Difference between revisions of "AquaPedia:Policies/Criteria for Case Study Inclusion"

From AquaPedia Case Study Database
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "To decide if a water conflict or problem meets the guidelines for developing a new AquaPedia case study ask: * '''Does this case study involve a contentious water management...")
 
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
To decide if a water conflict or problem meets the guidelines for developing a new AquaPedia case study ask:  
+
To decide if a water conflict or problem should be included as a new AquaPedia case, ask yourself the following questions:  
  
−
* '''Does this case study involve a contentious water management problem between parties including 2 or more sovereign or federated states or other established territories?'''  
+
*'''Does this case involve a contentious water management problem between parties including two or more sovereign or federated states or other established territories (i.e., two different states, provinces, counties or cities)?'''  
−
:Examples: Two nations who share a river basin may have issues about water storage and allocations. A federated state or province within a nation may have different priorities for water resources they share. Regional governments may disagree with their federal government over how shared water sources are managed.  
+
:Examples: Two nations who share a river basin may have issues about water storage and allocation. States or provinces within a nation may have different priorities for water resources they share. Regional governments, or indigenous communities, may disagree with the federal government about how shared water sources should be managed.  
  
−
* '''Does this case study involve a problem that requires addressing rival water uses across multiple purposes or sectors?'''  
+
*'''Does this case focus on a problem or issue that hinges on reconciling competing water uses (i.e., across multiple purposes or sectors)?'''  
−
:Examples: Stakeholders could include representatives of agriculture and industry with competing needs. Stakeholders could include smallholder farms and large holder agribusiness with competing groundwater withdrawals.
+
:Examples: Agricultural and industrial interests may have competing needs. Stakeholders such as smallholder farmers and large agribusinesses may be competing for groundwater withdrawals.
  
−
* '''Does this case study involve a problem that includes significant uncertainty that cannot be quantified or otherwise satisfactorily addressed with standard risk management tools?'''
+
*'''Does this case involve significant scientific or technical uncertainty that cannot be quantified or otherwise satisfactorily addressed given the current state of knowledge?'''  
−
:Example: Stakeholders perceive significant uncertainty regarding future climate, future water availability, estimated water needs, or economic situations.  
+
:Example: Stakeholders perceive significant uncertainty regarding future climate, future water availability, estimated water needs, or economic growth.
  
−
* '''Does this case study involve a problem that cannot be satisfactorily solved via an agreed upon regulatory, funding, or technological mechanism?'''  
+
*'''Does this case involve decisions that cannot be readily resolved using current regulatory, funding, or technological mechanisms?'''  
−
:Example: addressing the problem through a regulatory change, providing funding, or building additional infrastructure does not solve the problem in the eyes of the stakeholders and each opportunity to apply these tools requires addressing additional problems or complications from one or more viewpoints.
+
:Example: Are regulatory changes, public fund allocations, or decisions about building new infrastructure the focus of the conflict?  
−
 
+
−
* '''Do stakeholders in this conflict have differing viewpoints on what the problem is and what issues are central to the case?'''
+
−
:Example: Some stakeholders feel that allocation of water rights are central to the problem, another stakeholder may consider allocation for a specific use to be the most important issue, and other stakeholders may be more concerned with environmental costs of a policy or intervention.
+
  
 +
*'''Do stakeholders in this conflict have differing views about the issues at the heart of the conflict?''' 
 +
:Example: Some stakeholders feel that the allocation of water rights is central to the problem, while others are more concerned about allocation for a specific use. Still others may be more concerned about environmental impacts.
  
 
If you can’t answer “yes” to at least three of these questions, your topic of interest probably isn’t a case.
 
If you can’t answer “yes” to at least three of these questions, your topic of interest probably isn’t a case.
−
</onlyinclude>
 

Latest revision as of 12:03, 29 January 2013

To decide if a water conflict or problem should be included as a new AquaPedia case, ask yourself the following questions:

  • Does this case involve a contentious water management problem between parties including two or more sovereign or federated states or other established territories (i.e., two different states, provinces, counties or cities)?
Examples: Two nations who share a river basin may have issues about water storage and allocation. States or provinces within a nation may have different priorities for water resources they share. Regional governments, or indigenous communities, may disagree with the federal government about how shared water sources should be managed.
  • Does this case focus on a problem or issue that hinges on reconciling competing water uses (i.e., across multiple purposes or sectors)?
Examples: Agricultural and industrial interests may have competing needs. Stakeholders such as smallholder farmers and large agribusinesses may be competing for groundwater withdrawals.
  • Does this case involve significant scientific or technical uncertainty that cannot be quantified or otherwise satisfactorily addressed given the current state of knowledge?
Example: Stakeholders perceive significant uncertainty regarding future climate, future water availability, estimated water needs, or economic growth.
  • Does this case involve decisions that cannot be readily resolved using current regulatory, funding, or technological mechanisms?
Example: Are regulatory changes, public fund allocations, or decisions about building new infrastructure the focus of the conflict?
  • Do stakeholders in this conflict have differing views about the issues at the heart of the conflict?
Example: Some stakeholders feel that the allocation of water rights is central to the problem, while others are more concerned about allocation for a specific use. Still others may be more concerned about environmental impacts.

If you can’t answer “yes” to at least three of these questions, your topic of interest probably isn’t a case.

Retrieved from "http://aquapedia.waterdiplomacy.org/wiki/index.php?title=AquaPedia:Policies/Criteria_for_Case_Study_Inclusion&oldid=5148"