Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Criteria for the Assessment of Sustainable Water Management

  • PROFILE
  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Pressure on the world’s water resources is increasing, restraining social and economic development in many countries, and threatening ecological values in others. In order to manage water resources in a more sustainable manner, new planning methodologies/processes for river basin management need to be developed. This study attempts to construct a set of useable normative criteria for the analysis and evaluation of such processes. The criteria were designed as a response to the lack of deductive approaches in the evaluation of methodologies and working procedures used in the context of river basin management, making it possible to highlight their potential for sustainable development. The criteria are based on the twin concepts of participation and integration. These concepts function as well-established dimensions of both sustainable development and sustainable river basin management, and they are of significant methodological relevance. A synthesis of the key aspects connected to the two concepts is undertaken, based on a broad literature review. Focus is laid on how in methodological terms, and in relation to regional water management, to achieve participation and integration in a decision-making or planning process. The criteria are concerned with how knowledge and values are integrated into the planning process and how commitment, legitimacy, or acceptance for the resulting plan is generated.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allan C., A. Curtis 2005. Nipped in the bud: why regional scale adaptive management is not blooming. Envir Manage 36:414–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allmendinger P. 2001. Planning in postmodern times. Routledge, London, 280 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Allmendinger P. 2002. Planning theory. Planning, environment, cities series. Palgrave, Hampshire, 239 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Asplund E., T. Hilding-Rydevik. 1996. Knowledge, environment and the future. Plan-EIA—case studies in two municipalities. Division for Infrastructure and Planning, Department of Regional Planning, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm [in Swedish]

  • Barrow C. J. 1998. River basin planning and development: a critical review. World Dev 26:171–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellamy J. A., G. T. McDonald, G. J. Syme, J. E. Butterworth. 1999. Evaluating integrated resource management. Society Natural Resources 12:337–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berke P. R. 2000. Are we planning for sustainable development? J Am Planning Assoc 66:21–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Beierle T. C., D. M. Konisky. 2000. Values, conflict and trust in participatory environmental planning. J Policy Analysis Manage 19:587–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Born S. M., W. C. Sonzogni. 1995. Integrated environmental management: strengthening the conceptualization. Envir Manage 19:167–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradshaw G. A., J. G. Brochers. 2000. Uncertainty as information: narrowing the science–policy gap. Conserv Ecol 4:7

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpini M. X. D., F. L. Cook, L. R. Jacobs. 2004. Public deliberation, discursive participation and citizen engagement: a review of the empirical literature. Annu Rev Pol Sci 7:315–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conley A., M. A. Moote. 2003. Evaluating collaborative natural resource management. Society Natural Resources 16:371–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R., H. Daly, C. Folke, P. Hawken, C. S. Holling, A. J. McMichael, D. Pimentel, D. Rapport. 2000 Managing our environmental portfolio. Bioscience 50:149–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahl R. A. 1998. On democracy. Yale University Press, New Haven, 217 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlgren L., A. Khakee. 1990. Values in societal planning. Byggforskningsrådet, Stockholm [in Swedish]

  • Daly H. E. 1990. Towards some operational principles of sustainable development. Ecol Econ 2:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diduck A. 1999. Critical education in resource and environmental management: learning and empowerment for a sustainable future. J Envir Manage 57:85–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diduck A., A. J. Sinclair. 2002. Public involvement in environmental assessment: the case of the non-participant. Envir Manage 29:578–588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek J. S. 1997. The politics of the Earth: environmental discourse. University Press, Oxford, Oxford, 220 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • EU. 2000. Water framework directive 2000/60/EEC. European Commission. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. Off J Eur Communities L Legis 327:1–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckersley R. 1999. The discourse ethic and the problem of representing nature. Envir Politics 8:24–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlich P. R., G. Wolff G. C. Daily, J. B. Hughes, S. Daily, M. Dalton, L. Goulder. 1999. Knowledge and the environment. Ecol Econ 30:267–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falkenmark M. 2003. Summary and conclusions of the 2002 Stockholm Water Symposium. Water Sci Technol 47:1–7

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Flyvbjerg B. 1998a. Habermas and Foucault: thinkers for civil society? Br J Sociol 49:210–233

    Google Scholar 

  • Flyvbjerg B. 1998b. Rationality and power. Democracy in practice. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago & London, 290 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Folke C., T. Hahn, P. Olsson, J. Norberg. 2005. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annu Rev Envir Resources 30:441–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forester J. 1989. Planning in the face of power. University of California Press, Berkeley, California, 283 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Forester J. 1999. The deliberative practitioner. Encouraging participatory planning processes. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 305 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Gadgil M., F. Berkes, C. Folke. 1993. Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Ambio 22:151–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory R. 2000. Using stakeholder values to make smarter environmental decisions. Environment 42:34–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory R., R. L. Keeney. 1994. Creating policy alternatives using stakeholder values. Manage Sci 40:1035–1048

    Google Scholar 

  • Gudmundsson H., M. Höjer. 1996. Sustainable development principles and their implications for transport. Ecol Econ 19:269–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healey P. 2003. The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for spatial strategy formation. In S. Campbell, S. S. Fainstein (eds), Readings in planning theory, 2nd ed. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK. pp 237–255

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedelin B. 2006. Methodological criteria for sustainable river basin management and their congruence with the EC Water Framework Directive. Working paper. Karlstad University, Karlstad

  • Hemmati M. 2002. Multi-stakeholder processes for governance and sustainability. Beyond deadlock and conflict. Earthscan Publications Ltd, London, 312 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschman A. O. 1994. Social conflicts as pillars of democratic market society. Political Theory 22:203–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Holling C. S. 1978. Adaptive environmental management and assessment. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Huxley M. 2000. The limits to communicative planning. J Planning Educ Res 19:369–377

    Google Scholar 

  • Jepson E. J. Jr. 2001. Sustainability and planning: diverse concepts and close associations. J Plan Lit 15:499–510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karlsson M. 2003. Biosafety principles for GMOs in the context of sustainable development. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 10:15–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney R. L., D. Von Winterfeldt, T. Eppel. 1990. Eliciting public values for complex policy decisions. Manage Sci 36:1011–1030

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenney D. S. 2000. Arguing about consensus. Examining the case against western watershed initiatives and other collaborative groups active in natural resources management. University of Colorado School of Law, Boulder, 64 pp

  • Khakee A., L. Dahlgren. 1986. Values in futures studies and long-term planning. Futures 18:52–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkevold M. 1996. Review articles—a way to strengthen the integration of nursing research. In T. Bjerkreim, J. Mathisen, R. Nord (eds), Vision, Knowledge and Work. University Press, Oslo [in Norwegian] pp 100–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Klosterman R. E. 1978. Foundations for normative planning. J Am Instit Plan 44:37–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Klosterman R. E. 1983. Fact and value in planning. J Am Plan Assoc 49:216–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Lafferty W. M., J. Meadowcroft. 1996 Democracy and the environment: congruence and conflict—preliminary reflections. In W. M. Lafferty, J. Meadowcroft (eds), Democracy and the environment. Problems and prospects. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. pp 1–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane M. B. 2003. Participation, decentralization, and civil society—indigenous rights and democracy in environmental planning. J Plan Educ Res 22:360–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane M. B. 2005. Public participation in planning: an intellectual history. Austral Geographer 36:283–299

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsson J. 2000. Formal consensus and democracy. Report series no. 48. Örebro University, Centre for Housing and Urban Research, Örebro

  • Larsson J., I. Elander. 2001. Consensus, democracy and the land survey or in the Swedish Cadastral Executive Procedure. Planning Theory and Practice 2(3):325–342

    Google Scholar 

  • Leach W. D., N. W. Pelkey. 2001. Making watershed partnerships work: a review of the empirical literature. J Water Res Plan Manage 127:378–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leach W. D., N. W. Pelkey, P. A. Sabatier. 2002. Stakeholder partnerships as collaborative policymaking: evaluation criteria applied to watershed management in California and Washington. J Policy Analysis Manage 21:645–670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lidskog R. 2005. Siting conflicts—democratic perspectives and political implications. J Risk Res 8:187–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lidskog R., I. Elander. 1999. Democracy, ecology and knowledge. Political sciences response to environmental problems. Statsvetenskaplig Tidskr 102:353–377 [in Swedish]

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood M. 1999. Humans valuing nature: synthesising insights from philosophy, psychology and economics. Envir Values 8:308–401

    Google Scholar 

  • Loucks D. P., J. S. Gladwell. 1999. Sustainability criteria for water resource systems. International hydrology series. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 139 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Lubchenco J. 1998. Entering the century of the environment: a new social contract for science. Science 279:491–497

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ludwig D., M. Mangel, B. Haddad. 2001. Ecology, conservation, and public policy. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 32:481–517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLain R. J., R. G. Lee. 1996. Adaptive management: promises and pitfalls. Envir Manage 20:437–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margerum R. D. 1999. Integrated environmental management: the foundations for successful practice. Envir Manage 24:151–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuirk P. M. 2001. Situating communicative planning theory: context, power, and knowledge. Envir Plan A 33:195–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMichael A. J., C. D. Butler, C. Folke. 2003. New visions for addressing sustainability. Science 302:1919–1920

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Meadowcroft J. 1997. Planning for sustainable development: insights from the literatures of political science. Eur J Pol Res 31:427–454

    Google Scholar 

  • Meppem T., R. Gill. 1998. Planning for sustainability as a learning concept. Ecol Econ 26:121–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore E. H., T. M. Koontz. 2003. A typology of Collaborative Watershed Groups: citizen-based, agency-based, and mixed partnerships. Society Natural Resources 16:451–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nijkamp P., A. van Delft. 1977. Multi-criteria analysis and regional decision-making. Studies in applied regional science. Martinus Nijhoff Social Sciences Division, Leiden, Netherlands, 135 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsson P., C. Folke. 2001. Local ecological knowledge and institutional dynamics for ecosystem management: a study of Lake Racken Watershed, Sweden. Ecosystems 4:85–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palerm J. R. 1999. Public participation in EIA in Hungary: analysis through three case studies. Envir Impact Assess Rev 19:201–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prato T. 2003. Adaptive management of large rivers with special reference to the Missouri River. J Am Water Resources Assoc 39:935–946

    Google Scholar 

  • RTK. 2005. Water values in planning—continued methodological development. Working PM no 17. Office of Regional Planning and Urban Transportation, Stockholm [in Swedish]

  • Rayner S. 1999. Mapping institutional diversity for implementing the Lisbon principles. Ecol Econ 31:259–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rolston H. 1988. Environmental ethics. Duties and values in the natural world. Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 391 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • SIWI. 2002. Stockholm Water Symposium 2002 pamphlet. Stockholm International Water Institute

  • Schahn J., E. Holzer. 1990. Studies of individual environmental concern—the role of knowledge, gender, and background variables. Envir Behav 22:767–786

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuett M. A., S. W. Selin D. S. Carr. 2001. Making it work: keys to successive collaboration in natural resource management. Envir Manage 27:587–593

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Smith W., S. Kelly. 2003. Science, technical expertise and the human environment. Progress Planning 60:321–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sneddon C., L. Harris, R. Dimitrov, U. Özesmi. 2002. Contested waters: conflict, scale and sustainability in aquatic socio-ecological systems. Soc Natural Resources 15:663–675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Söderbaum P. 2000. Ecological economics, a political economics approach to environment and development. Earthscan Publications, London, 152 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Stout G. E. 1998. Sustainable development requires the full cooperation of water users. Water Int 23:3–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanner C. 1999. Constraints on environmental behaviour. J Envir Psychol 19:145–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tewdwr-Jones M., P. Allmendinger. 1998. Deconstructing communicative rationality: a critique of Habermasian collaborative planning. Envir Planning A 30:1975–1989

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WCD. 2000. Dams and development. World Commission on Dams, London, 401 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Vari A. 2004. Hungarian experiences with public participation in water management. Water Int 29:329–337

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner W., J. Gawel, H. Furumai, M. P. De Souza, D. Teixeira, L. Rios, S. Ohgaki, A. J. B. Zehnder, H. F. Hemond. 2002. Sustainable watershed management: an international multi-watershed case study. Ambio 31:2–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster’s New Encyclopaedic Dictionary. 1993. Könemann, Cologne, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  • Weimer D. L., A. R. Vining. 1999. Policy analysis. Concepts and practice. 3rd ed. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 486 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiklund H. 2002. Arenas for democratic deliberation. Decision-making in an infrastructure project in Sweden. Jönköping International Business School, dissertation series nr. 013. Jönköping, 238 pp

  • World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • World Water Council 2000. World water vision: making water everybody’s business. Earthscan Publications, London, UK, 108 pp

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Technology and Science, Department of Energy, Environmental and Building Technology, Karlstad University, S-651 88, Karlstad, Sweden

    Beatrice Hedelin

Authors
  1. Beatrice Hedelin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Beatrice Hedelin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hedelin, B. Criteria for the Assessment of Sustainable Water Management. Environmental Management 39, 151–163 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0387-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0387-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation