CSD water partnerships: Privatization, participation and legitimacy

Dellas, Eleni

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.04.007

Cited by 25 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this sense, participation is employed as strategy for legitimising pre-determined actions (also see Few 2007;Birnbaum 2016). On the flip side to this argument, participation may also pose a potential threat to output legitimacy if it results in inefficiencies and the inability to act (Höreth 2001;Risse 2006;Lindgren and Persson 2010;Dellas 2011). A good example of this is the case of the IJsseldelta in the Netherlands and the formation of an adaptation strategy, studied by van Buuren et al (2014).…”

Section: Distributive Debatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Aarhus Convention 1998). Nonetheless, securing accountability may be particularly challenging in the context of complex environmental problems characterised by spatio-temporal interdependencies, cross-scale interactions, and high uncertainty (Biermann and Gupta 2011;Spagnuolo 2011;Cosens 2013), as well as across private-public partnerships (Dellas 2011).…”

Section: Procedural Debatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sub-themes included the distribution of power and valuations of knowledge. Klijn and Skelcher 2007;Few et al 2007;Sørensen 2010;Dombrowski 2010;Dellas 2011;Häikiö 2012;Barnaud and Van Paassen 2013;Cheyne 2015;Mees et al 2016aMees et al , 2017 Equity and justice…”

Section: Representative Deliberationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…public, private, and civil society) and potential for various modes of governance in the realisation of collective goals (Driessen et al 2012). With the State no longer necessarily playing a pivotal role in decision-making, it is becoming increasingly accepted that traditional constructs of legitimacy rooted in democratic theory must evolve (Papadopoulos 2000;Sørensen 2010;Dellas 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Bridging the legitimacy gap—translating theory into practical signposts for legitimate flood risk governance

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Legitimacy is widely regarded as a founding principle of 'good' and effective governance, yet despite intense academic debate and policy discourse, the concept remains conceptually confusing and poorly articulated in practice. To bridge this gap, this research performed an interpretive thematic analysis of academic scholarship across public administration, public policy, law, political science, and geography. Four core themes were identified in relation to representative deliberation, procedural and distributive equity and justice, and socio-political acceptability, with numerous sub-themes therein. In an attempt to clarify conceptual confusion, this paper grounds these theoretical debates in the context of flood risk governance where numerous legitimacy dilemmas exist. A number of questions are presented as conceptual 'signposts' to encourage reflexive governance in the future. Thus, more broadly, we assert the importance of bringing legitimacy to the forefront of contemporary flood risk governance discourse and practice, moving beyond the realm of academic reflection.

show abstract

Section: Distributive Debatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Procedural Debatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Representative Deliberationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Bridging the legitimacy gap—translating theory into practical signposts for legitimate flood risk governance

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These factors can be even more important when the government cooperates with private partners. Public-private partnerships can improve the understanding and trust on both sides, and therefore the uptake of new (innovative) ideas in the business environment, as well as in the public sector (Abeysuriya et al, 2007;Venkatachalam, 2008;Dellas, 2011). However, this requires interaction between different policy levels (local, regional, and national) and between public and private partners.…”

Section: Success and Failure Factors For Sustainable Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

A multi-actor multi-criteria scenario analysis of regional sustainable resource policy

Akgün

Leeuwen

Nijkamp

2012

Ecological Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The increasing scarcity of natural resources (e.g. forests, energy, agricultural land) prompts the need to develop effective strategies for sustainable development at regional levels with a view to balancing the interests of different groups of actors or stakeholders. This study aims to address the stakeholders' multifaceted viewpoints on future sustainable development, mainly at regional scales. To this end, five experimental test cases -in the form of five different case studies in Europe -are analysed, so as to be able to investigate sustainability, as well as its main stakeholders, in different situations, and to encapsulate different sustainability approaches and different needs for sustainable development. A 'pentagon model' is used to represent systematically five critical aspects of sustainability. In order to analyse the trade-offs and synergies between different objectives (in particular, the viewpoints of different stakeholders) on sustainable development, four distinct scenariosCompetitiveness; Continuity; Capacity; and Coherence -reflecting distinct and relevant images of sustainability are presented. The relative merits of these four scenarios are then empirically assessed by means of a particular type of multicriteria analysis, namely, Regime Analysis. The analysis is carried out by ranking different attributes of sustainable development, i.e. social, economic, ecological, institutional and physical, from the perspective of different stakeholders (distinguished, inter alia, according to gender, education level, occupation, institutional, and geographical background). This study maps out the different attributes of sustainability in relation to the viewpoints of different stakeholders in all five case-study areas. We find that the most preferred sustainable future is the Coherence scenario, in which a combination of ecological and social aspects is the most important determinant.

show abstract

Governing SDG Partnerships: The Role of Institutional Capacity, Inclusion, and Transparency

Bäckstrand

Koliev

Mert

2022

Sustainable Development Goals Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

CSD water partnerships: Privatization, participation and legitimacy

Cited by 25 publications

References 24 publications

Bridging the legitimacy gap—translating theory into practical signposts for legitimate flood risk governance

Bridging the legitimacy gap—translating theory into practical signposts for legitimate flood risk governance

A multi-actor multi-criteria scenario analysis of regional sustainable resource policy

Governing SDG Partnerships: The Role of Institutional Capacity, Inclusion, and Transparency

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About