CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 912Sustainability and Climate Change GovernanceWater Governance and InfrastructureWater Resource Management and Quality

Adaptive Water Governance: Assessing the Institutional Prescriptions of Adaptive (Co-)Management from a Governance Perspective and Defining a Research Agenda

Open access
Huitema, Dave, Mostert, Erik, Egas, Wouter, Moellenkamp, Sabine, Pahl-Wostl, Claudia, Yalcin, Resul·2009·Ecology and Society
DOI 10.5751/es-02827-140126
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Huitema, D., E. Mostert, W. Egas, S. Moellenkamp, C. Pahl-Wostl, and R. Yalcin. 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. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02827-140126

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5751/es-02827-140126

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Transaction costs associated with coordination in polycentric governance systems can be quite high, particularly in larger or geographically dispersed systems.

    “For example, the transaction costs associated with coordination can be quite high, particularly in larger or geographically dispersed systems (Huitema et al., 2009; Wyborn, 2015).”

    From Polycentric Systems of Governance: A Theoretical Model for the Commons (2019) · cites this paper as Huitema et al., 2009

    The POLYCENTRIC GOVERNANCE section (page unavailable) says coordination entails high transaction costs, including consultation and reaching agreements. It separately notes that coordinating across greater areas and larger numbers of users is harder, but does not explicitly say transaction costs are particularly high in larger or geographically dispersed systems. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The dispersion of responsibilities in a polycentric governance system can make it challenging to hold decision makers accountable for their performance.

    “Additionally, the dispersion of responsibilities in a polycentric governance system can make it challenging to hold decision makers accountable for their performance (Huitema et al., 2009; Lieberman, 2011).”

    From Polycentric Systems of Governance: A Theoretical Model for the Commons (2019) · cites this paper as Huitema et al., 2009

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 75

  1. Agrawal, A. 2001. Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources. World Development 29(10):1649-1672.
  2. Allan, J. A. 2003. Virtual water-the water, food, and trade nexus; useful concept or misleading metaphor? Water International 28(1):4-11.
  3. Amara, N., M. Ouimet, and R. Landry. 2004. New evidence on instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic utilization of university research in government agencies. Science Communication 26 (1):75-106.
  4. Armitage, D., F. Berkes, and N. Doubleday. 2007. Adaptive co-management. Collaboration, learning and multilevel governance. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
  5. Backstrand, K. 2003. Civic science for sustainability: reframing the role of experts, policy- makers and citizens in environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics 3(4):24-41.
  6. Bellamy, J., H. Ross, S. Ewing, and T. Meppem. 2002. Integrated catchment management: learning from the Australian experience for the Murray- Darling Basin. CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Brisbane, Australia. Ecology and Society 14(1): 26 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art26/
  7. Berkes, F., and C. Folke, editors. 1998. Linking social and ecological systems: management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
  8. Boyne, G. A., J. S. Gould-WIlliams, J. Law, and R. M. Walker. 2004. Problems of rational planning in public organizations; an empirical assessment of the conventional wisdom. Administration and Society 36(3):328-350.
  9. Brodkin, E., and A. Kaufman. 2000. Policy experiments and poverty politics. Social Service Review 74(4):507-532.
  10. Collingridge, D. 1992. The management of scale: big organizations, big decisions, big mistakes. Routledge, London, UK.
  11. Dietz, T., E. Ostrom, and P. C. Stern. 2003. The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302 (5652):1907-1912.
  12. Falkenmark, M., L. Gottschalk, J. Lundqvist, and P. Wouters. 2004. Towards integrated catchment management: increasing the dialogue between scientists, policy-makers and stakeholders. Water Resources Development 20(3):297-309.
  13. Focht, W., and Z. Trachtenberg. 2005. A trust- based guide to stakeholder participation. Pages 85- 135 in P. A. Sabatier, W. Focht, M. Lubell, Z. Trachtenberg, A. Veditz, and M. Matlock, editors. Swimming upstream. Collaborative approaches to watershed management. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
  14. Folke, C., T. Hahn, P. Olsson, and J. Norberg. 2005. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environmental Resources 30:441-473.
  15. Glasbergen, P. 1990. Towards a policy network approach to integrated water management. Experiences in the Netherlands. Water Resources Development 6:155-162. Ecology and Society 14(1): 26 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art26/
  16. Granovetter, M. 1981. The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited. Paper presented at the Conference on Contributions of Network Analysis to Structural Sociology, 4 April 1981, Albany, New York, USA.
  17. Greenberg, D., D. Linksz, and M. Mandell. 2003. Social experimentation and public policymaking. The Urban Institute Press, Washington, D.C., USA.
  18. Guba, E., and Y. Lincoln. 1989. Fourth generation evaluation. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, California, USA.
  19. Gunderson, L. H., and C. S. Holling, editors. 2002. Panarchy. understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.
  20. Heilman, J. G., and G. W. Johnson. 1992. The politics and economics of privatization. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA.
  21. Hooghe, L., and G. Marks. 2003. Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance. American Political Science Review 97 (2):233-243.
  22. Huitema, D., and E. Turnhout. 2009. Working at the science-policy interface. A discursive analysis of boundary work at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. Environmental Politics 18: in press.
  23. Huitema, D., M. van de Kerkhof, and U. Pesch. 2007. The nature of the beast. Are citizens' juries deliberative or pluralist? Policy Sciences 40 (4):287-311.
  24. Imperial, M. T. 2005. Using collaboration as a governance strategy-lessons from six watershed management programs. Administration and Society 37(3):281-320.
  25. Imperial, M. T., and T. Hennessey. 1999. Environmental governance in watersheds. Collaboration, public value and accountability. Paper presented at the Twenty-First Annual Research Conference of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, 4-6 November, 1999, Washington, D.C., USA.
  26. Karkkainen, B. C. 2004. Post-sovereign environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics 4(1):72-96.
  27. Keohane, R. O., and E. Ostrom, editors. 1995. Local commons and global interdependence: heterogeneity and cooperation in two domains. Sage Publications, London, UK.
  28. Kjær, A. M. 2004. Governance. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK.
  29. Klijn, E.-H., and J. F. M. Koppenjan. 2006. Institutional design. Changing institutional features of networks. Public Management Review 8(1):141- 160.
  30. Leach, W. D., and N. W. Pelkey. 2001. Making watershed partnerships work: a review of the empirical literature. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 127:378-385.
  31. Lee, K. N. 1993. Compass and gyroscope. Integrating politics and science for the environment. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.
  32. Lee, K. N. 1999. Appraising adaptive management. Ecology and Society. 3(2): 3. [online] URL: http:// www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol3/iss2/art3/. Ecology and Society 14(1): 26 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art26/
  33. Lejano, R. P., and H. Ingram. 2009. Collaborative networks and new ways of knowing. Environmental Science and Policy: in press.
  34. Lindblom, C. E. 1959. The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review. 19:79-88.
  35. Margerum, R. D., and S. M. Born. 1995. Integrated environmental management: moving from theory to practice. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 38:371-391.
  36. Martin, S., and I. Sanderson. 1999. Evaluating public policy experiments. Evaluation 5(3):245- 258.
  37. McGinnis, M. D. 1999. Polycentric governance and development. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
  38. McGinnis, M. D., editor. 2000. Polycentric games and institutions: readings from the workshop in political theory and policy analysis. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
  39. McLain, R. J., and R. G. Lee. 1996. Adaptive management: promises and pitfalls. Environmental Management 20(4):337-448.
  40. Meinzen-Dick, R. 1997. Farmer participation in irrigation: 20 years of experience and lessons for the future. Irrigation and Drainage Systems 11 (2):103-118.
  41. Meinzem-Dick, R. 2007. Beyond panaceas in water institutions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(39):15200-15205.
  42. Mitchell, B. 1990. Integrated water management; international experiences and perspectives. Belhaven Press, London, UK.
  43. Moellenkamp, S. 2004. Hydrodiplomatie. Deutschland und Frankreich in der internationalen Zusammenarbeit zum Schutz des Rheins. Revue d'Allemagne et des pays de langue allemande 36(1):63-77.
  44. Mostert, E., editor. 2000. River Basin Management. Proceedings of the International Workshop on River Masin Management, 27-29 October 1999, The Hague, The Netherlands. UNESCO, Paris, France.
  45. Mostert, E. 2009. International cooperation on Rhine water quality 1945-2008: an example to follow? Physics and Chemistry of the Earth: in press.
  46. Mostert, E., M. Craps, and C. Pahl-Wostl. 2009. Social learning: the key to integrated water resources management? Water International: in press.
  47. Mostert, E., C. Pahl-Wostl, Y. Rees, B. Searle, D. Tàbara, and J. Tippett. 2007. Social learning in European river basin management: barriers and supportive mechanisms from 10 river basins. Ecology and Society 12(1): 19. [online] URL: http: //www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art19/.
  48. Oakerson, R. J. 1999. Governing local public economies. Creating the civic metropolis. ICS Press, Oakland, California, USA.
  49. Olsson, P., C. Folke, and F. Berkes. 2004. Adaptive co-management for building resilience in social-ecological systems. Environmental Management 34(1):75-90.
  50. Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons. The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
  51. Ostrom, E. 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA. Ecology and Society 14(1): 26 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art26/
  52. Ostrom, E., and M. A. Janssen. 2004. Multilevel governance and resilience of social and ecological systems. Pages 239-259 in M. Spoor, editor. Globalisation, poverty and conflict. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
  53. Ostrom, V., C. M. Tiebout, and R. Warren. 1961. The organization of government in metropolitan areas. A theoretical inquiry. Amercan Political Science Review 55:831-842.
  54. Pahl-Wostl, C. 2006. The importance of social learning in restoring the multifunctionality of rivers and floodplains. Ecology and Society 11(1): 10. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/ iss1/art10/.
  55. Pateman, C. 1970. Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
  56. Perrow, C. 1999. Normal accidents: living with high-risk technologies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
  57. Pimentel, D., R. Harman, M. Pacenza, J. Pecarsky, and M. Pimental. 1994. Natural resources and an optimum human population. Population and Environment 15(5):347-369.
  58. Popper, K. 1985. Piecemeal Social Engineering. Pages 304-318 in D. Miller, editor. Popper selections. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
  59. Rabe, B. G. 2004. Statehouse and greenhouse: the emerging politics of American climate change policy. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.
  60. Reed, M. S. 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biological Conservation 141:2417-2431.
  61. Ridder, D., E. Mostert, and H. A. Wolters, editors. 2005. Learning together to manage together: improving participation in water management. University of Osnabrück, Osnabrü, Germany.
  62. Sabatier, P. A., W. Focht, M. Lubell, Z. Trachtenberg, A. Veditz, and M. Matlock, editors. 2005. Swimming upstream. Collaborative approaches to watershed management. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
  63. Sanderson, I. 2002. Evaluation, policy learning and evidence-based policy making. Public Administration 80(1):1-22.
  64. Schlager, E., and W. Blomquist. 2000. Local communities, policy prescriptions, and watershed management in Arizona, California, and Colorado. In Constituting the commons: crafting sustainable commons in the new millenium. Eighth Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property, 31 May-4 June, 2000, Bloomington, Indiana, USA.
  65. Skelcher, C. 2005. Jurisdictional integrity, polycentrism, and the design of democratic governance. Governance 18(1):89-110.
  66. Sørensen, E., and J. Torfing. 2004. Making governance networks democratic. Centre for Ecology and Society 14(1): 26 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art26/ Democratic Network Governance, Roskilde, Denmark.
  67. Sproule-Jones, M. 2002. Institutional experiments in the restoration of the North American Great Lakes environment. Canadian Journal of Political Science 35(4):835-857.
  68. Stoker, G. 1998. Governance as theory. International Social Science Journal 155:17-28.
  69. van Gunsteren, H. R. 1976. The quest for control: a critique of the rational-central-rule approach in public affairs. Wiley, London, UK.
  70. Videira, N., P. Antunes, R. Santos, and G. Lobo. 2006. Public and stakeholder participation in European water policy: a critical review of project evaluation processes. European Environment 16:19-31.
  71. Walters, C. 1997. Challenges in adaptive management of riparian and coastal ecosystems. Conservation Ecology 1(2): 1. [online] URL: http:/ /www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol1/iss2/art1/.
  72. Weiss, C. 1977. Research for policy's sake: the enlightenment function of social research. Policy Analysis 3(4):531-545
  73. Wondolleck, J. M., and S. L. Yaffee. 2000. Making collaboration work. Island Press, Washington, D. C., USA.
  74. Young, O. R. 2002. The institutional dimensions of environmental change. Fit interplay and scale. M. I.T. Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
  75. Young, O. R., F. Berkhout, G. C. Gallopin, M. A. Janssen, E. Ostrom, and S. van der Leeuw. 2006. The globalization of socio-ecological systems: an agenda for scientific research. Global Environmental Change 16(3):304-316.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Huitema, D., Mostert, E., Egas, W., Moellenkamp, S., Pahl-Wostl, C., & Yalcin, R.
Affiliations
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
  • Delft University of Technology (NL)
  • Osnabrück University (DE)
ORCID
Venue
Ecology and Society
Publisher
Resilience Alliance, Inc.
Published
2009
Volume
14
Issue
1
ISSN
1708-3087 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.5751/es-02827-140126
OpenAlex
W1533239649
Cited by
912
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 51 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 56 · 2020: 61 · 2019: 82 · 2018: 61 · 2017: 70 · 2016: 84 · 2015: 55 · 2014: 73 · 2013: 57 · 2012: 37
FWCI
27.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Ecology and Society (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (acceptedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Digital Commons - USU (Utah State University) (submittedVersion)
  • Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Digital Library Of The Commons Repository (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Repository (Delft University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
European Commission
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Sustainability and Climate Change Governance
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Water Governance and Infrastructure
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Water Resource Management and Quality
Keywords
adaptive water governance, adaptive co-management, adaptive management, water governance, research agenda, water resources management, institutional change

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review