Governance Arrangements for Integrated Water Resources Management in Ontario, Canada, and Oregon, USA: Evolution and Lessons
Guidelines produced by some major international organisations create a misleading impression that Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) can be implemented in a standardized fashion. However, contextual conditions vary from place to place, and differences in beliefs, attitudes, customs, and no...
Main Authors: | , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
MDPI AG
2019-03-01
|
Series: | Water |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/11/4/663 |
id |
doaj-bca398b3d9c94403aa016cfe51e1d500 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-bca398b3d9c94403aa016cfe51e1d5002020-11-25T00:14:00ZengMDPI AGWater2073-44412019-03-0111466310.3390/w11040663w11040663Governance Arrangements for Integrated Water Resources Management in Ontario, Canada, and Oregon, USA: Evolution and LessonsNigel Watson0Dan Shrubsole1Bruce Mitchell2Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YQ, UKDepartment of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, ON N6A 5C2, CanadaDepartment of Geography and Environmental Management, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, CanadaGuidelines produced by some major international organisations create a misleading impression that Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) can be implemented in a standardized fashion. However, contextual conditions vary from place to place, and differences in beliefs, attitudes, customs, and norms sensibly influence interpretation and implementation. Experiences with IWRM in Oregon (USA) and Ontario (Canada) are examined with regard to scope, scale, responsibility, engagement, finances and financing, and review processes and mechanisms. Development of IWRM and the evolution of governance have been shaped by different concerns and beliefs. Oregon has adopted a locally-driven and entrepreneurial approach, whereas Ontario developed a co-operative inter-governmental approach. In both cases, IWRM governance has also evolved due to changes in funding and priorities, which have benefitted some catchments and communities more than others. Both cases provide positive examples of reflexivity and resilience, and demonstrate the importance of review processes and strong cross-scale connections for effective governance. While underlying principles may be relevant for other locations, it would be a mistake to think that either of the two approaches for IWRM could be replicated elsewhere in their exact form. Implementation of IWRM in other parts of those countries and the world should, therefore, start with careful analysis of the local context, and existing governance arrangements and governmentalities.https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/11/4/663catchmentconservation authoritiesgovernancegovernmentalityintegrated water resources management (IWRM)watershed councilsOntarioOregon |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Nigel Watson Dan Shrubsole Bruce Mitchell |
spellingShingle |
Nigel Watson Dan Shrubsole Bruce Mitchell Governance Arrangements for Integrated Water Resources Management in Ontario, Canada, and Oregon, USA: Evolution and Lessons Water catchment conservation authorities governance governmentality integrated water resources management (IWRM) watershed councils Ontario Oregon |
author_facet |
Nigel Watson Dan Shrubsole Bruce Mitchell |
author_sort |
Nigel Watson |
title |
Governance Arrangements for Integrated Water Resources Management in Ontario, Canada, and Oregon, USA: Evolution and Lessons |
title_short |
Governance Arrangements for Integrated Water Resources Management in Ontario, Canada, and Oregon, USA: Evolution and Lessons |
title_full |
Governance Arrangements for Integrated Water Resources Management in Ontario, Canada, and Oregon, USA: Evolution and Lessons |
title_fullStr |
Governance Arrangements for Integrated Water Resources Management in Ontario, Canada, and Oregon, USA: Evolution and Lessons |
title_full_unstemmed |
Governance Arrangements for Integrated Water Resources Management in Ontario, Canada, and Oregon, USA: Evolution and Lessons |
title_sort |
governance arrangements for integrated water resources management in ontario, canada, and oregon, usa: evolution and lessons |
publisher |
MDPI AG |
series |
Water |
issn |
2073-4441 |
publishDate |
2019-03-01 |
description |
Guidelines produced by some major international organisations create a misleading impression that Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) can be implemented in a standardized fashion. However, contextual conditions vary from place to place, and differences in beliefs, attitudes, customs, and norms sensibly influence interpretation and implementation. Experiences with IWRM in Oregon (USA) and Ontario (Canada) are examined with regard to scope, scale, responsibility, engagement, finances and financing, and review processes and mechanisms. Development of IWRM and the evolution of governance have been shaped by different concerns and beliefs. Oregon has adopted a locally-driven and entrepreneurial approach, whereas Ontario developed a co-operative inter-governmental approach. In both cases, IWRM governance has also evolved due to changes in funding and priorities, which have benefitted some catchments and communities more than others. Both cases provide positive examples of reflexivity and resilience, and demonstrate the importance of review processes and strong cross-scale connections for effective governance. While underlying principles may be relevant for other locations, it would be a mistake to think that either of the two approaches for IWRM could be replicated elsewhere in their exact form. Implementation of IWRM in other parts of those countries and the world should, therefore, start with careful analysis of the local context, and existing governance arrangements and governmentalities. |
topic |
catchment conservation authorities governance governmentality integrated water resources management (IWRM) watershed councils Ontario Oregon |
url |
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/11/4/663 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT nigelwatson governancearrangementsforintegratedwaterresourcesmanagementinontariocanadaandoregonusaevolutionandlessons AT danshrubsole governancearrangementsforintegratedwaterresourcesmanagementinontariocanadaandoregonusaevolutionandlessons AT brucemitchell governancearrangementsforintegratedwaterresourcesmanagementinontariocanadaandoregonusaevolutionandlessons |
_version_ |
1725391956479049728 |