A Comprehensive Process for Stakeholder Identification and Engagement in Addressing Wicked Water Resources Problems

Abstract

Various sectors of stakeholders (urban, agricultural, policymakers, etc.) are frequently engaged in participatory research projects aimed at improving water resources’ sustainability. However, a process for comprehensive and integrative identification, classification, and engagement of all types of water stakeholders for a region or river basin, especially in a transboundary context, is missing for water resources research projects. Our objective was to develop a systematic approach to identifying and classifying water stakeholders, and engage them in a discussion of water futures, as a foundation for a participatory modeling research project to address the wicked water resource problems of the Middle Rio Grande basin on the U.S./Mexico border. This part of the Rio Grande basin can be characterized as having limited and dwindling supplies of water, increasing demands for water from multiple sectors, and a segmented governance system spanning two U.S. states and two countries. These challenges are being exacerbated by climate change; a transitioning agriculture to more water demanding, high value crops; urbanization; and growing demand for environmental services. Moving forward, a core question for this region is how can water be managed so that the three competing sectors—agricultural, urban, and environmental—can realize a sustainable future in this challenged water system? We identified the major water-using sectors who represent competing demands as including agricultural, municipal, self-supplied industrial users, environmental, and a sector we labeled “social justice”, comprised of individuals who lack access to potable water, or who represent groups who advocate for access to water. We included stakeholders from both the U.S. and Mexico, which is seldom done, who share transboundary water resources in the region. We hosted a series of stakeholder dialogues and obtained results that identified and described their vision for the future of water; challenges to be overcome; and important research questions that could be addressed using participatory modeling approaches. Four broad themes common to multiple sectors emerged: (1) quantity, drought, and scarcity; (2) quality/salinization; (3) urbanization; and (4) conservation and sustainability. Each sector expressed distinctive views regarding the future of water. Agricultural stakeholders, in particular, had strong feelings of ownership of water rights as part of land ownership and a concomitant sense of threat to those water rights emanating from dwindling supplies and competing demands. The contribution of this work is a methodology for identifying, classifying, and engaging all types of stakeholders in the context of a research project, enabling us to compare and contrast views of different types of stakeholders. Heretofore, this has been accomplished in “bits and pieces”, but never comprehensively and holistically.

Water Governance and Social Learning: Approaches, Tools, and Challenges

“…Access to direct information from stakeholders is relevant for providing an accurate snapshot of the postulates defended by each profile. However, a limitation of many published studies is that stakeholder engagement is generally focused on certain groups that are dominated by professional water managers, local government and nongovernment organizations, and policy-makers, while the general public tends to be secondary (Hargrove and Heyman 2020). The goal is twofold: on the one hand, to improve the efficiency of the decisions which determine multisectorial policies, on the other hand, to minimize the degree of involvement and the impact of decisions by those stakeholders with a negative predisposition to collaborate.…”

Impacts of Urbanization and Intensification of Agriculture on Transboundary Aquifers: A Case Study

“…The quantity of water used per unit area in agriculture vs. urban areas and the fate of water rights when agricultural land is sold is an important question that impinges on (1) the sustainability of water resources, both surface water and groundwater; (2) the sustainability of agriculture in the region; and (3) the sustainability and affordability of urban water supplies. In focus group discussions with stakeholders in the Middle Rio Grande basin (defined as the portion of the basin from the Elephant Butte Reservoir to the confluence of the Rio Conchos from Mexico with the Rio Grande, Figure 1), the agricultural sector believed that as cities grow, it is incumbent on them to develop alternative water sources or technologies that are not in competition with their own (Hargrove and Heyman 2020). For example, cities are better able to afford and draw upon sources and technologies such as brackish groundwater that requires desalination.…”

“…In 2015, we embarked upon a long‐term, multi‐institutional, interdisciplinary research project on water resources sustainability in the Middle Rio Grande basin (Hargrove and Heyman 2020). We initiated this project with a series of stakeholder meetings in Texas, New Mexico, and Chihuahua to discuss the future of water in the region and to identify important sustainability issues and related research questions.…”

“…Agricultural stakeholders in particular saw this land use conversion in a negative light due to the loss of farming as a way of life, regardless of the implications for water use. But, all stakeholders also saw the loss of agricultural land to development as a conversion of water uses from agricultural to urban (Hargrove and Heyman 2020). However, there was some uncertainty about the rate of conversion of agricultural land to urban development and the net impacts of this conversion on water use in aggregate in the region.…”

Using stakeholders' preference for ecosystems and ecosystem services as an economic basis underlying strategic conservation planning

“…The surface water source is more convenient to access, resulting in a more efficient distribution of water. Even with abundant water resources, SC is crafting water policies and plans ensuring the continuous provision of water supply to meet with the expected demand ( Harder et al., 2020 ; Hargrove and Heyman, 2020 ). In 2008, South Carolina experienced the worst drought that the state has recorded ( US Environmental Protection Agency, 2013 ).…”