Comparative Assessment of Water Governance in Protected Areas

Stakeholders’ Perceptions Concerning Greek Protected Areas Governance

In this paper, we are interested in assessing the Greek protected areas’ (PAs) operation, and in particular, to what extent the stakeholders engaged in their management consider that the “good environmental governance” criteria are met. Through the use of Q-methodology, we find that, despite the very different circumstances of each PA, the stakeholders’ views cluster around four distinctive main perspectives (or factors). Furthermore, we find that stakeholders do not consider, overall, that the Greek PAs management strongly meets any of the “good environmental governance” criteria, with particularly poor assessments on crucial governance aspects such as a shared vision guiding the PA management, the rule of law, and the effectiveness/efficiency of the procedures, which suggests that the environmental governance of Greek PAs is suboptimal at least.

The WaterProtect governance guide: Experiences from seven agricultural and drinking water production catchments across Europe

Although collaborative, multi-level and adaptive governance is put forward as the right approach to manage water resources, it remains a challenge for local water managers to engage with multiple understandings and perspectives and to move towards more transdisciplinary approaches in water governance. In this research, we address this need by proposing a practical guide for water governance assessment and improvement, existing of three successive steps, i.e. (1) an assessment of water governance, (2) the implementation of a multi-actor process and (3) an evaluation of achievements. This guide is tested in the seven action labs of the WaterProtect project, which have in common that they are drinking water catchments suffering from agricultural pollution throughout Europe. By implementing the guide in the different action labs, we find that water managers appreciated the integrated approach of the guide, helping them in the efficient organization of the water governance process while taking into account the human dimension. Furthermore action lab leaders evaluated the governance guide as being hands-on and practical, allowing them to redirect and open up the governance process. Despite this, they welcomed the presence of a facilitator, who boosted the local action lab leaders' confidence and motivation to put things into motion. Looking at the results, we find that over the different action labs a lot of progress has been made towards intermediary goals, however that an improvement of the water quality cannot be expected in the short time frame of a project. We therefore recommend improving the design of the guide with insights from transition management, which will allow local water managers to better address change at different time-scale levels.

Assessing the Governance Context Support for Creating a Pluvial Flood Risk Map with Climate Change Scenarios: The Flemish Subnational Case

Climate change has increased pluvial flood risks in cities around the world. To mitigate floods, pluvial risk maps with climate change scenarios have been developed to help major urban areas adapt to a changing climate. In some cases, subnational governments have played a key role to develop these maps. However, governance research about the role of subnational governments in geospatial data development in urban water transitions has received little attention. To address this gap, this research applies the Governance Assessment Tool as an evaluative framework to increase our understanding of the governance factors that support the development of pluvial flood risk maps at the subnational level. For this research, we selected the region of Flanders in Belgium. This region is considered among the frontrunners when it comes to the creation of a pluvial flood risk map with climate change scenarios. Data have been collected through in-depth interviews with steering committee actors involved in the development process of the map. The research identified that the current governance context is supportive of the creation of the flood risk map. The government of Flanders plays a key role in this process. The most supportive qualities of the governance context are those related to the degree of fragmentation (extent and coherence), while the less supportive ones are those related to the “quest for control” (flexibility and intensity). Under this governance context, government actors play the primary role. The Flemish government led the maps’ creation process and it was supported by the lower governmental levels. As the provincial government was an important actor to increase local participation, collaboration with private and non-governmental actors in the steering committee was more limited. The financial resources were also limited and the process required a continuous development of trust. Yet, the Flemish Environmental Agency, with the use of technology, was able to increase such trust during the process.