IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/cijwxx/v35y2019i3p525-542.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What’s the middle ground? Institutionalized vs. emerging water-related stakeholder engagement processes

Author

Listed:
  • Emeline Hassenforder
  • Delphine Clavreul
  • Aziza Akhmouch
  • Nils Ferrand

Abstract

In this day and age, it is widely argued that stakeholder engagement in water-related decision-making processes yields many benefits, including legitimacy, acceptance and trust. Key legal frameworks, such as the European Water Framework Directive and the Aarhus Convention, have spurred the emergence of formal forms of stakeholder engagement. On the other hand, many engagement processes are spontaneous and self-organized. This article investigates the strategies used in formal (government-led) and informal (bottom-up) engagement processes in search of a middle ground. To this end, case studies in the Netherlands, the United States, Uganda and Ethiopia are analyzed using the OECD’s stakeholder engagement checklist. We conclude with reflection on the ways forward to make formal and informal stakeholder engagement complementary.

Suggested Citation

  • Emeline Hassenforder & Delphine Clavreul & Aziza Akhmouch & Nils Ferrand, 2019. "What’s the middle ground? Institutionalized vs. emerging water-related stakeholder engagement processes," International Journal of Water Resources Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(3), pages 525-542, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:cijwxx:v:35:y:2019:i:3:p:525-542
    DOI: 10.1080/07900627.2018.1452722
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/07900627.2018.1452722
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/07900627.2018.1452722?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.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:cijwxx:v:35:y:2019:i:3:p:525-542. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/cijw20 .

    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.