et al. 2012; Bressers et al. 2013, 2015). The structural context influences the process
not only through its direct contents, but also through its extent and coherence
(Knoepfel et al. 2001, 2003; Bressers and Kuks 2004). The extent refers to the
completeness of the regime. The coherence is the degree to which the various
elements of the regime are strengthening rather than weakening each other.
Regimes with an insufficient extent are by definition weak as guardians of
sustainable use of water resources, while some relevant parts of the domain go
unregulated. Most of the time, growing complexity is an answer to real needs and
developments. As a matter of fact, societies in modern times have generally grown
into a situation of increased complexity. Increased populations, borders, overlaps,
activities, rivalries, etc. are a fact of our current living environments. A growing
complexity in governance can be viewed as a logical adaptation to that development
(Gerrits 2008; Teisman et al. 2009). Many external change agents, such as technological developments, add new scales, new actors, new problem perceptions, new
instruments, and new responsibilities to the existing ones. The essence of extent is
not the number of involved scales, actors, perceptions, instruments and resources as
such, but rather the degree to which these are complete in reflecting what is relevant
for the policy or project. In that sense it should not be mistaken for another way of
making a descriptive inventory like with the descriptive questions.
By coherence we mean the following: When more than one layer of government
is dealing with the same natural resource (as is often the case), then coherence
means inter alia that the activities of these layers of government are recognised as
mutually dependent and influencing each other’s’ effects. Likewise if more than one
scale is relevant the interaction effects between those scales should be considered.
When more than one actor (stakeholder) is involved in the policy, coherence means
that there is a substantial degree of interaction in the policy network, and preferably
productive interaction providing coordination capacity. When more than one use or
user is causing the problem of unsustainable resource use for example, coherence
means that the various resulting objectives are analysed in one framework so that
deliberate choices can be made if and when goals and/or uses are conflicting. When
the actors involved have problem perceptions that start from different angles,
coherence means that they are capable of integrating these to such an extent that a
common ground for productive deliberation on ambitions is created. The same
holds for instrumental strategies that are used to attain the different objectives, as
well as for the different instruments in a mix to attain one of these objectives.
Coherence of the organisation of implementation means that responsibilities and
resources of various persons or organisations that are to contribute to the application of the policy are co-ordinated, or these actors themselves are co-ordinated.
In the implementation process, the additional fragmentation that is typical for
complex but non coherent regimes will tend to lead to more discord between the
actors (goals), more uncertainty (cognitions), and more stalemates (power) and,
thereby, can hamper implementation. In the implementation process, coherence of
the structural context (the regime) will tend to lead to less discord (due to more
‘win-win’—solution creativity), less (subjective) uncertainty (due to more exchange
of information and less distrust) and less stalemates (due to less possibilities for
54
H. Bressers et al.
not only through its direct contents, but also through its extent and coherence
(Knoepfel et al. 2001, 2003; Bressers and Kuks 2004). The extent refers to the
completeness of the regime. The coherence is the degree to which the various
elements of the regime are strengthening rather than weakening each other.
Regimes with an insufficient extent are by definition weak as guardians of
sustainable use of water resources, while some relevant parts of the domain go
unregulated. Most of the time, growing complexity is an answer to real needs and
developments. As a matter of fact, societies in modern times have generally grown
into a situation of increased complexity. Increased populations, borders, overlaps,
activities, rivalries, etc. are a fact of our current living environments. A growing
complexity in governance can be viewed as a logical adaptation to that development
(Gerrits 2008; Teisman et al. 2009). Many external change agents, such as technological developments, add new scales, new actors, new problem perceptions, new
instruments, and new responsibilities to the existing ones. The essence of extent is
not the number of involved scales, actors, perceptions, instruments and resources as
such, but rather the degree to which these are complete in reflecting what is relevant
for the policy or project. In that sense it should not be mistaken for another way of
making a descriptive inventory like with the descriptive questions.
By coherence we mean the following: When more than one layer of government
is dealing with the same natural resource (as is often the case), then coherence
means inter alia that the activities of these layers of government are recognised as
mutually dependent and influencing each other’s’ effects. Likewise if more than one
scale is relevant the interaction effects between those scales should be considered.
When more than one actor (stakeholder) is involved in the policy, coherence means
that there is a substantial degree of interaction in the policy network, and preferably
productive interaction providing coordination capacity. When more than one use or
user is causing the problem of unsustainable resource use for example, coherence
means that the various resulting objectives are analysed in one framework so that
deliberate choices can be made if and when goals and/or uses are conflicting. When
the actors involved have problem perceptions that start from different angles,
coherence means that they are capable of integrating these to such an extent that a
common ground for productive deliberation on ambitions is created. The same
holds for instrumental strategies that are used to attain the different objectives, as
well as for the different instruments in a mix to attain one of these objectives.
Coherence of the organisation of implementation means that responsibilities and
resources of various persons or organisations that are to contribute to the application of the policy are co-ordinated, or these actors themselves are co-ordinated.
In the implementation process, the additional fragmentation that is typical for
complex but non coherent regimes will tend to lead to more discord between the
actors (goals), more uncertainty (cognitions), and more stalemates (power) and,
thereby, can hamper implementation. In the implementation process, coherence of
the structural context (the regime) will tend to lead to less discord (due to more
‘win-win’—solution creativity), less (subjective) uncertainty (due to more exchange
of information and less distrust) and less stalemates (due to less possibilities for
54
H. Bressers et al.