research proposal water resource management

The project has a low risk to not achieving its goals. However, there are possible risks listed below:

Quantitative:

1. Participation of member economies (target value 50%)

2. Number of best practices reviewed by the project (target value 5)

3. Number of policy recommendations (target value 5)

4. Number of participants of the workshop/capacity building (target value 40)

5. Number of female participation in the workshop (target value 30%)

6. Number of female speakers in the workshop (target value 17%)

7. Capacity building on available digital technology (at least 1)

Qualitative:

The workshop will have a measurement on the degree of satisfaction of the participants, regarding the place, the speakers and the contents. (survey)

The project is relevant to many APEC fora, such as Agricultural Technical Cooperation Working Group, Energy Working Group, Health Working Group, Sustainable Development and others.  These stakeholders may be involved in its implementation, discussions, exchange of best practices and information, formulation of STI policy recommendations. In addition, it is proposed that as a continuation of the project, PO jointly with Agricultural Cooperation Working Group Members can develop additional project linking the project with agriculture and how IWRM and use of digital technology may support developing better strategical plans in agriculture. The project will build on the previous work in related area, for example project PPSF012017 developed in Chile 2018 and invite relevant parties from the project to be a part of the workshop and its outcome in order to better complement previous work in the area. As project introduces digital technologies available (Digital Earth Australia, etc.), the outcomes of the Australia-led project on Current and future value of earth and marine observing to the Asia Pacific Region will be considered. Furthermore, experts involved in the implementation of the report from Australia will be invited to conduct capacity building part on technology of the workshop.

The project´s uniqueness is that it involves not only agricultural sector, but rather tries to incorporate all sectors of economy due to importance of water recourses for their functioning. It also, does not restrain its focus on management related to climate change outcomes as it is mostly used in recent days, but also includes man related issues around shared water recourses.

Once the APEC financing for the project is completed, it is expected that the final report will be distributed widely within the economies and will be shared with local stakeholders. When applied, PO will share opportunities for research and/or other related events (like capacity buildings, internships, etc.) among the workshop participants, so the created network of experts during the workshop is alive and can lead into creation of stronger links between different economies and actors.

As a continuation of the project, a proposal that can be focused mainly on usage of digital technologies for WRM and its usage for agricultural sector can be developed jointly with Agriculture Technical group. This new project, although, not directly involved with IWRM, can allow participants to see practical applications of digital technologies on certain economic area that is directly related with water resource management and how available data can help producers to manage their resources of water in a better way. The outcomes of the IWRM project will be presented as an input for the workshop, so there is awareness among participants on its importance.

Sharapiya KAKIMOVA graduated from Kazakh State Polytechnic Institute in 1993 as a system engineer. She obtained a Master of Arts degree in the field of international relations and later her Ph.D. on Peace Studies from Hiroshima University with specific focus on public administration and its reform in post conflict countries in general and in Afghanistan in particular.

She worked in various governmental institutions of Kazakhstan for six years and was responsible for external aid coordination. Dr. Kakimova has participated in many courses related to the international cooperation. She joined United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) twice as an Associate, in 2002 and in 2003, and has been a Training Assistant with UNITAR Hiroshima Office from January 2004 until January 2009, when she moved to Chile. From March 2011 to August 2013, Dr. Kakimova has been holding full time teaching position at Los Lagos University of Chile where she was giving lecture on International Relations Theory and responsible for the process of practice and graduation within the Faculty of Administrative and Political Sciences. In September 2013, Dr. Kakimova joined CONICYT, first with Scholarship Program and since March 2015 she is part of PCI were she is in charge of cooperation with Asia-Pacific Region and Americas. She has been focal point for APEC from February 2018 and have experience of managing APEC projects and concept notes. For this project she will be working closely with relevant researchers (names to be confirmed) and public and private organizations relevant to the field of IWRM.

It is requested for APEC team to provide flexibility in case of travel arrangements for speakers and participants considering availability of speakers and participants, economies they represent and distance from the economy to Chile.

The field trip (proposed duration is a full day) proposed to be organized during the event is related directly with the objectives of the workshop as a place/institution directly related with the topic of water recourses management will be visited. The cost to be borne by CONICYT.

All Rights Reserved © 2011 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation. Singapore. Developed with the assistance of Microsoft.

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Water resource management: IWRM strategies for improved water management. A systematic review of case studies of East, West and Southern Africa

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliations Soil, Crop, and Climate Sciences, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa, School of Engineering, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa, Varmac Consulting Engineers, Scottsville, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Civil & Structural Engineering, Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology, Kakamega, Kenya

Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Soil, Crop, and Climate Sciences, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa

Roles Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Agriculture and Engineering Services, Irrigation Engineering Section, Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Ilorin, Kwara State, Nigeria

• Tinashe Lindel Dirwai, 
• Edwin Kimutai Kanda, 
• Aidan Senzanje, 
• Toyin Isiaka Busari

• Published: May 25, 2021
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236903
• Reader Comments

The analytical study systematically reviewed the evidence about the IWRM strategy model. The study analysed the IWRM strategy, policy advances and practical implications it had, since inception on effective water management in East, West and Southern Africa.

The study adopted the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) and the scoping literature review approach. The study searched selected databases for peer-reviewed articles, books, and grey literature. DistillerSR software was used for article screening. A constructionist thematic analysis was employed to extract recurring themes amongst the regions.

The systematic literature review detailed the adoption, policy revisions and emerging policy trends and issues (or considerations) on IWRM in East, West and Southern Africa. Thematic analysis derived four cross-cutting themes that contributed to IWRM strategy implementation and adoption. The identified four themes were donor effect, water scarcity, transboundary water resources, and policy approach. The output further posited questions on the prospects, including whether IWRM has been a success or failure within the African water resource management fraternity.

Citation: Dirwai TL, Kanda EK, Senzanje A, Busari TI (2021) Water resource management: IWRM strategies for improved water management. A systematic review of case studies of East, West and Southern Africa. PLoS ONE 16(5): e0236903. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236903

Editor: Sergio Villamayor-Tomas, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, SPAIN

Received: July 12, 2020; Accepted: May 2, 2021; Published: May 25, 2021

Copyright: © 2021 Dirwai et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper.

Funding: This study was supported by the National Research Foundation (NRF) in the form of a grant awarded to TLD (131377) and VarMac Consulting Engineers in the form of a salary for TLD. The specific roles of the authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section. The funders had no additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have read the journal’s policy and have the following potential competing interests: TLD is a paid employee of VarMac Consulting Engineers. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. There are no patents, products in development or marketed products associated with this research to declare.

1 Introduction

Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) is a concept that is meant to foster effective water resource management. GWP [ 1 ] defined it as “the process which promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources, to maximise the resultant economic and social welfare equitably without compromising the sustainability of vital systems”. A holistic approach, in the form of the Dublin statement on Water and Sustainable Development (DSWSD), emerged and it became the backbone of IWRM principles.

According to Solanes and Gonzalez-Villarreal [ 2 ] the Dublin priciples are: “ (1) Freshwater is a finite and vulnerable resource , essential to sustain life , development and the environment; (2) Water development and management should be based on a participatory approach , involving users , planners and policy-makers at all levels , (3) Women play a central part in the provision , management , and safeguarding of water , and (4) Water has an economic value in all its competing uses , and should be recognised as an economic good .” The seamless conflation of the DSWSD and the Agenda 21 at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in 1992 further strengthened the IWRM discourse and facilitated the policy approach of IWRM [ 3 , 4 ]. Since its inception the IWRM policy has been the holy grail of water resource management in Africa, Asia, and Europe to mention a few. For policy diffusion, countries were required to develop an IWRM policy blueprints for effective water use [ 5 ].

This review sought to unveil the innovative IWRM strategy approach by critically examining its genesis, implementation, adoption and the main drivers in in East, Southern and West Africa. Secondary to this, the study endeavoured to determine whether the IWRM implementation has been a success or failure. The choice of East, West and Southern Africa was influenced by the regional dynamics of Sub-Saharan Africa which have unique problems in water resources management and the hydropolitical diversity in this region. The isolated cases provide a holistic representation t the implementation dynamics of IWRM. In addition, sub-Sahara Africa was the laboratory for IWRM with Zimbabwe and South Africa being the early implementers [ 6 ]. Apart from the IWRM strategy being a social experiment in sub-Sahara, there exists a gap on an overarching review on the performance and aggregated outcomes of the IWRM adopters in the continent. The selection of the countries of interest was based on the authors geo-locations and their expert experiences with the IWRM strategy in their respective localities. The study sought to draw trends, similarities, and potential differences in the drivers involved in achieving the desired IWRM outcome.

IWRM strategy approach and implementation are ideally linked to individual country’s developmental policies [ 7 ]. Southern Africa (Zimbabwe and South Africa) is the biggest adopter of the water resource management strategy and produced differed uptake patterns [ 8 ]. In East Africa, Tanzania,Uganda and Kenya also adopted the IWRM strategy, whilst in West Africa, Burkina Faso latently adopted the IWRM strategy in 1992 [ 4 ] and in Ghana, customary and traditional water laws transformed into latent IWRM practices [ 9 ].

Various initiatives were put in place to aid the adoption of IWRM in sub-Sahara Africa. For example, Tanzania benefited from donor funds and World Bank programmes that sought to alleviate poverty and promote environmental flows. The World Bank radically upscaled and remodelled IWRM in Tanzania through the River Basin Management—Smallholder Irrigation Improvement Programme (RBM-SIIP) [ 10 ]. The government of Uganda’s efforts of liberalising the markets, opening democratic space and decentralising the country attracted donor funds that drove the IWRM strategy agenda. The long-standing engagement between Uganda and the Nordic Fresh Water initiative helped in the diffusion of IWRM strategy in the country. Finally, in West Africa, Burkina Faso and Ghana made significant strides in operationalising the IWRM strategy by adopting the West Africa Water Resources Policy (WAWRP). A massive sense of agency coupled with deliberate government efforts drove the adoption status of Burkina Faso.

Total policy diffusion can be achieved when the practice or idea has supporting enablers. Innovation is key in developing plocies that altersocietal orthodox policy paths that fuel hindrance and consequently in-effective water governance [ 11 ]. Acknowledging the political nature of water (water governance and transboundary catchments issues) is the motivation to legislate water-driven and people-driven innovative policy [ 12 ]. Water policy reform should acknowledge the differing interests’ groups of the water users and its multi-utility nature; thus, diffusion channels should be tailored accordingly, avoiding the ‘one size fits all’ fallacy. IWRM as an innovative strategy approach diffused from the global stage to Africa and each regional block adopted the approach at different times under different circumstances.

The rest of this paper is outlined as follows; section 2 presents the conceptual framework adopted and the subsequent methodology. Section 3 presents the results and discussion. The discussion is structured around innovation driver in each respective region. Thereafter, sub-section 3.4 presents the prospect of IWRM in the East, West and Southern Africa regions. Lastly, the paper presents the conclusion.

2 Methodology

2.1 conceptual framework and methodology.

The analytical framework applied in the study is based on the water innovation frames by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) [ 13 ]. The UNDESA [ 13 ], classified water frames into three distinct categories namely water management strategies (e.g., IWRM), water infrastructure and water services. The former partly involves IWRM strategies and the latter encompasses economic water usage such as agriculture, energy production and industrial applications [ 12 ].

The literature review identified research gaps that informed the employed search strategy. The literature that qualified for inclusion was thoroughly analysed and discussed. The aggregated outcomes were used for excerpt extraction in the thematic analysis.

2.2 Literature handling

The study performed a systematic review as guided by the Arksey and O’Malley [ 14 ] approach. The approach details methods on how to scope, gather, screen and report literature. The study further employed a constructionist thematic analysis to extract common recurring themes amongst the regions.

2.2.1 Eligibility criteria.

Eligibility criteria followed an adapted SPICE (Setting, Perspective, Intervention, Comparison and Evaluation) structure ( Table 1 ). The SPICE structure informed the study’s search strategy ( Table 2 ) and the subsequent formulation of the inclusion-exclusion criteria ( Table 3 ). The evidence search was conducted from the following databases: Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, UKZN-EFWE, CABI, JSTOR, African Journals Online (AJOL), Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), J-Gate, SciELO and WorldCat for peer-reviewed articles, books, and grey literature. The study did not emphasize publication date as recommended by Moffa, Cronk [ 15 ]. Databases selection was based on their comprehensive and over-arching nature in terms of information archiving. It is worth mentioning that the search strategy was continuously revised by trial and error until the databases yielded the maximum number of articles for screening.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236903.t001

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236903.t002

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236903.t003

2.2.2 Search strategy.

The search strategy or query execution [ 16 ] utilised Boolean operators ( OR & AND ). The dynamic nature of the search strategy required the authors to change the search terms and strategy, for example, if digital databases did not yield the expected search items the study would manually search for information sources. The search queries included a string of search terms summarised in Table 2 .

2.2.3 Selection process.

DistillerSR © software was used for article screening. Online data capturing forms were created in the DistillerSR © software and two authors performed the article scoring process that eventully led to article screening. The screening was based on the article title, abstract and locality. The study employed a two-phase screening process [ 17 ], the first phase screened according to title and the second phase screened according to abstract and keywords. During the screening process, studies that the matched information in the left column of Table 3 we included in the literature review syntheses, whilst those that matched the exclusion list were discarded.

2.3 Thematic analysis

The review also adopted the thematic analysis approach by Braun and Clarke [ 18 ] to extract, code, and select candidate converging themes for the systematic review. The selected lieterature was subjected to qualitative analysis to capture recurring themes amongst the selected regions (East, West and Southern Africa). Data extracts from the respective regional analysis were formulated into theoretical themes. Thereafter, the extracted data was coded according to the extracted patterns from the information source to constitute a theme. It is worth mentioning that the authors used their discretion to extract and code for themes.

3 Results and discussion

Data charting comprised of the PRISMA flow-chart ( Fig 1 ). The study utilised 80 out of 183 records (n = 37, 46%) for East Africa, (n = 37, 46%) for Southern Africa, and (n = 6, 8%) for West Africa.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236903.g001

3.1 Case studies

The introduction of IWRM in the East African region was initiated in 1998 by the water ministers in the Nile basin states due to the need for addressing the concerns raised by the riparian states. These water sector reforms revolved around the Dublin principles initiated by the UN in 1992 [ 20 ]. In 1999, Kenya developed the national water policy and the enabling legislation, the Water Act 2002 was enacted [ 21 ]. The Act was replaced by the Water Act 2016 which established the Water Resources Authority (WRA) as the body mandated to manage water resources in line with the IWRM principles and Water Resource Users Association (WRUA) as the lowest (local) level of water management [ 22 ].

Similarly, Uganda developed the national water policy in 1999 to manage, and develop the available water resources in an integrated and sustainable manner [ 23 ]. The National Water Policy further provides for the promotion of water supply for modernized agriculture [ 24 ]. Tanzania’s water policy of 2002 espouses IWRM principles, and its implementation is based on a raft of legal, economic, administrative, technical, regulatory and participatory instruments [ 25 ]. The National Irrigation Policy (NIP), 2010 and the National Irrigation Act, 2013 provides the legal basis for the involvement of different actors on a private-public partnership basis [ 26 ].

West Africa possesses an unregistered IWRM strategy that is espoused in the West Africa Water Resources Policy (WAWRP) of 2008. The WAWRP is founded on the following legal principles; (a) “promote, coordinate and ensure the implementation of a regional water resource policy in West Africa, in accordance with the mission and policies of Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS)and (b) “harmonization and coordination of national policies and the promotion of programmes, projects and activities, especially in the field of agriculture and natural resources”. The founding legal basis resonates with the Dublin principles.

The WAWRP design actors were ECOWAS, Union Economique et Monétaire Ouest Africaine (UEMOA), and Comité Permanent Inter-État de Llutte Contre la Sécheresse au Sahel (CILSS). CILSS is the technical arm of ECOWAS and UEMOA. The institutional collaboration was driven by the fact that West Africa needed a sound water policy for improved regional integration and maximised economic gains. ECOWAS established the Water Resources Coordination Centre (WRCC) to (a) oversee and monitor the region’s water resources and management activities and (b) to act as an executive organ of the Permanent Framework for Coordination and Monitoring (PFCM) of IRWM [ 27 ].

The inception and triggers of IWRM in West Africa can be traced back to the General Act of Berlin in 1885 which, among other things, dictated water resources use of the Congo and Niger rivers [ 28 ]. A multiplicity of agreements around shared watercourses in West Africa led to the realisation of the IWRM policy approach. For example, the Senegal River Basin (SRB) Development Mission facilitated collaboration between Senegal and Mauritania in managing the SRB. Another noteworthy agreement was Ruling C/REG.9/7/97, a regional plan to fight floating plants in the ECOWAS countries [ 28 ]. GWP (2003) categorised the West African countries according to the level of adoption into three distinct groups namely; (a) Group A comprised of countries with the capacity to develop and adopt the IWRM approach (Burkina Faso and Ghana), (b) Group B comprised of countries needing “light support” to unroll the IWRM plan (Benin, Mali, Nigeria, and Togo), and (3) Group C comprised of laggards which needed significant support to establish an IWRM plan (Cape Verde, Ivory Coast, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal and Sierra Leone).

Southern African Development Community (SADC) regional bloc has over 15 shared transboundary river basins (For detailed basin and catchment arrangement in SADC see [ 29 ]). SADC member states established the Protocol on Shared Water Systems (PSWS) which meant to encourage sustainable water resources utilisation and management. The PSWS was perceived to strengthen regional integration [ 30 ]. The regional bloc formulated the Regional Strategic Action Plans (RSAPs) that sought to promote an integrated water resources development plan. The action initiative mimicked IWRM principles and the shared water resources initiatives acted as a catalyst for the genesis of IWRM in Southern Africa [ 31 ]. SADC houses the Waternet and the GWP-SA research and innovation hubs upon which SADC’s IWRM adoption was anchored on. Besides the availability of trained water experts in the region who were willing to experiment with the IWRM policy approach, water scarcity fuelled by climate change prompted the region’s adoption of the IWRM policy approach at the local level.

3.2 Diffusion drivers of IWRM in East, West and Southern Africa

3.2.1 water scarcity..

The adoption of IWRM in East Africa was necessitated by water scarcity which is experienced by the countries in the region, which formed the need for adoption of prudent water resources management strategies as envisaged under the Dublin principles which was championed indirectly, according to Allouche [ 5 ], by the World Bank. Specifically, the need to give incentives and disincentives in water use sectors to encourage water conservation.

Kenya is a water-scarce country with per capita water availability of 586 m 3 in 2010 and projected to 393 m 3 in 2030 [ 32 ]. Uganda is endowed with water resources, however, it is projected that the country will be water-stressed by 2020 which could be compounded by climate variability and change, rapid urbanization, economic and population growth [ 33 ].

Using water scarcity was in essence coercing countries to adopt the IWRM principles with the irrigation sector, the contributor of the largest proportion of water withdrawals, becoming the major culprit [ 5 ]. The researchers opine that the effects of water scarcity in the region can be countered by adopting IWRM strategy, but adaptively to suit the local context and thus, persuasive rather than coercive, is the appropriate term. Indeed, as put forward by Van der Zaag [ 34 ], IWRM is not an option but it is a necessity and therefore, countries need to align their water policies and practices in line with it.

West African climatic conditions pose a threat on the utilisation of the limited water resource. Water resource utilisation is marred by erratic rainfalls and primarily a lack of water resources management know-how [ 27 ]. Countries in the Sahelian regions are characterised by semi-arid climatic conditions. Thus, dry climatic conditions account as an IWRM strategy driver to ensure maximised water use efficiency. Although the region acknowledges the need for adopting the IWRM strategy, they have varied adoption statuses (GWP, 2003).

Southern African countries also face serious water scarcity problems. Rainfall in South Africa is low and unevenly distributed with about 9% translating to useful runoff making the country one of the most water scarce countries in the world [ 35 ]. Generally, SADC countries experience water scarcity resulting in conflicts due to increasing pressure on the fresh water resources [ 36 ]. Thus, the researched opine that water scarcity pushed the region to adopt the IWRM strategy inorder to mitigate the looming effects of climate change on surface water availainility.

3.2.2 Trans-boundary water resources.

Water resources flow downstream indiscriminately across villages, locations, regions and nations/states and therefore necessitates co-operation. The upstream and downstream relationships among communities, people and countries created by the water is asymmetrical in that the actions upstream tend to affect the downstream riparian and not the other way round [ 34 ]. In East Africa, the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) and the Lake Victoria Basin Commission (LVBC) plays a critical component in promoting the IWRM at regional level [ 20 ].

The Nile River system is the single largest factor driving the IWRM in the region. Lake Victoria, the source of the Nile River is shared by the three East African states of Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania. Irrigation schemes in Sudan and Egypt rely exclusively on the waters of River Nile and are therefore apprehensive of the actions of upstream states notably Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda and Burundi. The source of contention is the asymmetrical water needs and allocation which was enshrined in the Sudan–Egypt treaty of 1959 [ 37 ]. All the riparian countries in the Nile basin have agricultural-based economies and thus irrigation is the cornerstone of food security [ 38 ]. Therefore, there was the need for the establishment of basin-wide co-operation which led to the formation of NBI in 1999 with a vision to achieve sustainable socio-economic development through the equitable utilisation of the Nile water resources [ 39 ].

The Mara River is another trans-boundary river which is shared between Tanzania and Kenya and the basin forms the habitat for the Maasai Mara National Reserve and Serengeti National Park in Kenya and Tanzania, respectively, which is prominent for the annual wildlife migration. Kenya has 65% of the upper part of the basin, any development on the upstream, such as hydropower or water diversion, will reduce the water quantities and therefore affect the Serengeti ecosystem and the livelihoods of people in Tanzania [ 40 ]. The LVBC, under the East African Community, developed the Mara River Basin-wide—Water Allocation Plan (MRB-WAP) to help in water demand management and protection of the Mara ecosystem [ 41 ]. The mandate of the LVBC is to implement IWRM in Lake Victoria Basin riparian countries [ 20 ].

Other shared water basins include the Malakisi-Malaba-Sio River basin shared between Uganda and Kenya and the Kagera River basin traversing Burundi, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda. The two river basins form part of the Upper Nile system and are governed through the LVBC and the NBI.

The universal transboundary nature of water creates dynamics that warrant cooperation for improved water use. West Africa has 25 transboundary watercourses and only 6 are under agreed management and regulation. The situation is compounded by the fact that 20 watercourses lack strategic river-basin management instruments [ 28 ]. Unregistered rules and the asymmetrical variations associated with watercourses warranted the introduction of the IWRM principle to set equitable water sharing protocols and promote environmental flows (e-flows). The various acts signed represent an evolutionary treaty development that combines th efforts of riparian states to better manage the shared water resources (for detailed basin configuration in West Africa see [ 42 ]). Hence, adoption of the IWRM strategy driven WAWRP of 2008 ensured the coordinanted and harmonised regional water usage mechanisms.

The SADC region has 13 major transboundary river basins which calls for development of agreements on how to handle the shared water resources with the contraints of varying levels of economic development and priorities among the member states. The multi-lateral and bi-lateral agreeements on shared water resources in the SADC is hampered by the hydropolitics where economic power dynamics favour South Africa as in the case of the Orange-Senqu basin [ 43 ].

3.2.3 Donor influence.

The World Bank has been pushing for IWRM principles in the East Africa through the NBI and by pressurising Egypt to agree to co-operate with the upstream riparian countries in the Nile basin [ 38 ]. In the early 1990s, the World Bank had aligned its funding policies to include sustainable water resources management [ 44 ].

In Tanzania, Norway, through NORAD, played a key role in implementing IWRM by promoting water projects including hydropower schemes [ 45 ]. Indeed the transformation of the agricultural sector in Tanzania through Kilimo Kwanza policy of 2009 which emphasised on the commercialization of agriculture including irrigation was driven by foreign donors such as the USAID and UK’s DFID [ 26 ].

In Uganda, however, the reforms in the water sector were initiated devoid of external influence [ 46 ]. However, this assertion is countered by Allouche [ 5 ] who pointed that Uganda had become a ‘darling’ of the donor countries in the early 1990s and that DANIDA helped to develop the Master Water Plan and the country was keen to show a willingness to develop policy instruments favourable to the donor. East African countries are developing economies and therefore most of their development plans are supported by external agencies, which to some extent come with subtle ‘conditions’ such as free-market economies. In fact imposition of tariffs and other economic instruments used to implement IWRM in water supply and irrigation is a market-based approach which was favoured by the World Bank and other development agencies.

Donor aid cannot be downplayed in pushing for IWRM diffusion in low-income aid-dependent countries of West Africa. GoBF [ 47 ] reported that from the period 1996–2001, more than 80% of water-related projects were donor funded. Cherlet and Venot [ 48 ] also found that almost 90% of the water investments in Mali were funded outside the government apparatus. It can, therefore, be argued that donor-aid plays a pivotal and central role in diffusing policy and innovation in aid-depended countries because of the incentive nature it provides for the low-income countries in the sub-Sahara region.

Southern Africa’s experience with western donors including the World Bank in terms of IWRM adoption favoured the urban areas and neglected rural areas (see [ 8 ]). The National Water Act drafting process in South africa was a multi-stakeholder and intersectoral activity that brought in international consultancies. Notable IWRM drivers were Department of International Development—UK (DFID), Danish Danida, and Deustsche Gesellschaft fur Zusammernarbeit (GIZ). The DFID was instrumental in water reform allocation law whilst the GIZ and Danida were active in experimental work in the catchments [ 3 ]. On the contrary, in Zimbabwe, a lack of access to international funding and fleeting donor aid exacerbated the policy uptake as such the anticipated implementation, operationalisation and continuous feedback mechanism for policy revision and administering process was never realised.

3.2.4 Government intervention and pro-active citizenry.

This was predomint in West Africa. For example the Burkinabe government exhibited political goodwill such that in 1995 the government brought together two separate ministries into one ministry of Environment and Water thus enabling coherent policy formulation and giving the ministry one voice to speak on water matters. The dynamic innovation arena (where policy players interact) allows continuous policy revision and redesign thus water policy reform diffusion, and policy frameworks are in a perpetual state of shifting. For example, in the 1990s the Burkinabe government was engaged in several water-related projects and was continuously experimenting with local governance and privatization (from donors) [ 1 ]. This policy shift according to Gupta [ 49 ] qualifies as an innovation driver.

Burkina Faso and Mali’s adoption story is accentuated by heightened agency, the individual enthusiasm on influencing the outcome facilitated policy diffusion and can be argued to be a potential innovation diffusion driver for the IWRM policy approach in the region. The individual policy diffusion fuelled by an enthusiastic citizenry was a sure method that effectively diffused awareness around the IWRM innovation and acted as a driver of the IWRM practices in the region. Individual strategies were honed in smallholder farming institutions to diffuse the IWRM practice and drawing from the Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith [ 50 ] advocacy coalition theory, having individuals with common agendas promoted the transfer and diffusion of water reforms in parts of West Africa.

3.2.5 Legal, political and institutional incoherence.

This was a major factor which dictated the pace of IWRM implementation in Southern Africa. For example, the Fast Track Land Reform (FTLR) programme in Zimbabwe disaggregated the large-scale commercial farms and created smallholder farming [ 51 ], consequently influencing and dictating IWRM policy path. The FTLR programme had a negative impact on the spread and uptake of IWRM. A series of poor economic performance and poor policy design compounded the limited diffusion and the adoption of IWRM practices at local levels in Zimbabwe. The FTLR programme compounded the innovation diffusion process as the Zimbabwe National Water Authority (ZINWA) lost account of who harvested how much at the newly created smallholder farms. Thus, water access imbalance ensured, and ecological sustainability was compromised.

Policy incoherence was a major factor in poor IWRM diffusion and adoption, for example, the government did not synchronise the land and water reforms thus it meant at any given point in time there was a budget for one reform agenda [ 8 ] and the land reform agenda would take precedence because of political rent-seeking. IWRM in its nature couples growth to the coordinated consumption of finite resources, hence the circular approach cannot be easily realised because finte resources are at the core of the strategy’s existence.

South Africa’s transition from Integrated Catchment Management (ICM) strategies to the IWRM strategy, hindered the operationalisation and diffusion of the IWRM strategy [ 52 ]. Despite acknowledging the “integration”, researchers argued that the word lacked a clear-cut definition thus failing to establish a common ground for water’s multi-purpose use [ 53 ]. For maximised adoption of a practice, incremental innovation is required, which was Danida’s agenda in the quest to drive IWRM in South Africa. According to Wehn and Montalvo [ 54 ] incremental innovation “is characterised by marginal changes and occurs in mature circumstances”,

Land reform in South Africa is characterised by (a) redistribution which seeks to transfer land from the white minority on a willing buyer willing seller basis, (b) restitution which rights the discriminatory 1913 land laws that saw natives evicted from their ancestral land, and (c) land tenure that provides tenure to the occupants of the homelands. This new pattern created a new breed of smallholder farmers that are, more often than not, excluded from diffusion and water governance channels [ 55 ]. In addition, researchers argue that a farm once owned by one white farmer is owned by multiple landowners with different cultural backgrounds and, more often than not, IWRM strategy is met with resistance [ 56 ]. Another challenge posed by multi-cultural water users is the interpretation and translation of innovations.

To foster water as an economic good aspect of IWRM the licensing system was enacted in South Africa. The phenomenon was described by van Koppen (2012) as paper water precedes water, thus the disadvantaged black smallholder farmers could not afford paper water which consequently limits access to water. The licensing system can be interpreted as stifling the smallholder sector and hence negative attitudes develop and hinder effective policy diffusion. Another issue that negatively impacted adoption was that issuing a license was subject to farmers possessing storage facilities. The smallholder farmers lack resources hence the requirement for obtaining a license excluded the small players in favour of the large-scale commercial farmers. This consequently maintains the historically skewed status-quo, where “big players” keep winning. Van Koppen [ 57 ] and Denby, Movik [ 58 ] argue the shift from local water rights system to state-based water system have created bottlenecks making it hard for smallholder farmers to obtain “paper water” and subsequently “wet water”. The state-based system is characterised by bureaucracies and local norms are in perpetual change, hence denying the IWRM innovation policy approach stability efficiency.

A lack of political will and pragmatism amplified the poor adoption and operationalisation of IWRM, a poorly performing economy and fleeing donor agencies resulted in less funding for water-related project. Political shenanigans created an imbalance that resulted in two forms of water i.e., water as an economic good vs. water as a social good [ 59 ]. Manzungu [ 60 ] argued post-colonial Zimbabwe continuously failed to develop a peoples-oriented water reform policy. In a bid to correct historical wrongs by availing subsidised water to the vulnerable and support the new social order, the initiative goes against the neo-liberalism approach that defines the “water as an economic good” [ 61 ] which is a founding principle of IWRM.

Water redistribution in South Africa has been fraught with political and technical issues, for example, the Water Allocation Reform of 2003 failed to reconcile the apartheid disparity hence the equity component of IWRM was compromised. IWRM suffered another setback caused by the governing party when they introduced radical innovations that sought to shift from the socialist to neoliberal water resource use approach. The radical innovation through the government benefited the large-scale commercial farmers at the expense of the black smallholder farming community [ 53 ].

3.3 Systematic comparison of findings on East, West and Southern Africa

Data extracts from the respective regional analysis were formulated into theoretical candidate themes. The thematic analysis extracted recurring themes common to all the three regions. An independent reviwer performed the subjective thematic analysis and the authors performed the review on the blind thematic analysis outcome. The analysis performed a data extraction exercise and formulated codes ( Fig 2 ). Themes were then generated from the coded data extracts to create a thematic map. It is worth mentioning that the data extracts were phrases/statement from with in the literature review.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236903.g002

3.3.1 Donor aid and policy approach.

Donor activity invariably influenced the policy path that individual countries took. The three regions had significant support from donors to drive the IWRM strategy. Zimbabwe experienced a different fate. The political climate caused an exodus of donor support from the nation, which consequently caused a laggard. The absence of donor support was at the backdrop of the two formulated water acts namely National Water Act [ 62 ] and the Zimbabwe National Water Authority Act of 1998 [ 63 ], which were meant to promote equitable water provision amongst the population. This highlights the latent adoption of IWRM strategy. The 2008/2009 cholera outbreak raised alarm and facilitated the return of donor activity in Zimbabwe’s water sector. The availability of donor support motivated the redrafting of a water clause in the 2013 constitution that espoused the IWRM strategy to water management [ 64 ].

Whilst Mehta, Alba [ 64 ] argue that South Africa enjoyed minimal donor support it cannot be downplayed how much donor influence impacted the IWRM strategy adoption. For instance, the Water Allocation Reform (WAR) was drafted with the aid of the UK Department of International Development. The WAR fundamentals are informed by IWRM principles. The economic structural programmes spearheaded by The World Bank and the IMF were active in facilitating the diffusion of the IWRM strategy in Kenya and Uganda. Uganda made strides because of a long-standing relationship with donor nations. The Uganda—donor relationship dates back to early 1990 where Uganda was elected to be the NBI secretariat, this in itself evidence of commitment to water policy reform [ 4 , 65 ]. Donor aid acts as an incentive and augments the low African goverments’ budgets, as such proper accountability and usage of the funds ensures that more funds come in for projected water related projects.

3.3.2 Transboundary water resources.

The Nile River system is the single largest factor driving the IWRM in the region since it is shared across several upstream and downetream nations. Irrigation schemes in Sudan and Egypt rely exclusively on the waters of River Nile and are therefore apprehensive of the actions of upstream states notably Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda and Burundi. The source of contention is the asymmetrical water needs and allocation which was enshrined in the Sudan–Egypt treaty of 1959 [ 37 ]. Over time, the upstream countried demanded equitable share of the Nile waters and this led to the establishment of NBI. In Eastern Africa, the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) and the Lake Victoria Basin Commission (LVBC) plays a critical component in promoting the IWRM at regional level [ 20 ]. The LVBC is deeply intertwined with the East African Community (EAC) and thus has more political clout to implement policies regarding utilization of the Lake Victoria waters [ 66 ]. This, therefore, implies that for NBI to succeed, it must have a mandate and political goodwill from the member countries.

The conflicts around the utilization of the Nile water resources persists due to the treaty of 1959 which led to the signing of Cooperative Framework Agreement (CFA) by a number of the Nile basin countries, with the notable exceptions of Egypt, Sudan and South Sudan [ 67 ]. The CFA was signed between 2010 and 2011 and establishes the principle that each Nile Basin state has the right to use, within its territory, the waters of the Nile River Basin, and lays down some factors for determining equitable and reasonable utilization such as the contribution of each state to the Nile waters and the proportion of the drainage area [ 68 ]. The construction of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam has been a source of concern and conflict among the three riparian countries of Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt [ 67 ]. The asymmetrical power relations (Egypt is the biggest economy) in the Nile Basin is a big hindrance to the co-operation among the riparian countries [ 69 ] and thus a threat to IWRM implementation in the shared watercourse. While Ethiopia is using its geographical power to negotiate for an equitable share in the Nile water resources, Egypt is utilizing both materials, bargaining and idealistic power to dominate the hydro politics in the region and thus the former can only succeed if it reinforces its geographical power with material power [ 70 ].

Therefore, IWRM implementation at the multi-national stage is complex but necessary to forestall regional conflicts and war. The necessity of co-operation rather than conflict in the Nile Basin is paramount due to the water availability constraints which is experienced by most countries in the region. The transboundary IWRM revolves around water-food- energy consensus where the needs of the riparian countries are sometimes contrasting, for example, Egypt and Sudan require the Nile waters for irrigation to feed their increasing population while Ethiopia requires the Nile waters for power generation to stimulate her economy. The upstream riparian States could use their bargaining power to foster co-operation and possibly force the hegemonic downstream riparian States into the equitable and sustainable use of Nile waters [ 71 ].

The SADC region has 13 major transboundary river basins (excluding the Nile and Congo) of Orange, Limpopo, Incomati, Okavango, Cunene, Cuvelai, Maputo, Buzi, Pungue, Save-Runde, Umbeluzi, Rovuma and Zambezi [ 72 ]. The Revised Protocol on Shared Watercourses was instrumental for managing transboundary water resources in the SADC. The overall aim of the Protocol was to foster co-operation for judicious, sustainable and coordinated management, the protection and utilization of shared water resources [ 73 ].

Ashton and Turton [ 74 ] argue that the transboundary water issues in Southern Africa revolved around the key roles played by pivotal States and impacted States and their corresponding pivotal basins and impacted basins. In this case, pivotal States are riparian states with a high level of economic development (Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, and Zimbabwe) and a high degree of reliance on shared river basins for strategic sources of water supply while impacted States are riparian states (Angola, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland, Tanzania, and Zambia) that have a critical need for access to water from an international river basin that they share with a pivotal state, but appear to be unable to negotiate what they consider to be an equitable allocation of water and therefore, their future development dreams are impeded by the asymmetrical power dynamics with the pivotal states. Pivotal Basins (Orange, Incomati, and Limpopo) are international river basins that face closure but are also strategically important to anyone (or all) of the pivotal states by virtue of the range and magnitude of economic activity that they support. Impacted basins (Cunene, Maputo, Okavango, Cuvelai, Pungué, Save-Runde, and Zambezi) are those international river basins that are not yet approaching a point of closure, and which are strategically important for at least one of the riparian states with at least one pivotal State.

The transboundary co-operation under IWRM in Southern Africa is driven mainly by water scarcity which is predominant in most of the SADC countries which may imply the use of inter-basin transfers schemes [ 74 ]. Further, most of the water used for agriculture, industry and domestic are found within the international river basins [ 75 ] which calls for collaborative water management strategies. The tricky feature hindering the IWRM is the fact that States are reluctant to transfer power to River Basin Commissions [ 76 ]. Indeed most of the River Basin Organizations (RBO) in Southern region such as the Zambezi Commission, the Okavango River Basin Commission, and the Orange-Sengu River Basin Commission have loose links with SADC and therefore lack the political clout to implement the policies governing the shared water resources [ 66 ]. Power asymmetry, like in Eastern Africa, is also a bottleneck in achieving equitable sharing of water resources as illustrated by the water transfer scheme involving Lesotho and South Africa [ 77 ]. The hydro-hegemonic South Africa is exercising control over any negotiations and agreements in the Orange-Senqu basin [ 43 ]. Limited data sharing among the riparian States is another challenge which affects water management in transboundary river basins e.g. in the Orange-Senqu basin [ 78 ].

West Africa has 25 transboundary watercourses and only 6 are under agreed management and regulation. The situation is compounded by the fact that 20 watercourses lack strategic river-basin management instruments [ 28 ]. Unregistered rules and the asymmetrical variations associated with watercourses warrant the introduction of the IWRM principle to set equitable water sharing protocols and promote environmental flows (e-flows). The various acts signed represent an evolutionary treaty development that combines the efforts of riparian states to better manage the shared water resources. It is important to note that evolutionary treaties are incremental innovation. Water Resources Coordination Centre (WRCC) was established in 2004 to implement an integrated water resource management in West Africa and to ensure regional coordination of water resource related policies and activities [ 79 ].

The Niger River basin covers 9 Countries of Benin, Burkina, Cameroon, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea, Mali, Niger and Nigeria. The Niger River Basin Authority (NBA) was established to promote co-operation among the member countries and to ensure basin-wide integrated development in all fields through the development of its resources, notably in the fields of energy, water resources, agriculture, livestock, forestry exploitation, transport and communication and industry [ 80 ]. The Shared Vision and Sustainable Development Action Programme (SDAP) was developed to enhance co-operation and sharing benefits from the resources of River Niger [ 81 ]. The Niger Basin Water Charter together with the SDAP are key instruments which set out a general approach to basin development, an approach negotiated and accepted not only by all member states but also by other actors who utilize the basin resources [ 82 ].

The main agreement governing the transboundary water resource in River Senegal Basin is the Senegal River Development Organization, OMVS (Organisation pour la mise en valeur du fleuve Sénégal) with its core principle being the equitably shared benefits of the resources of the basin [ 82 ]. The IWRM in the Senegal River Basin is hampered by weak institutional structures and lack of protocol on how shared waters among the States as well as conflicting national and regional interests [ 83 , 84 ]. The Senegal River Basin, being situated in the Sudan-Sahelian region, is faced by the threat of climate change which affects water availability [ 84 ] The Senegal River Basin States have high risks of political instability.

3.4 Prospects of IWRM Africa

The countries in the three regions are at different stages of implementation ( Table 4 ). In East Africa, Uganda and Kenya are at medium-high level while Tanzania is medium-low. Majority of the countries in the Southern Africa region are at medium low. Comoros Islands is the only country at low level of implementation in the region. West African countries are evenly spread between low, medium-low and medium-high levels of implementation. Generally, East Africa is ranked as medium-high level with average score of 54% while Southern Africa and West Africa are ranked as medium low-level at 46% and 42% respectively. However if you include, medium low countries of Rwanda, Burundi, Ethiopia and South Sudan and the low-level Somalia, then East Africa’s score drops to 39% (medium-low).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236903.t004

The implementation of IWRM in the continent, and more so the inter dependent and multi purpose water use sectors, will continue to evolve amid implementation challenges. The dynamics of water policies, increased competition for finite water resources from rapid urbanization, industrialization and population growth will continue to shape IWRM practices in the region. Trans-boundary water resources management will possibly take centre stage as East African countries move towards full integration and political federation as envisaged in the four pillars of the EAC treaty. Decision support tools such as the Water—Energy—Food (WEF) nexus appraoch will be very relevant in the trans-boundary water resources such as the Nile system, Mara and Kagera river basins. The approach can potentially ameliorate the after effects of the devolved governance system in Kenya that consequently created a multiplicity of transboundary sectors.

Adoption of the IWRM policy in West Africa is fraught with many challenges. For example, despite having significant water resources, the lack of a collective effort by the governments to train water experts at national level presents a challenge for adoption. Unavailability of trained water experts (who in any case are diffusion media) results in a lack of diffusion channels that facilitate policy interpretation, translation and its subsequent implementation. Helio and Van Ingen [ 27 ] pointed out how political instability possesses a threat to current and future implantation initiatives. The future collaboration projects and objective outlined by ECOWAS, CILSS, and UEMO highlight a major effort to bring the region to speed with the IWRM policy approach. The WAWRP objectives can potentially set up the region on an effective IWRM trajectory which can be mimicked and upscaled in other regions. Positives drawn from the region are the deliberate institutional collaborations. Burkina Faso and Mali have the potential to operationalise and facilitate policy diffusion to other neighbouring states. Donor driven reform is essential and national ownership is critical in ensuring the water reform policies and innovation diffusion processes are implemented at the national level.

The IWRM policy approach and practice in South Africa was government-driven whereas in Zimbabwe external donors were the main vehicles for diffusion. For both countries, the water and land reform agenda has a multiplicity of overlapping functionaries; however, they are managed by separate government departments. The silo system at national level prevents effective innovation diffusion and distorts policy interpretation and the subsequent dissemination at the local level.i.

Water affairs are politicised and often, the water reform policy fails to balance the Dublin’s principles which form the backbone of the IWRM innovation policy approach. Failure by national governments to address unequal water access created by former segregationist policies is perpetuated by the lack of balance between creating a new social order and recognising the “water as an economic good” principle.

4 Conclusion

Africa as a laboratory of IWRM produced varied aggregated outcomes. The outcomes were directly linked to various national socio-economic development agendas; thus, the IWRM policy took a multiplicity of paths. In East Africa, Kenya is still recovering from the devolved system of government to the County system which created new transboundary sectors with the country. Water scarcity, trans-boundary water resource and donor aid played a critical role in driving the IWRM policy approach in the three regions. Southern Africa’s IWRM experience has been fraught with policy clashes between the water and land reforms. Similar to Africa, the transboundary issue in Europe and Asia and the subsequent management is a major buy-in for formulating water resources strategies that are people centric and ecologically friendly. Global water scarcity created fertile grounds for IWRM adoption in Asia, specifically India. Thus, we postulate that some of the drivers that influenced the uptake and diffusion in Africa are not only unique to the continent.

For the future, IWRM policy approach can be implemented in Africa and the continent has the potential to implement and adopt the practice. Endowed with a significant number of water bodies, Africa must adopt a blend of IWRM strategy and the water energy food nexus (WEF) for maximising regional cooperation and subsequent economic gains. WEF nexus will help combat a singular or silo approach to natural resources management. WEF nexus and IWRM is a fertile area for future research as it brings a deeper understanding of the trade-offs and synergies exsisting in the water sector across and within regions. In addition, the WEF nexus approach can potentially facilitate a shift to a circular approach that decouples over dependence on one finte resource for development.

Supporting information

S1 checklist..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236903.s001

S1 Table. Data extracts with the applied codes.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236903.s002

• 1. GWP, Capitalizing the development process of the Action Plan for IWRM and its implementation in Burkina Faso . 2009, Global Water Patnership: Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.
• 2. Solanes M. and Gonzalez-Villarreal F., The Dublin principles for water as reflected in a comparative assessment of institutional and legal arrangements for integrated water resources management, ed. G.W.P.T.A.C. (TAC). 1999, Stockholm, Sweden.: Global Water Partnership.
• 3. Mehta L., et al., Flows and Practices : The Politics of Integrated Water Resources Management in Eastern and Southern Africa , Metha L., Derman B., and Manzungu E., Editors. 2017, Weaver Press: Harare, Zimbabwe.
• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 13. UNDESA, International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities Revision 4 . 2008, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs: New York, USA.
• PubMed/NCBI
• 20. GWP, Integrated water resources management in Eastern Africa : Coping with ’complex’ hydrology 2015, Global Water Partnership: Stockholm, Sweden.
• 21. GOK, The Water Act , 2002 . 2002, Government Printer Nairobi, Kenya.
• 22. GOK, The Water Act , 2016 . 2016, Government Printer: Nairobi, Kenya.
• 23. MWLE, A National Water Policy 1999 , Ministry of Water, Lands and Environment Kampala, Uganda.
• 25. MWLD, National Water Policy . 2002, Ministry of Water and Livestock Development: Dodoma, The United Republic of Tanzania.
• 27. Helio J. and Van Ingen N., in West Africa Water Resources Policy (WAWRP) . 2008, Partnership for Environmental Governance in West Africa—PAGE.: Ouagadougou. Burkina Faso.
• 29. Senzanje A., Agricultural Water Management Interventions (Awmi) for Sustainable Agricultural Intensification (SAI) in the Chinyanja Triangle Area of Malawi , Mozambique and Zambia . 2016, IWMI: Pretoria, South Africa.
• 30. Granit J., Swedish experiences from transboundary water resources management in southern Africa . Stockholm: SIDA (Publications on Water Resources 17), 2000.
• 32. Kibiiy J. and Kosgei J., Long-Term Water Planning : A Review of Kenya National Water Master Plan 2030 , in Water Resources Management . 2018, Springer: Berlin, Germany. p. 193–208.
• 41. LVBC, Mara river basin-wide water allocation plan . 2013, Lake Victoria Basin Commission: Kisumu, Kenya.
• 43. Mirumachi N., Transboundary Water Politics in the Developing World . 2015, New York Routledge.
• 46. Kesti E., Domestic water supply policy evaluation : A comparative case study of Uganda and Madagascar between 1992 and 2016 . 2019, Lund University Lund, Sweden.
• 47. GoBF, Le PAGIRE dans le contexte du secteur de l’eau du Burkina . Document debase : Table ronde des bailleurs de fonds du plan d’action pour la gestion intégrée des ressources en eau ., Faso G.d.B., Editor. 2003, GoBF Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.
• 49. Gupta J., Driving forces in global freshwater governance. In: Water Policy Entrepreneurs : A Research Companion to Water Transitions Around the Globe ., Huitema D. and Meijerink S., Editors. 2009, Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK. p. 37–57.
• 50. Sabatier P.A. and Jenkins-Smith H.C., Policy change and learning : An advocacy coalition approach . 1993, Colorado, USA.: Westview Pr.
• 51. Moyo S. and Chambati W., Land and Agrarian Reform in Zimbabwe . 2013, Dakar, Senegal.: African Books Collective.
• 55. Denby K., et al., The’trickle down’of IWRM : A case study of local-level realities in the Inkomati Water Management Area , South Africa . 2016.
• 56. Denby K., et al., The’trickle down’of IWRM : A case study of local-level realities in the Inkomati Water Management Area , South Africa . 2016, Harae, Zimbabwe.: Weaver Press.
• 58. Denby K., et al., The ‘trickle down’of integrated water resources management : A case study of local-level realities in the Inkomati water management area , South Africa . 2017, Harare, Zimbabwe.: Weaver Press.
• 59. Hellum A. and Derman B., Negotiating water rights in the context of a new political and legal landscape in Zimbabwe , in Mobile People , Mobile Law . 2017, Routledge: London, UK. p. 189–210.
• 62. GoZ, Zimbabwe Water Act . 1998, GoZ: Harare, Zimbabwe.
• 63. GoZ, Zimbabwe National Water Authority (Chapter 20 : 25) . 1998, Zimbabwe National Water Authority (ZINWA): Harare, Zimbabwe.
• 65. Jønch-Clausen T.J.W., what and how, Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) and Water Efficiency Plans by 2005 : Why , What , and How . 2004: p. 5–4.
• 69. Allan J.A. and Mirumachi N., Why Negotiate? Asymmetric Endowments, Asymmetric Power and the Invisible Nexus of Water, Trade and Power that Brings Apparent Water Security, in Transboundary water management Earle A., Jägerskog A., and Öjendal J., Editors. 2010, Stockholm International Water Institute: London. p. 13–26.
• 70. Cascão A.E. and Zeitoun M., Power, Hegemony and Critical Hydropolitics, in Transboundary Water Management Earle A., Jägerskog A., and Öjendal J., Editors. 2010, Stockholm International Water Institute: London p. 27–42.
• 71. Cascão A. and Zeitoon M., Changing nature of bargaining power in the hydropolitical relations in the Nile River Basin, in Transboundary water management , Earle A., Jägerskog A., and Öjendal J., Editors. 2010, Stockholm International Water Institute: London. p. 189–194.
• 73. Heyns P. Strategic and Technical Considerations in the Assessment of Transboundary Water Management with Reference to Southern Africa. in Water , Development and Cooperation- Comparative Perspective : Euphrates-Tigris and Southern Africa . 2005. Bonn Bonn International Center for Conversion.
• 74. Ashton P. and Turton A., Water and Security in Sub-Saharan Africa: Emerging Concepts and their Implications for Effective Water Resource Management in the Southern African Region, in Facing Global Environmental Change , Brauch H.G., et al., Editors. 2009, Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg. p. 661–674.
• 75. Ashton P. and Turton A. Transboundary Water Resource Management in Southern Africa: Opportunities, Challenges and Lessons Learned. in Water , Development and Cooperation-Comparative Perspective : Euphrates-Tigris and Southern Africa . 2005. Bonn International Center for Conversion.
• 76. Swatuk L.A. Political Challenges to Sustainably Managing Intra-Basin Water Resources in Southern Africa: Drawing Lessons from Cases. in Water , Development and Cooperation- Comparative Perspective : Euphrates-Tigris and Southern Africa . 2005. Bonn: Bonn International Center for Conversion.
• 77. Daoudy M., Getting Beyond the Environment–Conflict Trap: Benefit Sharing in International River Basins, in Transboundary water management , Earle A., Jägerskog A., and Öjendal J., Editors. 2010, Stockholm International Water Institute: London p. 43–58.
• 79. Bhattacharyya S., Bugatti N., and Bauer H., A bottom-up approach to the nexus of energy , food and water security in the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) region . 2015, London: Economic and Social Research Council.
• 80. Olomoda I.A. Integrated Water Resources Management: The Niger Basin Authority’s Experience. in From Conflict to Co-operation in International Water Resources Management : Challenges and Opportunities . 2002. Delft, The Netherlands.
• 81. Andersen I., et al., The Niger River Basin : A Vision for Sustainable Management , ed. Golitzen K.G. 2005, Washington, DC: World Bank.
• 85. UNEP, Progress on integrated water resources management. Global baseline for SDG 6 Indicator 6 . 5 . 1 : degree of IWRM implementation . 2018, United Nations Environment Programme: Nairobi.

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

25 Integrated Water Resources Management Core Research Questions for Governance

Mark Lubell is Professor in the Department of Environmental Science and Policy and Director of the Center for Environmental Policy and Behavior at the University of California, Davis.

Carolina Balazs is a Postdoctoral Scholar in the Department of Environmental Science and Policy at the University of California, Davis.

• Published: 07 July 2016
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

Integrated water resources management (IWRM) has become a globally recognized approach to water governance. However, the definition of IWRM remains abstract, and implementation challenges remain. This chapter analyzes IWRM from the perspective of adaptive governance, which conceptualizes IWRM as an institutional arrangement that seeks to solve collective-action problems associated with water resources and adapt over time in response to social and environmental change. Adaptive governance synthesizes several strands of literature to identify the core social processes of water governance: cooperation, learning, and resource distribution. This chapter reviews the existing research on these ideas and presents frontier research questions that require continued investigation to understand how IWRM contributes to the sustainability and resilience of water governance. It argues that an adaptive governance lens allows movement beyond the contentious normative debate surrounding the appropriate definition of IWRM to analyze the core social and political processes driving its decision-making processes.

Introduction

Across the globe, integrated water resources management (IWRM) has become the most widely recognized approach to water governance ( Rahaman and Varis 2005 ). The Global Water Partnership (GWP) Technical Advisory Committee (2000) defines IWRM as “a process which promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources in order to maximize economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems.” This definition highlights functional integration between land and water resources, including multiple issues such as water supply, water quality, flood management, climate change, and biodiversity. Such functional integration focuses mostly on the structure of human-built and ecological systems and is typically analyzed from natural science and engineering perspectives.

IWRM also encompasses the human dimensions of water management, stressing the interdependence among social, political, and ecological processes ( Jeffrey and Gearey 2006 ; Pahl-Wostl, Craps et al. 2007 ; Pahl-Wostl, Tábara et al. 2007 ). IWRM seeks to coordinate decision-making across and within multiple levels of government ranging from local to international. It strives to strengthen the link between science and policy, with the goal of making better informed and adaptive decisions that respond to changing ecological conditions. IWRM provides greater opportunities for stakeholder and citizen participation, as well as for bridging ideological divides between economic, environmental, and other types of coalitions. The equitable distribution of the costs and benefits of water management and environmental justice are also core concerns.

IWRM is usually contrasted with a top-down and technocratic approach to water management, which tends to compartmentalize different aspects of water management without fully recognizing their interdependence across issues, sectors, and scales ( Gleick 2003 ). In the top-down models, technical experts have the most influence over the decision process, and public participation is often nonexistent or symbolic and is perceived as raising management costs instead of adding value. Command-and-control regulations are usually preferred to voluntary, market-based, or incentive-based policies. Centralized infrastructure investments such as large water storage and conveyance systems are more likely to be funded than are decentralized, demand-side water management approaches. Economic efficiency often receives more emphasis than other aspects of sustainability such as ecosystem services, social equity, and political legitimacy.

Proponents argue that the more bottom-up, participatory style of IWRM can provide better solutions to water management problems in the long run and find synergy among economic, environmental, and social goals. However, despite the theoretical promise, there is substantial and long-running debate about the effectiveness of IWRM (Biswas 2004 , 2008a , 2008b ). This chapter analyzes and reviews the debate through the lens of adaptive governance. Adaptive governance conceptualizes IWRM as an institutional arrangement that seeks to solve collective-action problems associated with water resources while making decisions under uncertainty and adapting over time in response to new information ( Folke et al. 2005 ; Geldof 1995 ; Huitema et al. 2009 ; Scholz and Stiftel 2010 ).

Collective action problems occur when interdependent water users and policy stakeholders make self-interested decisions that ignore social costs, which lead to socially undesirable outcomes. For instance, a classic collective-action problem is groundwater overdraft. In this situation, each user prefers to continue pumping even if other users reduce their pumping rates to a more sustainable level, thus leading to a tragedy of the commons and overdepletion of the aquifer. Solving collective-action problems entails three core processes: learning about possible policy solutions for different water problems, cooperation among policymakers and resource users to implement the solution, and equitable distribution of the benefits and costs of collective action. The adaptive governance perspective goes beyond the contentious normative debate surrounding IWRM to analyze the core social and political processes driving decision-making.

We divide the chapter into three sections. First, we review the state of the practice of IWRM in terms of the international dialogue about how it is defined and how IRWM programs are being deployed across the world. Second, we review the adaptive governance literature highlighting how IWRM represents an institutional arrangement for solving water collective-action problems. By identifying the relationships among the three core processes of cooperation, learning, and equity in resource distribution, the adaptive governance approach allows for linking previously disparate ideas in the IWRM and environmental governance literature. We conclude by describing four priority research questions for IWRM moving forward, involving continued research on environmental effectiveness, the extent to which IRWM fits different social-ecological contexts, how IWRM is integrated into broader complex institutional systems, and whether IRWM contributes to environmental justice goals.

IWRM: State of the Practice

Before providing a theoretical analysis of IWRM, it is important to describe how it is defined in the global policy dialogue, including the various meanings of integration that are used across the literature. Sketching out the pathways by which IWRM is incorporated into water management in different countries provides an idea of the global scope of the approach.

Defining IWRM

Definitions of IWRM have evolved over a century of global dialogue among researchers, politicians, water users, and administrators ( Cardwell et al. 2006 ; Jønch-Clausen and Jens Fugl 2001 ; Molle 2008 ; Ward 1995 ). Building on the United Nation’s Mar del Plata 1977 Water Conference and the 1987 Brundtland Report, the Rio-Dublin principles are the most consolidated statement relevant to IWRM ( Snellen and Schrevel 2004 ). Subsequently, the GWP, an international organization, has refined the Rio-Dublin principles and created a global transnational advocacy network that aims to implement IWRM on multiple scales. The Rio-Dublin and GWP definitions are widely employed in international dialogue. Table 25.1 summarizes these ideas and also lists related adaptive governance concepts, which are discussed in the second section of this chapter.

The international definitions of IWRM have inherited many of the same problems as the preceding concept of sustainable development. The goals are broad, normative, and vague. The actual details of what is meant by the approach, who should implement it, and how to evaluate it are left to interpretation, at best (Biswas 2008a , 2008b ). Numerous case studies exemplify the challenge of actually integrating water resource management along hydrologic boundaries ( Blomquist and Schlager 2005 ; Saravanan, McDonald, and Mollinga 2009 ; Van der Zaag, 2005 ). Others criticize IWRM as part of a larger neo-liberal, technocratic agenda that fails to grapple with the underlying role of power and politics that drive water management and allocation ( Perreault 2014 ; Zwarteveen and Boelens 2014 ). Critics have thus called IWRM a “nirvana” ( Molle 2008 : 131) or “elastic” concept that is vulnerable to green-washing and symbolic politics ( Lubell 2004 ). Because it is difficult to measure the effectiveness of IWRM at achieving its goals, it is easy for any particular actor to claim they are being achieved even if IWRM is being used only symbolically. Out of these critiques emerges, among other things, the idea that “integration” should be acknowledged as a political process and as such should be analyzed in terms of “how integration actually takes place” ( Saravanan et al. 2009 : 77).

Dimensions of Integration

In defining IWRM, Lubell and Edelenbos (2013 ; see also Hering and Ingold 2012 ) argue that IWRM includes at least three dimensions of integration: functional, societal, and institutional. Functional integration refers to decisions that account for ecological interdependency and interconnectedness among watershed functions, such as flood management, water supply, water quality, biodiversity, and land use. Societal integration refers to civic engagement through public participation, as well as collaboration among stakeholders with different preferences. Institutional integration refers to coordinated decision-making among different geographical, hydrological, and jurisdictional scales. Arguably there are finer distinctions within each of these categories. Within functional integration, it is important to consider technical integration between water systems, such as interties between different drinking water systems, which is sometimes a response to drought or a strategy to increase water system reliability. Societal integration could also mean a stronger integration of science into policy decisions. Institutional integration can include vertical cross-scale linkages as well as horizontal within-scale linkages across geography.

Regardless of the dimension of integration, each requires developing boundary-spanning policy networks that facilitate information exchange and collaboration ( Schneider et al. 2003 ). Furthermore, there may be positive or negative feedbacks between different aspects of integration such that achieving one type of integration makes it harder or easier to achieve other types. Exactly what mix of integration and boundary-spanning networks makes IWRM more or less effective across different contexts remains a major open question.

Multilevel International Deployment

Although we know of no global census of IWRM approaches, examples are found all over the world, in both developed and developing countries (e.g., Braga and Lotufo 2008 ; Garcia 2008 ; Lubell and Edelenbos 2013 ; Varis, Muhammed, and Stucki 2008 ; World Health Organization 2012 ). The key question in each of these cases is how IWRM is translated into the different contexts in which it is deployed. In some cases, IWRM principles are explicitly referenced in policies (e.g., see Garcia 2008 ), while in other cases a decentralized, watershed management approach will implicitly reflect IWRM principles.

In the European Union, the most important policy for IWRM is the European Water Framework Directive (WFD). The legislative history of the WFD shows a close engagement with the international dialogue on IWRM. The WFD requires each member-state to incorporate WFD principles and requirements into national legislation and ultimately identify and develop IWRM plans for individual watershed basins. Exactly how this happens depends on the domestic political context of each country; some countries have implemented the WFD more quickly and effectively than others ( Liefferink, Wiering, and Uitenboogaart 2011 ).

In developing countries, transnational coalitions such as the GWP work to implement IWRM at multiple levels, including contributing to the international dialogue, partnering with national governments to create stronger water management institutions that reflect IWRM principles, and working with individual communities to implement on-the-ground projects. IWRM ideas are also commonly used by the broader set of international aid organizations, including both public and private foundations and contractors. These international aid organizations manage large-scale programs and usually partner with domestic nongovernmental organizations and government agencies at multiple scales, in order to increase in-country fiscal and technical capacity. For example, the IWRM is a core principle of the water resources strategy of the World Bank, which funds many water projects throughout the world ( World Bank 2010 ).

Unilateral action at the domestic level in some countries and in subnational units has occurred. For instance, in the United States the 1972 Clean Water Act includes a number of watershed-based programs that implicitly incorporate IWRM principles. Examples include the requirement to develop total maximum daily load plans for watersheds that violate water quality standards and the National Estuary Program, which develops plans for coastal estuaries. The Clean Water Act establishes national standards, and individual states develop their own implementation plans, which are approved by the Environmental Protection Agency but also reflect local political, economic, and social contexts. This parallels the way in which individual EU countries interpret the WFD to meet EU guidelines and involves a similar set of challenges of delegating the implementation of national law to individual states. These are some of the same issues involved in the international debate about decentralization in environmental governance. There are also large-scale ecosystem management programs such as those in the Everglades and Chesapeake Bay ( Heikkila and Gerlak 2005 ), along with thousands of smaller watershed programs throughout the United States ( Lubell et al. 2002 ). However, these programs mostly implicitly reference IWRM ideas under the broader rubric of ecosystem or watershed management. Natural resource agencies in the United States have only recently engaged directly with IWRM in its own right ( Shabman and Scodari 2012 ).

Individual states have also pursued IWRM-style programs. For example, since the 2000s, integrated regional water management (IRWM) has been California’s dominant approach to water planning and funding. IRWM seeks to support multibenefit, multistakeholder water management solutions at regional levels. Currently, California is divided into forty-eight IRWM regions, which receive funding allotments from the California Department of Water Resources. Funds for IRWM are currently derived from Proposition 84 and Proposition 50, 1 which are ballot initiatives that specifically authorize state funds for watershed management. As with the international context, funding for local activities is a key aspect of IRWM. Within each IRWM region, one to several IRWM “groups” exists, and each has developed integrated regional water management plans. These groups facilitate collaboration among stakeholders and prioritization of water projects to obtain Department of Water Resources grant monies. Subnational units in other countries have also adopted IWRM policy innovations. For example, different states and water regions in Brazil have experimented with building IWRM principles into water governance institutions, with varying degrees of success ( Engle et al. 2011 ; Veiga and Magrini 2013 ).

Overall, how IWRM is translated into the political culture and institutions of different countries is a key issue. Lubell and Edelenbos (2013) argue that economic development and administrative decentralization are the two most important factors that influence how deeply IWRM principles are integrated into domestic public policies. As economic development increases, countries have a greater capacity to implement IWRM and are more likely to incorporate the environmental and social aspects of IWRM principles. Developing countries tend to rely on international organizations to implement IWRM and have incentives to focus IWRM on basic water development rather than ecosystem goals. Administrative decentralization entails trade-offs in IWRM—decentralized countries are better able to meet the goals of public participation, but centralized countries are better at actually convincing public agencies to work together to implement integrated technical solutions. However, more analysis is needed to see exactly how the translation of IWRM into different local social-ecological contexts influences overall effectiveness.

Adaptive Governance and Collective Action in IWRM

While IRWM’s utility and effectiveness is actively debated in the literature, discussion of its governance mechanisms typically focuses on policies and rules associated with its practice rather than analyzing the core social and political processes underlying water management. Without analyzing these core processes, it is hard to identify the variables that influence IRWM effectiveness, how to measure effectiveness from a social perspective, or how social aspects of IWRM link to the ecological system. The adaptive governance perspective attempts to remedy this situation and in so doing sheds light on a broader way of assessing the effectiveness of IWRM. By framing water management as a set of dynamic social processes, the adaptive governance perspective helps identify the key variables that might influence IWRM effectiveness. Consequently, this perspective goes beyond describing the status of various laws and programs currently deployed.

Lemos and Agrawal (2006 : 299) define environmental governance as “the set of regulatory processes, mechanisms and organizations through which political actors influence environmental actions and outcomes.” Within this broad definition, adaptive governance conceptualizes IWRM as an institutional arrangement for solving collective-action problems associated with water management (Libecap 1989 , 1994 ; Ostrom 1990 ; Scholz and Stiftel 2010 ), where institutional arrangements adapt over time in response to changing ecological, social, and political processes. Adaptive governance combines ideas from Ostrom’s (1999) institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework, as well as from adaptive management, social learning, and collaborative policy. The common theme among these frameworks is analyzing how institutions such as IWRM affect the logic of collective action.

As we argue in more detail later, adaptive governance requires the three core social processes of cooperation, learning, and equitable resource distribution. These processes encompass a broad set of literature on IWRM and water management, which tries to identify the variables that influence sustainable water management and how to evaluate its impacts ( Pahl-Wostl 2009 ; Timmerman, Pahl-Wostl, and Möltgen 2008 ). The processes are related to the transaction costs of collective action, which include the costs of searching for different policy options, bargaining over the distribution of costs/benefits of those options, and monitoring and enforcing the resulting political agreements. Transaction costs are partly influenced by the type of institutional arrangements in place, including the presence of IWRM. To illustrate these concepts, we use the aforementioned example of IRWM in California throughout the following sections.

Collective Action, Institutions, and IWRM

IWRM attempts to resolve many different collective-action problems at the basin or watershed level. Ostrom (1990) identified two classic collective-action problems associated with environmental resources such as water: (a) appropriation from a common-pool resource (CPR), such as groundwater, and (b) provision of public goods, such as water infrastructure. For both types of problems, individual actors have incentives to free-ride on the cooperation of others. The involved actors are inherently interdependent and engage in strategic behavior. Relative to the normative criterion of economic efficiency, these incentives lead to the overexploitation of CPRs and the underprovision of public goods.

In the case of IWRM, appropriation problems affect both surface water and groundwater supply, where users have incentives to ignore the social costs of water use. For example, water quality may be considered a CPR problem, where actors overuse the capacity of water to absorb pollution. Public goods problems include building new infrastructure such as water storage and conveyance or restoring natural habitats such as riparian vegetation and wetlands. When operating at the watershed level, IWRM recognizes the linkages among these different collective-action problems. For example, groundwater pumping can reduce surface water flow and availability, which has consequences for water quality and supply. Hence, one aspect of integration is trying to achieve sustainable resource use across multiple watershed problems and water uses. Sustainable management of the broad set of “ecosystem services” provided by watersheds thus requires IWRM to solve multiple collective-action problems.

The effectiveness of IWRM as adaptive governance depends on three core processes theorized to solve collective-action problems: cooperation, learning, and equitable distribution of costs and benefits ( Lubell 2013 ). Cooperation entails actors working together to develop and implement policy solutions; water users must use resources in appropriate ways and policymakers must coordinate policymaking and implementation activities. Learning means finding out what types of policy solutions provide mutually beneficial outcomes. Learning is especially important in the case of adaptive governance, where water stakeholders must deal with uncertainty and adjust institutional rules and management activities over time. Distribution refers to how the costs and benefits of IWRM are distributed across different users. IWRM generally seeks to attain some normative notion of fairness or equity in distribution; procedural fairness is necessarily implicated in this process.

The three core processes are related to the transaction costs of collective action, as elaborated by new institutional economics ( Eggertsson 1990 ; North 1990 ) and employed by the IAD framework. The transaction costs of collective action, which can impede cooperation, include searching for mutually beneficial solutions, bargaining over the potential solution set, and monitoring and enforcing the resulting agreement. Institutions that reduce transaction costs are hypothesized to be more effective. From this perspective, the question is whether IWRM entails lower transaction costs in comparison to other approaches to water governance (e.g., command-and-control regulations).

Cooperation and IWRM

The effectiveness of IWRM depends on cooperation at multiple levels of decision-making, ranging from international to on-the-ground resource use. At the resource-use level, cooperation refers to environmental behaviors that alleviate CPR problems or contribute to public goods. For example, IWRM may require farmers to reduce groundwater pumping rates to prevent overextraction, promote the conjunctive management of surface and groundwater, or reduce levels of pesticide and fertilizer use to meet water quality goals. In other cases, resource users might be asked to contribute labor or funding to the maintenance of water management infrastructure such as irrigation ( Ostrom and Gardner 1993 ) or levee systems. Many IWRM programs ask organizations such as special water districts or local governments to provide funding for the development of new water infrastructure. Since IWRM targets different types of water management issues, a range of different types of users may be asked to adjust their environmental behaviors.

Cooperation also becomes necessary among decision-makers at multiple levels. These decision-makers are not directly using resources but rather are involved in making collective decisions about the rules that will ultimately structure resource use. Here, IWRM involves many different types of policy actors—government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, resource user groups, scientists, and others. Developing and implementing IWRM requires each of these actors to provide specialized knowledge and resources. In a classic analysis, Bardach (1977) compares policy implementation to an “assembly line” where different actors must coordinate their actions, while Edelenbos, van Buuren, and van Schie (2011) argue that IWRM requires “synchronization” of multiple types of water management activities.

IWRM also requires cooperation in the formation of political advocacy coalitions ( Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1993 ), especially at national and international levels of policy. In these political arenas, advocates of IWRM are often trying to influence the international policy agenda or change national-level water laws in ways that incorporate IWRM principles. IWRM advocates may often face opposing coalitions that prefer to maintain the traditional technocratic approach to water management that continues to compartmentalize different aspects of water management, defer decisions to technical experts, and eschew meaningful public participation. Alleviating conflict among opposing coalitions is an important goal of IWRM. Ultimately, IWRM proponents form epistemic communities that work together for policy change ( Conca 2005 ; Haas 1989 ); such epistemic communities have the capacity to bridge across previously conflicting coalitions.

California’s IRWM program requires cooperation among diverse actors and stakeholders at the regional level, which provides funding for planning and project implementation. When putting together an IRWM plan, these actors collaborate to identify priority projects that provide multiple regional benefits. Selection and implementation of these projects requires joint action by multiple actors. In some cases, the projects try to change resource-use behaviors among specific groups, such as asking farmers to reduce nonpoint source pollution. In other cases, the projects entail joint infrastructure investments such as levee improvements or development of groundwater recharge areas. One evaluation of the San Francisco Bay IRWM suggests that such cooperation is slow to evolve and should not be expected to occur instantly when funding is provided ( Lubell and Lippert 2011 ). At least one reason for expecting only incremental change is that existing institutions are path-dependent, creating fairly stable norms and behaviors that are difficult to transform to a new way of interaction.

Social Learning and IWRM

Learning among actors is a key component of IWRM and has been addressed by a broad literature on social learning ( Gerlak and Heikkila 2011 ; Pahl-Wostl 2007 , 2009 ; Pahl-Wostl, Craps et al. 2007 ; Tippet et al. 2005 ). The adaptive governance approach attempts to integrate this strand of research into a broader framework that shows the relationship among social learning, cooperation, and equity. Social learning refers to the capacity of different stakeholders to learn from each other in order to manage resources effectively. This learning is influenced by social structures and practices and can also ultimately change these structures ( Pahl-Wostl and Hare 2004 ).

Social learning plays a pivotal role in solving collective-action problems since stakeholders must transform existing governance structures and develop policy solutions that provide mutual benefits. For example, IWRM programs explore many different technical and institutional solutions in an attempt to find ones that fit the particular context. IWRM programs also provide funding for research, monitoring, and model development in order to better understand particular social-ecological systems. IWRM programs incorporate scientists and community members into the policy process and attempt to increase the technical capacity of stakeholders. Given the high levels of uncertainty and complex ecological dynamics of watersheds, learning and adaptive management also needs to occur over time and decisions must be made without complete information.

A number of scholars have developed social learning frameworks that are useful for understanding this aspect of IWRM and water governance ( Gerlak and Heikkila 2011 ; Sabatier 1988 ; Weible 2008 ). Of particular interest is the social learning framework developed by Pahl-Wostl, Craps et al. (2007) , which describes how learning occurs over different time scales and levels of governance. Pahl-Wostl et al. describe three levels of learning: single-, double-, and triple-loop learning. In single-loop learning , stakeholder awareness and capacity are refined to improve performance of the water governance regime in the short term , but guiding assumptions and established institutions are not challenged ( Pahl-Wostl, Craps et al. 2007 ). In double-loop learning , the frame of reference of the governance regime changes and guiding assumptions are called into question in the medium-term time scale. Stakeholders may change goals and problem framing and expand their social networks, resulting in more diverse groups ( Pahl-Wostl 2009 ; Pahl-Wostl, Tábara et al. 2007 ). In triple-loop learning , there is a “transformation of the structural context and factors that determine the frames of reference” as actors recognize and change paradigms and existing structural constraints ( Pahl-Wostl 2009 : 359). This type of learning tends to take place on a long-term time scale ( Pahl-Wostl, Craps et al. 2007 ). Essentially, the institutional arrangements change, actors’ networks are transformed to include new actor groups, power structures shift, and new regulatory frameworks are introduced ( Pahl-Wostl 2009 ).

The application of social learning frameworks allows for a critical analysis of the impacts of IWRM in terms of structural changes to governance institutions. For example, Pahl-Wostl (2009 : 359) notes that much “double-loop learning can only be effective if accompanied by triple-loop learning” since it is often the case that the dominant paradigm can shift only if the underlying structural context is in question. In a related case study examining the role of one California IRWM project in incorporating environmental justice goals, Balazs and Lubell (2014) found that social learning among various stakeholders in the region had short and medium-term effects of increasing access to information regarding socioeconomically disadvantaged communities, increasing avenues for their participation and developing initial foundations for structural changes to water governance. They concluded that long-term change in their case’s regional IRWM institution is, at best, in its early phases. Ultimately, their results highlight how various learning environments enable consideration of how to change local IRWM governance structures to better address the needs of politically marginalized communities. Thus social learning is a key mechanism that allows equity goals to be pursued and structural change to (potentially) occur.

Equitable Resource Distribution and IWRM

The equitable distribution of the benefits and cost of water management is a key goal of IWRM ( Zwarteveen and Boelens 2014 ). From the adaptive governance perspective, solving collective-action problems increases economic efficiency and thus creates benefits for involved actors. At the same time, actors incur costs when planning and implementing IWRM activities. Simple models of collective action often assume that mutual cooperation delivers symmetric benefits to participating actors. However, there is no a priori reason for the cost and benefits of cooperation to be symmetrically distributed—cooperation makes the pie bigger, but the gains still must be divided. Therefore more nuanced notions of equity, distributive and procedural justice, and the role of political power within the context of resource distribution are necessary.

A core challenge for achieving social equity in IWRM is identifying what normative principles of equity and justice should be used and who should define them (Biswas 2008a , b ; Zeitoun and McLaughlin 2013 ). Critics argue that IWRM relies on a norm of technical neutrality that tends to emphasize economic efficiency over environmental and social equity goals. For instance, the idea of integration is often boiled down to creating a portfolio of cost-effective and reliable water supply options, which may include multiple supply sources and demand-side strategies. Technical neutrality potentially overlooks power asymmetries and political trade-offs among stakeholders ( Zeitoun and McLaughlin 2013 ).

Theories of justice, particularly as defined within the field of environmental justice, can be applied to broaden the technical neutrality view on resource distribution to encompass broader concepts of equity in IWRM. Liberal, Rawlsian ( Rawls 1971 ) notions of distributive justice examine how environmental goods and harms are distributed ( Taylor 2000 ). Procedural justice considers fairness in the implementation of programs and policies and whether all people are able to participate actively in the decision-making process ( Schlosberg 2004 ; Shrader-Frechette 2002 ).

A core factor shaping the outcomes of resource governance and achievement of justice is power. Specifically, political power is an important consideration for whether and how distributive and procedural justice can be achieved in IWRM. Because the benefits of collective action are not necessarily symmetric, actors use political power to bargain over resources ( Knight 1992 ). They form advocacy coalitions that lobby for different water management outcomes that favor their interests ( Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1993 ). Socioeconomically or politically marginalized communities (due to race, class, gender, etc.) and environmental groups are often less able to participate or less effective at political participation than economic actors with more resources. As a result, political trade-offs often favor more powerful actors, at the expense of less powerful ones ( Zeitoun and McLaughlin 2013 ; Zwarteveen and Boelens 2014 ). Ultimately, knowledge and power can further consolidate along technocratic lines ( Zwarteveen and Boelens 2014 ), and IWRM can “hide or sanction processes of dispossession and accumulation of water,” resulting in processes that are far from the stated goals of distributional and procedural justice ( Zwarteveen and Boelens 2014 : 145).

These concepts can be applied to adaptive governance and IWRM. Here, concepts of distributive justice can be applied to consider how the costs and benefits of collective action should be distributed among various actors. Procedural justice considerations can be used to assess whether particular stakeholders engage in decision-making processes of IWRM and whether they can effectively express their interests. Ultimately, the achievement of these forms of justice impact resource users’ perspectives on policies; research on fairness suggests that people who think policies are fair are more likely to cooperate and to believe that decisions are legitimate ( Tyler 1990 ).

In California, engaging and addressing the needs of socioeconomically disadvantaged communities 2 within IRWM illustrates the application of these theories to IWRM. Lubell and Lippert (2011) found that water management stakeholders in the San Francisco Bay area felt IRWM was least effective on this dimension. The reasons for this are multiple. The highly technical cultures of IRWM have barred disadvantaged communities from participating in governance. This technocratic culture and history of domination by “big water interests” (i.e. agriculture and municipal) can create hostile or uninviting environments for stakeholders who have not previously engaged in water management ( Balazs and Lubell 2014 ). Without appropriate technical capacity, training, and education about IRWM, disadvantaged communities and other traditionally marginalized water stakeholders have a harder time developing funding applications, accessing related monies, and influencing governance structures. Thus, without equitable participation and the possibility of a level political playing field, IWRM can simply become dominated by what Lubell and Lippert (2011) term “water politics as usual.”

Recognizing the particular limitations for disadvantaged communities, the California Department of Water Resources set aside $2.5 million to fund pilot outreach programs for seven IRWM groups across the state to explore how best to increase participation of disadvantaged communities in IRWM and increase their ability to access funding. While early evaluations of these projects suggest some initial progress has been made in terms of social learning and changes to local governance structures at the regional level, broader institutional changes at higher levels of governance are still needed to fully incorporate distributive and procedural goals of environmental justice ( Balazs and Lubell 2014 ).

Frontier Research Questions for IWRM

While IWRM has become the dominant water planning paradigm across the globe, understanding how and whether IWRM can truly lead to effective water governance requires developing several lines of inquiry. Here we identify four important questions that have not received enough attention. We believe these questions offer an opportunity to broaden the practice, theory, and research on adaptive governance and IWRM and bring it into conversation with additional literatures, where relevant. Certainly, given the amount and diversity of IWRM research, it is impossible to be inclusive here; other researchers will have different perspectives. Furthermore, we do not want to leave the impression that previously mentioned topics do not require further research. Yet in relation to frontiers in adaptive governance, we find these four questions are particularly relevant.

Is IWRM Effective?

Of all the open questions about IWRM, the most debated is whether IWRM is effective at achieving its water management goals and how to measure this ( Giordano and Shah 2014 ; Jeffrey and Gearey 2006 ; Koontz and Thomas 2006 ). Jeffrey and Gearey (2006 : 4) state it plainly: “Empirical evidence which unambiguously demonstrates the benefits of IWRM is either missing or very poorly reported.” Although research continues to advance, this assessment is still largely accurate. Effectiveness includes efficacy and impact of policy outputs such as changes in attitudes and plans, as well as environmental and sociopolitical outcomes resulting from the availability, distribution, reliability, and quality of water resources. Measuring environmental outcomes is especially difficult in complex water systems where outcomes emerge from dynamic hydrological processes, monitoring is fragmented over space and time, and changes often occur on a much longer time frame than those for which evaluations allow. Assessing effectiveness is further complicated by disagreement on what the goals of IWRM should be and potential trade-offs between different evaluative criteria.

Three sets of related literature provide some insight into the variables that influence the effectiveness of IWRM: local governance institutions for CPR, collaborative governance, and case studies of IWRM. The longest running literature has evolved from Ostrom’s work on CPRs and the overall IAD framework. Ostrom (1990) posited the following set of design principles for effective local CPR institutions: clearly defined boundaries, congruence between institutional rules and local conditions, individuals affected by the operational rules can participate in changing them, monitoring of resource use, graduated sanctions for rule violations, low-cost conflict resolution, recognition of rights to organize, and nested layers of institutions. To the extent these design principles are in place, CPR management will be more effective at sustaining the flow of environmental benefits over time. These design principles serve as central hypotheses in the growing empirical literature on IWRM and can be helpful for understanding key factors that contribute to IWRM’s success.

In addition to the aforementioned factors, the set of variables considered important for CPR governance has continued to expand as the IAD framework has evolved into a broader focus on social-ecological systems ( Agrawal 2001 ; Ostrom 2009 ). This literature has measured the effectiveness in terms of environmental outcomes, such as research projects like the International Forest Resources and Institutions that collect actual biophysical data from many different locations ( Coleman and Steed 2009 ; Persha, Agrawal, and Chhatre 2011 ). In a meta-analysis of ninety-one different CPR studies, Cox, Arnold, and Villamayor (2010) found substantial support that Ostrom’s design principles are correlated with improved environmental outcomes. Important additional evidence is emerging from studies of forest and irrigation systems that apply a common methodological framework to many different cases. Based on a set of Bolivian forest management case studies, Andersson (2004) found that horizontal and vertical actor networks positively influence institutional performance, which consequently alleviates deforestation ( Andersson and Gibson 2007 ). Across a broader global set of forest management case studies, Andersson and Agrawal (2011) found that group inequalities reduce institutional performance. Coleman (2009) showed a positive relationship between monitoring and sanctioning institutions and forest outcomes. Collectively, these studies indicate that many of Ostrom’s design principles are relevant for solving environmental collective-action problems.

Researchers examining collaborative governance frameworks have also identified key variables linked to effectiveness ( Ansell and Gash 2008 ; Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh (2012) . Lubell, Leach, and Sabatier 2009 ; Plummer and Armitage 2007 ; Sabatier et al. 2005 ). Because IWRM falls within the broader category of collaborative governance, these variables are relevant. For example, trust, boundary-spanning networks, perceived fairness, leadership, and adequate scientific information have all been found to increase effectiveness. However, this literature has mainly focused on the effectiveness of policy outputs rather than of environmental outcomes. There is less agreement on which policy outputs should be measured, especially if there are trade-offs between processes such as political participation and environmental outcomes.

Last, a growing number of case studies highlight key lessons learned about the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of IWRM. Many of these case studies focus on the challenges and limits of IWRM relative to the normative promise of the concept. Blomquist and Schlager (2005) point out the political pitfalls of watershed management, such as the difficulty of establishing political accountability and defining watershed boundaries. Lubell and Lippert (2011) suggest that IWRM only incrementally changes the status quo of water politics in California; it adds new collaboration partners, without fundamentally changing how projects are selected or implemented. International case studies of IWRM provide a large number of evaluation examples. While space limitations prevent a full review, there are a few special issues of journals that provide a good entry point ( Hooper 2009 ; Lubell and Edelenbos 2013 ; Nhapi et al. 2005 ; Tortajada 2014 ). In general, these international case studies indicate that achieving the goals of IWRM is thwarted by resource scarcity, weak governance institutions, conflict, and other institutional barriers (Biswas 2008a , b ).

In sum, there are several points of agreement in the evaluation literature related to institutions and environmental collective-action problems. First, there is sparse empirical evidence about effectiveness in terms of environmental outcomes. Second, the literature continually indicates an implementation gap where real-world examples of IWRM fail to meet all of the normative goals. Third, many of the same variables identified by Ostrom are considered by multiple literatures to be important predictors of effectiveness and receive at least some limited empirical support. Future IWRM research would benefit from conducting comparative analyses of multiple cases and merging biophysical assessments of ecosystem services with sociopolitical assessments. The definition of “effectiveness” needs further refinement, especially if there are trade-offs between policy outputs and environmental outcomes.

What Is the Role of Institutional Fitness?

The typical discussion of IWRM implies a one-size-fits-all approach where the decentralized, bottom-up IWRM model is compared to a more centralized, top-down model. But, in reality, IWRM comes in many different varieties reflecting the social-ecological context in which it is implemented. This makes it easy to criticize IWRM when it does not have every component of the normative definition. However, it is possible that a diverse set of institutional rules might be combined in different ways to achieve IWRM goals. At the same time, IWRM may not work in all contexts; evaluating contexts for which it is useful is necessary.

The idea of “institutional fitness” is a useful concept for analyzing these issues, but it remains understudied in IWRM. Institutional fitness refers to how well governance institutions fit different water management contexts ( Young 2002 ). Institutions with higher fitness should be more effective at solving collective-action problems. However, institutional fitness is not equivalent to effectiveness because it refers to the structure of institutions and associated networks—effectiveness is an output of decision-making within these institutions. Theories are just beginning to emerge that try to identify what types of governance institutions are better fit to different social-ecological contexts. Bodin and Tengö (2012) argue that social networks should be correlated with ecological connections, so that actors collaborate when they manage interdependent resources. Berardo and Scholz (2010) hypothesize that centralized institutions and networks are more effective when the underlying collective-action problems represent coordination games, but more decentralized networks with lots of “closed” structures are better for managing free-riding incentives. In the network governance literature, Provan and Kenis (2008) identify the different types of network structures that should be used depending on the number of actors, levels of trust, and types of expertise needed to solve different problems. All of these frameworks provide hypotheses about how different institutions and networks match the context in which they are applied.

The analysis of institutional fitness requires understanding how institutions evolve and change over time. IWRM evolves from what is perceived to be an ineffective status quo of water governance, where existing institutional rules are either weak or cause conflict. Since the status quo does not solve all of the collective-action problems, institutional change offers the chance to obtain the benefits of cooperation. Evolutionary processes involve both variation and selection, which in the case of water governance are guided by intentional human action and decisions. Policy actors experiment with different types of governance arrangements and learn over time which types of institutions are effective. Those institutions that are effective at solving collective-action problems are maintained, and ineffective institutions are abandoned. The process is more adaptive to the extent institutional arrangements can be adjusted to new information about changing social-ecological parameters.

These theories provide some good starting hypotheses regarding the role of institutions in IWRM, but testing them will require far more empirical research on how IWRM evolves in many different locations ( Abers 2007 ; Abers and Keck 2013 ). Such research should follow the comparative design of projects like the International Forest Resources and Institutions, where the same methodology is applied across cases. To capture the evolution of institutional fitness, the research will also have to measure institutional structure, networks, behaviors, and outcomes over time. The current IWRM literature is severely hampered by the reliance on qualitative case studies without a comparative, longitudinal research design. Of course implementing such designs is expensive and difficult, so generating the required investment is a major challenge.

How Does IWRM Fit into Complex Institutional Systems?

Another problem with existing research is that it often fails to recognize that there are few, if any, cases where some type of IWRM process is the only water management institution operating in a particular watershed context ( Lubell 2013 ; Pahl-Wostl 2007 ). In most cases, there are many other institutions also involved in collective decisions about water resources. Some of these institutions are more top-down and regulatory, and the different institutions vary in terms of how much they incorporate IWRM principles into their decision-making. Furthermore, there is usually more than just one collaborative institution operating in a particular watershed, which may or may not explicitly rely on IWRM ideas.

The resulting complex institutional systems are very fragmented with positive and negative spillovers between decisions made in different institutions. When a new IWRM process is created within such a system, it is difficult to analyze how it might affect the transaction costs of collective action throughout the system. Analyzing the transaction costs within just a single IWRM process is not sufficient because the overall system of governance is what determines water management outcomes over time. One approach is to attempt an analysis of transaction costs across the entire system, recognizing that no single institution is determinant. However, the literature on environmental governance and IWRM has mainly focused on single institutions and partnerships and is only starting to consider complex institutional arrangements overall.

Researchers (Lubell 2013 , 2015 ; Lubell, Henry, and McCoy 2010 ) have begun to analyze such institutional complexity using the “ecology of games” metaphor first coined by Norton Long (1958) . A “policy game” occurs when multiple actors participate in a collective decision-making process affecting one or more interconnected water issues. Most watersheds feature multiple policy games, operating at different levels of government. Lubell et al. (2010) showed that, in some cases, new collaborative partnerships can decrease cooperation in other existing games. Lubell, Robins, and Wang (2014) used network analysis to illustrate the coordinating roles of government agencies and collaborative partnerships in these complex systems and also found evidence of advocacy coalitions jointly participating in similar policy venues.

Overall, studying complex institutional arrangements will benefit from incorporating ideas from complex adaptive systems ( Levin et al. 2013 ), where overall system structure emerges from self-organizing and evolutionary processes. The complex adaptive system literature also emphasizes the extent to which systems are resilient in the face of changing conditions and external shocks, which roughly means the system is capable of reorganizing to provide the same level of ecosystem services. Given the existence of complex institutional arrangements, it is important to analyze not only the internal dynamics of a particular IWRM the program but also how IWRM programs and ideas affect the overall structure, function, adaptive capacity, and resilience of complex institutional systems.

How Can IWRM Address Questions of Equity and Environmental Justice?

As discussed, the distribution of the costs and benefits associated with collaboration and the potential to participate in decision-making reflect notions of distributive and procedural justice as relevant to the adaptive governance–IWRM literature. Rarely, however, does adaptive governance grapple with how political power structures in the broader society manifest in water management. IWRM usually does not address the root social causes of political power structures but rather attempts (if at all) to manage the resulting social inequities. This has prompted critical analyses of power within the “hydrosocial” landscape and an assessment of how the mutual interaction of nature, technology, and society, or “hydrosocial networks,” influences and shapes the distribution of water resources ( Bakker 2002 ; Swyngedouw 2005 ). This echoes Okereke’s (2010) argument that international environmental governance regimes must grapple more critically with intergenerational notions of distributive justice, as these regimes play both regulative and distributive roles, requiring a just and fair distribution of resources. Thus our final suggested line of inquiry is to further develop assessments and theories of equity and justice in IWRM.

This work entails an assessment (and critique) of the discourses, institutions, policies, and technologies that articulate water distribution and water governance ( Zwarteveen and Boelens 2014 ). Here, political ecologists suggest examining power, politics, and water justice along at least three core dimensions: distributive, procedural, and recognition (i.e. of rights; Perreault 2014 ; Schlosberg 2004 ; Zwarteveen and Boelens 2014 ). Along these dimensions, it is important to assess distributional trade-offs in how goods and harms are produced and distributed, the nature of allocation and dispossession of water resources, and the scale at which these processes occur ( Molle 2008 ; Perreault 2014 ). A focus on procedural justice allows for an assessment of the role of participation in decision-making processes (i.e. procedural justice) and an assessment of which actors are able to shape IWRM goals and outcomes. An assessment of rights of recognition would motivate a thorough assessment of whose knowledge, realities, and discourses are actually considered in IWRM.

Several analytical frameworks may be useful for examining the role of power and politics in IWRM and for assessing whether the processes and outcomes produced by IWRM are equitable. Zeitoun and McLaughlin (2013) suggest that observing the way trade-offs are governed helps provide an indicator of procedural justice, while an examination of the outcomes help gauge distributive justice. Zwarteveen and Boelens (2014) suggest four focal points through which to examine equity in IWRM: (a) the distribution of water; (b) the contents, rules, and norms that govern water; (c) the authority that governs water; and (d) the discourses used to articulate and solve water management problems. Though focused on water justice and governance more broadly, Lu, Ocampo-Raeder, and Crow (2014) recommend an integrative, multiscalar, and cross-disciplinary framework to account for patterns and dynamics of inequity and related decision-making. Balazs and Lubell (2014) argue that an examination of the types of social learning can be used to assess whether environmental justice goals are occurring in IWRM. These frameworks seek to link the narrow conceptualization of environmental justice typically portrayed by adaptive governance to the political power structures of the “hydrosocial” landscape, in order to adequately evaluate the contribution, or lack thereof, of IWRM to social equity.

Despite IWRM being a phenomenon with many practical examples throughout the world, there is still no consensus on whether it is more effective than more centralized approaches or what variables are the main drivers for solving collective-action problems related to water. One reason for this is that the global policy dialogue focuses on normative, decontextualized, and vague definitions of IWRM, which can be applied to many different situations but do not adequately specify the underlying social processes driving IWRM.

By conceptualizing IWRM as a set of institutional rules for addressing collective-action problems, an adaptive governance approach specifies some of the key underlying social processes as well as some hypotheses about the variables that will influence IWRM effectiveness. The adaptive governance approach allows for a synthesis of different strands of research that have been applied to IWRM (e.g., social learning and environmental justice) and lends itself to expanding to include the broader equity and justice analyses noted in the previous section.

Finally, an adaptive governance lens requires moving beyond the stereotype of IWRM as one particular approach that operates in isolation from other water and resource management institutions. In reality, IWRM comes in many diverse forms that reflect the social-ecological context and operates in conjunction with complex institutional systems, on top of visible and invisible power dynamics. IWRM should not be conceptualized as a single type of institutional arrangement that can be analyzed in isolation but rather as a part of a broader system of governance that needs to be evaluated for its capacity to solve collective-action problems. Fully understanding and evaluating IWRM from this vantage point will require comparative, longitudinal research designs using common theoretical and empirical frameworks. Ultimately, the resilience and sustainability of water resources depends on understanding how IWRM contributes to cooperation, learning, and equitable resource distribution in social-ecological systems.

As of 2014, Proposition 1 as well.

Defined as communities whose median household income is 80 percent less than California’s median household income.

Abers, R. N. ( 2007 ). “ Organizing for Governance: Building Collaboration in Brazilian River Basins. ” World Development 35(8): 1450–1463.

Google Scholar

Abers, R. N. , and Keck, M. E. ( 2013 ). Practical Authority: Agency and Institutional Change in Brazilian Water Politics . New York: Oxford University Press.

Google Preview

Agrawal, A. ( 2001 ). “ Common Property Institutions and Sustainable Governance of Resources. ” World Development 29(10): 1649–1672.

Andersson, K. , and Agrawal, A. ( 2011 ). “ Inequalities, Institutions, and Forest Commons. ” Global Environmental Change 21(3): 866–875.

Andersson, K. , and Gibson, C. C. ( 2007 ). “ Decentralized Governance and Environmental Change: Local Institutional Moderation of Deforestation in Bolivia. ” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 26(1): 99–123.

Andersson, K. P. ( 2004 ). “ Who Talks with Whom? The Role of Repeated Interactions in Decentralized Forest Governance. ” World Development 32(20): 233–249.

Ansell, C. , and Gash, A. ( 2008 ). “ Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice. ” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18(4): 543–571.

Bakker, K. ( 2002 ). “ From State to Market? Water Mercantilizacion in Spain. ” Environment and Planning A , 34: 767–790.

Balazs, C. and Lubell, M. ( 2014 ). “ Social Learning in an Environmental Justice Context: A Case Study of Integrated Regional Water Management. ” Water Policy 16: 97–120.

Bardach, E. ( 1977 ). The Implementation Game: What Happens after a Bill Becomes Law. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Berardo, R. , and Scholz, J. T. ( 2010 ). “ Self‐Organizing Policy Networks: Risk, Partner Selection, and Cooperation in Estuaries. ” American Journal of Political Science 54(3): 632–649.

Biswas, A. K. ( 2004 ). “ Integrated Water Resources Management: A Reassessment. ” Water International 29(2): 248–256.

Biswas, A. K. ( 2008 a). “ Current Directions: Integrated Water Resources Development—A Second Look. ” Water International 33(3): 274–278.

Biswas, A. K. ( 2008 b). “ Integrated Water Resources Management: Is It Working? ” International Journal of Water Resources Development 24(1): 5–22.

Blomquist, W. , and Schlager, E. ( 2005 ). “ Political Pitfalls of Integrated Watershed Management. ” Society and Natural Resources 18(2): 101–117.

Bodin, Ö ., and Tengö, M. ( 2012 ). “ Disentangling Intangible Social–Ecological Systems. ” G lobal Environmental Change 22(2): 430–439.

Braga, B. P. F. , and Lotufo, J. G. ( 2008 ). “ Integrated River Basin Plan in Practice: The São Francisco River Basin. ” International Journal of Water Resources Development 24(1): 37–60.

Cardwell, Hal E. , Cole, R. A. , Cartwright, R. A. , and Martin, L. A. ( 2006 ). “ Integrated Water Resources Management: Definitions and Conceptual Musings. ” Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education 135(1): 8–18.

Conca, K. ( 2005 ). “Growth and Fragmentation in Expert Networks: The Elusive Quest for Integrated Water Resources Management.” In Handbook of Global Environmental Politics, edited by Peter Dauvergne, 432–470. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Coleman, E. A. ( 2009 ). “ Institutional Factors Affecting Biophysical Outcomes in Forest Management. ” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 28(1): 122–146.

Coleman, E. A. , and Steed, B. C. ( 2009 ). “ Monitoring and Sanctioning in the Commons: An Application to Forestry. ” Ecological Economics 68(7): 2106–2113.

Cox, M. , Arnold, G. , and Villamayor, T. ( 2010 ). “ A Review of Design Principles for Community-Based Natural Resource Management. ” Ecology and Society 15(4): 38. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art38/

Edelenbos, J. , van Buuren, A. , and van Schie, N. ( 2011 ). “ Co-Producing Knowledge: Joint Knowledge Production Between Experts, Bureaucrats and Stakeholders in Dutch Water Management Projects. ” Environmental Science & Policy 14(6): 675–684.

Eggertsson, T. ( 1990 ). Economic Behavior and Institutions. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Emerson, K. , Nabatchi, T. , and Balogh, S. ( 2012 ). “ An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance. ” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22(1): 1–29.

Engle, N. L. , Johns, O. R. , Lemos, M. C. , and Nelson, D. R. ( 2011 ). “ Integrated and Adaptive Management of Water Resources: Tensions, Legacies, and the Next Best Thing. ” Ecology and Society 16(1): 19.

Folke, C. , Hahn, T. , Olsson, P. , and Norberg, J. ( 2005 ). “ Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems. ” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30(1): 441–473.

Garcia, L. A. ( 2008 ). “ Integrated Water Resources Management: A ‘Small’ Step for Conceptualists, a Giant Step for Practitioners. ” International Journal of Water Resources Development 24(1): 23–36.

Geldof, G. D. ( 1995 ). “ Adaptive Water Management: Integrated Water Management on the Edge of Chaos. ” Water Science and Technology 32(1): 7–13.

Gerlak, A. K. , and Heikkila, T. ( 2011 ), “ Building a Theory of Learning in Collaboratives: Evidence from the Everglades Restoration Program. ” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21(4): 619–644.

Giordano, M. , and Shah, T. ( 2014 ). “ From IWRM Back to Integrated Water Resources Management. ” International Journal of Water Resources Development 30(3): 364–376.

Gleick, P. ( 2003 ). “ Global Freshwater Resources: Soft-Path Solutions for the 21st Century. ” Science 28(302): 1524–1528.

Global Water Partnership, Technical Advisory Committee. ( 2000 ). “ Integrated Water Resources Management. ” TAC Background Paper No. 4. Stockholm: Global Water Partnership.

Haas, P. M. ( 1989 ). “ Do Regimes Matter? Epistemic Communities and Mediterranean Pollution Control. ” International Organization 43(3): 377–403.

Heikkila, T. , and Gerlak, A. K. ( 2005 ). “ The Formation of Large‐Scale Collaborative Resource Management Institutions: Clarifying the Roles of Stakeholders, Science, and Institutions. ” Policy Studies Journal 33(4): 583–612.

Hering, J. G. , and Ingold, K. M. ( 2012 ). “ Water Resources Management: What Should Be Integrated? ” Science 336(6086): 1234–1235.

Hooper, B. ( 2009 ). “ Integrated Water Resources Management: Governance, Best Practice, and Research Challenges. ” Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education 135(1): 1–7.

Huitema, D. , Mostert, E. , Egas, W. , Moellenkamp, S. , Pahl-Wostl, C. , and Yalcin, R. ( 2009 ). “ Adaptive Water Governance: Assessing the Institutional Prescriptions of Adaptive (Co-) Management from a Governance Perspective and Defining a Research Agenda. ” Ecology and Society 14(1): 26.

Jeffrey, P. , and Gearey, M. ( 2006 ). “ Integrated Water Resources Management: Lost on the Road from Ambition to Realisation? ” Water Science Technology 53(1): 1–8.

Jønch-Clausen, T. , and Fugl, J. ( 2001 ). “ Firming Up the Conceptual Basis of Integrated Water Resources Management. ” International Journal of Water Resources Development 17(4): 501–510.

Knight, J. ( 1992 ). Institutions and Social Conflict . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Koontz, T. M. , and Craig, T. W. ( 2006 ). “ What Do We Know and Need to Know about the Environmental Outcomes of Collaborative Management? ” Public Administration Review 66(Suppl. 1): 111–121.

Liefferink, D. , Wiering, M. , and Uitenboogaart, Y. ( 2011 ). “ The EU Water Framework Directive: A Multi-Dimensional Analysis of Implementation and Domestic Impact. ” Land Use Policy 28(4): 712–722.

Lemos, M. C. , and Agrawal, A. ( 2006 ). “ Environmental Governance. ” Annual Review of Environmental Resources 31: 297–325.

Levin, S. , Xepapadeas, T. , Crépin, A.-S. , Norberg, J. , de Zeeuw, A. , Folke, C. , Hughes, T. , Arrow, Barrett, S. , Daily, G. , Ehrlich, P. , Kautsky, N. , Mäler, K.-G. , Polasky, S. , Troell, M. , Vincent, J. R. , and Walker, B. ( 2013 ), “ Social-Ecological Systems as Complex Adaptive Systems: Modeling and Policy Implications, ” Environment and Development Economics 18(2): 111–132.

Libecap, G. D. ( 1994 ). “ The Conditions for Successful Collective Action. ” Journal of Theoretical Politics 6(4): 563–592.

Libecap, G. D. ( 1989 ). Contracting for Property Rights , Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Long, Norton E. ( 1958 ). “ The Local Community as an Ecology of Games. ” American Journal of Sociology 64: 251–261.

Lu, F. , Ocampo-Raeder, C. , and Crow, B. ( 2014 ). “ Equitable Water Governance: Future Directions in the Understanding and Analysis of Water Inequities in the Global South. ” Water International 39(2): 129–142.

Lubell, M. ( 2004 ). “ Collaborative Environmental Institutions: All Talk and No Action? ” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 23(3): 549–573.

Lubell, M. ( 2013 ). “ Governing Institutional Complexity: The Ecology of Games Framework. ” Policy Studies Journal 41(3): 537–559.

Lubell, M. ( 2015 ). “ Collaborative Partnerships in Complex Institutional Systems. ” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 12: 41–47.

Lubell, M. , and Edelenbos, J. ( 2013 ). “ Integrated Water Resources Management: A Comparative Laboratory for Water Governance. ” International Journal of Water Governance 1(3): 177–196.

Lubell, M. , Henry, A. D. , and McCoy, M. ( 2010 ). “ Collaborative Institutions in an Ecology of Games. ” American Journal of Political Science 54(2): 287–300.

Lubell, M. , Leach, W. D. , & Sabatier, P. A. ( 2009 ). “Collaborative Watershed Partnerships in the Epoch of Sustainability.” In Toward Sustainable Communities: Transition and Transformations in Environmental Policy , edited by D. A. Mazmanian and M. E. Kraft , 255–288. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Lubell, M. , and Lippert, L. ( 2011 ). “ Integrated Regional Water Management: A Study of Collaboration or Water Politics-as-Usual in California, USA. ” International Review of Administrative Sciences 77(1): 76–100.

Lubell, M. , Robins, G. , and Wang, P. ( 2014 ). “ Network Structure and Institutional Complexity in an Ecology of Water Management Games. ” Ecology and Society 19(4): 23.

Lubell, M. , Schneider, M. , Scholz, J. T. , and Mete, M. ( 2002 ). “ Watershed Partnerships and the Emergence of Collective Action Institutions. ” American Journal of Political Science 46(1): 148–163.

Molle, F. ( 2008 ). “ Nirvana Concepts, Narratives and Policy Models: Insights from the Water Sector. ” Water Alternatives 1(1): 131–156.

Nhapi, I. , Holch, W. , Mazvimavi, D. , Mashauri, D. A. , Jewitt, G. , Mudege, N. , Swatuk, L. A. , and Beukman, R. ( 2005 ). “ Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) and the Millennium Development Goals: Managing Water for Peace and Prosperity. ” Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C 30(11–16): 623–624.

North, D. C. ( 1990 ). Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Okereke, C. ( 2010 ). Global Justice and Neoliberal Environmental Governance: Sustainable Development, Ethics and International Co-Operation. Routledge Research in Environmental Politics . London: Routledge.

Ostrom, E. ( 1990 ). Governing the Commons. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Ostrom, E. ( 1999 ). “Institutional Rational Choice: An Assessment of the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework.” In Theories of the Policy Process , edited by P. Sabatier , 35–72. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Ostrom, E. ( 2009 ). “ A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems. ” Science 325(5939): 419–422.

Ostrom, E. , and Gardner, R. ( 1993 ). “ Coping with Asymmetries in the Commons: Self-Governing Irrigation Systems Can Work. ” The Journal of Economic Perspectives , 7(4): 93–112.

Pahl-Wostl, C. ( 2007 ). “ The Implications of Complexity for Integrated Resources Management. ” Environmental Modelling & Software 22(5): 561–569.

Pahl-Wostl, C. ( 2009 ). “ A Conceptual Framework for Analysing Adaptive Capacity and Multi-Level Learning Processes in Resource Governance Regimes. ” Global Environmental Change 19(3): 354–365.

Pahl-Wostl, C. , Craps, M. , Dewulf, A. , Mostert, E. , Tábara, D. , and Taillieu, T. ( 2007 ). “ Social Learning and Water Resources Management. ” Ecology and Society 12(2): 5.

Pahl-Wostl, C. , and Hare, M. ( 2004 ). “ Processes of Social Learning in Integrated Resources Management. ” Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology 14: 193–206.

Pahl-Wostl, C. , Tábara, D. , Bouwen, R. , Craps, M. , Dewulf, A. , Mostert, E. , Ridder, D. , and Taillieu, T. ( 2007 ). “ The Importance of Social Learning and Culture for Sustainable Water Management. ” Ecological Economics 64(3): 484–495.

Perreault, T. ( 2014 ). “ What kind of governance for what kind of equity? Towards a theorization of justice in water governance. ” Water International 39(2): 233–245.

Persha, L. , Agrawal, A. , and Chhatre, A. ( 2011 ). “ Social and Ecological Synergy: Local Rulemaking, Forest Livelihoods, and Biodiversity Conservation. ” Science 331: 1606–1608.

Plummer, R. , and Armitage, D. ( 2007 ). “ A Resilience-Based Framework for Evaluating Adaptive Co-Management: Linking Ecology, Economics and Society in a Complex World. ” Ecological Economics 61(1): 62–74.

Provan, K. G. , and Kenis, P. ( 2008 ). “ Modes of Network Governance: Structure, Management, and Effectiveness. ” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18(2): 229–252.

Rahaman, M. M. , and Varis, O. ( 2005 ). “ Integrated Water Resources Management: Evolution, Prospects and Future Challenges. ” Sustainability: Science, Practice & Policy 1(1): 15–21.

Rawls, J. ( 1971 ). A Theory of Justice . Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press.

Sabatier, P. A. ( 1988 ). “ An Advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the Role of Policy-Oriented Learning Therein. ” Policy Sciences 21(2–3): 129–168.

Sabatier, P. , Focht, W. , Lubell, M. , Trachtenberg, Z. , Vedlitz, A. , and Matlock, M. ( 2005 ). Swimming Upstream: Collaborative Approaches to Watershed Management. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Sabatier, P. A. , and Jenkins-Smith, H. ( 1993 ). Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Saravanan, V. S. , McDonald, G. T. , and Mollinga, P. P. ( 2009 ). “ Critical Review of Integrated Water Resources Management: Moving beyond Polarised Discourse. ” Natural Resources Forum 33(1): 76–86.

Schlosberg, D. ( 2004 ). “ Reconceiving Environmental Justice: Global Movements and Political Theories. ” Environmental Politics 13(3): 517–540.

Schneider, M. , Scholz, J , Lubell, M. , Mindruta, D. , and Edwardsen, M. ( 2003 ), “ Building Consensual Institutions: Networks and the National Estuary Program. ” American Journal of Political Science 47(1): 143–158.

Scholz, J. T. , and Stiftel, B. ( 2010 ). Adaptive Governance and Water Conflict: New Institutions for Collaborative Planning. New York: Routledge.

Shabman, L. , and Scodari, P. (2012). “Towards Integrated Water Resources Management.” Report 2012-VSP-01. Washington, DC: US Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources.

Shrader-Frechette, K. ( 2002 ). Environmental Justice: Creating Equity, Reclaiming Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Snellen, W. B. , and Schrevel, A. ( 2004 ). “ IWRM: For Sustainable Use of Water: 50 Years of International Experience with the Concept of Integrated Water Management. ” The Hague: Ministry of Agriculture, Nature, and Food Quality. http://www.fao.org/ag/wfe2005/docs/iwrm_background.pdf

Swyngedouw, E. ( 2005 ). “ Dispossessing H20: The Contested Terrain of Water Privatization. ” Capitalism Nature Socialism 16(1): 81–98.

Taylor, D. ( 2000 ). “ The Rise of the Environmental Justice Paradigm: Injustice Framing and the Social Construction of Environmental Discourses. ” American Behavioral Scientist 43(4): 508–550.

Timmerman, J. G. , Pahl-Wostl, C. , and Möltgen, J. ( 2008 ). The Adaptiveness of IWRM: Analysing European IWRM Research. London: IWA Publishing.

Tippet, J. , Searle, B. , Pahl-Wostl, C. , and Rees, Y. ( 2005 ). “ Social Learning in Public Participation in River Basin Management. ” Environmental Science and Policy 8(3): 287–299.

Tortajada, C. ( 2014 ). “ IWRM Revisited: From Concept to Implementation. ” International Journal of Water Resources Development 30(3): 361–363.

Tyler, Tom R. ( 1990 ). “Justice, Self-Interest, and the Legitimacy of Legal and Political Authority.” In Beyond Self-Interest , edited by J. J. Mansbridge , 171–182. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Van der Zaag, P. ( 2005 ). “ Integrated Water Resources Management: Relevant Concept or Irrelevant Buzzword? A Capacity Building and Research Agenda for Southern Africa. ” Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C 30(11): 867–871.

Varis, O. , Muhammed, M. R. , and Stucki, V. ( 2008 ). “ The Rocky Road from Integrated Plans to Implementation: Lessons Learned from the Mekong and Senegal River Basins. ” International Journal of Water Resources Development 24(1): 103–121.

Veiga, L. B. E. , & Magrini, A. ( 2013 ). “The Brazilian Water Resources Management Policy: Fifteen Years of Success and Challenges.” Water Resources Management 27(7): 2287–2302.

Ward, R. C. ( 1995 ). Integrated Watershed Management: A New Paradigm for Water Management? Water Resource Update No. 100. Carbondale, IL: Universities Council on Water Resources.

Weible, C. M. ( 2008 ). “ Expert‐Based Information and Policy Subsystems: A Review and Synthesis. ” Policy Studies Journal 36(4): 615–635.

World Bank. ( 2010 ). “ Sustaining Water for all in a Changing Climate: World Bank Group Implementation Progress Report of the Water Resources Sector Strategy .” Washington, DC: World Bank Group. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/NEWS/Resources/sustainingwater.pdf

World Health Organization. ( 2012 ). “ Global Analysis and Assessment of Sanitation and Drinking-Water (GLAAS): The Challenge of Extending and Sustaining Services .” Geneva: World Health Organization. http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/glaas_report_2012/en/

Young, O. R. ( 2002 ). The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay, and Scale. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Zeitoun. M. , and McLaughlin, K. ( 2013 ). “ Basin Justice: Using Social Justice to Address Gaps in River Basin Management.” In The Justices and Injustices of Ecosystem Governance , edited by T. Sikor , 92–116. New York: Routledge.

Zwarteveen, M. Z. , and Boelens, R. ( 2014 ). “ Defining, Researching and Struggling for Water Justice: Some Conceptual Building Blocks for Research and Action. ” Water International 39(2): 143–158.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Moving Toward Sustainable Water Resources Management: Synthesis Report

Related projects.

This report provides a framework, guidelines, and supporting information for developing an implementation plan for sustainable water resources management (SWRM). The framework accounts for the reality that SWRM may not receive attention until a crisis occurs, but it also encourages proactive planning to avert a crisis. The SWRM framework incorporates theories, principles, and guidelines proposed by the United Nations Agenda 21, Global Water Partnership, Western Governor's Association, Resilience Alliance, Pacific Institute, and similar organizations.

Originally funded as WERF project 00-WSM-6a.

An Integrated Modeling and Decision Framework to Evaluate Adaptation Strategies for Sustainable Drinking Water Utility Management Under Drought and Climate Change

This project developed an integrated framework to assess water quality and availability impacts under a suite of climate and natural hazards in the water supply watershed, along with...

Impacts of Climate Change on Honolulu Water Supplies and Planning Strategies for Mitigation

This project evaluated climate change impacts on the Honolulu Board of Water Supply and its assets, and developed a suite of management and treatment strategies to address the...

From Collection System to Tap: Resiliency of Treatment Processes to Direct Potable Reuse

This project established suggested guidelines to enhance resilience in DPR treatment trains from wastewater source through wastewater treatment and advanced water treatment. The researchers identified failure modes for...

Understanding the Factors Affecting PFASVariability in the Potomac River Watershed

The overall goal of this study is to understand the factors that affect per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) variability in the Potomac River Basin. Understanding these factors will...

Carlsbad Desalination Integration and Regional Salinity Reduction Study

This project builds on project 4773 , which examined the impact of integrating seawater desalinated via reverse osmosis (SWRO) water into existing regional supplies of disparate quality. This...

Evaluating Changes in Peak Water Demand and How That May Affect the Choice, Design, Management, and Evaluation of Demand Management Strategies

Water efficiency and conservation programs, policies, and regulations have been utilized to reduce peak demand, which can significantly decrease infrastructure and operating expenses for water utilities. This research...

Advertisement

Integrated Water Resources Management in Cities in the World: Global Challenges

• Open access
• Published: 22 March 2023
• Volume 37 , pages 2787–2803, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Chloé Grison   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5842-1524 1 , 2 ,
• Stef Koop   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9906-3746 1 , 2 ,
• Steven Eisenreich   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5920-3764 3 ,
• Jan Hofman   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5982-603X 4 ,
• I-Shin Chang   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6307-5806 5 ,
• Jing Wu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6911-2041 6 ,
• Dragan Savic   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9567-9041 1 , 7 , 8 &
• Kees van Leeuwen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1605-4268 2  

4675 Accesses

11 Citations

3 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Water scarcity and accessibility remain persistently amongst the most prominent global challenges. Although there is a wide agreement among international organizations that Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) and water governance are key to overcome water-related challenges, global assessments of the progress made by cities is lacking. This paper for the first time analyses the challenges of water, wastewater, municipal solid waste and climate change in cities. We used empirical studies (125 cities) based on the City Blueprint Approach and developed a statistical estimation model to estimate IWRM performances of another 75 cities. These 200 cities in total represent more than 95% of the global urban population. This comprehensive global picture enables us to evaluate the existing gaps in achieving water-related Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), in particular SDG 6 (clean water and sanitation) and SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities). The best performing cities were Amsterdam and Singapore. Unfortunately, most cities do not yet manage their water resources wisely and are far from achieving the SDGs. For instance, targets regarding drinking water supply are still a challenge for many cities in Africa and Asia and challenges regarding sanitation are high in cities in Africa, Asia and Latin America. The same holds for solid waste management, climate adaptation, and people living in informal settlements. In another paper we will address the solution pathways to these global challenges.

Similar content being viewed by others

Clean water and sanitation for all: interactions with other sustainable development goals.

Blanca Fernandez Milan

Proposal for a National Blueprint Framework to Monitor Progress on Water-Related Sustainable Development Goals in Europe

B. Essex, S. H. A. Koop & C. J. Van Leeuwen

Overview of Water Policy Developments: Pre- and Post-2015 Development Agenda

Nilgun B. Harmancioglu

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

International agreements on the need for Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) have led to major policy initiatives in many countries. IWRM is widely acclaimed by international organizations such as the International Water Management Institute, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Bank and various regional authorities. IWRM is defined as a process that promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources in order to maximize economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems (UNEP 2022 ; United Nations 2022 ). The concept and its application is considered by many as pivotal for achieving the water-related UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs; Essex et al. 2020 ; Pahl-Wostl et al. 2021 ). As approximately 70% of the population will be living in urban areas by 2050, with the largest growth taking place in cities in Africa and Asia, the pressure for tackling water challenges has shifted to cities (Romano and Akhmouch 2019 ). Cities have the responsibility for local resources management, land use and urban infrastructures, and therefore can position themselves as arenas for tackling the largest changes (OECD 2015a ; Hachaichi and Egieya 2023 ).

The impact of IWRM in cities can be far-reaching. As urban populations grow, water demands increase, which can substantially exacerbate freshwater scarcity at a regional scale (Koop and Van Leeuwen 2017 ; OECD 2015a ). Cities are, therefore, as vulnerable to water challenges as they are influential in finding management solutions. Due to the pressing nature of climate change, cities are forced to rapidly adapt their IWRM and anticipate long-term climate impact, such as in the case of Cape Town (Madonsela et al. 2019 ), Sabadell (Šteflová et al. 2018 ) and Ahmedebad (Aartsen et al. 2018 ). IWRM has rather universal claims on how water management should be reshaped. This triggers discussions on the ambiguity of IWRM, because it has also been criticized for being too all-encompassing which results in difficulty in providing clear implementations steps (Casiano Flores et al. 2019 ; Gupta et al. 2013 ; Medema et al. 2008 ; Saravanan et al. 2009 ). Hence, as a next step, cities need to identify which elements of their water management and governance already perform well and which ones need to be improved (Koop et al. 2017 ; OECD 2015b ; Pahl-Wostl et al. 2021 ).

Despite ample research on IWRM theory and application in many world regions, there are limited indicator-based studies that provide coherent global perspectives that are specifically focussed on IWRM in cities (Engle et al. 2011 ; Koop and Van Leeuwen 2017 ). Key impediment of such a focus is the availability of a coherent, meaningful and reliable indicators that can lay out urban IWRM challenges and prospects. It is particularly challenging to ensure that data-poor world regions are not under-represented. The City Blueprint Approach (CBA) has been developed and applied to address this gap and the methodology has been published in this journal (Koop and Van Leeuwen 2015a , b ; Koop et al. 2017 ). The approach uses quantitative water management performance assessments. The outcome – a baseline assessment – can initiate a development and implementation cycle for improving IWRM in the cities.

Early 2021, we completed the assessment of 125 cities in 53 countries (See Supplementary Information ). The city’s locations are biased towards Europe and China (Chang et al. 2020 ; Feingold et al. 2018 ; Koop and Van Leeuwen 2015a ; Rahmasary et al. 2019 ). Because a significant amount of quantitative data are required to complete the CBA, urban populations in data-poor regions of sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and Central Asia are underrepresented.

The aim of this paper is to provide a coherent outline addressing urban IWRM challenges and prospects across the globe. In order to fulfil this aim, an assessment of the current state of urban water management across the globe is provided. Water management performance is summarized by the Blue City Index (BCI), the geometric mean of the 24 City Blueprint indicators. This will be explained in more detail in the methodology section. To address the gap in city assessments of data-poor regions, a statistical BCI estimation model has been developed which is based on empirical data from 125 cities. Capitals in 75 data-poor countries were selected and their BCIs were estimated. Next, the current water challenges are examined using appropriate SDGs and other relevant indicators. The focus here is mainly on SDG 6 and SDG 11. In this way, a broad diagnosis of urban water challenges across the globe is provided. In another paper we will provide the solution pathways to these global challenges (Koop et al. 2022 ).

2 Methodology

2.1 the city blueprint approach.

The CBA assesses the main social, environmental, financial and governance pressures exerted on cities by the Trends and Pressures Framework (TPF; Koop and Van Leeuwen 2021a ). These pressures may identify less favourable conditions for a city’s water management performance. How cities are managing their IWRM is assessed with the City Blueprint Framework (CBF; Koop and Van Leeuwen 2021b ). Where cities can improve their water governance is assessed with the Governance Capacity Framework (GCF; Koop and Van Leeuwen 2021c ). An example of a complete analysis with the CBA has been published recently for the city of Windhoek (Olivieri et al. 2022 ). In this study we apply only the TPF and the CBF. Each city is assessed using 24 indicators for the TPF (Koop and Van Leeuwen 2021a ) and 24 indicators for the CBF (Koop and Van Leeuwen 2021b ). Each TPF and CBF indicator is standardised to a scale of zero to ten (see Supplementary Information ). The indicators, the sources of information, and sample calculations are provided in great detail (Koop and Van Leeuwen 2021a , b ).

The TPF is a quantitative approach and is composed of 24 descriptive indicators divided over 4 categories (social, environmental, financial, and governance). Indicators are scored on a scale from 0–10, where 0 means no concern and 10 is high concern.

The CBF deals with the adequacy of the city's water management assessing seven main categories: (i) basic water services, (ii) water quality, (iii) wastewater treatment, (iv) water infrastructure, (v) solid waste (vi) climate adaptation and (vii) plans and actions. The IWRM performance is summarized in the BCI, the geometric average of the 24 indicators of the CBF (Koop and Van Leeuwen 2021b ). A low BCI implies that there are many improvement options needed, in for example, the city’s wastewater treatment, solid waste treatment and climate adaptation activities. The 24 indicators are visualised in a spider web diagram (Fig.  1 ).

The 24 City Blueprint performance indicators of Singapore. The indicators score from zero to ten

2.2 Update of the Methodology and Database of Cities

CBA data have been gathered for 125 municipalities and regions in 53 countries over a period of about 10 years. In order to consolidate the databases and to remove temporal inconsistencies and to further simplify and harmonize the methodology, a major review and update took place in 2021. Every effort has been undertaken to verify sources and to find the most recent information available. During this process the original CBA applied since 2015, has been modified as well. Details on the consolidation of the database are provided in the Supplementary Information . The update of the database of cities was the first step in the process which is summarized in Fig.  2 .

Schematic illustration of the methods adopted in this study

2.3 Development of a Statistical Estimation Model for the BCI

For the development of the BCI estimation model, a forward stepwise regression analysis approach was adopted using Microsoft Excel to create an expression composed of a limited number of variables representing the indicators. Stepwise regression is a method of fitting regression models in which the choice of predictive variables is carried out to select important variables to obtain a simple and easily interpretable model. Stepwise regression is a process of building a model by successively adding or removing variables based solely on the p values associated with the t statistic of their estimated coefficients. It begins with a model that contains no variables and subsequently adds the most significant variables one after the other (Sokal and Rohlf 1981 ). This methodology was applied three times: using the 24 CBF indicators, using the 24 TPF indicators and using the combined 48 CBF and TPF indicators. The consolidated database of 125 cities was used (see Supplementary Information ). For the BCI estimation model, this process was concluded when three easily accessible variables were identified and the prediction intervals reflected a similar variation as observed in the empirical BCI scores observed in countries in which many cities were assessed, such as the Netherlands, Sweden, the USA and China.

Once the equations for each of these three datasets were determined, the equation that resulted in the smallest 95% prediction interval was selected as the estimation model. To be useful, data for each of the CBA indicators in this equation must be readily available for countries globally. As such, the ease of finding data for each indicator was assessed. It was decided for reasons of transparency and replicability to only include indicators that can be obtained from accessible public databases from international organizations.

2.4 Selection of Cities for Applying the Estimation Model

Before applying the estimation model, a list of cities to be evaluated was selected. As the aim of this paper is to provide BCI scores for cities globally to adequately provide global representation, a list was constructed by first selecting countries lacking CBA assessments. To avoid a bias towards urban populations in countries with a negligible portion of the global urban population, countries with greater than 0.5% of the world population were included, while countries with less than 0.02% of the world population were excluded. Then the capital cities of the remaining countries were selected for evaluation. The final sorting was dependent on data availability. The complete list of cities for which the BCIs were estimated (BCI*) using the estimation model can be found in the Results section and the Supplementary Information .

2.5 Challenges in Cities

The challenges in cities across the globe, were calculated on the basis of the empirical and estimated BCI scores and sorted at continental level, i.e., for Europe, Oceania, Asia, North America, Latin America and Africa.

2.6 Challenges in Countries

The CBA can also provide links to a broader set of IWRM goals and international strategies, such as the United Nations’ SDGs (Essex et al. 2020 ; Koop and Van Leeuwen 2017 ). This is particularly reflected by SDG 6—Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all , and by SDG 11—Make cities and human settlements inclusive safe, resilient and sustainable (UN General Assembly 2017 ). Every indicator in SDG 6 and most indicators in SDG 11 are represented by the CBA, ensuring that city assessments using this method will be representative of SDG targets as well. With a target date of 2030 for these SDG goals, it is vitally important to obtain a global assessment of where cities currently stand in terms of achieving these goals (Essex et al. 2020 ). Unfortunately, these data is not available. As of 2020, only 42% of the 92 SDG environment-related SDG indicators had sufficient data at national level to assess progress in achieving the targets (UNEP 2021a ). Thus, in order to broaden the assessment of the global urban challenges, we used a number of water-related and urban SDG indicators (United Nations 2022 ) for which data were available at national level:

Achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all (SDG 6.1).

Access to adequate and equitable sanitation and hygiene for all (SDG 6.2).

Urban population (not) living in slums, informal settlements or inadequate housing (SDG 11.1).

Urban solid waste regularly collected and with adequate final discharge out of total urban solid waste generated by cities (SDG 11.6.1).

Annual mean levels of fine particulate matter (SDG 11.6.2)

We also included one of the World Bank governance indicators, i.e., government effectiveness (Kaufmann et al. 2010 , 2022 ) and climate adaptation (ND-GAIN 2020 ) to provide a broader set of indicators. Data for these indicators had to be available for any country and ideally come from the same source. Data sources were selected based on quality, availability and reliability. As such, large data banks such as World Bank and the UN were prioritized. All data except for government effectiveness and climate adaptation was under a percentage of the population either meeting or not meeting the target. The percentage of the population meeting the target was calculated per country based on its total population.

3 Results and Discussion

3.1 the bci estimation model.

We developed a simple BCI estimation model for assessing urban water management performances (BCI*), particularly for cities in data-poor regions. The results of the full statistical analyses including all data used are provided in the Supplementary Information . The resulting equation for estimating BCI scores (denoted as BCI*) is shown in the equation below:

One of the most important results of the statistical analysis is the relevance of the Governance effectiveness parameter of the World Bank in predicting water management performance. Governance effectiveness is the most important variable (Multiple R = 0.71 and R Square = 0.50). It explains most of the variation observed in the empirical BCIs, and confirms the results published earlier based on an analysis of only 45 cities (Koop and Van Leeuwen 2015b ). Although correlations are not cause-effect relations, the results support the view expressed by Romano and Akhmouch ( 2019 ), that if you want to ‘fix the water pipes, start with the institutions’. The second most important variable is secondary wastewater treatment. Poor waste water treatment is observed in many cities and contributes to severe surface water pollution. Water infrastructure, and sewers and wastewater treatment plants in particular, are among the most expensive infrastructures in cities (Koop and Van Leeuwen 2017 ). The logic of this parameter in the estimation model is that only countries with a high gross national income per capita (Koop and Van Leeuwen 2021a ) can afford to invest in proper wastewater treatment. Proper collection and treatment of wastewater is also a prerequisite for energy recovery from wastewater, which is the third varable in the BCI estimation model.

The estimation model predicts the BCI* within a range of ± 1.3 (95% prediction interval) from the fully assessed value with a correlation coefficient (R 2 ) of 0.83. The estimated BCI scores using this model versus CBA-assessed BCI scores are shown in Fig.  3 .

Three-variable BCI* estimation model based on CBF and TPF, as provided in Eq. ( 1 ):  BCI* =  4.25—0.396*TPF21 [Government effectiveness]  +  0.195*CBF4 [Secondary WWT]  +  0.111*CBF8 [Energy recovery]. The plot shows the estimated BCI*s against the fully assessed BCIs for the combined 48 CBF and TPF indicators. The solid red line represent a full correspondence of the estimated BCI* and the actual BCI (Y = X; slope = 1). The applicability domain of the estimation model covers the BCI range of 1 to 6.5 as for BCI values > 6.5 a departure from linearity can be observed

3.2 Limitations of the BCI Estimation Model and Its Implications

The 125 cities that were used for the statistical analysis have not been randomly selected. In fact, our work was originally focussed on cities in Europe, that volunteered to participate. Later on cities in other regions were added. Collaboration with scientists in China resulted in the inclusion of all provincial capitals of China to our database (Chang et al. 2020 ). Hence, the cities used for the statistical analysis for the development of the estimation model have a distribution bias towards Europe and China. Of the 125 cities that were assessed, 67 cities are non-European of which 32 cities are Chinese.

The implications of this bias in the selection of cities on the estimation model are not large. The width of the prediction interval is comparable to the variation of BCIs in countries where multiple cities have been assessed such as in China, the USA, the Netherlands and Sweden. For example the lowest BCI in the Netherlands was for the city of Eindhoven (5.8) and the highest BCI value (8.7) was for the city of Amsterdam.

Above BCI values of 6.5, there is a departure from linearity, resulting in lower BCI* values. This implies that the applicability domain of the BCI estimation model covers the range of 1 to 6.5. For our assessments of the BCI* scores for 75 capitals in this study this has no practical consequences as all BCI* values are in the range of 1 to 5.5 (Table 1 ). The full data sets of cities, the statistical analyses and the data are provided in the Supplementary Information .

3.3 Application of the BCI Estimation Model

Successful application of the model requires reliable input data for the three indicators selected in the equation: TPF 21 – Government effectiveness, CBF 4—Secondary wastewater treatment, and CBF 8 – Energy recovery from wastewater. Developing the model meant searching for high quality credible data, readily available for any country and ideally coming from the same source (see Supplementary Information ). The data input was then converted to a score out of 10, in order to reflect BCI scores which range from 0 (low performance) to 10 (high performance). The process for each indicator is described below.

3.3.1 TPF Indicator 21: Government Effectiveness

Government effectiveness is one of the governance indicators rigorously assessed by the World Bank (Kaufmann et al. 2010 ; 2022 ), as established in the guidelines for assessing the TPF indicators (Koop and Van Leeuwen 2021a ). The World Bank database provides government effectiveness data for 209 countries (and territories) with the most recent data from 2019. The indicator score of the World Bank varies from -2.5 to 2.5 and has been transformed by a min–max standardization method into scores of 0 to 10 (Koop and Van Leeuwen 2015a ). Finally, the scores are converted into “concern scores”, where a score of 0 means a low concern and a score of 10 indicating a high concern for government effectiveness (Koop and Van Leeuwen 2021a ):

3.3.2 CBF Indicator 4: Secondary Wastewater Treatment

This indicator measures the percentage of the urban population whose wastewater is treated by secondary treatment. The original suggested data source for this indicator in the guidelines for assessing CBF scores is from the OECD (Koop and Van Leeuwen 2021b ; OECD 2021 ). However, these data are limited to OECD countries, many of which have already been assessed by the CBA. As the goal of the model is to estimate BCI* scores for unassessed regions globally, new data sources are required.

An in-depth review revealed two reliable data sources. A joint UNICEF and WHO report ( 2019 ) provides data for the proportion of wastewater treated to at least secondary treatment for 65 non-CBA assessed countries. The IB-Net database (IBNET 2021 ) also provides data for the percentage of collected sewage that receives at least secondary treatment for 51 non-CBA assessed countries.

Because the data from these two sources are partly overlapping, together they provide data for 85 countries that have not yet been assessed by the CBA. As both sources provide data in percentages, the indicator score could then be transformed for use in the model by using the following equation:

3.3.3 CBF Indicator 8: Energy Recovery

The energy recovery from wastewater systems is expressed as CBF Indicator 8 (Koop and Van Leeuwen 2021b ). Data for the percentage of wastewater treatment plants where energy recovery systems are installed and operational have been found for eight cities (International Water Association 2018 ), of which only three have not yet been assessed by the CBA. For these data, the indicator score could be determined using the following equation:

Aside from this source, adequate data are generally lacking for energy recovery from wastewater systems. Our BCI assessments of cities have revealed that the value of CBF indicator 8 is zero for approximately half of the cities assessed. Published reports support these results, as energy recovery from wastewater treatment is only widely practised in regions with established energy recovery, i.e., Western Europe, North America and Australia (Alvarez and Buchauer 2015 ; Strazzabosco et al. 2021 ). Energy recovery is unlikely in countries that possess little or no secondary or tertiary wastewater treatment (Jones et al. 2021 ; Qadir et al. 2020 ). Furthermore, energy recovery is costly (as are secondary and tertiary treatment), and countries with low GDPs are unlikely to invest in these technologies (Jones et al. 2021 ; Van Puijenbroek et al. 2019 ). Countries with low GDPs and/or no secondary wastewater treatment are likely to have scores of zero for CBF indicator 8.

3.4 A Global Overview of Challenges in 200 Cities

The result of the above analysis is that in addition to the 125 cities already assessed, the BCI* scores for 75 cities were estimated, representing in total 95% of the world population (Table 1 , Fig.  4 and Supplementary Information ).

Global map of estimated BCI* and fully assessed BCI scores for 200 cities. This shows that Latin America, Africa, and parts of Asia generally have BCI scores lower than 4, indicating a great disparity in IWRM. Only Northern Europe shows a distinct cluster of cities scoring higher than 6, whereas Singapore (BCI = 8.1) and Amsterdam (BCI = 8.7) are the only cities with BCI scores > 8

The global map illustrating BCI scores indicates that the majority of cities show ample room too improve IWRM. This is further evidenced when examining the BCI scores per continent (Table 2 ): 145 cities of the 200 assessed have BCI scores lower than 5 and the average score across all continents is 4.1. Even in Europe, with the largest concentration of higher scoring cities, 36% of those assessed scored lower than 5.

3.5 Challenges in Countries

Table 3 provides an overview of the current relative distances to several water-related and urban SDG targets, as well as to other relevant indicators such as government effectiveness and climate adaptation. SDG 6.1 and 6.2 correlate with CBF indicators 1 (access to drinking water) and 2 (access to sanitation), respectively. SDG 11.6.1 corresponds with CBF 15 (Municipal solid waste collected) and SDG 11.6.2 corresponds with TPF 14 (air quality). Finally, TPF 21 (government effectiveness) and CBF 19 (climate adaptation) were included as well to provide broader insights into the challenges.

The results of these assessments reflect the observations at city level as presented in Table 2 and Fig.  4 . Targets regarding drinking water supply have been met in many countries with the exception of some countries in Africa and Asia. Challenges regarding sanitation are still high in countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America. The same holds for management of solid waste, climate adaptation, the percentage of the urban population living in slums and needs for improving governance effectiveness. Air pollution is a global challenge. Relatively positive scores regarding air pollution are observed for Australia, Canada, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, USA and Uruguay. Globally much work remains to meet these targets, especially with regards to urban solid waste management, waste water treatment, air pollution and climate adaptation.

4 Concluding Remarks

This paper aims to provide a coherent outline of IWRM challenges and prospects in cities cross the globe. The 125 empirical assessments and the 75 estimates of the BCI have been used to measure progress on making cities and human settlements inclusive and safe. Additionally, the assessments have been used to determine the current status of the implementation of the greater international water and urban agendas (SDGs 6 and 11). We observe that 145 of the 200 cities assessed or estimated have BCIs below 5, which means that many cities still have to implement advanced wastewater treatment, energy and resource recovery, and climate adaptation measures. Only two cities have BCI scores > 8 (Amsterdam and Singapore). The current state of affairs urges for accelerated improvements: large portions of the global population are far from reaching the SDGs goals, notably related to water, waste and climate change. This further supports the global assessment performed using the CBA, revealing not only relatively low BCI scores in cities around the world, but also significant regional disparities between Europe and Latin America, Africa and parts of Asia. There is a need to focus on the practical implementation of the SDGs for which global availability and accessibility of data is essential (Essex et al. 2020 ).

As populations continue to grow and urbanisation rates increase, cities must accelerate their development beyond their growth rates to achieve IWRM. This requires long-term strategies, continuous monitoring of progress, adaptive capacity and stable and sustainable financing. As water can be linked, directly or indirectly, to nearly all of the SDGs, addressing water challenges could be the gateway to meeting the targets of the other SDGs as well (Essex et al. 2020 ; Makarigakis and Jimenez-Cisneros 2019 ; Van Leeuwen 2020 ).

Meeting the UN SDGs is a political choice. Data gaps are preventing adequate implementation of the SDGs. It is not possible to manage a process if progress cannot be monitored, and monitoring of progress is hindered if adequate data is not available (UNEP 2021a ). To date, funding for SDG 6 targets has been deemed insufficient and the global framework for IWRM shows a poor record of implementation. Unless significant progress is made, it is envisaged that SDG 6 targets will not be met by 2030, which in turn impacts other SDGs (UNEP 2021a ).

Finally, our data indicate that the World Bank indicator government effectiveness is the most important indicator in the developed estimation model (see also Supplementary Information ). It echoes the relevance of IWRM, and in particular the relevance of good water governance as stated by the OECD that if you want to ‘fix the water pipes, start with the institutions’ (Romano and Akhmouch 2019 ). The relevance of effective public–private collaboration for IWRM has been widely acknowledged and plays a major role in cities where most of the challenges of water, waste and climate change reside and solutions for these challenges need to be developed (Beisheim and Campe 2012 ; Koop and Van Leeuwen 2017 ; Rahmasary et al. 2020 ; UNEP 2021b ). The longer it takes to start the actions, the more difficult it will be to overcome challenges of water, wastewater, waste and climate change in cities. In another paper we will discuss the global solutions for IWRM in cities (Koop et al. 2022 ).

Data Availability

The authors declare that all the data supporting the findings of this study are included in its Supplementary Information .

Aartsen M, Koop SHA, Hegger DLT, Goswami B, Oost J, Van Leeuwen CJ (2018) Towards meaningful science-policy interaction: Lessons from a systematic water governance analysis in the city of Ahmedabad. India. Reg Environ Change 18(8):2445–2457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1363-1

Article   Google Scholar  

Alvarez VV, Buchauer K (2015) East Asia and Pacific - Wastewater to energy processes: a technical note for utility managers in EAP countries, Report No: ACS13221, World Bank.  https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/pt/489941468188683153/pdf/ACS13221-v1-Revised-Box393171B-PUBLIC-Wastewater-to-Energy-Report-Main-Report.pdf . Accessed Feb 2022

Beisheim M, Campe S (2012) Transnational public–private partnerships’ performance in water governance: Institutional design matters. Environ Plan C Gov Policy 30(4):627–642. https://doi.org/10.1068/c1194

Casiano Flores C, Özerol G, Bressers H, Kuks S, Edelenbos J, Gleason A (2019) The state as a stimulator of wastewater treatment policy: a comparative assessment of three subnational cases in central Mexico. J Environ Policy Plan 21(2):134–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2019.1566060

Chang I-S, Zhao M, Chen Y, Guo X, Zhu Y, Wu J, Yuan T (2020) Evaluation of the integrated water resources management in China’s major cities – based on the City Blueprint Approach. J Clean Prod 262:121419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121410

Engle NL, Johns OR, Lemos MC, Nelson DR (2011) Integrated and adaptive management of water resources: Tensions, legacies, and the next best thing. Ecol Soc 16(19). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03934-160119

Essex B, Koop SHA, Van Leeuwen CJ (2020) Proposal for a national blueprint framework to monitor progress on water-related sustainable development goals in Europe. Environ Manag 65:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-019-01231-1

Feingold D, Koop S, Van Leeuwen K (2018) The city blueprint approach: urban water management and governance in cities in the U.S. Environ Manag 61:9–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0952-y

Gupta J, Pahl-Wostl C, Zondervan R (2013) “Glocal” water governance: A multi-level challenge in the anthropocene. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 5(6):573–580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.09.003

Hachaichi M, Egieya J (2023) Water-food-energy nexus in global cities: solving urban challenging interdependencies together. Water Resour Manag. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1956052/v1

IBNET (2021) 17.3 - Wastewater secondary treatment or better. https://database.ib-net.org/Reports/Indicators/HeatMap?itemId=18 . Accessed Feb 2022

International Water Association (2018) Wastewater Report 2018 - The Reuse Opportunity. https://www.iwa-network.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/OFID-Wastewater-report-2018.pdf . Accessed Feb 2022

Jones ER, van Vliet MTH, Qadir M, Bierkens MFP (2021) Country-level and gridded estimates of wastewater production, collection, treatment and reuse. Earth Syst Sci Data 13(2):237–254. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-237-2021

Kaufmann D, Kraay A, Mastruzzi M (2010) The worldwide governance indicators: methodology and analytical issues (English). Policy Research working paper no. WPS 5430, World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/630421468336563314/The-worldwide-governance-indicators-methodology-and-analytical-issues . Accessed Feb 2022

Kaufmann D, Kraay A, Mastruzzi M (2022) Worldwide Governance Indicators. World Bank.  http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/Home/Reports . Accessed Feb 2022

Koop SHA, Van Leeuwen CJ (2015a) Application of the improved city blueprint framework in 45 municipalities and regions. Water Resour Manag 29:4629–4647. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-015-1079-7

Koop SHA, Van Leeuwen CJ (2015b) Assessment of the sustainability of water resources management: critical review of the city blueprint approach. Water Resour Manag 29:5649–5670. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-015-1139-z

Koop SHA, Van Leeuwen CJ (2017) The challenges of water, waste and climate change in cities. Environ Dev Sustain 19:385–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-016-9760-4

Koop SHA, Koetsier L, Doornhof A, Reinstra O, Van Leeuwen CJ, Brouwer S, Dieperink C, Driessen PPJ (2017) Assessing the governance capacity of cities to address challenges of water, waste, and climate change. Water Resour Manag 31:3427–3443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-017-1677-7

Koop SHA, Van Leeuwen CJ (2021a) Indicators of the Trends and Pressures Framework (TPF). KWR Water Research Institute https://library.kwrwater.nl/publication/61396712/ . Accessed Feb 2022

Koop SHA, Van Leeuwen CJ (2021b) Indicators of the City Blueprint performance Framework (CBF). KWR Water Research Institute https://library.kwrwater.nl/publication/61397318/ . Accessed Feb 2022

Koop SHA, Van Leeuwen CJ (2021c) Indicators of the Governance Capacity Framework (GCF). KWR Water Research Institute. https://library.kwrwater.nl/publication/61397218/ . Accessed Feb 2022

Koop SHA, Grison C, Eisenreich SJ, Hofman J, van Leeuwen K (2022) Integrated water resources management in cities in the world: Global solutions. Sustain Cities Soc 86:104137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104137

Madonsela BT, Koop SHA, Van Leeuwen CJ, Carden KJ (2019) Evaluation of water governance processes required to transition towards water sensitive urban design—an indicator assessment approach for the City of Cape Town. Water 11(2):292. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11020292

Makarigakis AK, Jimenez-Cisneros BE (2019) UNESCO’s contribution to face global water challenges. Water 11(2):388. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11020388

Medema, W, McIntosh, GBS, Jeffrey, PJ (2008) From premise to practice: a critical assessment of integrated water resources management and adaptive management approach in the water sector. Ecol Soc 13(2).  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02611-130229

ND-GAIN (2020) Notre Dame global adaptation index. University of Notre Dame. https://gain.nd.edu/our-work/country-index/ . Accessed Feb 2022

OECD (2015a) Water and cities: Ensuring sustainable futures. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/water-and-cities_9789264230149-en . Accessed Feb 2022

OECD (2015b) OECD Principles on water governance. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. https://www.oecd.org/cfe/regionaldevelopment/OECD-Principles-on-Water-Governance.pdf . Accessed Feb 2022

OECD (2021) Wastewater treatment (% population connected). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://stats.oecd.org/viewhtml.aspx?datasetcode=WATER_TREAT&lang=en . Accessed Feb 2022

Olivieri F, Koop SHA, Van Leeuwen K, Hofman J (2022) Enhancing the governance capacity to ensure long-term water supply: the case of Windhoek, Namibia. Sustainability 14:2387. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042387

Pahl-Wostl, C, Dombrowsky, I, Mirumachi, N (2021) Water Governance and Policies . In Bogardi, JJ, Gupta, J, Nandalal, KDW, Salamé, L, van Nooijen, RRP, Kumar, N, Tingsanchali, T, Bhaduri, A, Kolechkina, AG (Eds.), Handbook of Water Resources Management: Discourses. Concepts and Examples (pp. 253–272). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60147-8

Qadir M, Drechsel P, Cisneros BJ, Kim Y, Pramanik A, Mehta P, Olaniyan O (2020) Global and regional potential of wastewater as a water. nutrient and energy source. Nat Resour Forum 44(1):40–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-8947.12187

Rahmasary AN, Koop SHA, Van Leeuwen CJ (2020) Assessing Bandung’s governance challenges of water, waste, and climate change: lessons from urban Indonesia. Integr Environ Assess Manag 17(6):434–444. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4334

Rahmasary AN, Robert S, Chang I-S, Jing W, Park J, Bluemling B, Koop S, Van Leeuwen K (2019) Overcoming the challenges of water, waste and climate change in Asian cities. Environ Manag 63:520–535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-019-01137-y

Romano O, Akhmouch A (2019) Water governance in cities: current trends and future challenges. Water 11(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/w11030500

Saravanan VS, McDonald GT, Mollinga PP (2009) Critical review of Integrated Water Resources Management: Moving beyond polarised discourse. Nat.l Resour . Forum 33:76–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-8947.2009.01210.x

Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1981) Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research. (2nd ed.). W.H. Freeman and Company, New York

Šteflová M, Koop S, Elelman R, Vinyoles J, Van Leeuwen K (2018) Governing non-potable water-reuse to alleviate water stress: the case of Sabadell. Spain. Water 10(6):739. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10060739

Strazzabosco A, Kenway SJ, Conrad SA, Lant PA (2021) Renewable electricity generation in the Australian water industry: lessons learned and challenges for the future. Renew Sust Energ Rev 147:111236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111236

UN General Assembly (2017) Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 6 July 2017 - Work of the Statistical Commission pertaining to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Seventy-first session, A/RES/71/313, United Nations. https://ggim.un.org/documents/a_res_71_313.pdf . Accessed Feb 2022

UNEP (2021a) Measuring progress: Environment and the SDGs. United Nations Environment Programme. https://www.unep.org/resources/publication/measuring-progress-environment-and-sdgs . Accessed Feb 2022

UNEP (2021b) Progress on integrated water resour manage. Tracking SDG 6 series: global indicator 6.5.1 updates and acceleration needs. United Nations Environment Programme. https://www.unwater.org/publications/progress-on-integrated-water-resources-management-651/ . Accessed Feb 2022

UNEP (2022) What is integrated water resources management? United Nations Environment Programme. https://www.unep.org/explore-topics/disasters-conflicts/where-we-work/sudan/what-integrated-water-resources-management . Accessed Feb 2022

UNICEF and World Health Organization (2019) Progress on household drinking water. sanitation and hygiene I 2000–2017: Special focus on inequalities. United Nations Children’s Fund and World Health Organization.  https://www.unicef.org/reports/progress-on-drinking-water-sanitation-and-hygiene-2019#:~:text=The%20population%20using%20safely%20managed,soap%20and%20water%20at%20home . Accessed Feb 2022

United Nations (2022) SDG Indicators. Global indicator framework for the sustainable development goals and targets of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. United Nations. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/indicators-list/ . Accessed Feb 2022

Van Leeuwen CJ (2020) Time to implement SMART SDGs. Netherlands Water Partnership. https://www.netherlandswaterpartnership.com/news/time-implement-smart-sdgs . Accessed Feb 2022

Van Puijenbroek PJTM, Beusen AHW, Bouwman AF (2019) Global nitrogen and phosphorus in urban wastewater based on the shared socio-economic pathways. J Environ Manag 231:446–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.10.048

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all master students from Utrecht University, the young professionals from UNESCO, and all volunteers in our urban network for their efforts to participate in the City Blueprint efforts to analyse IWRM in cities. We thank Sharon Clevers (KWR Water Research Institute) for her assistance in the preparation of Fig. 4 . Last but not least we want to thank the management board of KWR who has stimulated this research as part of the global Watershare activities.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

KWR Water Research Institute, Groningenhaven 7, P.O. Box 1072, 3430 BB, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands

Chloé Grison, Stef Koop & Dragan Savic

Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Vening Meineszgebouw A Princetonlaan 8a, 3584 CB, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Chloé Grison, Stef Koop & Kees van Leeuwen

Department of Hydrology and Hydraulic Engineering, Vrije University Brussel (VUB), 2 Pleinlaan, 1050, Brussels, Belgium

Steven Eisenreich

Water Innovation and Research Centre, Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK

School of Ecology and Environment, Inner Mongolia University, Hohhot, 010021, Inner Mongolia, China

I-Shin Chang

College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Nankai University, Tianjin, 300350, China

Centre for Water Systems, College of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences, University of Exeter, North Park Road, Exeter, EX4 4QF, UK

Dragan Savic

Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Malaysia

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

K.v.L., S.K. and D.S. designed the study. C.G created the estimation model and calculated the distance to targets. C.G. drafted the manuscript. I.C and S.W. provided data for the CBF and TPF of cities in China. S.E. suggested improvements for the TPF. D.S., S.E., J.H., S.K. and K.v.L. reviewed the manuscript. All authors discussed the results and contributed to the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kees van Leeuwen .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval.

The authors subscribe to the ethical principles of this journal.

Consent to Participate

All authors approved to participate in the efforts to publish this paper.

Consent to Publish

All authors approve the publication in this journal.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 105 KB)

Supplementary file2 (xlsx 487 kb), supplementary file3 (xlsx 64.9 kb), supplementary file4 (xlsx 85.2 kb), rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Grison, C., Koop, S., Eisenreich, S. et al. Integrated Water Resources Management in Cities in the World: Global Challenges. Water Resour Manage 37 , 2787–2803 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-023-03475-3

Download citation

Received : 28 April 2022

Accepted : 16 February 2023

Published : 22 March 2023

Issue Date : May 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-023-03475-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Integrated water management
• Water governance
• Sustainability indicators
• Blue City Index
• Estimation model
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Jump to navigation

Search Google Appliance

• Blackboard Learn
• People Finder

UMass Water Resources Research Center

Funding opportunities, usgs 104g fy2023 request for proposals.

The USGS announced funding opportunities for the Water Resources Research Act, FY23 104g competitive award RFPs on 2/23/23 its requests on the topics of Aquatic Invasive Species in the Mississippi River Basin, PFAS, and the General 104g program which is limited this year to two research priorities (National-scale evaluation of water budget, and Socioeconomics).

To see the RFP documents, click on the grants.gov links below, the RFPs are found under the Related Documents tabs (Foa_Content_of_...)

National Competitve Grants (General)  

Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) Grants

Per-and-Polyfluoroalky Substances (PFAS) Grants

Please note that proposals must come from the WRRC, therefore you must submit your proposal to wrrc[at]umass[dot]edu at the latest on April 13, 2023 . ________________________________________ As in previous years, collaboration with USGS staff is strongly encouraged.  Please carefully read the COLLABORATION BY FEDERAL EMPLOYEES section and Attachment 3 (104-g General ONLY).  Note that a letter of support is required for ALL federal collaborations, regardless of whether or not it is funded.  However, as in previous years, ONLY the 104g-General proposals enable a funded USGS collaboration.   

G23AS00483 for AIS: https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/view-opportunity.html?oppId=346316  G23AS00484 for PFAS: https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/view-opportunity.html?oppId=346326 G23AS00485 for 104g General:  https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/view-opportunity.html?oppId=346333

USGS Water Resources Research Institute Program - 104b -FY2024 Request for Pre-Proposals

Pre-proposals due 2/20/2024, the full proposals deadline is anticipated to be march 30, 2024.

The Massachusetts Water Resources Research Center (MA WRRC) invites pre-proposals for the U.S. Geological Survey's Water Resources Annual Institute Program (WRIP) for Fiscal Year 2024. Eligible projects include seed projects to develop new and innovative research; research projects that respond to water resources research needs of state or regional importance; and information transfer activities for water resources protection. Refer to for more details on research priorities and topics.

Proposals accepted for $5,000, $15,000 or $50,000 one-year projects.

The application deadline for pre-proposals is February 20, 2024. The full proposal deadline is anticipated to be March 30, 2024.

You can refer to the previous year's RFP documents to familiarize yourself with the requirements and guidelines.

USGS Request for proposals   MAWRRC FY23 RFP

Kindly be aware that there can be updates or changes in the upcoming RFP, so it's important to remain informed about the official announcement.

We encourage proposals:

• From PIs who are from historically underrepresented or underserved groups in STEM and from institutions that serve majority minority populations.
• That increases diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice, which intersect with water research and resources.

Please fill out this form to submit your pre-proposal .

Awards are subject to the federal 1:1 matching requirement. The anticipated start date for funded projects is September 1, 2024.

Note that we do not need your institution’s grants and contracts office’s approval at this stage. It will be required for full proposals.

Pre-proposals will be reviewed by the WRRC, and invitations for full proposals will be sent by February 29, 2024. If you receive an invitation to submit a full proposal, you must commit to confirm within 2 days of the invitation message that you will submit a full proposal.

Final MA WRRC awards are contingent upon Congressional approval of FY 2024 funding for the National Water Institute Program

Please email wrrc[at]umass[dot]edu or call (413) 545-3969 for specific questions.

MSc Student Thesis

Hydrology and water resources (hwr) specialization.

Aklilu Assefa Tilahun

Research Proposal Title : – Impact of Watershed Management on Vegetation Cover and Soil moisture using Remote Sensing, Wutame Micro Watershed, Omo Gibe Basin.

Advisors : – Dr. Alemseged Tamiru Haile

Assoumpta Mukakarangwa

Research Proposal Title : – Flood Forecasting Using Quantitative Precitation Forecast and Hydrological Model in Sebeya Catchment, Rwanda

Advisors : – Dr Alemseged Tamiru Haile

Yosef Mekonnen

Research Proposal Title : – Impact of Future Water Use Under Emerging Scenarios and Climate Change on Sustainability of Rift Valley Lakes, Ziway Lake

Advisors :- Dr. Fasikaw Atanaw (M), Dr. Dessie Nadaw (Co)

Tinsae Mamo

Research Proposal Title : – Ground Water Resource Potential Evaluation and management in Wenka Catchment, Southern Ethiopia

Advisors : – Dr. Dessie Nedaw

Esayas Abebe

Research Proposal Title : – Land cover change and its impact on catchment hydrology case study of Jewha watershed, Awash basin, Ethiopia

Advisors : – Dr. Fasikaw Atanaw

Water Supply and Sanitation (WSS) Specialization

Bezawit Tesfaye Ejigu

Research Proposal Title : – Water Quality Assessment: The Case of Kombolcha Town, South Wollo, Ethiopia

Advisors : – Prof. Esayas Alemayehu(M), Dr. Tatek Temesgen

Fedila Mohammed

Research Proposal Title : – Assessment Of Drinking Water Quality the Case of Adama Town, Oromia Regional State of Ethiopia

Advisors :- Dr. Beshah Mogesse, Dr. Feleke Zewge

Benihirwe Ange

Research Proposal Title : – Assessment of Water Quality and from source to point of use in Addis Ketema, sub-city woreda-07, Addis Ababa City, Ethiopia

Advisors : – Dr. Anualem Mekonnen(M), Prof. Esayas Alemayehu (Ing) (Co)

Mesfin Sisay Adem

Research Proposal Title : – Assessment of Water Losses and Leakage Management Strategies in Distribution System The Case Of Jimma Town, Oromia Regional State of Ethiopia

Advisors : – Prof. Esayas Alemayehu(Ing), Dr. Tatek Temesgen

Tigist Yimer

Research Proposal Title : – Evaluation and modeling of residual chlorine in water supply distribution systems: A case of Yeka sub-city distribution system, Addis Ababa

Advisors : – Prof. Esayas Alemayehu(Ing). Dr. Feleke Zewge

© 2024 ACEWM. All rights reserved.