This article analyzes the effectiveness of Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) in the San Francisco Bay Area of California for decreasing fragmentation and increasing collaboration among water management stakeholders. The theory identifies the elements of traditional water management politics that lead to fragmentation and conflict. The water politics-as-usual model is then compared to the collaborative model of integrated water management. The evolution of IRWM in California is briefly described. A survey of Bay Area stakeholders is used to assess whether participation in the Bay Area IRWM achieves the goals of collaboration and integration. The basic results suggest that the Bay Area has made only incremental progress away from the fragmentation and conflict seen in the past.
Points for practitioners
Integrated Regional Water Management is not a panacea for policy fragmentation. Short-term increases in collaboration must be followed by consistent attention to on-the-ground implementation of integrative projects. IRWM is unlikely to cause immediate, drastic changes in policy implementation. Policy change will be incremental and decision-makers must assess whether stronger administrative measures are needed to continue the process of integration and collaboration. Traditionally powerful interests are likely to dominate IRWM decisions unless explicit steps are taken to empower previously excluded groups. The success of IRWM will vary across regions, and more research is needed to identify important contextual variables.
Achen CH ( 1986) The Statistical Analysis of Quasi-experiments. Berkeley , Los Angeles, CA and London: The University of California Press.
2.
Aoki M. ( 2007) Endogenizing institutions and institutional changes . Journal of Institutional Economics3(1): 1-31.
3.
Axelrod R. ( 1984) The Evolution of Cooperation. New York : Basic Books.
4.
Batson CD, Batson JG, Todd RM, Brummett BH, Shaw LL and Aldeguer CMR ( 1995) Empathy and the collective good: Caring for one of the others in a social dilemma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology68: 619-631.
5.
Baumgartner FR and Jones BD ( 1991) Agenda dynamics and policy subsystems. Journal of Politics53(4): 1044-1074.
6.
Berardo R.(2009) Processing complexity in networks: A study of informal collaboration and its effect on organizational success. Policy Studies Journal37(3): 521-539.
7.
Biswas AK ( 2004) Integrated water resources management: A reassessment . Water International29(2): 248-256.
8.
Blomquist W. and Schlager E. ( 2005) Political pitfalls of integrated watershed management . Society and Natural Resources18(2): 101-117.
9.
Bowles S. ( 2004) Microeconomics: Behavior, Institutions, and Evolution . New York: Russell Sage Foundation .
10.
Davis MD ( 2007) Integrated water resource management and water sharing . Journal of Water Resources Planning & Management133(5): 427-445.
11.
Dillman DA ( 2000) Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method . New York: John Wiley and Sons .
12.
Ferejohn JA ( 1974) Pork Barrel Politics: Rivers and Harbors Legislation, 1947-1968. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
13.
Global Water Partnership (2000) Integrated water resources management. In TAC Background Paper . Available at: http://www.gwptoolbox.org/images/stories/gwplibrary/background/tac_4_english.pdf.
14.
Heikkila T. and Gerlak AK ( 2005) The formation of large-scale collaborative resource management institutions: Clarifying the roles of stakeholders, science, and institutions . Policy Studies Journal33(4): 583-612.
15.
Hong L. and Page SE ( 2004) Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA101(46): 16385-16389.
16.
Knight J. ( 1992) Institutions and Social Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17.
Koontz TM and Thomas CW ( 2006) What do we know and need to know about the environmental outcomes of collaborative management? Public Administration Review66(s1): 111-121.
18.
Leach WD, Pelkey NW and Sabatier PA ( 2002) Stakeholder partnerships as collaborative policymaking: Evaluation applied to watershed management in California and Washington. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management21: 645-670.
19.
Libecap GD ( 1989) Contracting for Property Rights. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
20.
Lindblom CE ( 1959) The science of ‘muddling through’. Public Administration Review19: 79-88.
21.
Lubell M. ( 2000) Cognitive conflict and consensus building in the national estuary program. American Behavioral Scientist44(4): 629-648.
22.
Lubell M. ( 2004) Collaborative environmental institutions: All talk and no action?Journal of Policy Analysis and Management23(3): 549-573.
23.
Lubell M., Schneider M., Scholz JT and Mete M. ( 2002) Watershed partnerships and the emergence of collective action institutions. American Journal of Political Science46(1): 148-163.
24.
Lubell M., Henry AD and McCoy M (2010) Collaborative institutions in an ecology of games . American Journal of Political Science54(2): 287-300.
25.
Lund JR, Hanak E., Fleenor W., Howitt R., Mount J. and Moyle P. ( 2007) Envisioning Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta . Public Policy Institute of CA .
26.
Margerum RD ( 1995) Integrated environmental management: Moving from theory to practice. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management38(3): 371-392.
27.
Margerum RD ( 1999) Integrated environmental management: The foundations for successful practice. Environmental Management24: 151-166.
28.
Mitchell B. ( 2005) Integrated water resource management, institutional arrangements, and land-use planning. Environment and Planning A37(8): 1335-1352.
29.
Moe T. ( 2005) Power and political institutions. Perspectives on Politics3(2): 217-233.
30.
North DC ( 1990) Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance . New York: Cambridge University Press.
31.
O’Leary R., Gerard C. and Bingham LB ( 2006) Introduction to the symposium on collaborative public management. Public Administration Review66(s1): 6-9.
32.
Olson M. ( 1970) The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
33.
Ostrom E. ( 1990) Governing the Commons. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
34.
Owen D. ( 2007) Law, environmental dynamism, reliability: The rise and fall of CALFED. Environmental Law35: 1145.
35.
Page SE ( 2007) The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
36.
Pahl-Wostl C. and Hare M. ( 2004) Processes of social learning in integrated resources management . Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology14(3): 193-206.
37.
Rahaman MM and Varis O. ( 2005) Integrated water resources management: Evolution, prospects and future challenges. Sustainability: Science, Practice & Policy1(1): 15-21.
38.
Rogers E. ( 2003) Diffusion of Innovations, 5th edn. New York: Free Press.
39.
Sabatier PA, Focht W , Lubell M, Trachtenburg Z, Vedlitz A and Matlock M (eds) (2005) Swimming Upstream: Collaborative Approaches to Watershed Management. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
40.
Saleth RM and Dinar A. ( 2000) Institutional changes in global water sector: trends, patterns, and implications. Water Policy2(3): 175-199.
41.
Scholz JT, Berardo R. and Kile B. ( 2008) Do networks solve collective action problems? Credibility, search, and collaboration. Journal of Politics70(2): 393-406.
42.
Singer T., Seymour B., O’Doherty JP, Stephan KE, Dolan RJ and Frith CD ( 2006) Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others. Nature439(7075): 466-469.
43.
Stigler GJ ( 1971) The theory of economic regulation. Bell Journal of Economics & Management Science2: 3-21.
44.
Thatcher M. ( 1998) The development of policy network analyses: From modest origins to overarching frameworks. Journal of Theoretical Politics10(4): 389-416.
45.
Tyler TR ( 1990) Why People Obey the Law. New Haven, CT: Yale Universtiy Press.
46.
White GF ( 1998) Reflections on the 50-year international search for integrated water management. Water Policy1(1): 21-27.
47.
Williamson OE ( 1985) The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: Free Press.
