Discovering the Political Implications of Coproduction in Water Governance
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results
3.1. Two Main Traditions of Coproduction Concepts in The Water Governance Literature
3.1.1. CoP-PS: Coproduction in Public Service Provision
3.1.2. CoP-SS: Coproduction in Sustainability Science
3.1.3. Other Uses of the Term in the Literature
3.2. The Why and to What End?
3.2.1. CoP-PS: Between Value-Neutral Description and Normative Goals of Efficiency
3.2.2. CoP-SS: Knowledge Coproduction as Participation in Support of Sustainability
3.3. The Who?
3.3.1. CoP-PS: Public Officials and Citizens Coproduce Public Services
3.3.2. CoP-SS: Scientists and Non-Experts Coproduce Knowledge
3.4. The How?
3.4.1. CoP-PS: Coproduction Pays Attention to Effectiveness or Power, But Not Both
3.4.2. CoP-SS: Coproduction as Both Paying Attention to Effectiveness and Power?
4. Discussion
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Klenk, N.; Meehan, K. Climate change and transdisciplinary science: Problematizing the integration imperative. Environ. Sci. Policy 2015, 54, 160–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Miller, C.A.; Wyborn, C. Co-production in global sustainability: Histories and theories. Environ. Sci. Policy 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bremer, S.; Meisch, S. Co-production in climate change research: Reviewing different perspectives. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 2017, 8, e482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ingram, H. Beyond Universal Remedies for Good Water Governance: A Political and Contextual Approach. In Water, Food and Sustainability; Garrido, A., Ingram, H., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Mollinga, P.P. Water, politics and development: Framing a political sociology of water resources management. Water Altern. 2008, 1, 7–23. [Google Scholar]
- Mees, H.; Alexander, M.; Gralepois, M.; Matczak, P.; Mees, H. Typologies of citizen co-production in flood risk governance. Environ. Sci. Policy 2018, 89, 330–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petticrew, M.; Roberts, H. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide; Blackwell Pub: Malden, MA, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Archambault, É.; Vignola-Gagné, É.; Côté, G.; Larivière, V.; Gingrasb, Y. Benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities: The limits of existing databases. Scientometrics 2006, 68, 329–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mongeon, P.; Paul-Hus, A. The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics 2016, 106, 213–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harzing, A.-W.; Alakangas, S. Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics 2016, 106, 787–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jasanoff, S. States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order; Routledge: London, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Latour, B. Postmodern? No, simply amodern! Steps towards an anthropology of science. Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. 1990, 21, 145–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parks, R.B.; Baker, P.C.; Kiser, L.; Oakerson, R.; Ostrom, E.; Ostrom, V.; Percy, S.L.; Vandivort, M.B.; Whitaker, G.P.; Wilson, R. Consumers as coproducers of public services: Some economic and institutional considerations. Policy Stud. J. 1981, 9, 1001–1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whitaker, G.P. Coproduction: Citizen Participation in Service Delivery. Public Adm. Rev. 1980, 40, 240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Percy, S.L. Citizen Participation in the Coproduction of Urban Services. Urban Aff. Q. 1984, 19, 431–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McMillan, R.; Spronk, S.; Caswell, C. Popular participation, equity, and co-production of water and sanitation services in Caracas, Venezuela. Water Int. 2014, 39, 201–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verschuere, B.; Brandsen, T.; Pestoff, V. Co-production: The State of the Art in Research and the Future Agenda. Voluntas 2012, 23, 1083–1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kurian, M.; McCarney, P. Peri-Urban Water and Sanitation Services: Policy, Planning and Method; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Mees, H.; Crabbé, A.; Alexander, M.; Kaufmann, M.; Bruzzone, S.; Lévy, L.; Lewandowski, J. Coproducing flood risk management through citizen involvement: Insights from cross-country comparison in Europe. Ecol. Soc. 2016, 21, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Voorberg, W.H.; Bekkers, V.J.J.M.; Tummers, L.G. A Systematic Review of Co-Creation and Co-Production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Manag. Rev. 2015, 17, 1333–1357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Prokopy, L.S.; Carlton, J.S.; Haigh, T.; Lemos, M.C.; Mase, A.S.; Widhalm, M. Useful to Usable: Developing usable climate science for agriculture. Clim. Risk Manag. 2017, 15, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lemos, M.C.; Morehouse, B.J. The co-production of science and policy in integrated climate assessments. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2005, 15, 57–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brugnach, M.; Ingram, H. Ambiguity: The challenge of knowing and deciding together. Environ. Sci. Policy 2012, 15, 60–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grigg, N.S. Integrated water resources management: Balancing views and improving practice. Water Int. 2008, 33, 279–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edelenbos, J.; Van Buuren, A.; Schie, N. Van Co-producing knowledge: Joint knowledge production between experts, bureaucrats and stakeholders in Dutch water management projects. Environ. Sci. Policy 2011, 14, 675–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brugnach, M. The space in between: Where multiple ways of knowing in water management meet. Special Issue on Helen Ingram’s contributions to water, environment, and policy scholarship. J. Southwest 2017, 59, 34–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pahl-Wostl, C.; Vörösmarty, C.; Bhaduri, A.; Bogardi, J.; Rockström, J.; Alcamo, J. Towards a sustainable water future: Shaping the next decade of global water research. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2013, 5, 708–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jeffrey, P.; Gearey, M. Integrated water resources management: Lost on the road from ambition to realisation? Water Sci. Technol. 2006, 53, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Biswas, A.K. Integrated Water Resources Management: A Reassessment. Water Int. 2004, 29, 248–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walters, C. Challenges in adaptive management of riparian and coastal ecosystems. Conserv. Ecol. 1997, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jeffrey, P.J.; Medema, W.; McIntosh, B.S. From Premise to Practice: A Critical Assessment of Integrated Water Resources Management and Adaptive Management Approaches in the Water Sector 2008. Ecol. Soc. 2008, 13, 2. [Google Scholar]
- Lövbrand, E.; Beck, S.; Chilvers, J.; Forsyth, T.; Hedrén, J.; Hulme, M.; Lidskog, R.; Vasileiadou, E. Who speaks for the future of Earth? How critical social science can extend the conversation on the Anthropocene. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2015, 32, 211–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Edelenbos, J.; Buuren, M. Innovations in the Dutch polder: Communities of practice and the challenge of coevolution. Emerg. Complex. Organ. 2006, 8, 42–49. [Google Scholar]
- Tempels, B.; Hartmann, T. A co-evolving frontier between land and water: Dilemmas of flexibility versus robustness in flood risk management. Water Int. 2014, 39, 872–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Budds, J.; Hinojosa, L. Restructuring and Rescaling Water Governance in Mining Contexts: The Co-Production of Waterscapes in Peru. Water Altern. 2012, 5, 119–137. [Google Scholar]
- Barnes, J.; Alatout, S. Water worlds: Introduction to the special issue of Social Studies of Science. Soc. Stud. Sci. 2012, 42, 483–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bouleau, G. The co-production of science and waterscapes: The case of the Seine and the Rhône Rivers, France. Geoforum 2014, 57, 248–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fotaki, M. Towards developing new partnerships in public services: Users as consumers, citizens and/or co-producers in health and social care in England and Sweden. Public Adm. 2011, 89, 933–955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Needham, C. Realising the Potential of Co-production: Negotiating Improvements in Public Services. Soc. Policy Soc. 2008, 7, 221–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ostrom, E. Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy, and development. World Dev. 1996, 24, 1073–1087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mangai, M.S.; De Vries, M.S. Co-production as deep engagement. Int. J. Public Sect. Manag. 2018, 31, 81–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fledderus, J.; Brandsen, T.; Honingh, M.E. User co-production of public service delivery: An uncertainty approach. Public Policy Adm. 2015, 30, 145–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joshi, A.; Moore, M. Institutionalised Co-production: Unorthodox Public Service Delivery in Challenging Environments. J. Dev. Stud. 2004, 40, 31–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Armitage, D.; Berkes, F.; Dale, A.; Kocho-Schellenberg, E.; Patton, E. Co-management and the co-production of knowledge: Learning to adapt in Canada’s Arctic. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2011, 21, 995–1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rowe, G.; Frewer, L.J. Evaluating Public-Participation Exercises: A Research Agenda. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 2004, 29, 512–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fiorino, D. Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 1990, 15, 226–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Winickoff, D.E.; Flegal, J.A.; Asrat, A. Engaging the Global South on climate engineering research. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2015, 5, 627–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cash, D.W.; Clark, W.C.; Alcock, F.; Dickson, N.M.; Eckley, N.; Guston, D.H.; Jäger, J.; Mitchell, R.B. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2003, 100, 8086LP–8091LP. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pahl-Wostl, C.; Jeffrey, P.; Isendahl, N.; Brugnach, M. Maturing the New Water Management Paradigm: Progressing from Aspiration to Practice. Water Resour. Manag. 2011, 25, 837–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pahl-Wostl, C. The implications of complexity for integrated resources management. Environ. Model. Softw. 2007, 22, 561–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brugnach, M.; Ingram, H. Rethinking the Role of Humans in Water Management: Toward a New Model of Decision-Making. In Water, Cultural Diversity, and Global Environmental Change; Johnston, B., Hiwasaki, L., Klaver, I., Ramos Castillo, A.S.V., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2011; pp. 49–64. [Google Scholar]
- Gunderson, L.H.; Holling, C.S.; Light, S.S. Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Gleick, P.H. A Look at Twenty-first Century Water Resources Development. Water Int. 2000, 25, 127–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cortner, H.J.; Moote, M.A. Trends and issues in land and water resources management: Setting the agenda for change. Environ. Manag. 1994, 18, 167–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mitlin, D. With and beyond the state—Co-production as a route to political influence, power and transformation for grassroots organizations. Environ. Urban. 2008, 20, 339–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schneider, F. Approaching Water Stress in the Alps: Transdisciplinary Co-Production of Systems, Target and Transformation Knowledge. In Managing Alpine Future II—Inspire and Drive Sustainable Mountain Regions. Proceedings of the Innsbruck Conference; Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: Vienna, Austria, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Huxham, C.; Vangen, S. Managing to Collaborate: The Theory and Practice of Collaborative Advantage; Routledge: Madison, NY, USA, 2005; ISBN 9780415339209. [Google Scholar]
- Llano-Arias, V. Community knowledge sharing and co-production of water services: Two cases of community aqueduct associations in Colombia. Water Altern. 2015, 8, 77–98. [Google Scholar]
- Turnhout, E.; Dewulf, A.; Hulme, M. What does policy-relevant global environmental knowledge do? The cases of climate and biodiversity. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2016, 18, 65–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Esguerra, A.; Beck, S.; Lidskog, R. Stakeholder Engagement in the Making: IPBES Legitimization Politics. Glob. Environ. Polit. 2017, 17, 59–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Krueger, T.; Maynard, C.; Carr, G.; Bruns, A.; Mueller, E.N.; Lane, S. A transdisciplinary account of water research. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 2016, 3, 369–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Pohl, C.; Rist, S.; Zimmermann, A.; Fry, P.; Gurung, G.S.; Schneider, F.; Speranza, C.I.; Kiteme, B.; Boillat, S.; Serrano, E.; et al. Researchers’ roles in knowledge co-production: Experience from sustainability research in Kenya, Switzerland, Bolivia and Nepal. Sci. Public Policy 2010, 37, 267–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chilvers, J.; Kearnes, M. Remaking Participation: Science, Environment and Emergent Publics; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2016; ISBN 9780415857406. [Google Scholar]
- Wynne, B. Public Participation in Science and Technology: Performing and Obscuring a Political–conceptual Category Mistake. East Asian Sci. Technol. Soc. 2007, 1, 99–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beck, S.; Borie, M.; Chilvers, J.; Esguerra, A.; Heubach, K.; Hulme, M.; Lidskog, R.; Lövbrand, E.; Marquard, E.; Miller, C.; et al. Towards a Reflexive Turn in the Governance of Global Environmental Expertise. The Cases of the IPCC and the IPBES. GAIA Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc. 2014, 23, 80–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stirling, A. Keep it complex. Nature 2010, 468, 1029–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
CoP-PS | CoP-SS | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Context | Public service provision State–citizen interaction Public administration literature | (Global) environmental change research Identification of long-term sustainable solutions to water governance problems Sustainability science literature | ||
Variants | Instrumental | Empowering | Instrumental | Empowering |
Why & to what end? | Output-oriented legitimacy Effectiveness of “products” Effectiveness of polycentric governance | Effectiveness of “products” but rethinking of citizen–state relationship Attention to community values and collective action | Unreflected calls for participation No attention paid to power differentials | Legitimization of different knowledge forms Comprehensive, multiperspectival and creative understanding of water governance problems and solutions Process-oriented legitimacy Generation of blended knowledge Awareness of power differentials |
Who? | Citizens and public officials | Communities of citizens and public officials | Scientists in the driving seat; Stakeholders; Policy makers | Scientists as brokers or facilitators; stakeholders; policy makers |
How? | Technocratic | New forms of public services provision with meaningful community involvement | Coproduction viewed as purely procedural | Through dialogue and collaboration Supporting interactive processes through reflexive governance |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lepenies, R.; Hüesker, F.; Beck, S.; Brugnach, M. Discovering the Political Implications of Coproduction in Water Governance. Water 2018, 10, 1475. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10101475
Lepenies R, Hüesker F, Beck S, Brugnach M. Discovering the Political Implications of Coproduction in Water Governance. Water. 2018; 10(10):1475. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10101475
Chicago/Turabian StyleLepenies, Robert, Frank Hüesker, Silke Beck, and Marcela Brugnach. 2018. "Discovering the Political Implications of Coproduction in Water Governance" Water 10, no. 10: 1475. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10101475