Browse by Attribute

Case Study > Natural, Societal & Political Domain Variables: Assets & Land Use : mining operations or rangeland

Click on one or more items below to narrow your results.

Natural, Societal & Political Domain Variables: (Click arrow to add another value)

- Assets - Ecosystems - Governance - Values and Norms - Water Quality - Water Quantity - Other - None

Climate:

- Arid/desert (Köppen B-type) (2) - Continental (Köppen D-type) (2) - Dry-summer (3) - Dry-winter (2) - Humid mid-latitude (Köppen C-type) (1) - Moist (3) - Moist tropical (Köppen A-type) (5) - Monsoon (4) - Semi-arid/steppe (Köppen B-type) (5) - alpine (1) - cold-climate (permafrost, tundra, polar) (1) - temperate (4)

Land Use: (Click arrow to add another value)

- agricultural- confined livestock operations - agricultural- cropland and pasture - conservation lands - forest land - industrial use - mining operations - rangeland - religious/cultural sites - urban - urban- high density - Other - None

Water Use:

- Agriculture or Irrigation (8) - Domestic/Urban Supply (8) - Fisheries - wild (3) - Hydropower Generation (5) - Industry - consumptive use (1) - Industry - non-consumptive use (1) - Mining/Extraction support (4) - Other Ecological Services (3) - Recreation or Tourism (3)

Stakeholder Type:

- Community or organized citizens (6) - Cultural Interest (2) - Development/humanitarian interest (2) - Environmental interest (6) - Federated state/territorial/provincial government (4) - Industry/Corporate Interest (5) - Local Government (4) - Non-legislative governmental agency (8) - Sovereign state/national/federal government (11) - Supranational union (3)

Key Question:

- How can consultation and cooperation among stakeholders and development partners be better facilitated/managed/fostered? (1) - How can mutual trust amongst riparians be nurtured? What actions erode that trust? (1) - How do issues of equity and development impact the identification of stakeholders in cases involving hydropower or other revenue generating water infrastructure? (1) - How does asymmetry of power influence water negotiations and how can the negative effects be mitigated? (2) - To what extent can international actors and movements from civil society influence water management? How and when is this beneficial/detrimental and how can these effects be supported/mitigated? (3) - What considerations can be given to incorporating collaborative adaptive management (CAM)? What efforts have the parties made to review and adjust a solution or decision over time in light of changing conditions? (1) - What kinds of water treaties or agreements between countries can provide sufficient structure and stability to ensure enforceability but also be flexible and adaptable given future uncertainties? (2) - What mechanisms beyond simple allocation can be incorporated into transboundary water agreements to add value and facilitate resolution? (5) - What role(s) can hydropower play in a nation's energy strategy? (1) - Where does the benefit “flow” from a hydropower project and how does that affect implementation and sustainability of the project? (2)

Showing below up to 11 results in range #1 to #11.

View (previous 250 | next 250) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

View (previous 250 | next 250) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)