assessment. In relation to the three sections of the diagram of OECD principles
(effectiveness, efficiency and engagement) we concentrate primarily on the effectiveness part of the diagram.
1.4 Towards Constructing Our Own Governance
Assessment Model
Although water governance assessment is undoubtedly an upcoming theme and
assessment methods are increasingly developed, we do still see a gap from the
theoretical recognition that water governance assessment is needed and what
components should be part of that assessment to the development of an actual
hands-on but science-based assessment method. We will provide such a method in
this book. This method is based on our work in an European Interreg IVb
NWE-project, called Benefit of Governance in Drought Adaptation (abbreviation:
DROP). In this section we will provide some insight into this background of our
work before the upcoming chapters will describe our assessment method in full
detail.
As we have discussed in Sect. 1.2 we view five dimensions as central to water
governance assessment: (1) Levels and scales; (2) Actors and networks;
(3) Problem perception and goal ambitions; (4) Strategies and instruments;
(5) Responsibilities and resources. These dimensions are based on study of scientific literature and earlier research. The resulting assessment method—further discussed in upcoming chapters—has been applied on several case studies.
Predecessors of the present assessment method have been used in an EU
six-country study on water governance (Bressers and Kuks 2004) and a study on
Greece (Kampa and Bressers 2008). Later, also further studies in The Netherlands
(a/o. de Boer and Bressers 2011), Canada (de Boer 2012), Romania
(Vinke-deKruijf et al. 2015) and Mexico (Franco-García et al. 2013; Casiano and
Bressers 2015) were done with a further developed version of the assessment
method. The final elaboration of the method and its most extensive application thus
far, however, has been in the above-mentioned ‘DROP project’. DROP was about
drought, as a specific subfield of water management more in general. It was a
project on the edge of science and practice. The project started in 2013 and continued till the end of 2015.
Eleven partners formed the project team; six regional water authorities (practice
partners) and five knowledge institutions (science partners, also known as ‘governance team’). The project was based in five countries: The Netherlands, Germany,
Belgium, France and the United Kingdom. In each country one region—in the
Netherlands two regions—was studied by the scientific partners and drought
adaptation measures were implemented by the practice partner.
The practice partners in DROP implemented various drought adaptation measures. It differed per partner what was done. In the region Twente, the Netherlands,
8
N. Bressers et al.
(effectiveness, efficiency and engagement) we concentrate primarily on the effectiveness part of the diagram.
1.4 Towards Constructing Our Own Governance
Assessment Model
Although water governance assessment is undoubtedly an upcoming theme and
assessment methods are increasingly developed, we do still see a gap from the
theoretical recognition that water governance assessment is needed and what
components should be part of that assessment to the development of an actual
hands-on but science-based assessment method. We will provide such a method in
this book. This method is based on our work in an European Interreg IVb
NWE-project, called Benefit of Governance in Drought Adaptation (abbreviation:
DROP). In this section we will provide some insight into this background of our
work before the upcoming chapters will describe our assessment method in full
detail.
As we have discussed in Sect. 1.2 we view five dimensions as central to water
governance assessment: (1) Levels and scales; (2) Actors and networks;
(3) Problem perception and goal ambitions; (4) Strategies and instruments;
(5) Responsibilities and resources. These dimensions are based on study of scientific literature and earlier research. The resulting assessment method—further discussed in upcoming chapters—has been applied on several case studies.
Predecessors of the present assessment method have been used in an EU
six-country study on water governance (Bressers and Kuks 2004) and a study on
Greece (Kampa and Bressers 2008). Later, also further studies in The Netherlands
(a/o. de Boer and Bressers 2011), Canada (de Boer 2012), Romania
(Vinke-deKruijf et al. 2015) and Mexico (Franco-García et al. 2013; Casiano and
Bressers 2015) were done with a further developed version of the assessment
method. The final elaboration of the method and its most extensive application thus
far, however, has been in the above-mentioned ‘DROP project’. DROP was about
drought, as a specific subfield of water management more in general. It was a
project on the edge of science and practice. The project started in 2013 and continued till the end of 2015.
Eleven partners formed the project team; six regional water authorities (practice
partners) and five knowledge institutions (science partners, also known as ‘governance team’). The project was based in five countries: The Netherlands, Germany,
Belgium, France and the United Kingdom. In each country one region—in the
Netherlands two regions—was studied by the scientific partners and drought
adaptation measures were implemented by the practice partner.
The practice partners in DROP implemented various drought adaptation measures. It differed per partner what was done. In the region Twente, the Netherlands,
8
N. Bressers et al.