Browse by Attribute

Case Study > Natural, Societal & Political Domain Variables: Ecosystems & Land Use : rangeland or urban

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) (4) - Continental (Köppen D-type) (5) - Dry-summer (5) - Humid mid-latitude (Köppen C-type) (3) - Moist (2) - Moist tropical (Köppen A-type) (3) - Monsoon (3) - Semi-arid/steppe (Köppen B-type) (6) - temperate (1)

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 (12) - Domestic/Urban Supply (11) - Fisheries - wild (5) - Hydropower Generation (8) - Industry - consumptive use (3) - Industry - non-consumptive use (3) - Livestock (2) - Other Ecological Services (5) - Recreation or Tourism (6)

Stakeholder Type:

- Community or organized citizens (14) - Cultural Interest (2) - Development/humanitarian interest (3) - Environmental interest (14) - Federated state/territorial/provincial government (11) - Industry/Corporate Interest (9) - Local Government (13) - Non-legislative governmental agency (10) - Sovereign state/national/federal government (11) - Supranational union (1)

Key Question:

- How can consultation and cooperation among stakeholders and development partners be better facilitated/managed/fostered? (5) - 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? (2) - 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? (3) - What mechanisms beyond simple allocation can be incorporated into transboundary water agreements to add value and facilitate resolution? (4) - 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 16 results in range #1 to #16.

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

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