Special Issue: Modelling Water Worlds
Special Issue: Modelling Water Worlds
Guest Editors: Rossella Alba, Tobias Krueger, Lieke Melsen, Jean Philippe Venot
Whether in research, policy, practice or daily life, it is currently hard to imagine an issue related to inland, coastal or ocean waters that is not influenced by models. Models are used to forecast floods and droughts, determine the dimensions of water infrastructures, optimise water resource operations, trace pollution sources, simulate human–water relations, and inform many other areas of science, policy and practice. Models thus help create water realities by informing policies, directing interventions, and shaping predictions of the future. Modelling is a world-making practice (Krueger & Alba, 2022).
‘Models’, here, generally means mathematical models that are implemented on a computer, keeping in mind that ‘conceptual models’ pervade almost all areas of scientific practice whether mathematised or not. Models have different purposes, including to formalise scientific understanding, conduct virtual experiments, make predictions, inform policy or practice, or bring stakeholders together (Hamilton et al., 2022).
Even if a model is not meant explicitly to inform policy or practice and even if it has not been designed to be interacted with by stakeholders, it can still influence the world in a number of ways. A model (re)produces discourses and imaginaries that shape how water can be thought of, talked about and interacted with. Through these influences – if not direct interventions – models and modelling can shape how much water is where and when, and what is its quality. Models can affect who suffers from too much or too little water and who gets just the right amount, and they can influence who gets dirty water and who gets enough clean water to allow for the enjoyment of good health and productive activities. Models, in this sense, are political (ter Horst et al., 2023). They give rise to questions such as:
- Which water worlds does a model create and which does it foreclose
- Which and whose concerns does a model make visible
- How do choices on model structure, calibration, validation and data management shape outcomes
- How is uncertainty handled, factored in, or overlooked
- Which discourses and interventions does a model afford or foreclose
Answering these questions requires attention to the world of modelling. It calls for a focus on what is put in the model and what is left out, how this is done, and why. Those who commission models, those who make them, and those who use them have choices that are contingent not only on the world to be represented by the model but also on habits and disciplinary traditions and on the political economy of water research, policy and practice (Lane, 2014; Krueger et al., 2016; Melsen et al., 2018).
The political charge of models therefore entails an ethical responsibility to think hard about those choices and to consider who they make visible and who they do not. Those who commission, build and use models should carefully consider which discourses, policies and interventions the model supports and which it forecloses.
This Special Issue invites contributions that unpack the world of modelling water through:
- Analysis and reflexion by those who commission, build and use models regarding the contingencies and political charge of models and modelling (see, for example, Sanz et al., 2019; Godinez-Madrigal et al., 2020)
- Sociological and ethnographic analyses of modelling practices and their looping back onto the world (for example, Babel et al., 2019; Melsen, 2022)
- Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary collaborations that unsettle entrenched workflows and imagine how modelling could be done differently (see Klein et al., 2024)
We are particularly interested in contributions that engage with emerging or hitherto underexplored fields of modelling, such as (but not limited to):
- The view from practitioners (consultants, policymakers, activists, NGOs …)
- Global hydrological models (for example, Gnann et al., 2023)
- Machine learning applications in hydrology (for example, Nearing et al., 2021)
- Counter-modelling as a form of resistance
While many model-related issues are not specific to water, we call for case studies, illustrations and reflections that, broadly speaking, pertain to and are anchored in the world of water sciences.
Please note that we will not consider papers that merely document the development of a model, its application to a particular problem or region, and its outcomes with or without stakeholders. The articles must be reflexive and must focus on unpacking the institutional, social or political dimensions of commissioning, developing or using models.
Types of articles
We welcome the submission of abstracts by authors intending to write full papers or shorter Viewpoints. See our general guidelines.
Send your abstract (300 words or more) to managing_editor@water-alternatives.org
Timeline for the Special Issue
Special issue announcement: 21 June 2024
Abstract submission deadline: 25 July 2024 --> extended to 10 August
Decision communicated to authors: 15 August 2024
Full paper submission deadline: 15 January 2025
Special Issue publication: 1st week June 2025
References
Babel, L., D. Vinck and D. Karssenberg (2019). "Decision-making in model construction: Unveiling habits." Environmental Modelling & Software 120: 104490.
Gnann, S., R. Reinecke, L. Stein, Y. Wada, W. Thiery, H. Müller Schmied, Y. Satoh, Y. Pokhrel, S. Ostberg, A. Koutroulis, N. Hanasaki, M. Grillakis, S. N. Gosling, P. Burek, M. F. P. Bierkens and T. Wagener (2023). "Functional relationships reveal differences in the water cycle representation of global water models." Nature Water 1(12): 1079-1090.
Godinez-Madrigal, J., N. Van Cauwenbergh and P. van der Zaag (2020). "Unraveling intractable water conflicts: the entanglement of science and politics in decision-making on large hydraulic infrastructure." Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 24(10): 4903-4921.
Hamilton, S. H., C. A. Pollino, D. S. Stratford, B. Fu and A. J. Jakeman (2022). "Fit-for-purpose environmental modeling: Targeting the intersection of usability, reliability and feasibility." Environmental Modelling & Software 148: 105278.
Klein, A., K. Unverzagt, R. Alba, J. F. Donges, T. Hertz, T. Krueger, E. Lindkvist, R. Martin, J. Niewoehner, H. Prawitz, M. Schlueter, L. Schwarz and N. Wijermans (2024). "From situated knowledges to situated modelling: a relational framework for simulation modelling." Ecosystems & People: https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2024.2361706.
Krueger, T., C. Maynard, G. Carr, A. Bruns, E. N. Mueller and S. Lane (2016). "A transdisciplinary account of water research." Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water 3: 369–389.
Krueger, T. and R. Alba (2022). "Ontological and epistemological commitments in interdisciplinary water research: Uncertainty as an entry point for reflexion." Frontiers in Water 4.
Lane, S. N. (2014). "Acting, predicting and intervening in a socio-hydrological world." Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 18(3): 927-952.
Melsen, L. A., J. Vos and R. Boelens (2018). "What is the role of the model in socio-hydrology? Discussion of “Prediction in a socio-hydrological world”." Hydrological Sciences Journal 63(9): 1435-1443.
Melsen, L. A. (2022). "It Takes a Village to Run a Model—The Social Practices of Hydrological Modeling." Water Resources Research 58(2): e2021WR030600.
Nearing, G. S., F. Kratzert, A. K. Sampson, C. S. Pelissier, D. Klotz, J. M. Frame, C. Prieto and H. V. Gupta (2021). "What Role Does Hydrological Science Play in the Age of Machine Learning?" Water Resources Research 57(3): e2020WR028091.
Sanz, D., J. Vos, F. Rambags, J. Hoogesteger, E. Cassiraga and J. J. Gómez-Alday (2019). "The social construction and consequences of groundwater modelling: insight from the Mancha Oriental aquifer, Spain." International Journal of Water Resources Development 35(5): 808-829.
ter Horst, R., R. Alba, J. Vos, M. Rusca, J. Godinez-Madrigal, L. V. Babel, G. J. Veldwisch, J. P. Venot, B. Bonté, D. W. Walker and T. Krueger (2023). "Making a case for power-sensitive water modelling: a literature review." Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. 2023: 1-31.
Special Issue: The Politics of Water Quantification
Call for papers
Special Issue: The Politics of Water Quantification
Guest Editors: François Molle, Bruce Lankford, Rebecca Lave
'Modern water' is associated with various quantitative attributes that describe and quantify it in terms of volume/stock, discharge/flow, chemical or biological characteristics, and associated economic values, costs and benefits. Quantifying water is mediated by in-situ measurements, indicators, metrics, standards, categories, water-accounting procedures, models and simulations, projections, etc. and is generally seen – and branded – as a neutral and natural operation conducive to improved objective and rational decision-making (Porter, 1996). But the production, promotion and use of 'water numbers' actually conceal deeply political hypotheses, concepts, intents, fashions and processes. Whether embodied in indicators, thresholds, water accounting or virtual-flow analysis, cost/benefits or environmental flow analyses, water numbers contribute as much to the scientization of politics as to the politicization of science. Just like storylines, narratives and discourses, numbers do important political work, concealing complexity, 'rendering technical', selecting 'what counts', giving meaning to social and physical phenomena, rallying epistemic coalitions behind methods, numbers or sets of numbers, interpretations (Lankford, 2022), or offering a boundary concept/target around which negotiations may unfold.
This Special Issue reflects on the societal and environmental outcomes accomplished by addressing water as a quantifiable resource, and, conversely, what quantifying water does to society/environment and particular individuals or groups. We identify and call for contributions from social, natural and interdisciplinary scientists to one or more of six areas of reflexion (not excluding other relevant themes):
- Environmental uncertainties as constraint and resource
- The politics of water numbers and number narratives
- Quantification and governance
- Reductionist ontologies of quantified water
- Water numeracy and selective ignorance
- Datafication, control and commodification
- Environmental uncertainties
Water is a fluid, highly fluctuating, partly invisible element, which frequently eludes quantification efforts that are subject to significant uncertainties. While these uncertainties are partly derived from measurement itself and from the hydro-social complexity of the circulation of water in space and time, they also constitute both a constraint and a resource. Uncertainty contributes to ambiguity, a key element of political processes, but it can also be manufactured or preserved for opportunistic and strategic use by specific actors. Conversely, while competing representations and interpretations are never completely accurate, ‘different actors will try to represent interpretations as more certain than they are in order to justify their world views’ (Forsyth, 2015). Water metrics, whether hydraulic or economic, and their associated practices offer numerous situations to explore how uncertainties are dealt with and possibly put to use.
- The politics of water numbers and number narratives
'Water numbers' are produced by specific actors, knowledge-making practices, and webs of interests. They are often incorporated into 'number narratives' or justification discourses (Brooks, 2017) and as such contribute to policy-making and implementation processes. It is therefore important to understand water numbers’ production, circulation and contestation, particularly with respect to how they frame problems and solutions, favouring the consideration of what can be 'counted' to the detriment of other values, interests and individuals/groups (Tadaki and Sinner, 2014).
Although 'numbers' are frequently massaged and made compatible with plans and objectives ex-post, they are valued for their neutral, objective and rational gloss to legitimize political decisions (e.g. new infrastructure, drought or emergency measures, dam releases, and new policies). ‘Trust in numbers’ can be manufactured and instrumentalised to naturalize situations (e.g. water crisis, overallocation and mismanagement), depoliticize decisions or instantiate proof of 'improvement' or policy success (Porter, 1996; Rudebeck, 2019). Actors who have the technical, economic and political means to produce and disseminate numbers are in a position to define ‘truth’ and what counts. Hence, whether these numbers are accurate or true may be secondary to the role they play in making some futures more possible than others. Numbers can be produced with regard to local-scale projects (e.g. C/B analysis, eflows, fish catch, urban- or irrigation-scheme efficiency, etc.) but also, often in the form of indicators, as key elements of global/Earth science outputs (e.g. global water depletion, value of ecosystem services, percentage or 'free-flowing rivers', etc.), global policies, such as the SDGs, or national/international databases (e.g. FAO Aquastat).
If numbers and 'number narratives' matter in the legitimation of dominant discourses and interests, there is also a need to examine 'number counternarratives', whereby NGOs, academics or coalition of actors join to produce alternative numbers and 'truths' (e.g. ‘Thai Baan’ research in Thailand, Soppecom in India).
- Water quantification and governance
Thus, more broadly, water quantification is associated with governance. It may promote an ideology of control, thereby endowing those promising to overcome scarcity, uncertainty or inefficiency and ensure ‘water security’ (such as engineers, scientists, hydrocrats and construction companies) with social power. This can enforce ‘a culture of domination, control and alienation’ (Parrinello et al., 2020). But the preoccupation with full knowledge and control is difficult to align not just with water’s capriciousness and lack of predictability, but also with the pragmatic, contested and often messy ways in which actual decisions about water are made.
With their implicit emphasis on ‘governing by numbers’ (Shore and Wright, 2015), New Public Management and other control and auditing approaches contribute to the prevalence of the languages of management, accounting and regulation, and in a distinct preference for quantification and efficiency, something that Turnhout (2018) calls measurementality. What is the role of numbers, indicators, ranking, benchmarking, models or water-accounting procedures in water governance? Who develops, promotes or benefits from these technologies? What kind of subjects do they produce and what strategies do they elicit in response? Do water accounts promote or demote performative norms (e.g more, higher, better efficiency, resilience, sustainability, equity, etc.) that subsequently mask other concerns?
- Reductionist ontologies
While number narratives simplify reality and are selective in what is counted 'in' and 'out', the representations of nature attached to quantification, and categories and classification systems more deeply, ‘foreground specific elements of nature while silencing or ignoring others’ (Turnhout, 2008). In other words, the metrics, standards, categories and concepts through which we apprehend the world filter and sideline certain actors, rationales, values or alternative ontologies. Neoliberal regimes of quantification, for example, favour 'economisation', where ‘individuals, activities and organisations are constituted or framed as economic actors and entities’ (Mennicken and Espeland, 2019). Quantification typically promotes 'modern water' –which is stripped of historical, geographical, sensorial, affective or spiritual particularities (Vogt, 2021). Ontologically, how is water comprehended in ways that shape its hydrological quantification? And, conversely, how does hydrological numeracy shape conceptions of water? ‘Seeing water as stocks and/or flows’, ‘advancing the river basin as the natural balancing unit’ and ‘arguing that the conservation of mass must be respected’ are examples of the co-construction of water and its quantification.
Within this fourth theme we also encourage contributions that engage with how water and hydrology are modelled and are rendered, or abstracted, into models. Models, self-contained metaphors for a real-world richness that can never be fully captured, usually support dominant narratives and follow disciplinary or professional fashions that would benefit from fresh inspection. One example is the critiqued levelled at the dominance of the hydrological cycle (Farnum et al., 2018).
- Critical water numeracy
'Water numeracy' refers to the technical capacity to understand or use water accounting and operationalise other metrics, and the associated assumptions, scope, computations and policy advice. Thus, critical water numeracy foregrounds concerns about whether and how precepts, abstractions, computations, scales, boundaries and variables are used (or not) in water accounting and more generally in policies that define objectives, justifications or achievements based on water quantification. 'Selective ignorance' of specific complexities or elements of the water cycle is also common. Epistemologically and methodologically, how are water accounts, budgets and indicators evidenced and formulated? How is scale taken into consideration and accommodated? What omissions, shortcuts and elisions are commonly employed? How are statistical errors and error bars employed to mask deep uncertainty leading to unwise policy (Puy et al., 2022). Are critical water studies insufficiently ‘numerically grounded’, dissociating critical/social science water studies from an understanding of/insight in hydraulic and hydrological dynamics?
How is water numeracy experienced and theorised in different disciplines (farming, hydrology, economics, engineering)? And what strengths and weaknesses are built into their world views? Can water numeracy contribute to social and environmental justice, and improve outcomes for people and nature, or is numeracy’s utility limited by the political forces that shape water distribution.
- Datafication
Datafication is often rooted in an ideology that sees the collection of data as a way to represent and capture both physical processes and social life, often with a view to/hope of controlling them. The ubiquitous mantra 'you can't manage what you can't measure' is often implicitly a promise that more data will necessarily beget better management. But datafication is also a means for national administrations (and international bodies) to secure budgets and to be seen ‘doing something’ to solve water problems by deploying (and displaying) huge means to generate data, databases, web-based maps, etc. With the rise of satellite imagery, global connectivity, and the Internet of Things, datafication seems to be accelerating. It is spurring calls to build global water data-sets and institutions deemed to be necessary to build global water governance, suggesting that control and sound decision making will be made possible at that level. Datafication is also about the commodification of data; that remotely sensed ‘proof’ of a problem fixed is likely more investor-facing than it is problem-facing. However, datafication especially that rapidly gleaned via satellite imaging, usually involves the omission and/or elision of a rich underlying ‘hidden iceberg’ of resource relations, and management-relevant and people-centred field data, to say nothing of stochastic uncertainties and non-equilibrium disconnects between an actual catchment and its digital twin. Is datafication therefore a reflection of regulatory and measurement failure? Are glossy global-scale datafication websites glossing over the micro and meso-scales? Is datafication a cul-de-sac or a stepping stone to a water secure future guided by machine competency?
Types of articles
We welcome the submission of abstracts by authors intending to write full papers or shorter Viewpoints. See our general guidelines.
Send your abstract (300 words or more) to managing_editor@water-alternatives.org
Timeline for the Special Issue
Special issue announcement: 20th March 2023
Abstract submission deadline: 5th May 2023 [abstracts can still be sent until the end of May]
Decision communicated to authors: 31st May 2023
Full paper submission deadline: 15th January 2024
Special Issue publication: 1st week June 2024
(Papers are however made available on line whenever completed)
References
Brooks, E. 2017. Number narratives: Abundance, scarcity, and sustainability in a California water world. Science as Culture, 26(1), 32-55.
Farnum, R.L., Macdougall, R., Thompson, C. 2018. Re-envisioning the hydro cycle: The hydrosocial spiral as a participatory toolbox for water education and management. Water, Creativity and Meaning, 138-156.
Forsyth, T. 2015. Integrating science and politics in political ecology. In The international handbook of political ecology (pp. 103-116). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Lankford, B.A. 2022. Irrigated agriculture: more than ‘big water’ and ‘accountants will [not] save the world’. Water International 47, 1155-1164.
Mennicken, A., & Espeland, W. N. 2019. What's new with numbers? Sociological approaches to the study of quantification. Annual Review of Sociology, 45, 223-245.
Parrinello, G., Benson, E. S., & von Hardenberg, W. G. 2020. Estimated truths: water, science, and the politics of approximation. Journal of Historical Geography, 68, 3-10.
Porter, T. M. 1996. Trust in numbers. Princeton University Press.
Puy, A., Sheikholeslami, R., Gupta, H.V., Hall, J.W., Lankford, B., Lo Piano, S., Meier, J., Pappenberger, F., Porporato, A., Vico, G., Saltelli, A. 2022. The delusive accuracy of global irrigation water withdrawal estimates. Nature communications 13, 3183.
Rudebeck, T. (2019). Corporations as custodians of the public good? Exploring the intersection of corporate water stewardship and global water governance. Springer.
Saltelli, A., Di Fiore, M., (2023) The politics of modelling. Numbers between science and policy, Oxford.
Shore, C., & Wright, S. 2015. Governing by numbers: audit culture, rankings and the new world order. Social Anthropology/Anthropologie Sociale, 23(1), 22-28.
Sletto, B. 2008. The knowledge that counts: institutional identities, policy science, and the conflict over fire management in the Gran Sabana, Venezuela. World Development, 36(10), 1938-1955.
Tadaki, Marc, and Jim Sinner. 2014. "Measure, model, optimise: Understanding reductionist concepts of value in freshwater governance." Geoforum 51:140-151.
Turnhout, E. 2018. The politics of environmental knowledge. Conservation and Society 16(3): 363-371.
Vogt, L. 2021. Water, modern and multiple: Enriching the idea of water through enumeration amidst water scarcity in Bengaluru. Water Alternatives 14(1): 97-116.
Call for papers: Irrigation management in East Asia
Call for papers
Irrigation management in East Asia: Institutions, socioeconomic transformation and adaptations
With the financial support of the Southern University of Science and Technology (SUSTech), China
Irrigation has a long history in East Asia. The ways in which water is organised, allocated and utilised demonstrate endogenous responses to the conditions of natural habitats such as rainfall, topography, population density and amounts of farmland. Although the development of irrigation has significantly sustained the prosperity of rural communities, traditional irrigation management in East Asia [China, Korea, Japan, Taiwan] has been confronting a series of new challenges in the past few decades.
Among these challenges, the most arduous include:
- an ageing and decreasing rural population as a result of rural–urban migration,
- increasing competition for water among different regions and sectors,
- incentive changes in agricultural water supply and food production that are associated with the growing influence of neo-liberalisation, and
- shifting water, land and food policies that reshape the relationships between the state, the market and rural communities.
These new challenges, combined with increasing environmental pressure, have changed the characteristics of collective action in irrigation and rural affairs, thus presenting novel institutional and policy problems for rural communities and decision makers.
This special issue aims at revisiting irrigation management in East Asia against the backdrop of rapid socio-economic transformation. We particularly welcome papers that probe into the institutional dynamics, policy processes, social relations and power struggles that are related to the co-management of irrigation systems by public, communal and private actors.
Key questions include, but are not limited to, the following:
- What is the performance of irrigation management in terms of water use efficiency, productivity, equity and sustainability?
- What are the trade-offs and implications involved in water allocation and distribution among different individuals, communities, regions and sectors?
- What new forms of water institutional arrangements and policies – in particular in terms of co-management by state and users and the introduction of intermediary entrepreneurs or market-driven instruments – have emerged and evolved in response to rapidly changing socio-economic settings?
- How have the combinations of broader governance frameworks, policy instruments, political economy and social norms influenced irrigation management?
- How have external shocks, policies and institutions been translated into everyday practices of irrigation management in specific socio-ecological settings?
- Why have irrigation institutions succeeded – or failed – to adapt to, and cope with, the new challenges of socio-economic transformations?
For this special issue, we are looking for contributions that are based on empirical work in a specific locality and/or comparatively across regions or countries, and which engage in theoretical discussions on the institutions, policies and practices of irrigation management in East Asia. We also welcome papers that take stock of historical changes in irrigation-based socio-ecological systems in the longue durée. Contributions may be grounded in fields and disciplines such as institutional and agricultural economics, human geography, political ecology, political economy, political science, sociology and anthropology. Abstracts should be approximately 500 to 1000 words long and should briefly present the analytical framework, methodology, main findings and arguments.
Guest editors:
Raymond Yu Wang (Southern University of Science and Technology, SUSTech)
Jinxia Wang (Peking University, PKU)
Wai Fung Lam (The University of Hong Kong, HKU)
Timeline
Call for papers: May 10, 2020
Deadline for abstracts: June 30, 2020
Decision on abstracts: July 30, 2020
Deadline for full submissions: December 31, 2020
Review process: until April 30, 2021
Publication: June, 2021
Send your abstract to managing_editor@water-alternatives.org
Call for papers: Unconventional Waters: a critical understanding of desalination and wastewater reuse
“Unconventional times call for unconventional water resources” (UN-Water, 2020).
The growth of unconventional water resources as a new resource frontier has been much touted over the last two decades and is transforming society’s relationship with water in diverse contexts. Desalination and wastewater reuse, in particular, are potentially game-changing technologies for water management and (re)distribution, and are carried forward by promises to overcome water scarcity, enhance water security and, for wastewater at least, increase agricultural yields while also improving the receiving environments. However, they also raise serious questions around justice and access to water services, political power, financing and corporate interests, environmental impact and sustainability, energy demand, and the cost of capital-intensive infrastructure. Unconventional waters are entering the hydro-social cycle through a myriad of social, political, economic and cultural configurations, from small-scale technologies to mega-infrastructure projects across the Global North and Global South.
Unconventional water technologies are likely to increasingly reshape the practices, politics and political economy of water throughout the twenty-first century, as the climate crisis worsens, water challenges become more entrenched, global economic growth continues and thirsty industries expand, and capital continues to seek out new opportunities for accumulation. Empirical evidence suggests that the 'creation of new water' does not necessarily ease the situation but may result in, and even compound, inequalities in terms of allocation or access. As such, the contradictions associated with the creation of unconventional water resources will continue to grow. In this rapidly evolving terrain, new critical research is needed to understand, expose and challenge these contradictions.
We are seeking papers that develop non-technical and critical understanding of desalination or wastewater reuse (or both). Although desalination and wastewater reuse are becoming prominent issues in the water sector, the non-technical scholarship about these issues is still incipient. Papers addressing issues of justice, inequality, political economy and socio-political conflicts around unconventional waters are most welcome. We are particularly interested in empirically-rich papers with substantial original research, although we will also consider review articles on wastewater re-use.
If you are interested in contributing to this special issue, please submit abstracts (of ca.400 words) to the guest editors by 15th June 2022.
Timeline
Abstract submission deadline: 15th June 2022
Decision communicated to authors: 1st July 2022
Full paper submission deadline: 15th December 2022
Special Issue publication: June 2023
Guest editors
Joe Williams, Cardiff University, UK: williamsj168@cardiff.ac.uk
Pierre-Louis Mayaux, CIRAD, France: pierre-louis.mayaux@cirad.fr
Ross Beveridge, University of Glasgow, UK: ross.beveridge@glasgow.ac.uk
Call for papers: Assessing the Water Framework Directive
WFD + 20: Assessing the European Water Framework Directive
The European Water Framework Directive, issued in 2000, is a major landmark in the history of European water policy. It has introduced in national legislation a number of principles and priorities that have the potential to substantially revise the supply-oriented and state-centred ‘business as usual’ of water resource development. The WFD has, in particular, incorporated some of the policy ideas promoted in the 1990s, such as full cost recovery and resource pricing, the participation of stakeholders or the environmental health of ‘water bodies’. It has also mainstreamed other tenets of IWRM such as water management at the basin scale (or ‘district’) and the polluter-pays principle.
While the inclusion of the WFD into national strategies and legislation together with the implementation of the first measures have taken close to a decade, a twenty-year period provides an ideal time span to engage in a comprehensive assessment of what the WFD has changed in terms of legislation, practices, representations and results on the ground. This special issue aims at taking stock of the progress, difficulties and illusions accompanying the implementation of the WFD by EU member states. We welcome in particular papers that unpack policy processes and present longitudinal studies of policy changes, whether in a specific country or comparatively, across countries. Hindsight papers analysing the formation phase of the WFD (ideologies, interest groups, coalitions, procedures, differences between countries, etc) are also welcome. Key questions include:
How has the WFD been translated/incorporated into the legislation and practices of a particular country?
- How have the main instruments and principles (river basin management, participation, water pricing, cost recovery, etc) been promoted, implemented and with what results?
- What are the gaps that have appeared between principles and implementation and how they have been dealt with (politics of exemption, circumvention of rules, etc)
- Contesting the WFD: which groups have supported or fought against the WFD’s principles and implementation, why and how?
- What improvements in terms of water quality and nonpoint source pollution have been recorded and through which means have they been achieved?
- How has WFD implementation differed between EU member states?
- What steps have been taken to revise the WFD and how far do they represent a shift in emphasis?
- How have WFD-oriented water policies impacted and been impacted by spatial planning?
- What novel forms of integration and competition between agricultural, water, and environmental policies have emerged in implementing the WFD?
- How have the metrics and politics of objective-setting, compliance and ‘success’ shaped the implementation process?
- In what ways has the WFD acted as a model for water resources management globally?
Guest-editors
Gabrielle Bouleau (IRSTEA, France)
Timothy Moss (Humboldt University, Berlin)
José Albiac (Department of Agricultural Economics, CITA, Spain)
Lenka Slavíkova (University of Economics, Prague)
Timeline
Call for paper: May, 15 2019
Deadline for abstracts: July, 10
Decision on abstracts: July, 30
Deadline for full submissions: December, 31
Review process: until May, 30 2020
Publication: October, 1st 2020