Designing a Policy Mix and Sequence for Mitigating Agricultural Non-Point Source Pollution in a Water Supply Catchment

Bryan, Brett A.; Kandulu, John

doi:10.1007/s11269-010-9731-8

Cited by 57 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nevertheless, ecosystem services research needs to also provide information more closely linked to management decisions and provide insights for decision makers on alternative management actions. This could be achieved through more concerted attention to evaluating trade-offs between ecosystem services (Chhatre and Agrawal, 2009), planning for the management of ecosystem services (Chan et al, 2006;Reyers et al, 2012), allocating investments in ecosystem services management (Venter et al, 2013), and evaluating alternative policy options (Bryan and Kandulu, 2011) (Fig. 3).…”

Section: Problem Identificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Making decisions for managing ecosystem services

Martínez‐Harms

Bryan

Balvanera

et al. 2015

Biological Conservation

Self Cite

213

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tNumerous assessments have quantified, mapped, and valued the services provided by ecosystems that are important for human wellbeing. However, much of the literature does not clarify how the information gathered in such assessments could be used to inform decisions that will impact ecosystem services. We propose that the process of making management decisions for ecosystem services comprises five core steps: identification of the problem and its social-ecological context; specification of objectives and associated performance measures; defining alternative management actions and evaluating the consequences of these actions; assessment of trade-offs and prioritization of alternative management actions; and making management decisions. We synthesize the degree to which the peer-reviewed ecosystem services literature has captured these steps. For the ecosystem service paradigm to gain traction in science and policy arenas, future ecosystem service assessments should have clearly articulated objectives, seek to evaluate the consequences of alternative management actions, and facilitate closer engagement between scientists and stakeholders.

show abstract

Section: Problem Identificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Making decisions for managing ecosystem services

Martínez‐Harms

Bryan

Balvanera

et al. 2015

Biological Conservation

Self Cite

213

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A wide variety of policy instruments may be used to change how people behave, but in simple terms, these instruments can be broadly summarized into regulations of varying complexity, incentives and charges of various kinds, marketbased instruments, and various forms of education and persuasion (Vedung 1998, Connor et al 2009, Bryan and Kandulu 2011, Velasquez and Hester 2013, Greenhalgh and Selman 2014, Mees et al 2014). …”

Section: The Nature Of Policy Problems In Natural Resourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A microeconomic perspective on the role of efficiency and equity criteria in designing natural resource policy

Kaine¹,

Greenhalgh²,

Boyce³

et al. 2017

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Deliberating on policy design to manage natural resources with clarity and precision is a difficult task, even for professional and highly experienced policy practitioners. These difficulties are exacerbated by confounding the crafting of policy instruments to change resource use (a behavioral matter related to resource management) with the consequential issue of who bears the cost of changing resource use (an equity matter). The confounding of behavioral and equity issues is not surprising because equity is commonly suggested as a criterion in the literature on policy instrument choice, and inequity in access to resources may also be one of the initial drivers of policy intervention. Here, we restate the microeconomic analysis of "open access" resources and highlight the fundamental difference between efficiency (including allocative inefficiency) and equity that emerges from that analysis. We then discuss the implications of this difference for the choice of policy instruments to resolve problems in natural resource management, at least for instruments that entail changing the behavior of primary producers. This discussion is centered on three key decisions for formulating policy: (1) choosing the preferred portfolio of uses for a natural resource, (2) choosing a policy instrument to change that portfolio, and (3) choosing a mechanism to distribute the costs of change fairly. To illustrate how these decisions may play out in a real-world example, we apply the decisions to a freshwater policy process in New Zealand. By articulating the distinction, microeconomics draws distinctions between efficiency and equity as policy objectives. Linking that distinction with the Tinbergen's principle regarding the matching of instruments to objectives, we aim to reduce the conflation of the decision-making criteria employed in policy formulation decisions. In doing so, we hope to assist policy makers to avoid policy failure by reducing the potential for the influence of self-interested parties, or concern about their welfare, to introduce process failures into the policy formulation and decision-making stages of the policy cycle.

show abstract

“…This is a challenge that can be recommended for avoiding the snare of debt from donor countries and/or international agencies. The recommended policy scenario has been proposed by Bryan and Kandulu [55] involved targeted information, followed by an incentive program and a proposed mandatory code of practice for IWRM.…”

Section: Management Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges of Integrated Water Resources Management in Indonesia

Fulazzaky

2014

Water

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The increased demands for water and land in Indonesia as a consequence of the population growth and economic development has reportedly have been accelerated from the year to year. The spatial and temporal variability of human induced hydrological changes in a river basin could affect quality and quantity of water. The challenge is that integrated water resources management (IWRM) should cope with complex issues of water in order to maximize the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner, without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems. Even though the government of Indonesia has adopted new paradigm for water resources management by the enactment of Law No. 7/2004 on water resources, the implementation of IWRM may face the technical and managerial challenges. This paper briefly reviews the implementation of IWRM and related principles and provides an overview of potential water-related issues and progress towards implementation of IWRM in Indonesia. The availability of water and a broader range of water-related issues are identified. The recommended actions for improving the future IWRM are suggested. Challenges to improve the capacity buildings of IWRM related to enabling environment, institutional frameworks and management instruments are verified to contribute to the future directions for efficient problem-solving ability.

show abstract

Designing a Policy Mix and Sequence for Mitigating Agricultural Non-Point Source Pollution in a Water Supply Catchment

Cited by 57 publications

References 39 publications

Making decisions for managing ecosystem services

Making decisions for managing ecosystem services

A microeconomic perspective on the role of efficiency and equity criteria in designing natural resource policy

Challenges of Integrated Water Resources Management in Indonesia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About