Governance Arrangements for Water Reuse: Assessing Emerging Trends for Inter-Municipal Cooperation through a Literature Review
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Findings
3.1. General Characteristics of the Literature Review
3.2. Emerging Knowledge and Gaps in the Literature
3.2.1. Inter-Municipal Cooperation
Knowledge | Gaps | |
---|---|---|
Governance | - IMC offers cross-jurisdictional and large-scale plans and a shared vision [29,30,31] - IMC also leads to solving administrative capacity problems (in smaller cities) [32] - IMC reduces the threat of private developers (real estate) [14] - The success of cooperation can be affected by the size of the municipal population, the strength of political leadership and experienced managerial staff, and the perception of IMC by municipal officials [32] - Roles of non-governmental stakeholders in cooperative governance networks must be acknowledged [25] - A smaller number of participants with a history of cooperation are more likely to enhance the commitment [36] - IMC has the potential to improve the efficiency of land use planning [33] - The availability of space to construct infrastructure is important [35] - The dominancy of technical and traditional planning approaches limit cooperation [30]; | - To explore factors for success and failure of co-operative arrangements [17] - To study on the role, capacity, and significance of city-regional actors [25] - To identify causal mechanisms for various types of cooperation [19] - To identify cause and effect of governance capacity value [31] - To measure the commitments of authorities [36]; |
Service efficiency | - IMC is an efficient form of service provision [26,37,38,39] - There is no significant effect of IMC on service efficiency [33,40] - Fiscal constraints, spatial, and organisational factors are significant drivers of cooperation [24] - Financial sustainability is critical for IMC arrangement and one of the most important drivers of cooperation [20,41] - Cooperation is more attractive and efficient for smaller municipalities [34,42]; | - To test the benefits and efficiency of IMC [33,40,43] - To identify the model with the most efficient form of service delivery [38] - To explore all possible drivers of service delivery models [44] - To identify ways to reduce the transaction costs of cooperation [45] - To explore the relationship of the size asymmetry and service quality and autonomy costs [15] - To explore the relationship between local government financial health and the financial sustainability of IMC entities [20] - To explore more spatial and organisational factors in cooperation [24]; |
Impacts assessment | - IMC presents a critical factor for ensuring better environmental outcomes in metropolitan areas, as it facilitates policy coherence and widespread enforcement irrespective of the type of metropolitan governance structure [46]. | - To explore the effect of cooperation on environmental outcomes [46]. |
3.2.2. Inter-Municipal Cooperation and Water
Knowledge | Gaps | |
---|---|---|
Governance | - IMC arrangement creates (and has to ensure) a platform for engagement of all actors and stakeholders (public sector, researchers, citizens, and companies) [57,58] - IMC is more collective and transparent, benefiting from shared vision leading to harmonised development of urban infrastructures [50] - Cooperative approach facilitates addressing risks (technical, natural, and social) and trans-boundaries problems (environmental, etc.) [13,52,59] - IMC requires an establishment of: a strong leadership and communication, accompanied by ensuring the stakeholder’s engagement, which is shaped based on citizen perception, conflict solution, and problem solving [13,58]; an acknowledgement of risks including risks about institutional uncertainties (allocation of responsibility), transaction costs, and political costs for individual [59]; a high level of knowledge, competence, and commitment of those engaged in the process of delivering and regulating drinking water [59] addressing the challenges of local government such as the small size of municipalities and fiscal shortages [47]; enhancing political willingness to take actions in wastewater treatment introduces cooperative models as a reliable alternative [47] - IMC brings effective use of land for water management, in terms of locating plants and transport [47] - The water system and urban structure are important for choosing a service delivery model (IMC or privatisation) [52]; | - To understand what an appropriate governance institutional form for each service, regarding the size of the population of municipalities [50] - To evaluate effects of IMC networks on other municipalities’ actions and activities and non-neighbouring interlocal arrangements [58] - To study collective action dilemmas in risk management [59] - To analyse several alternatives and choosing the most feasible one in local circumstances for water strategy [47]; |
Service efficiency | - IMC is beneficial in terms of administrative, and economic factors; IMC introduces an efficient model to address the local government problems (e.g., waste transportation costs, unclear and unfair pricing formation, etc.) [55] - To define joint goals and well-established institutional settings leading to better results in services provision [54] - To check the quality of services based on citizen perceptions [60] - To consider the size of the municipality population as a determinant factor for the success of the cooperation as it is more preferable for smaller municipalities [53,61]; | - To explore and evaluate (viability, cost-efficiency) of different arrangements for public service provisions, regarding the contextual conditions [21,56] - To understand costs and prices of water in different arrangements [62] - To understand the economic and political factors of IA for public services [63]; |
Impacts assessment | - IMC is helpful to incentivise a sustainable urban transition [28]. | - To assess sustainability and other effects of IMC rather than just its economic benefits [16]. |
3.2.3. Inter-Municipal Cooperation and Circular Economy
Knowledge | Gaps | |
---|---|---|
Governance | - Waste management needs collaborative governance (among different sectors and central cities and smaller ones) [64,65,66] - IMC is not necessarily cost saving [73] this cooperation requires a strong political leadership at the local level and longer-term agreements [67] - IMC can be a rational choice for smaller municipalities (under 55000 population); increasing the population over that leads to worsening the efficiency [67] - To consider that the spatial distribution of population on space affects the costs of waste service [69]; | - To study the optimal definition of the geographic boundaries of IMC [27,67]; |
Service efficiency | - The size of the municipal population is an important factor for cooperation seeing that IMC is more popular among small and mid-size cities [69,71,74,75,76] - IMC addresses the financial burden of local governments [70] - IMC brings economies of scale [70,72] - IMC is cost saving in waste collection [77] - IMC makes a platform to share experience, knowledge, and information [74,77] - Cooperation raises collection frequency and improves the quality of the service in small towns [69] - IMC involving spatial interaction with neighbouring municipalities influences the decision making and collaborative action of municipalities to implement recyclables collection and reduce costs [78]; | - To understand factors affecting public service costs [70] to extend the IMC studies for different sectors and services [70] - To understand how institutional mechanisms can lead to cost efficiency [74,76], |
Impacts Assessment | - Small municipalities may seek IMC and adopt integrated waste-management programmes to reduce their environmental impacts [68]. | - To analyse economic aspects next to the analysis of potential energy and GHG emissions [68]. |
4. Discussion and Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Dominguez, S.; Laso, J.; Margallo, M.; Aldaco, R.; Rivero, M.J.; Irabien, Á.; Ortiz, I. LCA of Greywater Management within a Water Circular Economy Restorative Thinking Framework. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 621, 1047–1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Voulvoulis, N. Water Reuse from a Circular Economy Perspective and Potential Risks from an Unregulated Approach. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 2018, 2, 32–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Casiano Flores, C.; Bressers, H.; Gutierrez, C.; de Boer, C. Towards Circular Economy—A Wastewater Treatment Perspective, the Presa Guadalupe Case. Manag. Res. Rev. 2018, 41, 554–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goodwin, D.; Raffin, M.; Jeffrey, P.; Smith, H.M. Collaboration on Risk Management: The Governance of a Non-Potable Water Reuse Scheme in London. J. Hydrol. 2019, 573, 1087–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions—A Blueprint to Safeguard Europe’s Water Resources; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2012; Available online: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52012DC0673&from=EN (accessed on 28 August 2022).
- International Water Association. Water Utility Pathways in a Circular Economy; International Water Association: London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Frijns, J.; Smith, H.; Brouwer, S.; Garnett, K.; Elelman, R.; Jeffrey, P. How Governance Regimes Shape the Implementation of Water Reuse Schemes. Water 2016, 8, 605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nölting, B.; Mann, C. Governance Strategy for Sustainable Land Management and Water Reuse: Challenges for Transdisciplinary Research. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 26, 691–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- OECD. Stakeholder Engagement for Inclusive Water Governance; OECD Studies on Water; OECD: Paris, France, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- OECD. Implementing the OECD Principles on Water Governance: Indicator Framework and Evolving Practices; OECD: Paris, France, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kurki, V.; Pietilä, P.; Katko, T. Assessing Regional Cooperation in Water Services. Public Works Manag. Policy 2016, 21, 368–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teles, F. Local Governance and Inter-Municipal Cooperation; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moran, E.C.; Woods, D.O. Comprehensive Watershed Planning in New York State: The Conesus Lake Example. J. Great Lakes Res. 2009, 35 (Suppl. S1), 10–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, K.E. Local-Level Economic Development Conflicts: Factors That Influence Interactions with Private Land Developers. Urban Aff. Rev. 2022, 58, 706–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arntsen, B.; Torjesen, D.O.; Karlsen, T.I. Asymmetry in Inter-Municipal Cooperation in Health Services—How Does It Affect Service Quality and Autonomy? Soc. Sci. Med. 2021, 273, 113744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sjöstrand, K.; Lindhe, A.; Söderqvist, T.; Rosén, L. Sustainability Assessments of Regional Water Supply Interventions—Combining Cost-Benefit and Multi-Criteria Decision Analyses. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 225, 313–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hulst, J.R.R.; van Montfort, A.J.G.M.A. Institutional Features of Inter-Municipal Cooperation: Cooperative Arrangements and Their National Contexts. Public Policy Adm. 2012, 27, 121–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bel, G.; Warner, M.E. Factors Explaining Inter-Municipal Cooperation in Service Delivery: A Meta-Regression Analysis. J. Econ. Policy Reform 2016, 19, 91–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Citroni, G.; Lippi, A.; Profeti, S. Remapping the State: Inter-Municipal Cooperation through Corporatisation and Public-Private Governance Structures. Local Gov. Stud. 2013, 39, 208–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bocchino, M.; Padovani, E. Does Municipal Fiscal Distress Hinder Inter-Municipal Cooperation? J. Public Budg. Account. Financ. Manag. 2021, 33, 552–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Armstrong, A.; Jackson-Smith, D. Privatization and Inter-Municipal Cooperation in Local Stormwater Planning and Management. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2019, 62, 1693–1713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muraoka, T.; Avellaneda, C.N. Do the Networks of Inter-Municipal Cooperation Enhance Local Government Performance? Local Gov. Stud. 2021, 47, 616–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bel, G.; Gradus, R. Privatisation, Contracting-out and Inter-Municipal Cooperation: New Developments in Local Public Service Delivery. Local Gov. Stud. 2018, 44, 11–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bel, G.; Warner, M.E. Inter-Municipal Cooperation and Costs: Expectations and Evidence. Public Adm. 2015, 93, 52–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nelles, J. Cooperation and Capacity? Exploring the Sources and Limits of City-Region Governance Partnerships. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2013, 37, 1349–1367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petkovšek, V.; Hrovatin, N.; Pevcin, P. Local Public Services Delivery Mechanisms: A Literature Review. Lex Localis 2021, 19, 39–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Villalba Ferreira, M.E.; Dijkstra, A.G.; Aniche, L.Q.; Scholten, P. Towards a Typology of Inter-Municipal Cooperation in Emerging Metropolitan Regions. A Case Study in the Solid Waste Management Sector in Ecuador. Cogent Soc. Sci. 2020, 6, 1757185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neumann, V.A.; Hack, J. A Methodology of Policy Assessment at the Municipal Level: Costa Rica’s Readiness for the Implementation of Nature-Based-Solutions for Urban Stormwater Management. Sustainability 2019, 12, 230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hytönen, J.; Mäntysalo, R.; Peltonen, L.; Kanninen, V.; Niemi, P.; Simanainen, M. Defensive Routines in Land Use Policy Steering in Finnish Urban Regions. Eur. Urban Reg. Stud. 2016, 23, 40–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lundqvist, L.J. Planning for Climate Change Adaptation in a Multi-Level Context: The Gothenburg Metropolitan Area. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2016, 24, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vringer, K.; de Vries, R.; Visser, H. Measuring Governing Capacity for the Energy Transition of Dutch Municipalities. Energy Policy 2021, 149, 112002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bakoš, E.; Hrůza, F.; Fiedor, D.; Klemešová, K.D. The Perception of Inter-Municipal Cooperation by Local Officials and Managers. Cent. Eur. J. Public Policy 2021, 15, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luca, D.; Modrego, F. Stronger Together? Assessing the Causal Effect of Inter-Municipal Cooperation on the Efficiency of Small Italian Municipalities. J. Reg. Sci. 2021, 61, 261–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bel, G.; Belerdas-Castro, A. Provision and Production Reform of Urban Fire Services: Privatization, Cooperation and Costs. Public Manag. Rev. 2021, 24, 1331–1354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoppe, T.; van der Vegt, A.; Stegmaier, P. Presenting a Framework to Analyze Local Climate Policy and Action in Small and Medium-Sized Cities. Sustainability 2016, 8, 847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Camões, P.J.; Tavares, A.; Teles, F. Assessing the Intensity of Cooperation: A Study of Joint Delegation of Municipal Functions to Inter-Municipal Associations. Local Gov. Stud. 2021, 47, 593–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warner, M.E. Competition or Cooperation In Urban Service Delivery? Ann. Public Coop. Econ. 2011, 82, 421–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blåka, S. Does Cooperation Affect Service Delivery Costs? Evidence from Fire Services in Norway. Public Adm. 2017, 95, 1092–1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zafra-Gómez, J.L.; Pedauga, L.E.; Plata-Díaz, A.M.; López-Hernández, A.M. Do Local Authorities Use NPM Delivery Forms to Overcome Problems of Fiscal Stress? Span. J. Financ. Account. Rev. Esp. Financ. Contab. 2014, 43, 21–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wright, G.; Slukhai, S. Decentralization Policy in Ukraine: How Voluntary Amalgamation, Inter-Municipal Cooperation and Fiscal Incentives Impacted the Local Government System. NISPAcee J. Public Adm. Policy 2021, 14, 311–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bel, G.; Hebdon, R.; Warner, M. Beyond Privatisation and Cost Savings: Alternatives for Local Government Reform. Local Gov. Stud. 2018, 44, 173–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niaounakis, T.; Blank, J. Inter-Municipal Cooperation, Economies of Scale and Cost Efficiency: An Application of Stochastic Frontier Analysis to Dutch Municipal Tax Departments. Local Gov. Stud. 2017, 43, 533–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bischoff, I.; Wolfschütz, E. Inter-Municipal Cooperation in Administrative Tasks—The Role of Population Dynamics and Elections. Local Gov. Stud. 2021, 47, 568–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schoute, M.; Gradus, R.; Budding, T. Drivers of Service Delivery Modes in Dutch Local Government: An Analysis over Time and across Domains. Int. Rev. Adm. Sci. 2021, 87, 425–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warner, M.E.; Aldag, A.M.; Kim, Y. Privatization and Intermunicipal Cooperation in US Local Government Services: Balancing Fiscal Stress, Need and Political Interests. Public Manag. Rev. 2021, 23, 1359–1376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osei Kwadwo, V.; Skripka, T. Metropolitan Governance and Environmental Outcomes: Does Inter-Municipal Cooperation Make a Difference? Local Gov. Stud. 2021, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hophmayer-Tokich, S.; Kliot, N. Inter-Municipal Cooperation for Wastewater Treatment: Case Studies from Israel. J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 86, 554–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rahayu, P.; Woltjer, J.; Firman, T. Water Governance in Decentralising Urban Indonesia. Urban Stud. 2019, 56, 2917–2934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stewart, J. Do Recent Amendments to Alberta’s Municipal Government Act Enable Management of Surface Water Resources and Air Quality? Alta. Law Rev. 2018, 55, 1009–1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Firman, T. Multi Local-Government under Indonesia’s Decentralization Reform: The Case of Kartamantul (The Greater Yogyakarta). Habitat Int. 2010, 34, 400–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pierce, G.; Gmoser-Daskalakis, K. Multifaceted Intra-City Water System Arrangements in California: Influences and Implications for Residents. Util. Policy 2021, 71, 101231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rahayu, P.; Woltjer, J.; Firman, T. Shared Water Resources in Decentralized City Regions: Mixed Governance Arrangements in Indonesia. Urban Water J. 2021, 18, 771–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zafra-Gómez, J.L.; Giménez-García, V.; Campos-Alba, C.M.; de la Higuera-Molina, E.J. Direct Management or Inter-Municipal Cooperation in Smaller Municipalities? Exploring Cost Efficiency and Installed Capacity in Drinking Water Supply. Water Resour. Manag. 2020, 34, 4289–4302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silvestre, H.C.; Marques, R.C.; Gomes, R.C. Joined-up Government of Utilities: A Meta-Review on a Public–Public Partnership and Inter-Municipal Cooperation in the Water and Wastewater Industries. Public Manag. Rev. 2018, 20, 607–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Põldnurk, J. Optimisation of the Economic, Environmental and Administrative Efficiency of the Municipal Waste Management Model in Rural Areas. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2015, 97, 55–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yi, H.; Yang, Y.; Zhou, C. The Impact of Collaboration Network on Water Resource Governance Performance: Evidence from China’s Yangtze River Delta Region. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hedensted Lund, D.; Sehested, K.; Hellesen, T.; Nellemann, V. Climate Change Adaptation in Denmark: Enhancement through Collaboration and Meta-Governance? Local Environ. 2012, 17, 613–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vitale, C.; Meijerink, S. Understanding Inter-Municipal Conflict and Cooperation on Flood Risk Policies for the Metropolitan City of Milan. Water Altern. 2021, 14, 597–618. [Google Scholar]
- Bendz, A.; Boholm, Å. Drinking Water Risk Management: Local Government Collaboration in West Sweden. J. Risk Res. 2019, 22, 674–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morton, L.W.; Chen, Y.C.; Morse, R.S. Small Town Civic Structure and Interlocal Collaboration for Public Services. City Community 2008, 7, 45–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bel, G.; Fageda, X.; Mur, M. Why Do Municipalities Cooperate to Provide Local Public Services? An Empirical Analysis. Local Gov. Stud. 2013, 39, 435–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bel, G. Public versus Private Water Delivery, Remunicipalization and Water Tariffs. Util. Policy 2020, 62, 100982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bel, G.; Fageda, X. Reforming the Local Public Sector: Economics and Politics in Privatization of Water and Solid Waste. J. Econ. Policy Reform 2008, 11, 45–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agiamoh, R. From Bureaucracy to Market? Ongoing Reform and Performance Challenges of Solid Waste Administration in Moscow. Public Adm. Issues 2020, 1, 149–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soler, I.P.; Gemar, G.; Jimenez-Madrid, A. The Impact of Municipal Budgets and Land-Use Management on the Hazardous Waste Production of Malaga Municipalities. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2017, 65, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoffman, I.; Fazekas, J.; Bencsik, A.; Bodó, B.I.; Budai, K.; Dancs, T.; Dombrovszky, B.; Ferge, P.; Kári, G.; Lukács, D.; et al. Comparative Research on the Metropolitan Administration and Service in Porto. Stud. Iurid. Lublinensia 2020, 29, 11–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarra, A.; Mazzocchitti, M.; Nissi, E. A Methodological Proposal to Determine the Optimal Levels of Inter-Municipal Cooperation in the Organization of Solid Waste Management Systems. Waste Manag. 2020, 115, 56–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deus, R.M.; Battistelle, R.A.G.; Silva, G.H.R. Scenario Evaluation for the Management of Household Solid Waste in Small Brazilian Municipalities. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2017, 19, 205–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bel, G.; Mur, M. Intermunicipal Cooperation, Privatization and Waste Management Costs: Evidence from Rural Municipalities. Waste Manag. 2009, 29, 2772–2778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Da Silva, D.P.; Silvestre, H.C.; Embalo, A.A. Inter-Municipal Cooperation in Brazil: The Case of Solid Waste Consortia. Rev. Adm. Pública 2020, 54, 1239–1259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pérez-López, G.; Prior, D.; Zafra-Gómez, J.L.; Plata-Díaz, A.M. Cost Efficiency in Municipal Solid Waste Service Delivery. Alternative Management Forms in Relation to Local Population Size. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2016, 255, 583–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pérez-López, G.; Prior, D.; Zafra-Gómez, J.L. Modelling Environmental Constraints on the Efficiency of Management Forms for Public Service Delivery. Waste Manag. 2021, 126, 443–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kołsut, B. Inter-Municipal Cooperation in Waste Management: The Case of Poland. Quaest. Geogr. 2016, 35, 91–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Silvestre, H.C.; Marques, R.C.; Dollery, B.; Correia, A.M. Is Cooperation Cost Reducing? An Analysis of Public–Public Partnerships and Inter-Municipal Cooperation in Brazilian Local Government. Local Gov. Stud. 2020, 46, 68–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soukopová, J.; Vaceková, G.; Klimovský, D. Local Waste Management in the Czech Republic: Limits and Merits of Public-Private Partnership and Contracting Out. Util. Policy 2017, 48, 201–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zafra-Gómez, J.L.; Prior, D.; Díaz, A.M.P.; López-Hernández, A.M. Reducing Costs in Times Of Crisis: Delivery Forms In Small and Medium Sized Local Governments’ Waste Management Services. Public Adm. 2013, 91, 51–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soukopová, J.; Klimovský, D.; Ochrana, F. Key Factors for Public Utility Efficiency and Effectiveness: Waste Management Services in the Czech Republic. Ekon. Cas. 2017, 65, 143–157. [Google Scholar]
- Usui, T.; Kakamu, K.; Chikasada, M. To Introduce Recycling or Not: A Panel Data Analysis in Japan. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2015, 101, 84–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sjöstrand, K.; Lindhe, A.; Söderqvist, T.; Rosén, L. Cost-Benefit Analysis for Supporting Intermunicipal Decisions on Drinking Water Supply. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 2019, 145, 04019060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Databases | Query Used for the Search | Platforms | Retrieved Articles | Selected Articles for Analysis |
---|---|---|---|---|
IMC | inter-municipal AND cooperation OR collaboration OR intermunicipal AND cooperation OR collaboration OR inter-local AND cooperation OR collaboration OR interlocal AND collaboration OR cooperation | Scopus | 163 | 30 |
IMC and Water | inter-municipal AND cooperation OR collaboration OR intermunicipal AND cooperation OR collaboration OR inter-local AND cooperation OR collaboration OR interlocal AND collaboration OR cooperation AND water | Scopus and Web of Science | 29 | 29 |
IMC and CE | inter-municipal AND cooperation OR collaboration OR intermunicipal AND cooperation OR collaboration OR inter-local AND cooperation OR collaboration OR interlocal AND cooperation OR collaboration AND “circular economy” OR reuse OR recycle OR replenish OR waste | Scopus and Web of Science | 19 | 19 |
Search: on title, abstract, and keywords; limits: language (English), document type limits (articles); date: conducted on 19 September 2021; total 78 articles; |
Dimensions | Contents |
---|---|
Governance | Institutional and governance arrangements and structures, political institutions and the structure of policy networks, policy, planning, geographic considerations, conflict resolutions, commitments and leadership, adaptive management; |
Service efficiency | Scale and density, cost-saving, fiscal factors, transaction cost of IMC, different service delivery performance, the role of the IMC on the performance of local governments on services delivery; |
Impacts assessment of IMC | Impacts of IMP, namely on different service delivery performance on environment, social context, or sustainability. |
Governance | - To enhance the governance capacity, build strong leadership, train the local administrative staff, build trust, and increase transparency [50,52] - To ensure the participation of all actors and stakeholders, (public actors, private sectors and developers, citizens, and researchers) [57,58]; - To consider that cooperation is rooted in space [18] and land use and spatial features matter for a successful cooperation [18,32,33,68,69], also, to adopt a cross-boundary approach articulating land use and water resources management [13] - To adopt a co-creation approach to co-find and co-solve the problems [13] - To improve a platform for sharing knowledge and experiences, for communicating and negotiating [13,14] and to establish a joint goal and shared vision [50] - To identify and understand transboundary risks and institutional risks of cooperation [19,59] - To include the citizen perception in the service delivery assessments [60] - To understand the cooperation on a bigger scale and to identify its effect on neighbours [78]; |
Service efficiency | - To test and analyse the cost efficiency of IMC before reforming into it [22,23] - To analyse the quality and price of services at the cooperation governance [62] - To ensure achieving financial sustainability after cooperation [20] - To understand the size asymmetry, service characteristics, contextual conditions, fiscal constraints, and organisational factors for choosing the best arrangement [15,23,44] - To adopt an ongoing process on reducing the transaction costs of cooperation [45]; |
Impacts assessment | - To assess the sustainability of the chosen institutional arrangement for services [16] - To ensure that the cooperation leads to better social and environmental outcomes [46] - To adopt a coherent approach considering climate change, population growth, and regulatory restrictions to analyse the arrangement alternatives [79]. |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 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 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Riazi, F.; Fidélis, T.; Teles, F. Governance Arrangements for Water Reuse: Assessing Emerging Trends for Inter-Municipal Cooperation through a Literature Review. Water 2022, 14, 2789. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14182789
Riazi F, Fidélis T, Teles F. Governance Arrangements for Water Reuse: Assessing Emerging Trends for Inter-Municipal Cooperation through a Literature Review. Water. 2022; 14(18):2789. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14182789
Chicago/Turabian StyleRiazi, Fayaz, Teresa Fidélis, and Filipe Teles. 2022. "Governance Arrangements for Water Reuse: Assessing Emerging Trends for Inter-Municipal Cooperation through a Literature Review" Water 14, no. 18: 2789. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14182789