Andrea K. Gerlak

Understanding Human–Landscape Interactions in the “Anthropocene”

This article summarizes the primary outcomes of an interdisciplinary workshop in 2010, sponsored by the U.S. National Science Foundation, focused on developing key questions and integrative themes for advancing the science of human–landscape systems. The workshop was a response to a grand challenge identified recently by the U.S. National Research Council (2010a)—“How will Earth’s surface evolve in the “Anthropocene?”—suggesting that new theories and methodological approaches are needed to tackle increasingly complex human–landscape interactions in the new era. A new science of human–landscape systems recognizes the interdependence of hydro-geomorphological, ecological, and human processes and functions. Advances within a range of disciplines spanning the physical, biological, and social sciences are therefore needed to contribute toward interdisciplinary research that lies at the heart of the science. Four integrative research themes were identified—thresholds/tipping points, time scales and time lags, spatial scales and boundaries, and feedback loops—serving as potential focal points around which theory can be built for human–landscape systems. Implementing the integrative themes requires that the research communities: (1) establish common metrics to describe and quantify human, biological, and geomorphological systems; (2) develop new ways to integrate diverse data and methods; and (3) focus on synthesis, generalization, and meta-analyses, as individual case studies continue to accumulate. Challenges to meeting these needs center on effective communication and collaboration across diverse disciplines spanning the natural and social scientific divide. Creating venues and mechanisms for sustained focused interdisciplinary collaborations, such as synthesis centers, becomes extraordinarily important for advancing the science.

Science–policy processes for transboundary water governance

In this policy perspective, we outline several conditions to support effective science–policy interaction, with a particular emphasis on improving water governance in transboundary basins. Key conditions include (1) recognizing that science is a crucial but bounded input into water resource decision-making processes; (2) establishing conditions for collaboration and shared commitment among actors; (3) understanding that social or group-learning processes linked to science–policy interaction are enhanced through greater collaboration; (4) accepting that the collaborative production of knowledge about hydrological issues and associated socioeconomic change and institutional responses is essential to build legitimate decision-making processes; and (5) engaging boundary organizations and informal networks of scientists, policy makers, and civil society. We elaborate on these conditions with a diverse set of international examples drawn from a synthesis of our collective experiences in assessing the opportunities and constraints (including the role of power relations) related to governance for water in transboundary settings.

Adaptation in collaborative governance regimes.

Adaptation and the adaptive capacity of human and environmental systems have been of central concern to natural and social science scholars, many of whom characterize and promote the need for collaborative cross-boundary systems that are seen as flexible and adaptive by definition. Researchers who study collaborative governance systems in the public administration, planning and policy literature have paid less attention to adaptive capacity specifically and institutional adaptation in general. This paper bridges the two literatures and finds four common dimensions of capacity, including structural arrangements, leadership, knowledge and learning, and resources. In this paper, we focus on institutional adaptation in the context of collaborative governance regimes and try to clarify and distinguish collaborative capacity from adaptive capacity and their contributions to adaptive action. We posit further that collaborative capacities generate associated adaptive capacities thereby enabling institutional adaptation within collaborative governance regimes. We develop these distinctions and linkages between collaborative and adaptive capacities with the help of an illustrative case study in watershed management within the National Estuary Program.

One Basin at a Time: The Global Environment Facility and Governance of Transboundary Waters

Increased international attention to water resource management and integration has resulted in the creation of new institutional arrangements and environmental funding mechanisms. The Global Environmental Facilitys (GEF) International Waters Program is at the heart of such novel collaborative approaches to managing transboundary resources. This paper assesses GEF-led efforts in twenty-three projects across ten geographic regions. It finds that the GEF has been successful in building scientific knowledge and creating linkages across social, economic and environmental issues. However, challenges of enhancing the contractual environment and building national capacity remain. While GEF efforts thus far do indicate that institutions can affect the growth of knowledge and cooperation around transboundary waters, long-lasting achievements of the GEFs International Waters Program have yet to be realized.

Conflict and Cooperation along International Rivers: Crafting a Model of Institutional Effectiveness

The management of international rivers is increasingly marked by a heightened attention to and growth in institutions at the river-basin level to promote cooperation and resolve conflicts between states in a basin. Yet, little theoretical and empirical research exists to understand when these institutions are most effective. Here we draw from diverse literatures, including work on social and ecological systems, international institutions, common-pool resources, and international waters, to capture and integrate the design elements associated with effective collaborative management along an international river. We apply and test the validity of our model in a plausibility probe through the analysis of the conflict between Argentina and Uruguay over the construction of pulp mills along the Uruguay River, and the role of the established and functioning river basin organization—the Administrative Commission of the Uruguay River (CARU)—in this conflict. We re-examine our model based on our case findings to highlight the challenge and role of public input and representation in institutional effectiveness along international rivers.

Exploring the Textured Landscape of Water Insecurity and the Human Right to Water

Exploring the Textured Landscape of Water Insecurity and the Human Right to Water Andrea K. Gerlak & Margaret Wilder To cite this article: Andrea K. Gerlak & Margaret Wilder (2012) Exploring the Textured Landscape of Water Insecurity and the Human Right to Water, Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 54:2, 4-17, DOI: 10.1080/00139157.2012.657125 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2012.657125

Hydrosolidarity and beyond: can ethics and equity find a place in today's water resource management?

The notion of hydrosolidarity has permeated international discourses on water management, but it has received little comprehensive review. This paper traces the intellectual origins of hydrosolidarity and it explores how the concept has been applied by water scholars, organizations and in global water venues, like World Water Forums. Evolving conceptions and meanings of hydrosolidarity are presented and its kinship to related, sometimes oppositional terms, untangled. In particular, it explores how hydrosolidarity has evolved to serve as a socio-ethical annex to integrated water resources management. The paper concludes by examining some critiques and addressing the potential of hydrosolidarity in water management.

Common Core Themes in Geomorphic, Ecological, and Social Systems

Core themes of geomorphology include: open systems and connectivity; feedbacks and complexity; spatial differentiation of dominant physical processes within a landscape; and legacy effects of historical human use of resources. Core themes of ecology include: open systems and connectivity; hierarchical, heterogeneous, dynamic, and context-dependent characteristics of ecological patterns and processes; nonlinearity, thresholds, hysteresis, and resilience within ecosystems; and human effects. Core themes of environmental governance include: architecture of institutions and decision-making; agency, or ability of actors to prescribe behavior of people in relation to the environment; adaptiveness of social groups to environmental change; accountability and legitimacy of systems of governance; allocation of and access to resources; and thresholds and feedback loops within environmental policy. Core themes common to these disciplines include connectivity, feedbacks, tipping points or thresholds, and resiliency. Emphasizing these points of disciplinary overlap can facilitate interdisciplinary understanding of complex systems, as well as more effective management of landscapes and ecosystems by highlighting drivers of change within systems. We use a previously published conceptual framework to examine how these core themes can be integrated into interdisciplinary research for human–landscape systems via the example of a river.

Navigating International River Disputes to Avert Conflict

Building on the findings from the International Negotiations 2000 issue on negotiations in international watercourses and the major advances in the field during the past nine years, this issue seeks to advance our knowledge about the management of international river disputes. Collectively, the articles in this issue move beyond the simple dichotomy of conflict and cooperation to suggest the possibility that both are often simultaneously present within a basin and should be studied as such. Using a diversity of methodological approaches from comparative case studies to single case studies to quantitative analysis, the articles also illustrate the growth of institutionalization within river basins and their contribution to conflict management. Moreover, the articles advance our knowledge of the role of the relative distribution of power within the basin on the resolution of water disputes and management of resources. Some scholars find power asymmetry important for treaty formation, while others suggest that issue linkages and side payments can provide weaker riparians with the means to gain from cooperation.

Today’s Pragmatic Water Policy: Restoration, Collaboration, and Adaptive Management Along U.S. Rivers

In the absence of a comprehensive national water policy, todays decision making around water resources has come to be characterized by a pragmatic, problem-solving approach, with heightened attention to processes and cooperation. Increasing, water policy today is highlighted by a pragmatism that emphasizes restoration efforts, collaborative institutional arrangements, and adaptive management philosophies.