No abstract

This article focuses on the identification of critical water policy instruments, and opportunities and barriers to transforming urban water use in a sustainable and efficient direction in Amsterdam (The Netherlands). The main lessons that can be inferred from past and current water policies and management practices in Amsterdam show (1) the relevance of common action for increasing the quality of or general control over water resources when shared interests of different actors using the same water resource are present; (2) that the effectiveness and applicability of water policy instruments are strongly conditional upon receiving the support of both water users and suppliers; (3) that the governance structure of water provision plays a crucial role in increasing the efficiency of water use.

[1] Price instruments are well-known policy handles to influence effectively residential water demand. Prices used to be set by water authorities in such a way that the principle of cost coverage was respected; they acted as prominent instruments in residential water policies in the past decades. More recently, however, price instruments are increasingly used to meet simultaneously financial, environmental, and social goals. This paper addresses four conditions for an appropriate tariff system for residential water use which are often found in the recent literature on the economics of water use. The paper analyzes the importance of background factors (e.g., low water availability) of these four principles as well as the extent to which actual tariff systems are employed in five mutually contrasting cities (Amsterdam, Athens, London, Seville, and Tel Aviv). Metaanalytic techniques, in particular, rough set analysis stemming from artificial intelligence, are applied to identify the common underlying relations between background factors and success of achieving multiple goals in these five urban case studies. The paper concludes with policy recommendations.

No abstract

No abstract