Department Environmental Social Sciences

Environmental policy and decision-making are characterized by complex interactions between different actors and sectors. As a rule, a stakeholder analysis is performed to understand those involved, but it has been criticized for lacking quality and consistency. This lack is remedied here by a formal social network analysis that investigates collaborative and multi-level governance settings in a rigorous way. We examine the added value of combining both elements. Our case study examines infrastructure planning in the Swiss water sector. Water supply and wastewater infrastructures are planned far into the future, usually on the basis of projections of past boundary conditions. They affect many actors, including the population, and are expensive. In view of increasing future dynamics and climate change, a more participatory and long-term planning approach is required. Our specific aims are to investigate fragmentation in water infrastructure planning, to understand how actors from different decision levels and sectors are represented, and which interests they follow. We conducted 27 semi-structured interviews with local stakeholders, but also cantonal and national actors. The network analysis confirmed our hypothesis of strong fragmentation: we found little collaboration between the water supply and wastewater sector (confirming horizontal fragmentation), and few ties between local, cantonal, and national actors (confirming vertical fragmentation). Infrastructure planning is clearly dominated by engineers and local authorities. Little importance is placed on longer-term strategic objectives and integrated catchment planning, but this was perceived as more important in a second analysis going beyond typical questions of stakeholder analysis. We conclude that linking a stakeholder analysis, comprising rarely asked questions, with a rigorous social network analysis is very fruitful and generates complementary results. This combination gave us deeper insight into the socio-political-engineering world of water infrastructure planning that is of vital importance to our well-being.

This article addresses how and to what extent a governance mode can legitimately provide public services. A single case study of the partially privatized Berlin Waterworks is used to analyse the level of input and output legitimacy as well as potential trade-offs between the criteria emerging in a public– private partnership (PPP) in the water supply and sanitation sectors. While the Berlin Waterworks as a PPP leads to a lower level of resource protection and public acceptance, it leads to a higher level of efficiency and profitability than under the previous public model.

The aim of this paper is to evaluate how regionalization trends might affect the performance of water governance in terms of three overarching performance criteria: legitimacy, efficiency and effectiveness. The empirical component of this paper draws from a case-study analysis of the wastewater utility in Zurich, Switzerland. The findings indicate that establishing competencies through the process of autonomization can lead to an increase in a utility's organizational efficiency and effectiveness; yet there is a notable trade-off with legitimacy because such processes tend to decrease direct democratic influence.

In the last decade, the Deschutes River Basin in Central Oregon has faced growing urbanization, shifting water uses, and increasing ecosystem health concerns. This has led the Oregon Water Resources Department to experiment with a voluntary market-based approach to water management. To meet groundwater demands while maintaining instream flows and upholding prior water allocations, the Oregon Water Resources Department developed the Groundwater Mitigation Program in 2002. A program will be more effective and viable if it is deemed acceptable by its participants. As such, this research focuses on how acceptable the Groundwater Mitigation Program is to its participants. Comparing two hypothetical alternative scenarios to the Groundwater Mitigation Program, I determine acceptability by the following criteria: usability, accountability, enforcement, equity, information dissemination, cost-effectiveness, and utility. The research incorporates a mixed-method approach, conducting interviews and surveys of program participants. Results indicate that although the Groundwater Mitigation Program is more acceptable than the proposed alternatives, a lengthy groundwater permitting process, passive enforcement, and a lack of information nonetheless make the program unfavorable to its participants. Increased awareness could promote acceptance of the Groundwater Mitigation Program, and at the same time, contribute to the effectiveness of the program.