Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Multi-level and Cross-Scale Governance

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Water Governance in the Face of Global Change

Part of the book series: Water Governance - Concepts, Methods, and Practice ((WGCMP))

Abstract

Governing water implies governance of a complex social-ecological system at and across different scales in space and time. The spatial scale selected for governance has implications for both the biophysical boundaries that are taken into consideration and the administrative level of the actors involved in a governance system. This chapter summarizes the development of research and policy discourses on the ideal level at which to focus water governance. Systems analysis has been used to determine an appropriate scale for dealing with a governance problem. The scale could also be the subject of political discourse since actors may have different reasons for up- or down-scaling a particular water-related issue. On the basis of current scientific understanding, multi-level and cross-scale water governance is promoted. Water issues can rarely be dealt with at one scale only. I therefore argue in favour of polycentric governance combining decentralization with effective coordination of decision centres as the normative governance model. Finally the chapter elaborates on insights from and methods for structured analyses of modes of cross-scale coordination.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Securitization of water policy refers to a process whereby political actors transform water issues into matters of security. It is a politicization of water governance that is not primarily rooted in material but in political arguments. Securitization of water policy has been prevalent in the Middle East (Fischhendler 2015).

  2. 2.

    http://www.unece.org/env/water/text/text.html.

  3. 3.

    Good governance is characterized by being accountable, transparent, responsive, equitable and inclusive, effective and efficient, follows the rules of law, participatory, consensus oriented (UNESCAP 2009).

  4. 4.

    http://www.oecd.org/gov/regional-policy/water-governance-initiative.htm.

  5. 5.

    Australia, Belgium, Canada, Chile, France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, UK (England), USA (Colorado).

  6. 6.

    Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru.

References

  • Aligica, P. D., & Tarko, V. (2012). Polycentricity: From Polanyi to Ostrom, and beyond. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 252237–252262. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0491.2011.01550.x

  • Ammon, G., Fischer, M., Hickmann, T., & Stemmermann, K. (Eds.). (1996). Föderalismus und Zentralismus: Europas Zukunft zwischen dem deutschen und dem französischen Modell (Vol. 11, Schriftenreihe des Europäischen Zentrums für Föderalismus-Forschung). Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, K. P., & Ostrom, E. (2008). Analyzing decentralized resource regimes from a polycentric perspective. Policy Science, 41, 71–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernauer, T., & Siegfried, S. (2008). Compliance and performance in international water agreements: The case of the Naryn/Syr Darya Basin. Global Governance, 14, 479–502.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blomquist, W., & Schlager, E. (2005). Political pitfalls of integrated watershed management. Society and Natural Resources, 18, 101–117. doi:10.1080/08941920590894435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodansky, D. (2010). The International climate change regime: The road from Copenhagen. Harvard: Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borja, Á., Galparsoro, I., Solaun, O., Muxika, I., Tello, E. M., Uriarte, A., et al. (2006). The European water framework directive and the DPSIR, a methodological approach to assess the risk of failing to achieve good ecological status. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 66(1–2), 84–96. doi:10.1016/j.ecss.2005.07.021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borowski, I. (2004). Public participation in the Elbe Basin. Case study report produced under Work Package 5. Osnabrück: University of Osnabrück.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borowski, I., Le Bourhis, J., Pahl-Wostl, C., & Barraqué, B. (2008). Spatial misfit in participatory river basin management: Effects on social learning. A comparative analysis of German and French case studies. Ecology and Society, 13(1), 7. URL:http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss11/art17/

  • Cohen, A., & Davidson, S. (2011). An examination of the watershed approach: Challenges, antecedents, and the transition from technical tool to governance unit. Water Alternatives, 4(1), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Costejà, M., Font, N., Rigol, A., & Subirats, J. (2002). The evolution of the national water regime in Spain. Barcelona: Eu.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delaney, D., & Leitner, H. (1997). The political construction of scale. Political Geography, 16(2), 93–97. doi:10.1016/S0962-6298(96)00045-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dombrowsky, I. (2008). Integration in the management of international waters: economic perspectives on a global policy discourse. Global Governance, 14, 455–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • EEA. (2010). The European environment—state and outlook 2010: Synthesis. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischhendler, I. (2015). The securitization of water discourse: Theoretical foundations, research gaps and objectives of the special issue. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 1–11. doi:10.1007/s10784-015-9277-6

  • Gleick, P. H., & Lane, J. (2005). Large international water meetings: Time for a reappraisal. Water International, 30(3), 410–414. doi:10.1080/02508060508691883

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Global Water Partnership (GWP). (2000). Integrated water resources management. In G. W. Partnership (Ed.), Technical advisory committee background papers (Vol. 4). Stockholm: Global Water Partnership.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grande, E. (Ed.). (2000). Wie problemlösungsfähig ist die European Union? Regieren im europäischen Mehrebenensystem. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, J. (2008). Global change: Analyzing scale and scaling in environmental governance. In O. Young, L. King, & H. Schröder (Eds.), Institutions and environmental change: Principal findings, applications, and research frontiers. Boston, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, J., & Pahl-Wostl, C. (2013). Global water governance in the context of global and multi-level governance: Its need, form, and challenges. Ecology and Society, 18(4), 53. doi:10.5751/ES-05952-180453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2003). Unraveling the central state but how? Types of multi-level governance. American Political Science Review, 97, 233–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooper, B. P. (2005). Integrated river basin governance: Learning from international experiences. London: IWA Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huntjens, P., Pahl-Wostl, C., Rihoux, B., Schlüter, M., Flachner, Z., Neto, S., et al. (2011). Adaptive water management and policy learning in a changing climate: A formal comparative analysis of eight water management regimes in Europe, Africa and Asia. Environmental Policy and Governance, 21(3), 145–163. doi:10.1002/eet.571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Impress. (2003). Analysis of pressures and impacts. Common implementation strategy for the water framework directive. Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive. Guidance Document (Vol. Guidance Document Nr. 3.).

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC. (1992). Climate change: The IPCC 1990 and 1992 assessments: Overview and policymaker summaries Canada: Intergovernmental panel on climate change.

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC. (2014). Summary for policymakers. In C. B. Field, V. R. Barros, D. J. Dokken, K. J. Mach, M. D. Mastrandrea & T. E. Bilir et al. (Eds.), Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: Global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of working group II to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffrey, P., & Gearey, M. (2006). Integrated water resources management: Lost on the road from ambition to realisation? Water Science and Technology, 53(1), 1–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, D., & Fischhendler, I. (2011). Spatial and temporal dynamics of linkage strategy: Arab-Israeli water negotiations. Political Geography, 30(1), 13–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knüppe, K., & Pahl-Wostl, C. (2013). Requirements for adaptive governance of groundwater ecosystem services: Insights from Sandveld (South Africa), Upper Guadiana (Spain) and Spree (Germany). Regional Environmental Change, 13(1), 53–66. doi:10.1007/s10113-012-0312-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lebel, L. (2006). The politics of scale in environmental assessment. In W. V. Reid, F. Berkes, T. Wilbanks, & D. Capistrano (Eds.), Bridging scales and knowledge systems concepts and applications in ecosystem assessment (pp. 37–58). Washington: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lebel, L., Garden, P., & Imamura, M. (2005). The politics of scale, position, and place in the governance of water resources in the Mekong region. Ecology and Society, 10(2), 18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemos, M. C., & Agrawal, A. (2006). Environmental governance. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 31(1), 297–325. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.31.042605.135621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, S. A. (1999). Fragile dominion—complexity and the commons. Cambridge, UK: Perseus Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowi, M. (1993). Water and power: The politics of a scarce resource in the Jordan River Basin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ludwig, D., Walker, B., & Holling, C. S. (1997). Sustainability, stability, and resilience. Conservation Ecology, 1(1), 7. URL:http://www.consecol.org/vol1/iss1/art7/

  • Mansbridge, J. (2014). The role of the state in governing the commons. Environmental Science and Policy, 36, 8–10. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2013.07.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, G. R., Connell, D., & Taylor, B. M. (2013). Australia’s Murray-Darling Basin: A century of polycentric experiments in cross-border integration of water resources management. International Journal of Water Governance, 1, 197–218. doi:10.7564/13-IJWG17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marston, S. A. (2000). The social construction of scale. Progress in Human Geography, 24(2), 219–242. doi:10.1191/030913200674086272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGinnis, M. D., & Ostrom, E. (2011). Reflections on Vincent Ostrom, public administration, and polycentricity. Public Administration Review, 72(1), 15–25. doi:10.111/j.1540-6210.2011.02488.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. H., & Page, S. E. (2007). Complex adaptive systems: An introduction to computational models of social life. Princeton, USA: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molle, F. (2009). River-basin planning and management: The social life of a concept. Geoforum, 40(3), 484–494. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.03.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moss, T. (2003). Solving problems of ‘fit’ at the expense of problems of ‘interplay’? The spatial reorganisation of water management following the EU water framework directive. In H. Breit, A. Engels, T. Moss & M. Troja (Eds.), How institutions change. Perspectives on Social learning in global and local environmental contexts (pp. 85–121). Opladen: Leske+Budrich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mostert, E., Pahl-Wostl, C., Rees, Y., Searle, B., Tàbara, D., & Tippett, J. (2007). Social learning in European river-basin management: Barriers and fostering mechanisms from 10 river basins. Ecology and Society, 12(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Newson, M. D. (1997). Land, water and development: Sustainable management of river basin systems. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, E. S., Bakker, K., & Cook, C. (2012). Introduction to the themed section: Water governance and the politics of scale. Water Alternatives, 5(1), 52–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2011). Water governance in OECD countries: A multi-level approach, OECD studies on water. In OECD (Ed.), OECD studies on water. Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2012). Water Governance in Latin America and the Caribbean: A Multi-level Approach. In OECD (Ed.), OECD studies on water. Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (1972). Metropolitan reform: Propositions derived from two traditions. Social Science Quarterly, 53, 474–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons. The evolution of institutions for collective action (Political Economy of Institutions and Decisions). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (2001). Vulnerability and polycentric governance systems. IHDP (International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change) Newsletter Update, 3(1), 3–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (2010a). Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economic systems. American Economic Review, 100, 641–672. doi:10.1257/aer.100.3.641

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (2010b). Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 20, 550–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (2012). Nested externalities and polycentric institutions: Must we wait for global solutions to climate change before taking actions at other scales? Economic Theory, 49, 353–369. doi:10.1007/s00199-010-0558-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E., Parks, R. B., & Whitaker, G. (1978). Patterns of metropolitan policing. Cambridge, MA, USA: Ballinger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, V., Tiebout, C. M., & Warren, R. (1961). The organization of government in metropolitan areas: A theoretical inquiry. American Political Science Review, 55, 831–842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pahl-Wostl, C. (1995). The dynamic nature of ecosystems: Chaos and order entwined. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pahl-Wostl, C. (2002). Polycentric integrated assessment [social learning, multi-scale stakeholder processes, participatory integrated assessment, evolutionary change in social systems.]. Integrated Assessment, 3(2–3), 220–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pahl-Wostl, C. (2007a). Requirements for adaptive water management. In C. Pahl-Wostl, P. Kabat & J. Möltgen (Eds.), Adaptive and integrated water management. Coping with complexity and uncertainty (pp. 1–22). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pahl-Wostl, C. (2007b). Transition towards adaptive management of water facing climate and global change. Water Resources Management, 21(1), 49–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pahl-Wostl, C. (2009). A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environmental Change, 19, 354–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pahl-Wostl, C., Becker, G., Sendzimir, J., & Knieper, C. (2013a). How multilevel societal learning processes facilitate transformative change: A comparative case study analysis on flood management. Ecology and Society, 18(4), 58. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05779-180458

  • Pahl-Wostl, C., Conca, K., Kramer, A., Maestu, J., & Schmidt, F. (2013b). Missing links in global water governance: A processes-oriented analysis. Ecology and Society, 18(2), 33. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05554-180233

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Pahl-Wostl, C., Hoff, H., Meybeck, M., & Sorooshian, S. (2002). The role of global change research for aquatic sciences. Aquatic Sciences, 64(4), iv–vi. doi:10.1007/PL00012595

  • Pahl-Wostl, C., Holtz, G., Kastens, B., & Knieper, C. (2010). Analyzing complex water governance regimes: The management and transition framework. Environmental Science and Policy, 13(7), 571–581. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2010.08.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pahl-Wostl, C., Lebel, L., Knieper, C., & Nikitina, E. (2012). From applying panaceas to mastering complexity: Toward adaptive water governance in river basins. Environmental Science and Policy, 23, 24–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plummer, R., Spiert, A., FitzGibbon, J., & Imhof, J. (2013). The expanding institutional context for water resources management: The case of the Grand River watershed. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 30, 227–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogelj, J., Nabel, J., Chen, C., Hare, W., Markmann, K., Meinshausen, M., et al. (2010). Copenhagen accord pledges are paltry. Nature, 464(7292), 1126–1128. doi:10.1038/4641126a

  • Rosenau, J. N. (2004). Strong demand, huge supply: Governance in an emerging epoch. In I. Bache & M. Flinders (Eds.), Multi-level governance (pp. 31–48). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sayre, N. F. (2005). Ecological and geographical scale: Parallels and potential for integration. Progress in Human Geography, 29(3), 276–290. doi:10.1191/0309132505ph546oa

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sendzimir, J., Flachner, Z., Pahl-Wostl, C., & Knieper, C. (2010). Stalled regime transition in the upper Tisza River Basin: The dynamics of linked action situations. Environmental Science and Policy, 13(7), 604–619. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2010.09.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sendzimir, J., Magnuszewski, P., Flachner, Z., Balogh, P., Molnar, G., Sarvari, A., et al. (2007). Assessing the resilience of a river management regime: Informal learning in a shadow network in the Tisza River Basin. Ecology and Society, 13(1), 11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smeets, E., & Weterings, R. (1999). Environmental indicators: Typology and overview. EEA technical reports. Copenhagen: European Environmental Agency (EEA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Swyngedouw, E. (1997). Neither global nor local: ‘Glocalization’ and the politics of scale. In K. Cox (Ed.), Spaces of globalization: Reasserting the power of the local (pp. 137–166). New York, NY, USA: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swyngedouw, E. (2000). Authoritarian governance, power, and the politics of rescaling. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 18(1), 63–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thiel, A. (2015). Constitutional state structure and scalar re-organization of natural resource governance: The transformation of polycentric water governance in Spain, Portugal and Germany. Land Use Policy, 45, 176–188. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.01.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilman, D. (1999). The ecological consequences of changes in biodiversity: A search for general principles. Ecology, 80(5), 1455–1474.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsebelis, G. (2002). Veto players: How political institutions work. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • UNESCAP. (2009). What is good governance? Bangkok, Thailand: United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varady, R. G., & Iles-Shih, M. (2011). Global water initiatives: What do the experts think? In A. K. Biswas & C. Tortajada (Eds.), Impacts of megaconferences on the water sector (pp. 53–102). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, E. (2012). Parcelling out the watershed: The recurring consequences of organising Columbia River management within a basin-based territory. Water Alternatives, 5(1), 161–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vörösmarty, C. J., Pahl-Wostl, C., Bunn, S., & Lawford, R. (2013). Global water, the anthropocene and the transformation of science. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(6), 539–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welch, S., & Kennedy-Pipe, C. (2004). Multi-level governance and international relations. In I. Bache & M. Flinders (Eds.), Multi-level governance (pp. 127–144). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, H., Pfister, S., & Bhaduri, A. (2013). Accounting for a scarce resource: Virtual water and water footprint in the global water system. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(6), 599–606. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2013.10.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, O. R. (2002). The institutional dimensions of environmental change: Fit, interplay, and scale. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, O. R. (2011). Land use, environmental change, and sustainable development: The role of institutional diagnostics. International Journal of the Commons, 5(1), 66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zarfl, C., Lumsdon, A. E., Berlekamp, J., Tydecks, L., & Tockner, K. (2015). A global boom in hydropower dam construction. Aquatic Sciences, 77(1), 161–170. doi:10.1007/s00027-014-0377-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Environmental Systems Research, University of Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany

    Claudia Pahl-Wostl

Authors
  1. Claudia Pahl-Wostl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claudia Pahl-Wostl .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Pahl-Wostl, C. (2015). Multi-level and Cross-Scale Governance. In: Water Governance in the Face of Global Change. Water Governance - Concepts, Methods, and Practice. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21855-7_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation