Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
The CPWF has provided important insights into the governance of multi-
scale social-ecological systems. It linked with major research initiatives and
collaborative scholarly efforts in this area (Carl Folke and Elinor Ostrom, the
Resilience Alliance). Analysis of the relationships between water management
institutions and gender is a gap, with a few notable exceptions such as the work
on multiple-use water services. The analytical frameworks used in this synthesis
did not explicitly consider gender. We do not believe that this explains the
lack of gendered findings since we deliberately looked for gender-related results
in publications and other project documents. Partly because they are multi-
scale, water resource management institutions are necessarily diverse, with no
single solution good for all circumstances.
In decision support, salience and credibility were important but the latter
did not exclusively come from the research outputs of the specific project. The
most influential projects had good scientists and cutting-edge ideas but were
not necessarily the best in terms of publications in the project. Credibility may
come from the researchers as much as the research outputs. This is consistent
with a strong history of engagement, well beyond the lifetime of an individual
CPWF project, which in the specific locations appears to be very important for
impact on institutions. In some cases this was through specific individuals who
had established strong reputations in the local context. Sometimes it was
through a long-term collaboration and sometimes through established local
partners with good links to research and to the community.
The political context is extremely important. In some political contexts the
idea of using multiple sources of knowledge, or of multiple agencies being
involved in decision making, can be seen as threatening. In these circum-
stances, it may be easier to show impact through a direct knowledge-action
pathway, but this may conflict with objectives related to inclusion and repre-
sentation. For example, the M-POWER context was very challenging, while
the CAC process in Colombia was supported by the national constitution.
Scale also matters. It was much easier to show quick impact at a catchment
scale (e.g., ComMod, CAC) than at the larger national or regional scale
(e.g., M-POWER).
A general message is that we need to develop better ways to measure saliency
and legitimacy of research so that “boundary work” can be assessed for what
it is.
Notes
1
Because of time constraints, we did not review theses. A very large number of
undergraduate and graduate theses were produced as part of CPWF from
universities in the north and south.
2
Some papers were included in this analysis that were subsequently dropped from
the review because they were not relevant to the review.
3
The product is on: netmap.wordpress.com/services-and-products/ (accessed 16
April 2014).
Search WWH ::
Custom Search