IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/waterr/v27y2013i7p2179-2194.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Water Managers’ Boundary Judgments and Adaptive Water Governance. An Analysis of the Dutch Haringvliet Sluices Case

Author

Listed:
  • Ingmar Meerkerk
  • Arwin Buuren
  • Jurian Edelenbos

Abstract

In this paper, we explore how managing actors’ boundary judgments influence the adaptability of water governance. We approach this question by examining the relationship between the way water managers frame, and act in, complex water issues on the one hand and develop adaptive water governance strategies on the other. We define four categories of boundary judgments made by water managers in order to deal with the complexities in water governance issues. An in-depth case study analysis of an attempt to adjust the management of the water regime in the south-west Delta of the Netherlands is provided in order to reconstruct the water managers’ boundary judgments and their impact upon governance strategies used. We found that, most of the time, the water managers involved predominantly made tight boundary judgments. These tight boundary judgments seemed to hamper the mutual learning process among a variety of stakeholders that is needed to realize adaptive water governance. We argue that wide boundary judgments enhance the chance of realizing adaptive practices and build upon exploration, learning, and connection. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Ingmar Meerkerk & Arwin Buuren & Jurian Edelenbos, 2013. "Water Managers’ Boundary Judgments and Adaptive Water Governance. An Analysis of the Dutch Haringvliet Sluices Case," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 27(7), pages 2179-2194, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:waterr:v:27:y:2013:i:7:p:2179-2194
    DOI: 10.1007/s11269-013-0282-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11269-013-0282-7
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11269-013-0282-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Claudia Pahl-Wostl & Paul Jeffrey & Nicola Isendahl & Marcela Brugnach, 2011. "Maturing the New Water Management Paradigm: Progressing from Aspiration to Practice," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 25(3), pages 837-856, February.
    2. Ulrich, Werner, 1987. "Critical heuristics of social systems design," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 276-283, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lieke Brackel, 2021. "Continuous Negotiation in Climate Adaptation: The Challenge of Co-Evolution for the Capability Approach to Justice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-18, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hart, Diane & Paucar-Caceres, Alberto, 2017. "A utilisation focussed and viable systems approach for evaluating technology supported learning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 259(2), pages 626-641.
    2. I Georgiou, 2003. "The idea of emergent property," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 54(3), pages 239-247, March.
    3. Rajneesh Chowdhury, 2023. "Methodological Flexibility in Systems Thinking: Musings from the Standpoint of a Systems Consultant," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 59-86, February.
    4. Ormerod, R.J., 2014. "Critical rationalism in practice: Strategies to manage subjectivity in OR investigations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 235(3), pages 784-797.
    5. Valentina Dinica, 2014. "Competing societal and ecological demands for groundwater: boundary judgments and convergence mechanisms in the Netherlands," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 555-573, June.
    6. Syed Arshad Raza & Atiq W. Siddiqui & Craig Standing, 2019. "Exploring Systemic Problems in IS Adoption Using Critical Systems Heuristics," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 125-153, April.
    7. W Ulrich, 2004. "Reply to the comments of Ormerod: the history of ideas of CST," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 55(11), pages 1238-1241, November.
    8. J. J. Warmink & M. Brugnach & J. Vinke-de Kruijf & R. M. J. Schielen & D. C. M. Augustijn, 2017. "Coping with Uncertainty in River Management: Challenges and Ways Forward," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 31(14), pages 4587-4600, November.
    9. Anselm Schneider, 2015. "Reflexivity in Sustainability Accounting and Management: Transcending the Economic Focus of Corporate Sustainability," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 127(3), pages 525-536, March.
    10. Ormerod, Richard J. & Ulrich, Werner, 2013. "Operational research and ethics: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 291-307.
    11. Anabel Sanchez-Plaza & Annelies Broekman & Pilar Paneque, 2019. "Analytical Framework to Assess the Incorporation of Climate Change Adaptation in Water Management: Application to the Tordera River Basin Adaptation Plan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-13, February.
    12. Rafael R. Ramírez & Leanne Seeliger & Filippo Di Pietro, 2016. "Price, Virtues, Principles: How to Discern What Inspires Best Practices in Water Management? A Case Study about Small Farmers in the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-16, April.
    13. Morgan, Te Kipa Kepa Brian & Fa`aui, Tumanako Ngawhika, 2018. "Empowering indigenous voices in disaster response: Applying the Mauri Model to New Zealand's worst environmental maritime disaster," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 984-995.
    14. Céline Bérard & L.M., Cloutier & Luc Cassivi, 2017. "The effects of using system dynamics-based decision support models: testing policy-makers’ boundaries in a complex situation," Post-Print hal-02128255, HAL.
    15. Macadam, R. & Van Asch, R. & Hedley, B. & Pitt, E. & Carroll, P., 1995. "A case study in development planning using a systems learning approach: Generating a master plan for the livestock sector in Nepal," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 299-323.
    16. Tanzi Smith, 2011. "Using critical systems thinking to foster an integrated approach to sustainability: a proposal for development practitioners," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 1-17, February.
    17. Michael Walker, 2017. "The Search for Viability: A practitioner's view of how the Viable Systems Model is helping transform English local government (and why it has passed unrecognised)," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(3), pages 313-334, May.
    18. Meinard, Y. & Tsoukiàs, A., 2019. "On the rationality of decision aiding processes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 273(3), pages 1074-1084.
    19. Meinard, Y. & Cailloux, O., 2020. "On justifying the norms underlying decision support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 285(3), pages 1002-1010.
    20. Vos, Janita F.J. & Achterkamp, Marjolein C., 2004. "An instrument for stakeholder identification: phasing roles of involvement," Research Report 04B32, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:waterr:v:27:y:2013:i:7:p:2179-2194. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.