Next Article in Journal
An Analysis of the Factors Affecting Hyporheic Exchange based on Numerical Modeling
Next Article in Special Issue
Integrated Urban Water Management and Water Security: A Comparison of Singapore and Hong Kong
Previous Article in Journal
Seasonal Fluxes of Dissolved Nutrients in Streams of Catchments Dominated by Swidden Agriculture in the Maya Forest of Belize, Central America
Previous Article in Special Issue
Governing Integration: Insights from Integrating Implementation of European Water Policies
Article Menu
Issue 4 (April) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessArticle

Governance Arrangements for Integrated Water Resources Management in Ontario, Canada, and Oregon, USA: Evolution and Lessons

1
Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YQ, UK
2
Department of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, ON N6A 5C2, Canada
3
Department of Geography and Environmental Management, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2019, 11(4), 663; https://doi.org/10.3390/w11040663
Received: 28 February 2019 / Revised: 24 March 2019 / Accepted: 26 March 2019 / Published: 31 March 2019
  |  
PDF [1018 KB, uploaded 31 March 2019]
  |     |  

Abstract

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. View Full-Text
Keywords: catchment; conservation authorities; governance; governmentality; integrated water resources management (IWRM); watershed councils; Ontario; Oregon catchment; conservation authorities; governance; governmentality; integrated water resources management (IWRM); watershed councils; Ontario; Oregon
Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (CC BY 4.0).
SciFeed

Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Watson, N.; Shrubsole, D.; Mitchell, B. Governance Arrangements for Integrated Water Resources Management in Ontario, Canada, and Oregon, USA: Evolution and Lessons. Water 2019, 11, 663.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Water EISSN 2073-4441 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top