Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Helena Cotler
 + 2380 word(s) 2380 2022-01-17 04:08:53 |
2 format correct
Nora Tang
 Meta information modification 2380 2022-01-25 02:05:09 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Cotler, H. Environmental Governance in Urban Watersheds. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/18736 (accessed on 08 July 2024).
Cotler H. Environmental Governance in Urban Watersheds. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/18736. Accessed July 08, 2024.
Cotler, Helena. "Environmental Governance in Urban Watersheds" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/18736 (accessed July 08, 2024).
Cotler, H. (2022, January 25). Environmental Governance in Urban Watersheds. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/18736
Cotler, Helena. "Environmental Governance in Urban Watersheds." Encyclopedia. Web. 25 January, 2022.
Environmental Governance in Urban Watersheds
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su14020988

Cities depend on several watersheds’ ecosystems as the main source of ecosystem services for urban populations; however, this connection is not visible to decision-makers and citizens. The current governance structures do not contemplate the integrated management of the urban-rural territory by watershed; they establish few spaces for citizen participation, and limit the transparency of information.

environmental governance urban watershed water urban planning

1. Introduction

By 2050, more than 68% of the world’s population will live in cities [1]. At global level, both the number of cities and that of their inhabitants have increased. After North America, Latin America is the second most urbanized region worldwide: 81% of the region´s population lives in cities [1]. This rapid growth in urbanization represents important challenges in terms of sustainability.
Urban expansion is considered one of the leading direct drivers of land use change and habitat loss, and is the most radical form of land transformation, deeply affecting biodiversity [2]. Urbanization alters the river´s natural flow regimes and water quality, ecosystem integrity and the sociocultural values of society, with a consequential loss of ecological services [3]. Other interrelated pressures, such as the loss or degradation of natural areas in watershed headwaters, soil sealing, spillage of contaminants, saline intrusion, deterioration in water quality, and the densification of built areas, pose additional challenges to the functionality of the ecosystem and, thus, for human well-being [4][5][6]. Currently, worldwide watershed degradation costs cities USD $5.4 billion in water treatment annually, and many city governments realize the importance of investing in the sustainability of their watersheds [7].
Urban growth also alters neighboring ecosystems by increasing the demand for resources such as water, food and energy, and for generating large quantities of waste. It is estimated that cities require the ecosystem services provided by areas 500 to 1000 times larger than the cities themselves [8].
Diverse watersheds’ ecosystems provide the primary ecosystem services for urban populations [9][10][11]. Traditionally, urban resilience has centered mainly on urban systems, such as the hydraulic infrastructure. In general, urban water planning and management are generally disconnected from planning and management at a watershed level [12]. However, urban-rural connections in the watersheds are critical for maintaining water supply [13]. In addition to the river flows, infiltration, recharge, sedimentation and pollution all depend on the land use present in the watersheds. As water links cities with their peri-urban/rural surroundings, watershed management is increasingly necessary to improve the resilience of urban water supplies [12][14].
A watershed is a biophysical unit of governance for water management in many countries, and a tool for hydrological modeling [15]. In recent years, studies regarding watershed governance have become relevant [16]. The approaches used and topics covered in those studies are wide ranging, considering, e.g., differences between urban and rural watersheds in different dimensions, highlighting sources of pollution, institutional complexity, and transaction and capital costs [17]. However, in most watersheds, these two conditions converge the urban and the rural, forming a complex geographic mosaic of physical, ecological, political and socio-economic diversity. In these territories, urban and rural processes and actors are interwoven with diffuse limits, for which reason only joint action can enable the provision and maintenance of ecosystem services.
In Latin America, the concern for activities of watershed management has historically been concentrated in rural areas. Mexico has broad watershed management experience in a rural context [18][19][20] emphasizing governance in the communities in order to improve the state of their ecosystems and productive activities. Currently, the main challenge is engaging the cities in the watershed management processes, which will require creating new spaces of collaborative governance [14].
In Mexico, water is a public good regulated by different levels of the government. Mexican cities face growing problems concerning water supply and sanitation problems, particularly for the low-income population [21]. In fact, municipal water utilities had limited technical and administrative capacity due to insufficient financial resources and the lack of skilled staff [22]. Currently, the watershed governance is fragmented between institutions of different governmental levels (federal, state and municipal) with jurisdictions and powers that are divided between the city and the rural part, ignoring their interactions. The performance of these institutions mismatches between ecosystem processes and management scales, for example, the rules, laws, policies, and formal and informal cultural norms, which govern the spatial and temporal extent of resource access rights and management responsibilities. Challenges related to temporality and scale can be seen as core governance dilemmas [23].
Mexico, similar to other countries in Latin America, is home to high biodiversity [24] and is almost the most unequal region of the world in terms of economic income [25] and land distribution [26], which generates strongly polarized social structures. In addition, extractive development has intensified over the preceding decades, resulting in deep socio-environmental conflicts, especially in territories that are home to indigenous people [27][28]. As a result, Mexico, as well as Colombia, Honduras, Brazil, and the Philippines, have had the highest homicide rate of environmental advocates and land defenders in recent years [29].
Severe effects of climate change, e.g., drought, heavy rain, flooding, and pest, stress watershed ecosystems and make watershed management more critical in the country.
In these territories, the absence of the state leaves open niches that can be occupied by CSOs [30]. The analysis of the role of CSOs in different areas has been present since 2000 [16]. Several authors have analyzed the role of CSOs in specific themes, such as agriculture [31][32], or their role in municipalities [33]. Other research has focused on evaluating the role of CSOs indirectly in political outcomes such as governance [34][35][36][37]. However, participation by CSOs in the political sphere has been the object of broad discussion in the academic milieu, especially because there has been an additional growth in the number of these organizations and the list of their types and functions has lengthened as well [30]. In this sense, [38] identify some CSOs’ limitations to create an effective long-term partnership, because partnerships between the state and CSOs may distort the very nature of these organizations as representative of interests of the society. Besides, the main reason for CSOs to exist is to do with the belief that they act for collective objectives, which may occasionally be excluded from ordinary public policy formulation procedures [30].
Although these studies explored different aspects of CSOs’ effects in the political sphere, very little research has measured the feedback effects of CSOs in urban watershed governance. On this subject, we would like to contribute with our research questions.

2. The Role of Civil Society Organizations in Urban Environmental Governance

In many cities, Civil Society Organizations (In the context of this article, we refer to Civil Society Organizations (CSO) as all local groups related to the local environmental stewardship) have focused on the conservation, restoration, administration, monitoring and defense of natural richness, as well as educating the public on a wide range of topics related to the maintenance of the local environment. They also form a crucial component of the structure of urban environmental governance by establishing networks with other local groups and governmental agencies [39][40]. These organizations fulfill a particular role since they can provide access to grant funds, scientific research, technical support, and trained personnel with which to implement restoration projects [17]. Moreover, they have the potential to compile additional information, obtain new perspectives of problems and develop more creative solutions, which could increase the legitimacy of decision-making, leading to a more significant appropriation of the resulting decisions, less litigation and better activities implementation [41].
Diverse experience shows that it is necessary to develop and strengthen collaborations among stakeholders at different scales to improve water management in the territory [42]. In the cities, cooperation between the institutions responsible for the managing of watersheds and the water services administrators continues to be an important challenge for the sustainable management of urban water resources [42].
The role of CSO as a key actor, providing bridges between rural and urban environments, has been widely studied and recognized, particularly in terms of their critical role in achieving a balance among sectors of government, businesses, and civil society [39]. This bridging function can improve ecosystem management, influencing the quantity and quality of ecosystem services for urban areas [43]. It can also counteract technocratic culture, short-term political cycles or the human tendency to resist change, which constitutes some of the main barriers to non-traditional water management approaches, including blue-green infrastructure [44].
The experience of local environmental groups (CSO) working together with governmental agencies and the private sector strengthens watershed administration [45], as well as fortifying social participation and increasing government transparency and accountability, which is essential to the achievement of adaptive watershed management [41]. From this governance, it is possible to achieve sustainable development goals (SDG) directed towards the cities (https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/es/cities/ (accessed on 18 August 2020) that recognize the need to support positive economic, social and environmental links among urban, peri-urban and rural zones, strengthening regional development planning (SDG 11.A), as well as increasing the capacity for planning and participative management (SDG 11.3).
The Watersheds and Cities Program of the Fondo Mexicano para la Conservación de la Naturaleza (FMCN) funds local CSOs to protect and recover the watersheds that supply water to the cities. It is achieved through capacity building, technical assistance, funding and inter-institutional synergies (https://fmcn.org/es/programas-proyectos/bosques-y-cuencas (accessed on 17 July 2020). Since 2001, the program has been applied in 12 watersheds of medium-sized cities in Mexico.
The FMCN program establishes an alliance with a local partner, in each selected watershed, leading watershed management through planning, resources investment, and institutional collaboration. This social leadership results from local support, experience in nature conservation, multi-actor work and linkages with local stakeholders. It has created decision-making spaces for watershed management and provision of water, reaching beyond administrative limits and electoral cycles.

3. Development and Findings

Watershed-cities are representative of various climatic zones, but share common socio-environmental problems, such as water pollution and scarcity, deterioration of ecosystems, opacity and inefficiency of government institutions, which have prompted CSOs to build new instruments and institutions to strengthen governance, both in rural areas and cities, under a watershed approach. This effort took a long time and was not without obstacles from the government, business, and society.
The experiences described above indicate different lessons and challenges that must be met in the process of incorporating the cities into the management of watersheds in order to construct hydric resilience.
The first lesson is that for understanding the hydrological environmental services that the city receives, it is necessary to visualize and analyze it in a hydrographic unit, which can be flexible according to the primary water sources.
The second lesson is the scant knowledge of the urban population has on the origins of the water in their city and as an environmental service generated by watershed ecosystems. These perceptions have been generated as a response to traditional hydraulic management, based on grey infrastructure, which has characterized water management in Mexican cities [46]. Since urban residents often consider the quantity and quality of the water to be a theme exclusive to treatment plants, it is difficult for their vision to include the role of ecosystems as primary providers of water.
In cities dominated by technology and infrastructure, the conception of a society increasingly disconnected and independent of the ecosystems has been fomented [35][47][48]. This phenomenon has caused an urban blindness about the importance of maintaining the health of the watershed to provide ecosystem services. For this reason, environmental education concerning the watershed´s provision of hydrological ecosystem services was a necessary action in all of the cities. Environmental education seeks to develop an aware and informed public, with the capacity to assume commitments, to participate in the resolution of problems and to make decisions, and act to promote sustainable development [49][50].
However, current communication strategies need to be improved based on an analysis of the role of the actors and their degree of influence to define communication instruments more assertively [51].
The third lesson is related to the strengthening of governance. Since the governance of the watershed territory is currently fragmented between institutions at different scales, which divide the rural and urban spheres, the CSOs have created and strengthened agencies and instruments of governance that incorporate cities into watershed management, such as Watershed Committees, Citizen Observatories for Water and Consultative Councils.
In the face of the lack of transparency and poor representation in governmental agencies responsible for the management of water [52][53], CSOs have constructed new institutions through citizens alliances in order to fill gaps in the information and provide transparency, governance and proposals for alternatives, as in other regions [15][33]. The construction of an informed and active public enables reflection and feedback that sustains watershed management adaptation [54].
The formation of autonomous agencies, with diverse social representation, that monitor water quality in the cities as a counterpart of the government are vital due to the lack of transparency, mistrust and the poor capacity of the government agencies in terms of generating reliable information concerning the quality of water for human consumption.
Moreover, effective commons governance is easier to achieve when the resources and use of the resources by humans can be monitored, and the information can be verified and understood at relatively low cost [55].
The function of the CSOs, in terms of providing spaces of collaboration, enabling access to funding, generating information, conducting technical monitoring and maintaining a critical level of personnel [30] was fundamental to the strengthening of governance and transparency. This has gradually translated into greater informed and active citizen participation.
The fourth lesson lies in developing mechanisms for incorporating cities into watershed management. In two watershed cities (Xalapa and Saltillo), the local Payment for Ecosystem Services was achieved after many years. The differences in the elaboration of these programs show the importance of the political will of the municipalities and the flexibility of the operating agency since payments are public costs that can be put at risk by overall budget reductions and shifts in priorities across political regimes [56]. This same effort was frustrated in San Miguel de Allende and San Cristobal de las Casas, due to the disinterest of the municipal authorities and the low capacity to pay for water, conditions that are indispensable for the implementation of this type of program.
These instruments are not panaceas and still present broad challenges because there is still a shortage of evidence regarding whether or not these schemes improve quality of life and generate desired behavioral changes. There is a mismatch between payment amounts and landowner opportunity costs [57]. Moreover, we still need to understand the complex relationship between forests and hydrologic services [58].

References

  1. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision; UN: New York, NY, USA, 2019.
  2. Arnaiz-Schmitz, C.; Schmitz, F.M.; Herrero-Jáuregui, C.; Gutierrez-Angonese, J.; Pineda, F.D.; Montes, C. Identifying Socio-Ecological Networks in Rural-Urban Gradients: Diagnosis of a Changing Cultural Landscape. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 612, 625–635.
  3. Pfaff, A.; Rodriguez, A.L.; Shapiro-Garza, E. Collective Local Payments for ecosystem services: New local PES between groups, sanctions, and prior watershed trust in Mexico. Water Resour. Econ. 2019, 28, 100–136.
  4. Kabisch, N.; Frantzeskaki, N.; Pauleit, S.; Naumann, S.; Davis, M.; Artmann, M.; Haase, D.; Knapp, S.; Korn, H.; Stadler, J.; et al. Nature-based solutions to climate change mitigation and adaptation in urban areas: Perspectives on indicators, knowledge gaps, barriers, and opportunities for action. Ecol. Soc. 2016, 21, 39.
  5. Kaushal, S.S.; Belt, K.T. The urban watershed continuum: Evolving spatial and temporal dimensions. Urban Ecosyst. 2012, 15, 409–435.
  6. Yuan, J.; Lu, Y.; Ferrier, C.R.; Liu, Z.; Su, H.; Meng, J.; Song, S.; Jenkins, A. Urbanization, rural development and environmental health. Environ. Dev. 2018, 28, 101–110.
  7. The Nature Conservancy (TNC). Estimating watershed degradation over the last century and its impact on water-treatment costs for the world’s large cities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 9117–9122.
  8. Folke, C.; Jansson, A.; Larsson, J.; Costanza, R. Ecosystem Appropriation by Cities. Ambio 1997, 26, 167–172.
  9. Bouland, P.; Hunhammar, S. Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecol. Econ. 1999, 29, 293–301.
  10. Flotemersch, J.E.; Leibowitz, S.G.; Hill, R.A.; Stoddard, J.L.; Thoms, M.C.; Tharme, R.E. A Watershed Integrity Definition and Assessment Approach to Support Strategic Management of Watersheds. River Res. Appl. 2016, 32, 1654–1671.
  11. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment Ecosystems and Human Well-Being; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
  12. Van den Brandeler, F.; Gupta, J.; Hordijk, M. Megacities and rivers: Scalar mismatches between urban water management and river basin management. J. Hydrol. 2019, 573, 1067–1074.
  13. Molle, F. River-basin planning and management: The social life of a concept. Geoforum 2009, 40, 484–494.
  14. Lindsay, A. Investing upstream: Watershed protection in Piura, Peru. Environ. Sci. Policy 2009, 96, 9–17.
  15. Cohen, A.; Davidson, S. The watershed approach: Challenges, antecedents, and the transition from technical tool to governance unit. Water Altern. 2011, 4, 1–14. Available online: https://www.water-alternatives.org/index.php/allabs/123-a4-1-1/file (accessed on 23 July 2020).
  16. Widianingsih, I.; Paskarina, C.; Riswanda, R.; Bhairawa, P. Evolutionary Study of watershed governance research: A bibliometric analysis. Sci. Technol. Libr. 2021, 40, 416–434.
  17. Hardy, D.S.; Koontz, M.T. Collaborative watershed partnerships in urban and rural areas: Different pathways to success? Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010, 95, 79–90.
  18. Cotler, H.; Caire, G. Lecciones Aprendidas del Manejo de Cuencas en México; Instituto Nacional de Ecología—Fondo Mundial de la Naturaleza (WWF): Mexico City, Mexico, 2009; 380p.
  19. Kauffer, F.M.E. Cuencas en Chiapas. La construcción de Utopías en Cascada; CIESAS, Biblioteca del Agua: Mexico City, Mexico, 2014.
  20. Paré, L.; Gerez, P. Al Filo del Agua: Cogestión de la Subcuenca del río Pixquiac, Veracruz; Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales—Instituto Nacional de Ecología: Mexico City, Mexico, 2012. Available online: http://ru.iis.sociales.unam.mx/jspui/handle/IIS/4996 (accessed on 9 September 2020).
  21. Torregrosa, M.L. Urban water in Mexico. In IANAS. Urban Water Challenges in the Americas. A Perspective from the Academic of Sciences; The Inter-American Network of Academies of Sciences (IANAS)-UNESCO: Mexico City, Mexico, 2015; pp. 384–413. Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000246414 (accessed on 3 July 2020).
  22. Salazar-Adams, A. The efficiency of post-reform water utilities in Mexico. Util. Policy 2021, 68, 101–153.
  23. Wilkinson, C.; Sendstad, M.; Parnell, S.; Schewenius, M. Urban Governance of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. In Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and Opportunities. A Global Assessment; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; Chapter 27; pp. 539–587.
  24. UNEP-WCMC. The State of Biodiversity in Latin America and the Caribbean: A Mid-Term Review of Progress towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets; UNEP-WCMC: Cambridge, UK, 2016.
  25. CEPAL (Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe). Estudio Económico de América latina y el Caribe: La Dinámica del Ciclo Económico Actual y los Desafíos de Política para Dinamizarla Inversión y el Crecimiento. 2017. Available online: https://www.cepal.org/es/publicaciones/42001-estudio-economico-america-latina-caribe-2017-la-dinamica-ciclo-economico-actual (accessed on 6 June 2020).
  26. Oxfam. Desterrados: Tierra, poder y desigualdad en América latina: 99. 2016. Available online: https://d1tn3vj7xz9fdh.cloudfront.net/s3fs-public/file_attachments/desterrados-full-es-29nov-web_0.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2020).
  27. Martinez-Allier, J. The environmentalism of the poor: A study of ecological conflicts and value. In Proceedings of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 August–4 September 2002; pp. 1–39.
  28. Svampa, M. Resource extractivism and alternatives: Latin American Perspectives on Development. J. Entwickl. 2012, 28, 43–73. Available online: http://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/bitstream/handle/10915/84445/Documento_completo.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed on 10 October 2020).
  29. Global Witness. Defending Tomorrow. 2020. Available online: https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/environmental-activists/defending-tomorrow/ (accessed on 12 August 2020).
  30. Lage, D.A.; Brant, L.N.C. The growing influence of non-governmental organizations: Chances and risks. In III Anuario Brasileirode Direito Internacional; CEDIN: Belo Horizonte, Brazil, 2008; pp. 79–93.
  31. Igoe, J. Scaling up civil society: Donor money, NGOs and the pastoralist land rights movement in Tanzania. Dev. Chang. 2003, 34, 863–885.
  32. Puplampu, K.; Tettey, W. State-NGO relations in an era of globalization: The implications for agricultural development in Africa. Rev. Afr. Polit. Econ. 2000, 27, 251–272.
  33. Keese, J.; Freire, M. Decentralisation and NGO-Municipal Government in Ecuador. Dev. Pract. 2006, 16, 114–127.
  34. Brass, J. Blurring Boundaries: The integration of NGOs into governance in Kenya. Governance 2012, 25, 209–235.
  35. Grindle, M. Good enough governance: Poverty reduction and reform in developing countries. Governance 2004, 17, 525–548.
  36. Mercer, C. Performing partnership: Civil society and the illusions of good governance in Tanzania. Political Geogr. 2003, 22, 741–763.
  37. Swidler, A.; Watkins, S. Teach a man to fish: The doctrine of sustainability and its social consequences. World Dev. 2009, 37, 1182–1196.
  38. Fontes, J.; Getulio, F. Role and limitations of NGOs in partnership with the state. Rev. Estud. Políticas Públicas 2009, 1–10.
  39. Connolly, J.J.; Svendsen, E.S.; Fisher, D.R.; Campbell, L.K. Organizing urban ecosystem services through environmental stewardship governance in New York City. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 109, 76–84.
  40. Johnson, M.; Locke, D.H.; Svendsen, E.; Campbell, L.; Westphal, L.M.; Romolini, M.; Grove, J. Context matters: Influence of organizational, environmental, and social factors on civic environmental stewardship group intensity. Ecol. Soc. 2019, 24, 1.
  41. Henriksen, J.H.; Mysiak, J.; Jaspers, F.; Giordano, R.; Sullivan, C.A.; Bromley, J. Working Towards AWM. In The Adaptive Water Resources Management Handbook; Mysiak, J., Sullivan, C., Henrikson, H.J., Pahl-Wostl, C., Bromley, J., Eds.; Earthscan: London, UK, 2010; pp. 17–33.
  42. Crow-Miller, B.; Chang, H.; Stoker, P.; Wentz, A.E. Facilitating collaborative urban water management through university-utility cooperation. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2016, 27, 475–483.
  43. Andersson, E.; Barthel, S.; Borgström, S.; Colding, J.; Elmqvist, T.; Folke, C.; Gren, A. Reconnecting cities to the biosphere: Stewardship of green infrastructure and urban ecosystem services. Ambio 2014, 43, 445–453.
  44. Ortega-Guerrero, M.A. Groundwater Quality at the Independence Basin in Central Mexico: Implications for Regional Development. Another World is Possible. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Alter Globalizations, San Miguel de Allende, Mexico, 5–12 August 2004.
  45. Prospecta Consulting. Estudios y Sondeos de Opinión Pública; Informe del Estudio Cualitativo y Cuantitativo: La Paz, Mexico, 2012.
  46. Soares, D.; Vargas, S.; Nuño, M.R. La Gestión de los Recursos Hídricos: Realidades y Perspectivas: Tomo 1; Instituto Mexicano de Tecnología del Agua: Mexico City, Mexico, 2009; Available online: http://repositorio.imta.mx/handle/20.500.12013/1160 (accessed on 7 July 2020).
  47. Ausubel, J.H. Can technology spare the Earth? Am. Sci. 1996, 84, 166–178. Available online: https://phe.rockefeller.edu/publication/sparetheearth/ (accessed on 10 August 2020).
  48. Folke, C.; Jansson, A.; Rockström, J.; Olsson, P.; Carpenter, S.R.; Chapin, F.S., III; Crépin, A.-S.; Daily, G.; Danell, K.; Ebbesson, J.; et al. Reconnecting to the Biosphere. Ambio 2011, 40, 719.
  49. Alsaluli, A.; Ahmed, A.; Davies, J. Public engagement in integrated urban water management in Saudi Arabia: Teachers’ perceptions in relation to water awareness. Water Sci. Technol. Water Supplies 2015, 15, 871–880. Available online: https://iwaponline.com/ws/article-pdf/15/4/871/413843/ws015040871.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2020).
  50. Littledyke, M. Science education for environmental awareness in a postmodern world. Environ. Educ. Res. 1996, 2, 197–214.
  51. CEGAM. Evaluación Independiente al Proyecto A-204. Cuencas y Ciudades III Segunda Fase. Available online: https://www.dropbox.com/s/rf07totaqhovdd5/1.%20Evaluaci%C3%B3n%20CyCIII%20Segunda%20Fase%20CEGAM.pdf?dl=0 (accessed on 10 September 2020).
  52. Kloster, B.K. Gobierno y lucha por el territorio político del agua en México, en Torregrosa Maria Luisa. In El Conflicto del Agua: Política, Gestión, Resistencia y Demanda Social; FLACSO: Mexico City, Mexico, 2017; pp. 61–81.
  53. Torregrosa, M.L.; Paré, L.; Kloster, K.; Vera, J. Administración del agua. In El Agua en México: Cauces y Encauces; Jimenez, B., Torregrosa, M.L., Aboites, L., Eds.; Academia Mexicana de Ciencias—CONAGUA: Mexico City, Mexico, 2005; pp. 595–620.
  54. Pahl-Wostl, C.; Craps, M.; Dewulf, A.; Mostert, E.; Tabara, D.; Taillieu, T. Social learning and water resources management. Ecol. Soc. 2007, 12, 5. Available online: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art5/ (accessed on 11 September 2020).
  55. Dietz, T.; Ostrom, E.; Stern, P.C. The Struggle to Govern the Commons. Science 2003, 302, 1907.
  56. Platt, H.R. Urban Watershed Management: Sustainability, One Stream at a Time. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 2006, 48, 26–42.
  57. Arriagada, R.; Villaseñor, A.; Rubiano, E.; Cotacachi, D.; Morrison, J. Analysing the impacts of PES programmes beyond economic rationale: Perceptions of ecosystem services provision associated to the Mexican case. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 29, 116–127.
  58. Asbjornsen, H.; Manson, R.; Scullion, J.; Holwerda, F.; Munoz-Villers, L.E.; Alvarado-Barrientos, M.; Geissert, D.; Dawson, T.E.; McDonnell, J.J.; Bruijnzeel, L.A. Interactions between payments for hydrologic services, landowner decisions, and ecohydrological consequences: Synergies and disconnection in the cloud forest zone of central Veracruz, Mexico. Ecol. Soc. 2017, 22, 25.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Environmental Studies
Contributor MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Helena Cotler
View Times: 652
Entry Collection: Environmental Sciences
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 25 Jan 2022
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Video Production Service
    Feedback