Accessed 25 Sept 2019
  34. IKSMS (n.d.-b) Die IKSMS - Abstimmungsplattform zur Umsetzung der europäischen Wasserrahmenrichtlinie [online]. Internationale Kommissionen zum Schutze der Mosel und der Saar (IKSMS). Available from: http://www.iksms-cipms.org/servlet/is/20052/. Accessed 25 Sept 2019
  35. IKSMS (n.d.-c) Richtlinie 2000/60/EG Internationale Flussgebietseinheit RHEIN Internationales Bearbeitungsgebiet “Mosel-Saar”. Bestandsaufnahme (Teil B). Konz: Internationale Komissionen zum Schutze der Mosel und der Saar (IKSMS)Google Scholar
  36. IKSMS (n.d.-d) Richtlinie 2000/60/EG Internationale Flussgebietseinheit RHEIN Internationales Bearbeitungsgebiet Mosel-Saar (Teil B). Bewirtschaftungsplan 2016-2021. Konz: Internationale Komissionen zum Schutze der Mosel und der Saar (IKSMS)Google Scholar
  37. juraforum (2012) UDE: Neues Projekt “Sichere Ruhr” - Alles im Fluss? [online]. Einbock GmbH. Available from: https://www.juraforum.de/wissenschaft/ude-neues-projekt-sichere-ruhr-alles-im-fluss-417646. Accessed 25 Sept 2019
  38. Kanton BS, Kanton BL (2013) Erweiterung der ARA Basel: Projektierungskredit beantragt. Press release. Basel, Liestal: Kantone BS und BL, 27 August.Google Scholar
  39. KFVBS (2016) Kantonaler Fischereiverband Basel-Stadt (KFVBS) [online]. Kantonaler Fischereiverband Basel-Stadt (KFVBS). Available from: http://www.basler-fischerei.ch/web7old/. Accessed 24 Sept 2019
  40. LANUV (2013) Gebietsverzeichnis GSK3C [online]. Landesamt für Natur, Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Nordrhein-Westfalen (LANUV). Available from: https://www.lanuv.nrw.de/fileadmin/lanuv/wasser/pdf/Gebietsverzeichnis%20GSK3C.xls. Accessed 25 Sept 2019
  41. LANUV (2019) Wasserversorgung. Trinkwasserressourcen - Herkunft des Trinkwassers [online]. Landesamt für Natur, Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Nordrhein-Westfalen (LANUV). Available from: https://www.lanuv.nrw.de/umwelt/wasser/wasserversorgungtrinkwasser/trinkwasserressourcen-herkunft-des-trinkwassers. Accessed 25 Sept 2019
  42. LAWA (2016) Mikroschadstoffe in Gewässern: Bund/Länder-Arbeitsgemeinschaft Wasser (LAWA). Beschlossen auf der 151. LAWA-VV am 17./18. März 2016 in StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  43. Le Gouvernement du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (2017) Loi du 20 juillet 2017 modifiant la loi modifiée du 19 décembre 2008 relative à l’eau. A690. Available from: http://legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/loi/2017/07/20/a690/jo. Accessed 25 Sept 2015
  44. Le Gouvernement du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (2019) The official portal of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. Politics and institutions [online]. Le Gouvernement du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg. Available from: http://luxembourg.public.lu/en/le-grand-duche-se-presente/luxembourg-tour-horizon/politique-et-institutions/index.html. Accessed 25 Sept 2015
  45. LIST (2018a) noPills. No PILLS in waters! [online]. Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology (LIST). Available from: https://www.list.lu/en/research/project/nopills/. Accessed 27 Sept 2019
  46. LIST (2018b) RivHerb. Exploring mixture toxicity of herbicides in rivers and its treatment by ecotoxicological models [online]. Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology (LIST). Available from: https://www.list.lu/en/research/project/rivherb/. Accessed 27 Sept 2019
  47. LIST (2018c) Sentinelle III. Warning and advisory platform for the main pests and diseases in the major crops in Luxembourg [online]. Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology (LIST). Available from: https://www.list.lu/en/research/project/sentinelle3/. Accessed 26 February 2018
  48. Luxemburger Wort (2014a) Nach Verunreinigungsvorfall in Belgien: Chemische Substanz in der Sauer ist Rapsherbizid. Meazachlor könnte im schlimmsten Fall Folgen für Trinkwasseraufbereitung am Obersauer-Stausee haben. News release, Luxemburg Stadt, 29 Sept. Available from: http://www.wort.lu/de/lokales/nach-verunreinigungsvorfall-in-belgien-chemische-substanz-in-der-sauer-ist-rapsherbizid-542959ceb9b398870806dfbf. Accessed 25 Sept 2019
  49. Luxemburger Wort (2014b) Grundbelastung des Wassers: Pestizide im Trinkwasser - und jetzt?! Der “Mouvement écologique” fordert konkretes Angehen der offensichtlichen und vernachlässigten Probleme. Luxemburg Stadt, 20 October. Available from: http://www.wort.lu/de/lokales/grundbelastung-des-wassers-pestizide-im-trinkwasser-und-jetzt-54450924b9b398870807c3e5. Accessed 25 Sept 2019
  50. LWL (2018) Öffentliche Trinkwasserversorgung Westfalen. Wasserförderung [online]. Landschaftsverband Westfalen-Lippe (LWL). Available from: https://www.lwl.org/LWL/Kultur/Westfalen_Regional/Wirtschaft/Trinkwasser/#anker-5. Accessed 25 Sept 2019
  51. MDDI (2009) Bewirtschaftungsplan für das Groβherzogtum Luxemburg. Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie. Le Gouvernement du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg; Ministère du Développement durable et des infrastructures (MDDI); Administration de la Gestion de l’Eau, Esch-sur-Alzette, DecemberGoogle Scholar
  52. MDDI (2014) Bericht zur Bestandsaufnahme für Luxemburg. Umsetzung der europäischen Wasserrahmenrichtlinie (2000/60/EG). Le Gouvernement du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg; Ministère du Développement durable et des infrastructures (MDDI); Administration de la Gestion de l’Eau, Esch-sur-Alzette, OctoberGoogle Scholar
  53. MDDI (2015a) Entwurf des Bewirtschaftungsplans für die luxemburgischen Anteile an den internationalen Flussgebietseinheiten Rhein und Maas (2015-2021). Umsetzung der europäischen Wasserrahmenrichtlinie (2000/60/EG). Le Gouvernement du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg; Ministère du Développement durable et des infrastructures (MDDI); Administration de la Gestion de l’Eau, Esch-sur-Alzette, FebruaryGoogle Scholar
  54. MDDI (2015b) Bewirtschaftungsplan für die luxemburgischen Anteile an den internationalen Flussgebietseinheiten Rhein und Maas (2015-2021). Umsetzung der europäischen Wasserrahmenrichtlinie (2000/60/EG). Le Gouvernement du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg; Ministère du Développement durable et des infrastructures (MDDI); Administration de la Gestion de l’Eau, Esch-sur-Alzette, DecemberGoogle Scholar
  55. Ministerium der Justiz, RLP (2015) Landeswassergesetz (LWG) Vom 14. Juli 2015. LWGGoogle Scholar
  56. Ministerium der Justiz, Saarland (2004) Gesetz Nr. 714 - Saarländisches Wassergesetz (SWG) Vom 28. Juni 1960. in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 30. Juli 2004. zuletzt geändert durch das Gesetz vom 3. Dezember 2013. SWGGoogle Scholar
  57. MKULNV (2009) Trinkwasserbericht Nordrhein-Westfalen. Düsseldorf, FebruaryGoogle Scholar
  58. MKULNV (2012) Programm Reine Ruhr. zur Strategie einer nachhaltigen Verbesserung der Gewässer- und Trinkwasserqualität in Nordrhein-Westfalen. Available from: http://www.taz.de/fileadmin/static/pdf/ProgrammReineRuhrBerichtFINAL.pdf. Accessed 25 Sept 2019
  59. MKULNV (2015) Bewirtschaftungsplan 2016-2021 für die nordrhein-westfälischen Anteile von Rhein, Weser, Ems und Maas. Ministerium für Umwelt und Naturschutz, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz des Landes Nordrhein-WestfalenGoogle Scholar
  60. MKULNV (2018) Bekanntmachung der Neufassung des Wassergesetzes für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Landeswassergesetz) Vom 25. Juni 1995. LWG. 19 JanuaryGoogle Scholar
  61. MUEEF (2010) Zusammenfassung der Beiträge des Landes Rheinland-Pfalz zum Bewirtschaftungsplan und der Maβnahmenprogramme für den internationalen Bewirtschaftungsplan Rhein. Ministerium für Umwelt, Forsten und Verbraucherschutz, Rheinland-Pfalz; Abteilung Wasserwirtschaft, Mainz, 22 MarchGoogle Scholar
  62. MUEEF (2015) Rheinland-Pfälzischer Bewirtschaftungsplan 2016-2021. Ministerium für Umwelt, Landwirtschaft, Ernährung, Weinbau und Forsten, Rheinland-Pfalz; Abteilung Wasserwirtschaft, Mainz, 22 DecemberGoogle Scholar
  63. MUV (2015) 2. Bewirtschaftungsplan Saarland. nach Artikel 13 der Richtlinien 2000/60/EG des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 23. Oktober 2000. Ministerium für Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz SaarlandGoogle Scholar
  64. MUV (2016) Studie zur Reduktion von Mikroverunreinigungen in Gewässern: Umweltminister Jost überreicht rund 222.500 Euro an EVS. Ministerium für Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz Saarland, 21 DecemberGoogle Scholar
  65. ProRheno AG (2016) Erweiterung ARA Basel [online]. Accessed 25 Sept 2019Google Scholar
  66. Rechsteiner R (2006) An die Geschäftsprüfungskommissionen von Basel-Landschaft und von Basel-Stadt. Hardwasser AGGoogle Scholar
  67. RFG (2018) Die Ruhrfischereigenossenschaft (RFG) [online]. Ruhrfischereigenossenschaft (RFG). Available from: http://www.ruhrfischereigenossenschaft.de/. Accessed 25 Sept 2019
  68. Rheinaubund (2012) Stellungnahme zur Änderung des Gewässerschutzgesetzes (Verursachergerechte Finanzierung der Elimination von Spurenstoffen im Abwasser). Schaffhausen, 30 AugustGoogle Scholar
  69. Ruhr-Guide (2018) Die Ruhr [online]. Available from: http://www.ruhr-guide.de/freizeit/seen-und-fluesse/die-ruhr/14123,0,0.html. Accessed 23 Sept 2019
  70. RWTH Aachen, IWW (2008) Abschlussbericht zu den Forschungsvorhaben:. “Senkung des Anteils organischer Spurenstoffe in der Ruhr durch zusätzliche Behandlungsstufen auf kommunalen Kläranlagen - Gütebetrachtungen” und “Senkung des Anteils organischer Spurenstoffe in der Ruhr durch zusätzliche Behandlungsstufen auf kommunalen Kläranlagen - Kostenbetrachtungen”. Mühlheim an der RuhrGoogle Scholar
  71. SBV (2012) Vernehmlassung zur Änderung des Gewässerschutzgesetzes (Elimination von Spurenstoffen). BruggGoogle Scholar
  72. SEBES (n.d.) La Distribution. Le réseau d’adduction du SEBES [online]. Syndicat des Eaux du Barrage d’Esch-sur-Sûre (SEBES). Available from: https://sebes.lu/syndicat-eaux-barrage-desch-sure/reseau-du-sebes/. Accessed 25 Sept 2019
  73. SES (2014) Präsenz von Pestiziden im Trinkwasser. Pressekonferenz vom 9. Oktober 2014 über die momentane Situation des Trinkwassers. Press release, 9 October. Available from: http://www.ses-eau.lu/online/www/navMain/13/40/402/contentContainer1/1097/984/DEU/communique%20SES.pdf. Accessed 25 Sept 2019
  74. UNECE (2011) Second Assessment of Transboundary Rivers, Lakes and Groundwaters [online]. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). Available from: http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/water/publications/assessment/English/ECE_Second_Assessment_En.pdf. Accessed 25 Sept 2019
  75. Universität Saarland (2019) Gewässer-Monitoring. Arbeitsgruppe der Universität des Saarlandes [online]. Universität des Saarlandes, Anorganische und Analytische Chemie. Available from: http://www.gewaesser-monitoring.de/?Projekte. Accessed 25 Sept 2019
  76. wikimedia (2018a) Karte_Gemeinden_des_Kantons_Basel_Stadt_2007 [online]. Available from: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Karte_Gemeinden_des_Kantons_Basel_Stadt_2007.png. Accessed 25 Sept 2019
  77. wikimedia (2018b) Switzerland_in_Europe [online]. Available from: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/Switzerland_in_Europe.svg. Accessed 25 Sept 2019

Secondary Literature

  1. Abegglen, C., and Siegrist, H. (2012) Mikroverunreinigungen aus kommunalem Abwasser. Verfahren zur weitergehenden Elimination auf Kläranlagen. Bern.Google Scholar
  2. Abu-Laban B (1965) The reputational approach in the study of community power: a critical evaluation. Pac Sociol Rev 8(1):35–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen JH (2013) The wicked problem of chemical policy: opportunities for innovation. J Environ Stud Sci 3(2):101–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amblard L (2012) The potential of collective action for the control of nonpoint source pollution in European rural areas. Conference “Design and Dynamics of Institutions for Collective Action”, Utrecht University, 29 November until 1 DecemberGoogle Scholar
  5. Anckar C (2008) On the applicability of the most similar systems design and the most different systems design in comparative research. Int J Soc Res Methodol 11(5):389–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ansell C, Gash A (2008) Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J Public Adm Res Theory 18(4):543–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Asano T, Cotruvo JA (2004) Groundwater recharge with reclaimed municipal wastewater: health and regulatory considerations. Water Res 38:1941–1951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Basurto X, Gelcich S, Ostrom E (2013) The social-ecological system framework as a knowledge classificatory system for benthic small-scale fisheries. Glob Environ Chang 23(6):1366–1380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baumgartner FR, Leech BL (2001) Interest niches and policy bandwagons: patterns of interest group involvement in national politics. J Polit 63(4):1191–1213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bennet A (2004) Case study methods: design, use, and comparative advantages. In: Sprinz DF, Wolinsky-Nahmias Y (eds) Models, numbers, and cases: methods for studying international relations. University of Michigan Press, Michigan, pp 19–55Google Scholar
  11. Bennet A, Elman C (2008) Case study methods. In: Reus-Smit C, Snidal D (eds) The Oxford handbook of international relations. Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York, pp 499–517Google Scholar
  12. Berardo R (2014) Bridging and bonding capital in two-mode collaboration networks. Policy Stud J 42(2):197–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Berger H (2017) Die Länderkompetenz im Wasserrecht. Zeitschrift für Landesverfassungsrecht und Landesverwaltungsrecht 2(1):4–11Google Scholar
  14. Bergsten A, Galafassi D, Bodin Ö (2014) The problem of spatial fit (in social-ecological systems): detecting spatial mismatches between ecological connectivity and land management in an urban region. Ecol Soc 19(6)Google Scholar
  15. Beyers J, Braun C (2014) Ties that count: explaining interest group access to policymakers. J Publ Policy 34:93–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Johnson JC (2013) Analyzing social networks. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Börzel TA (1998) Organizing Babylon – on the different conceptions of policy networks. Public Adm Rev 76:253–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Breitenfeld J (2007) Woher kommt unser Trinkwasser? Statistische Monatshefte Rheinland-Pfalz 3:170–175Google Scholar
  19. Bressers HTA, O’Toole LJ (1998) The selection of policy instruments: a network-based perspective. J Publ Policy 18(3):213–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bundschuh M, Schulz R (2011) Ozonation of secondary treated wastewater reduces ecotoxicity to Gammarus fossarum (Crustacea; Amphipoda):. Are loads of (micro)pollutants responsible? Water Res 45:3999–4007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Bunzel K, Kattwinkel M, Liess M (2013) Effects of organic pollutants from wastewater treatment plants on aquatic invertebrate communities. Water Res 47(2):597–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Carpenter D (2010) Reputation and power: organizational image and pharmaceutical regulation at the FDA. Princeton University Press, Princenton, NJGoogle Scholar
  23. Carvalho RN, Arukwe A, Ait-Aissa S, Bado-Nilles A, Balzamo S, Baun A, Belkin S et al (2014) Mixtures of chemical pollutants at European legislation safety concentrations: how safe are they? Toxicol Sci 141(1):218–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Chèvre N, Loepfe C, Singer H, Stamm C, Fenner K, Escher BI (2006) Including mixtures in the determination of water quality criteria for herbicides in surface water. Environ Sci Technol 40(2):426–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Coleman JS (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital. Am J Sociol 94:S95–S120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cox M (2014) Applying a social-ecological system framework to the study of the Taos valley irrigation system. Hum Ecol 42:311–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Cox M (2015) A basic guide for empirical environmental social science. Ecol Soc 20(1):63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Cranmer SJ, Desmarais BA (2010) Inferential network analysis with exponential random graph models. Polit Anal 19(66-86)Google Scholar
  29. Cranmer SJ, Leifeld P, McClurg SD, Rolfe M (2017) Navigating the range of statistical tools for inferential network analysis. Am J Polit Sci 61(1):237–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Crona BI, Ernstson H, Prell C, Reed M, Hubacek K (2011) Combining social network approaches with social theories to improve understanding of natural resource governance. In: Bodin Ö, Prell C (eds) Social networks and natural resource management. uncovering the social fabric of environmental governance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/New York, pp 44–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Etzioni A (1975) A comparative analysis of complex organizations. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Fischer M, Sciarini P (2013) Unpacking reputational power: actors’ attributes and relations. Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (EAWAG), DübendorfGoogle Scholar
  33. Fleischmann FD, Ban NC, Evans LS, Epstein G, Garcia-Lopez G, Villamayor-Tomas S (2014) Governing large-scale social-ecological systems: Lessons from five cases. Int J Commons 8(2):428–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fleishman R (2013) Addressing trans-boundary challenges through collaboration: how organizations “Harmonize” actions and decisions across problem landscapes. SURFACE Paper 5. Dissertations – ALLGoogle Scholar
  35. Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, Norberg J (2005) Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30(1):441–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gälli R, Schmid-Kleinkemper J, Ort C, Schärer M (2009) Mikroverunreinigungen in den Gewässern. Bewertung und Reduktion der Schadstoffbelastung aus der Siedlungsentwässerung. Bundesamt für Umwelt, BernGoogle Scholar
  37. 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. Philos Trans R Soc 371Google Scholar
  38. Gerring J (2001) Social science methodology. A critical approach. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gerring J (2004) What is a case study and what is it good for? Am Polit Sci Rev 98(2):341–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gerring J (2007) Case study research. Principles and practices. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  41. Götz C, Kase R, Hollender J (2010) Mikroverunreinigungen. Beurteilungskonzept für organische Spurenstoffe aus kommunalem Abwasser. Studie im Auftrag des Bundesamtes für Umwelt (BAFU), Eawag (ed.), Dübendorf, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  42. Greskowiak J, Prommer H, Massmann G, Jonston CD, Nützmann G, Pekdeger A (2005) The impact of variably saturated conditions on hydrogeochemical changes during artificial recharge of groundwater. Appl Geochem 20:1409–1426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hall PA (1993) Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: the case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comp Polit 25(3):275–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Handcock MS, Hunter DR, Butts CT, Goodreau SM, Morris M (2008) statnet: software tools for the representation, visualization, analysis and simulation of network data. J Stat Softw 24(1)Google Scholar
  45. Handcock MS, Hunter DR, Butts CT, Goodreau SM, Krivitsky PN, Bender-deMoll S, Morris M (2016) statnet: Software tools for the statistical analysis of network data: the statnet project. CRAN.R-project.org/package=statnet. Available from: http://www.statnet.org. Accessed 27 Sept 2019.
  46. Heaney MT (2014) Multiplex networks and interest group influence reputation: an exponential random graph model. Soc Networks 36:66–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Henry AD, Dietz T (2011) Information, networks, and the complexity of trust in commons governance. Int J Commons 5(2):188–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Henry AD, Vollan B (2012) Risk, networks, and ecological explanations for the emergence of cooperation in commons governance. Ration Mark Moral 59(3):130–147Google Scholar
  49. Hillenbrand T, Tettenborn F, Menger-Krug E, Marscheider-Weidemann F, Fuchs S (2015) Maβnahmen zur Verminderung des Eintrages von Mikroschadstoffen in die Gewässer. Kurzbericht 86/2014. Umweltbundesamt, Dessau-RoβlauGoogle Scholar
  50. Hood C (1986) The tools of government: public policy and politics. N.J. Chatham House Publishers, ChathamGoogle Scholar
  51. Howlett M (2000) Managing the “hollow state”: procedural policy instruments and modern governance. Can Public Adm 43(4):412–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Howlett M (2005) What is a policy instrument? Tools, mixes, and implementation styles. In: Eliadis P, Hill MM, Howlett M (eds) Designing government. From instruments to governance. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal/Ithaca, pp 31–50Google Scholar
  53. Howlett M, Giest S (2013) The policy-making process. In: Araral E Jr et al (eds) Routledge handbook of public policy. Routledge, London/New York, pp 17–28Google Scholar
  54. Hülshoff I, Greskowiak J, Grützmacher G (2009) Analysis of the vulnerability of bank filtration systems to climate change by comparing their effectiveness under varying environmental conditions. TECHNEAU, 3 DecemberGoogle Scholar
  55. Hunter DR (2007) Curved exponential family models for social networks. Soc Networks 29(2):216–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Hunter DR, Handcock MS (2006) Inference in curved exponential family models for networks. J Comput Graph Stat 15(3):565–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Hunter DR, Handcock MS, Butts CT, Goodreau SM, Morris M (2008) ergm: a package to fit, simulate and diagnose exponential-family models for networks. J Stat Softw 24(3)Google Scholar
  58. Huxham C (1993) Pursuing collaborative advantage. J Oper Res Soc 44(6):599–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ingold K, Fischer M (2014) Drivers of collaboration to mitigate climate change: An illustration of Swiss climate policy over 15 years. Glob Environ Chang 24:88–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ingold K, Leifeld P (2014) Structural and institutional determinants of influence reputation: a comparison of collaborative and adversarial policy networks in decision making and implementation. J Public Adm Res Theory 26(1):1–18Google Scholar
  61. Ingold K, Fischer M, Cairney P (2017) Drivers for policy agreement in nascent subsystems: an application of the advocacy coalition framework to fracking policy in Switzerland and the UK. Policy Stud J 45(3):442–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Jakobi AP (2009) Policy networks in comparative politics and international relations: perspectives, typologies and functions. Bremen: Universität Bremen, Collaborative Research Center 597 “Transformations of the State”.Google Scholar
  63. Jann W, Wegerich K (2003) Phasenmodelle und Politikprozesse: der Policy Cycle. In: Schubert K, Bandelow NC (eds) Lehrbuch der Politikfeldanalyse. De Gruyter, München, pp 71–104Google Scholar
  64. Jones OA, Lester JN, Voulvoulis N (2005) Pharmaceuticals: a threat to drinking water? Trends Biotechnol 23(4):163–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Kannonier-Finster W (1998) Methodologische Aspekte soziologischer Fallstudien. In: Kannonier-Finster W (ed) Waltraud. Exemplarische Erkenntnis. Studien-Verlag, Innsbruck, pp 35–64Google Scholar
  66. Kenis P, Schneider V (1991) Chapter 2. Policy networks and policy analysis: scrutinizing a new analytical toolbox. In: Marin B, Mayntz R (eds) Policy networks. Empirical evidence and theoretical considerations. Campus Verlag/Westview Press, Frankfurt/Main/Boulder, CO, pp 25–59Google Scholar
  67. King G, Keohane RO, Verba S (1994) Designing social inquiry. scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton University Press, Princenton, NJCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Kirschke S, Borchardt D, Newig J (2017) Mapping complexity in environmental governance: a comparative analysis of 37 priority issues in German water management. Environ Policy Gov 27:534–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Knill C, Tosun J (2012) Public policy: a new introduction. Palgrave Macmillan, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Knoke D (1998) Who steals my purse steals trash. The structure of organizational influence reputation. J Theor Polit 10(4):507–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Krein A, Keßler S, Meyer B, Pailler J-Y, Guignard C, Hoffmann L (2013) Concentrations and loads of dissolved xenobiotics and hormones in two small river catchments of different land use in Luxembourg. Hydrol Process 27(2):284–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Kremer BP (2010) Der Rhein. Von den Alpen bis zur Nordsee. Mercator Verlag, DuisburgGoogle Scholar
  73. Kümmerer K (2009) The presence of pharmaceuticals in the environment due to the human use – present knowledge and future challenges. J Environ Manag 90:2354–2366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Lapworth DJ, Baran N, Stuart ME, Ward RS (2012) Emerging organic contaminants in groundwater: a review of sources, fate and occurrence. Environ Pollut 163:287–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Leifeld P, Schneider V (2012) Information exchange in policy networks. Am J Polit Sci 56(3):731–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Lemos MC, Agrawal A (2006) Environmental governance. Annu Rev Environ Resour 31:297–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Linder SH, Peters BG (1989) Instruments of government: perceptions and contexts. J Publ Policy 9(1):35–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Lowi TJ (1972) Four systems of policy, politics, and choice. Public Adm Rev 32(4):298–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Lubell M, Henry AD, McCoy M (2010) Collaborative institutions in an ecology of games. Am J Polit Sci 54(2):287–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Lubell M, Robins G, Wang P (2011) Policy coordination in an ecology of water management games. Southern Illinois University Carbondale.Google Scholar
  81. Lubell M, Robins G, Wang P (2014) Network structure and institutional complexity in an ecology of water management games. Ecol Soc 19(4):23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Mayntz R, Scharpf FW (eds) (1995) Gesellschaftliche Selbstregelung und politische Steuerung. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt/Main/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  83. McGinnis MD (2011) An introduction to IAD and the language of the Ostrom workshop: a simple guide to a complex framework. Policy Stud J 39(1):169–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. McGinnis MD, Ostrom E (2014) Social-ecological system framework: initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecol Soc 19(2):30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. McGuire M (2006) Collaborative public management: assessing what we know and how we know it. Public Adm Rev:33–43Google Scholar
  86. McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM (2001) Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annu Rev Sociol 27:415–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Metz F, Ingold K (2014) Sustainable wastewater management: is it possible to regulate micropollution in the future by learning from the past? A policy analysis. Sustainability 6:1992–2012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Meyer B, Pailler J-Y, Guignard C, Hoffmann L, Krein A (2011) Concentrations of dissolved herbicides and pharmaceuticals in a small river in Luxembourg. Environ Monit Assess 180(1-4):127–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. O’Leary R, Vij N (2012) Collaborative public management: where have we been and where are we going? Am Rev Public Adm 42(5):507–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Oaks LJ, Gilbert M, Virani MZ, Watson RT, Meteyer CU, Rideout BA, Shivaprasad HL et al (2004) Diclofenac residues as the cause of vulture population decline in Pakistan. Nature 427:630–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons. The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Ostrom E (1998) A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action. Presidential address, American Political Science Association. Am Polit Sci Rev 92(1):1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Ostrom E (2000a) Collective action and the evolution of social norms. J Econ Perspect 14(3):137–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Ostrom E (2000b) The danger of self-evident truths. Political Science and Politics 33(1):33–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Ostrom E (2005) Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press, Princenton, NJGoogle Scholar
  96. Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325:419–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Oxford Living Dictionaries (2018a) British & World English. collaboration [online]. Available from: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/collaboration. Accessed 18 April 2018
  98. Oxford Living Dictionaries (2018b) British & World English. cooperation [online]. Available from: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/cooperation. Accessed 18 April 2018.
  99. Pal A, Gin Y-HK, Lin Y-CA, Reinhard M (2010) Impacts of emerging organic contaminants on freshwater resources: review of recent occurences, sources, fates and effects. Sci Total Environ 408:6062–6069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Pappi FU, Henning C (1998) Policy networks: more than a metaphor? J Theor Polit 10(4):553–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Peters BG (2000) Policy instruments and public management: bridging the gaps. J Public Adm Res Theory 10:35–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Peters BG, Hoornbeek JA (2005) The problem of policy problems. In: Eliadis P, Hill MM, Howlett M (eds) Designing government. From instruments to governance. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal/Ithaca, pp 77–105Google Scholar
  103. Provan KG, Kenis P (2008) Modes of network governance: structure, management, and effectiveness. J Public Adm Res Theory 18(2):229–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. R Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. {R} {F}oundation for {S}tatistical {C}omputing, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  105. Rivera-Utrilla J, Sánchez-Polo MJ, Ferro-García MÁ, Prados-Joya G (2013) Pharmaceuticals as emerging contaminants and their removal from water: a review. Chemosphere 93:1268–1287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Rochefort DA, Cobb RW (1995) Problem definition: an emerging perspective. In: Rochefort DA, Cobb RW (eds) The Politics of problem definition: shaping the policy agenda. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, KansasGoogle Scholar
  107. RStudio Team (2016) RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R (Version 1.0136). Available from: https://rstudio.com/. Accessed 25 Sept 2019. Boston, MA.
  108. Ruff M, Singer H, Ruppe S, Mazacek J, Dolf R, Leu C (2013) 20 Jahre Rheinüberwachung. Erfolge und analytische Neuausrichtung in Weil am Rhein. Aqua Gas (5):16–25Google Scholar
  109. Sabatier PA (1987) Knowledge, policy-oriented learning, and policy change. An advocacy coalition framework. Sci Commun 8(4):649–692Google Scholar
  110. Sabatier PA (1988) An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sci 21(2/3):129–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Sabatier PA (1998) The advocacy coalition framework: revisions and relevance for Europe. J Eur Publ Policy 5(1):98–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Sadoff CW, Grey D (2005) Cooperation on international rivers. Water Int 30(4):420–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Salamon LM (2001) The new governance and the tools of public action: an introduction. Fordham Urban Law J 28(5):1611–1674Google Scholar
  114. Sanderson H, Brain RA, Johnson DJ, Wilson CJ, Solomon KR (2004) Toxicity classification and evaluation of four pharmaceuticals classes: antibiotics, antineoplastics, cardiovascular, and sex hormones. Toxicology 203:27–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Scharpf FW (1993) Positive und negative Koordination in Verhandlungssystemen. In: Héritier A (ed) Policy-Analyse: Kritik und Neuorientierung. PVS Sonderheft 24. Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen, pp 57–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Schlager E (2004) Common-pool resource theory. In: Durant RF, Fiorino DJ, O’Leary R (eds) Environmental governance reconsidered. Challenges, choices, and opportunities. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 145–175Google Scholar
  117. Schluep M, Thomann M, Häner A, Gälli R, Stucki G (2006) Organische Mikroverunreinigungen und Nährstoffhaushalt. Eine Standortbestimmung für die Siedlungswasserwirtschaft. Umwelt-Wissen 0614. Bundesamt für Umwelt, BernGoogle Scholar
  118. Schneider V (2014) Akteurskonstellationen und Netzwerke in der Politikentwicklung. In: Schubert K, Bandelow NC (eds) Lehrbuch der Politikfeldanalyse. De Gruyter, München, pp 259–287Google Scholar
  119. Schüttemeyer S (2007) Parlamentarische Demokratie. Bundeszentrale für Politische Bildung, BonnGoogle Scholar
  120. Scott J (2000) Social network analysis. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  121. Scott J, Christopoulos D (2018) Reputational leadership and preferences similarity: Explaining organisational collaboration in bank policy networks. Eur J Polit Res 57:518–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Sharma SK, Amy G (2009) Bank filtration – a sustainable water treatment technology for developing countries. 34th WEDC international conference, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.Google Scholar
  123. Stamm C, Burdon F, Fischer F, Kienle C, Munz N, Altermatt F, Behra R et al (2017) Einfluss von Mikroverunreinigungen. Lebensgemeinschaften in Fliessgewässern - Ergebnisse aus dem Projekt ECOIMPACT. Aqua Gas (6):90–95Google Scholar
  124. Stokman FN, Zeggelink E (1996) Is politics power or policy oriented? A comparative analysis of dynamic access models in policy networks. J Math Sociol 21(1-2):77–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Thatcher M (1998) The development of policy network analyses. From modest origins to overarching frameworks. J Theor Polit 10(4):389–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Vedung E (2010) Policy instruments: typologies and theories. In: Bemelmans-Videc M-L, Rist RC, Vedung E (eds) Carrots, sticks & sermons. Policy instruments & their evaluation. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick/London, pp 21–58Google Scholar
  127. Wasserman S, Faust K (1994) Social network analysis: methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Weber EP, Khademian AM (2008) Wicked problems, knowledge challenges, and collaborative capacity builders in network settings. Public Adm Rev 68(2):334–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. West SA, Griffin AS, Gardner A (2007) Social semantics: altruism, cooperation, mutualism, strong reciprocity and group selection. J Evol Biol 20(2):415–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Weyer J (2011) Zum Stand der Netzwerkforschung in den Sozialwissenschaften. In: Weyer J (ed) Soziale Netzwerke. Konzepte und Methoden der sozialwissenschaftlichen Netzwerkforschung. Oldenbourg Verlag, München, pp 39–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Wilson JQ (1989) Bureaucracy: what government agencies do and why they do it. Basic, Boulder, COGoogle Scholar
  132. Wittmer I, Stamm C, Singer H, Junghans M (2014) Mikroverunreinigungen. Beurteilungskonzept für Mikroverunreinigungen aus diffusen Einträgen. Studie im Auftrag des Bundesamtes für Umwelt (BAFU), Dübendorf, Switzerland: EawagGoogle Scholar
  133. Yin RK (2003) Case study research: design and methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura Mae Jacqueline Herzog
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Environmental Systems ResearchOsnabrück UniversityOsnabrückGermany

Personalised recommendations