Browse by Attribute

Case Study > Natural, Societal & Political Domain Variables: Water Quantity & Land Use: urban & Water Use: Hydropower Generation

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) (1) - Continental (Köppen D-type) (3) - Dry-summer (5) - Dry-winter (2) - Humid mid-latitude (Köppen C-type) (3) - Moist (2) - Moist tropical (Köppen A-type) (3) - Monsoon (3) - Semi-arid/steppe (Köppen B-type) (3) - 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: (Click arrow to add another value)

- Agriculture or Irrigation - Domestic/Urban Supply - Fisheries - farmed - Fisheries - wild - Hydropower Generation - Industry - consumptive use - Industry - non-consumptive use - Livestock - Mining/Extraction support - Other Ecological Services - Recreation or Tourism - Other - None

Stakeholder Type:

- Community or organized citizens (8) - Cultural Interest (1) - Development/humanitarian interest (3) - Environmental interest (7) - Federated state/territorial/provincial government (6) - Industry/Corporate Interest (8) - Local Government (7) - Non-legislative governmental agency (8) - Sovereign state/national/federal government (10) - Supranational union (3)

Key Question:

- How can government be dis/incentivized to offer an inclusive planning process? (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? (2) - 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 calculations and considerations should be investigated by countries looking to harness additional hydropower? Which potential outcomes should be investigated or identified? (1) - 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? (2) - What effective mechanisms can downstream states/countries use to protect their water related interests/rights? (2) - 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 12 results in range #1 to #12.

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

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