Suchergebnisse

International audience ; Water governance is a complex process to manage and improve due to the large numbers of competing scales and levels inherent within it. Effectively supporting any water governance process does not just rely on hydrological knowledge of a water system, but much broader trans‐disciplinary understanding of a whole socialhydrological system. In this paper we show how there are commonly up to eight or more competing scales—spatial, temporal, administrative, institutional, management, network, knowledge/information and stakes/issues—present in any water governance situation. Processes in one scale can then create flows or externalities that produce multi‐level, cross‐scale or rescaling effects. A typology of six types of externalities orflows is provided—physical or material flows (e.g. water and solute movement), information and knowledge, political and social control, financial flows, human flows, and an irreversibility effect (e.g. flows, such as that of time passing, which lead to cumulative effects that are difficult or impossible to reverse)—and used to study the examples provided in the 15 papers of this special issue. From these insights, conclusions are drawn on how conflicts across competing scales are currently being managed, the mechanisms involved in bridging scales, and to what extent currently privileged scales and/or governance structures are appropriate for effectively managing water and land. The two general trends observed for multi‐level and cross‐scale management remain the need for collaborative governance processes and facilitators of these interactions, as well as the development of savvy coalitions for water governance change who understand and can effectively navigate these complex multi‐level and multi‐scalar systems. There is also a need to recognise that water basins or watersheds are social constructions and not always the most effective arenas for water governance. Problemsheds based on conceptssuch as the French "territoire" (territory), may in fact prove more ...

International audience ; Water governance is a complex process to manage and improve due to the large numbers of competing scales and levels inherent within it. Effectively supporting any water governance process does not just rely on hydrological knowledge of a water system, but much broader trans‐disciplinary understanding of a whole socialhydrological system. In this paper we show how there are commonly up to eight or more competing scales—spatial, temporal, administrative, institutional, management, network, knowledge/information and stakes/issues—present in any water governance situation. Processes in one scale can then create flows or externalities that produce multi‐level, cross‐scale or rescaling effects. A typology of six types of externalities orflows is provided—physical or material flows (e.g. water and solute movement), information and knowledge, political and social control, financial flows, human flows, and an irreversibility effect (e.g. flows, such as that of time passing, which lead to cumulative effects that are difficult or impossible to reverse)—and used to study the examples provided in the 15 papers of this special issue. From these insights, conclusions are drawn on how conflicts across competing scales are currently being managed, the mechanisms involved in bridging scales, and to what extent currently privileged scales and/or governance structures are appropriate for effectively managing water and land. The two general trends observed for multi‐level and cross‐scale management remain the need for collaborative governance processes and facilitators of these interactions, as well as the development of savvy coalitions for water governance change who understand and can effectively navigate these complex multi‐level and multi‐scalar systems. There is also a need to recognise that water basins or watersheds are social constructions and not always the most effective arenas for water governance. Problemsheds based on conceptssuch as the French "territoire" (territory), may in fact prove more pertinent in many cases (e.g. highly engineered systems) due to the unequivocal social nature of their construction and ability to delineate a range of agreed upon social‐hydrological systems for management.

International audience ; Water governance is a complex process to manage and improve due to the large numbers of competing scales and levels inherent within it. Effectively supporting any water governance process does not just rely on hydrological knowledge of a water system, but much broader trans‐disciplinary understanding of a whole socialhydrological system. In this paper we show how there are commonly up to eight or more competing scales—spatial, temporal, administrative, institutional, management, network, knowledge/information and stakes/issues—present in any water governance situation. Processes in one scale can then create flows or externalities that produce multi‐level, cross‐scale or rescaling effects. A typology of six types of externalities orflows is provided—physical or material flows (e.g. water and solute movement), information and knowledge, political and social control, financial flows, human flows, and an irreversibility effect (e.g. flows, such as that of time passing, which lead to cumulative effects that are difficult or impossible to reverse)—and used to study the examples provided in the 15 papers of this special issue. From these insights, conclusions are drawn on how conflicts across competing scales are currently being managed, the mechanisms involved in bridging scales, and to what extent currently privileged scales and/or governance structures are appropriate for effectively managing water and land. The two general trends observed for multi‐level and cross‐scale management remain the need for collaborative governance processes and facilitators of these interactions, as well as the development of savvy coalitions for water governance change who understand and can effectively navigate these complex multi‐level and multi‐scalar systems. There is also a need to recognise that water basins or watersheds are social constructions and not always the most effective arenas for water governance. Problemsheds based on conceptssuch as the French "territoire" (territory), may in fact prove more pertinent in many cases (e.g. highly engineered systems) due to the unequivocal social nature of their construction and ability to delineate a range of agreed upon social‐hydrological systems for management.

In the environmental field, water management provides examples of the move towards participative democracy. Indeed, French water policy promotes participative river basin management settings. Such settings place different forms of knowledge in contact with each other, and raise the issue of assembling this plurality within the decision-making process.How to combine scientific, lay and diverse cultural forms of knowledge? "Hybrid fora" (Callon, Lascoumes and Barthes 2001) are political settings which tackle this issue, using the principle of symmetry. Following this pragmatic stance, this communication paper studies how "participants" assemble different forms of knowledge, specifically focusing on plural cognitive forms; from the most personal to the public. How do people cope with their attachments to the environment while participating in "governance" practices? How do they cope with the necessity of making people and things equivalent and general? This paper focuses on these tensions, relying on Thévenot's framework of "regime of engagement" (Thévenot 2000). This author analyses people's shifts between different "pragmatic regimes of engagement" ("familiarity", "regular planned action" and "justification") and moral treatments of their attachments to the world. He examines the "familiarity regime of engagement" which is wrecked in public arenas. The Lentilla and the Llech are two Mediterranean rivers in the south of France where the predominance of agricultural water uses is being challenged by environmental issues and the development of recreational water uses. A new approach to sharing water is needed. The existing political modalities of management are of the community type and lean on interpersonal arrangements. Based on strong social links, they have proved efficient. But today they are encountering difficulties as they are required to make room for new people with particular concerns regarding water. As a consequence, some of these people ("neorurals" and the French water agency) are requesting public debates and the development of formal settings (management plans, rules and regulations, contracts, standards…) in order to guarantee the integration of their "good" including satisfying interests or moral principles and protecting personal ties. This paper focuses on participants' "engagement" and the Assembling of knowledge forms in the Lentilla and Llech participative water management settings. Interviews, observations of meetings, as well as an experimental game, are used. This game aims to make people experience shifting between pragmatic regimes: from familiar engagement to public formats as well as between various water management "orders of worth" (Boltanski and Thévenot 2006) in order to make "compromises". The game is assumed to be suitable for simulating the composition of heterogeneous pieces of knowledge and for supporting participative management. The paper presents the case study, the game, its theoretical background and the first results of its experimentation.

In the environmental field, water management provides examples of the move towards participative democracy. Indeed, French water policy promotes participative river basin management settings. Such settings place different forms of knowledge in contact with each other, and raise the issue of assembling this plurality within the decision-making process.How to combine scientific, lay and diverse cultural forms of knowledge? "Hybrid fora" (Callon, Lascoumes and Barthes 2001) are political settings which tackle this issue, using the principle of symmetry. Following this pragmatic stance, this communication paper studies how "participants" assemble different forms of knowledge, specifically focusing on plural cognitive forms; from the most personal to the public. How do people cope with their attachments to the environment while participating in "governance" practices? How do they cope with the necessity of making people and things equivalent and general? This paper focuses on these tensions, relying on Thévenot's framework of "regime of engagement" (Thévenot 2000). This author analyses people's shifts between different "pragmatic regimes of engagement" ("familiarity", "regular planned action" and "justification") and moral treatments of their attachments to the world. He examines the "familiarity regime of engagement" which is wrecked in public arenas. The Lentilla and the Llech are two Mediterranean rivers in the south of France where the predominance of agricultural water uses is being challenged by environmental issues and the development of recreational water uses. A new approach to sharing water is needed. The existing political modalities of management are of the community type and lean on interpersonal arrangements. Based on strong social links, they have proved efficient. But today they are encountering difficulties as they are required to make room for new people with particular concerns regarding water. As a consequence, some of these people ("neorurals" and the French water agency) are requesting public debates and the development of formal settings (management plans, rules and regulations, contracts, standards…) in order to guarantee the integration of their "good" including satisfying interests or moral principles and protecting personal ties. This paper focuses on participants' "engagement" and the Assembling of knowledge forms in the Lentilla and Llech participative water management settings. Interviews, observations of meetings, as well as an experimental game, are used. This game aims to make people experience shifting between pragmatic regimes: from familiar engagement to public formats as well as between various water management "orders of worth" (Boltanski and Thévenot 2006) in order to make "compromises". The game is assumed to be suitable for simulating the composition of heterogeneous pieces of knowledge and for supporting participative management. The paper presents the case study, the game, its theoretical background and the first results of its experimentation.

In the environmental field, water management provides examples of the move towards participative democracy. Indeed, French water policy promotes participative river basin management settings. Such settings place different forms of knowledge in contact with each other, and raise the issue of assembling this plurality within the decision-making process.How to combine scientific, lay and diverse cultural forms of knowledge? "Hybrid fora" (Callon, Lascoumes and Barthes 2001) are political settings which tackle this issue, using the principle of symmetry. Following this pragmatic stance, this communication paper studies how "participants" assemble different forms of knowledge, specifically focusing on plural cognitive forms; from the most personal to the public. How do people cope with their attachments to the environment while participating in "governance" practices? How do they cope with the necessity of making people and things equivalent and general? This paper focuses on these tensions, relying on Thévenot's framework of "regime of engagement" (Thévenot 2000). This author analyses people's shifts between different "pragmatic regimes of engagement" ("familiarity", "regular planned action" and "justification") and moral treatments of their attachments to the world. He examines the "familiarity regime of engagement" which is wrecked in public arenas. The Lentilla and the Llech are two Mediterranean rivers in the south of France where the predominance of agricultural water uses is being challenged by environmental issues and the development of recreational water uses. A new approach to sharing water is needed. The existing political modalities of management are of the community type and lean on interpersonal arrangements. Based on strong social links, they have proved efficient. But today they are encountering difficulties as they are required to make room for new people with particular concerns regarding water. As a consequence, some of these people ("neorurals" and the French water agency) are requesting public ...

In the environmental field, water management provides examples of the move towards participative democracy. Indeed, French water policy promotes participative river basin management devices. Such devices allow confrontation of several relationship with water and raise the issue of composing these diversity within decision making process. How to compose diverse cultural viewpoints, water uses objectives and people attachment to environment? We have designed a setting of experimental sociology to allow a group of people to experience this difficulty in composing with a variety of viewpoints. It takes the form of simulation game, Concert'eau, in which players have to embody principles of justification and face events in shared virtual river basin. First experiments have shown that the same patterns due to this pluralism emerge from the gaming session as from real situations of dialogue

In the field of water, in France, envisionning future has long been the exclusive duty of state strategists and water managers. Yet since 2006, the French law for local and participatory water planning has hold that "trends and scenarios" should be collectively built and made explicit before choosing a strategy. This article draws lessons learned from a vision building exercice implemented in 2010 in the Thau basin (Hérault, France). The authors assisted the process and facilitated some workshops. The article discusses what made the experience possible and successful. It argues that a specific framing fostered individual and collective exploration. It consisted in welcoming narratives and preserving participants' individual and collective objectives. The process revealed the whole political dimension of water. Participants were able to question some choices and modes of steering. ; Alors que l'exploration des futurs possibles dans le domaine de l'eau a longtemps été confiée aux stratèges de l'État et aux gestionnaires de services d'eau, les schémas d'aménagement et de gestion de l'eau (SAGE), outils de planification locale et concertée, doivent aujourd'hui obligatoirement inclure l'explicitation de « tendances et scénarios » avant de choisir une stratégie. À travers un retour d'expérience sur la démarche prospective mise en ½uvre lors de la phase « tendances et scénarios » du SAGE du bassin de Thau, cet article discute des conditions d'une telle démarche et de son intérêt, notamment pour favoriser le dialogue entre les acteurs et engager certaines actions, en donnant à l'eau toute sa dimension politique.

In the field of water, in France, envisionning future has long been the exclusive duty of state strategists and water managers. Yet since 2006, the French law for local and participatory water planning has hold that "trends and scenarios" should be collectively built and made explicit before choosing a strategy. This article draws lessons learned from a vision building exercice implemented in 2010 in the Thau basin (Hérault, France). The authors assisted the process and facilitated some workshops. The article discusses what made the experience possible and successful. It argues that a specific framing fostered individual and collective exploration. It consisted in welcoming narratives and preserving participants' individual and collective objectives. The process revealed the whole political dimension of water. Participants were able to question some choices and modes of steering. ; Alors que l'exploration des futurs possibles dans le domaine de l'eau a longtemps été confiée aux stratèges de l'État et aux gestionnaires de services d'eau, les schémas d'aménagement et de gestion de l'eau (SAGE), outils de planification locale et concertée, doivent aujourd'hui obligatoirement inclure l'explicitation de « tendances et scénarios » avant de choisir une stratégie. À travers un retour d'expérience sur la démarche prospective mise en ½uvre lors de la phase « tendances et scénarios » du SAGE du bassin de Thau, cet article discute des conditions d'une telle démarche et de son intérêt, notamment pour favoriser le dialogue entre les acteurs et engager certaines actions, en donnant à l'eau toute sa dimension politique.

In the field of water, in France, envisionning future has long been the exclusive duty of state strategists and water managers. Yet since 2006, the French law for local and participatory water planning has hold that "trends and scenarios" should be collectively built and made explicit before choosing a strategy. This article draws lessons learned from a vision building exercice implemented in 2010 in the Thau basin (Hérault, France). The authors assisted the process and facilitated some workshops. The article discusses what made the experience possible and successful. It argues that a specific framing fostered individual and collective exploration. It consisted in welcoming narratives and preserving participants' individual and collective objectives. The process revealed the whole political dimension of water. Participants were able to question some choices and modes of steering. ; Alors que l'exploration des futurs possibles dans le domaine de l'eau a longtemps été confiée aux stratèges de l'État et aux gestionnaires de services d'eau, les schémas d'aménagement et de gestion de l'eau (SAGE), outils de planification locale et concertée, doivent aujourd'hui obligatoirement inclure l'explicitation de « tendances et scénarios » avant de choisir une stratégie. À travers un retour d'expérience sur la démarche prospective mise en ½uvre lors de la phase « tendances et scénarios » du SAGE du bassin de Thau, cet article discute des conditions d'une telle démarche et de son intérêt, notamment pour favoriser le dialogue entre les acteurs et engager certaines actions, en donnant à l'eau toute sa dimension politique.

L'infrastructure sociotechnique nécessaire à la mise en ½uvre des politiques environnementales recèle un véritable contenu politique : elle cadre et influence l'orientation et les effets de l'action publique, souvent de manière implicite. Une perspective normative de gouvernance démocratique demande de la rendre discutable. Nous abordons les problématiques relatives à cette mise en discussion sur le cas de la gestion des pénuries d'eau en France. Dans un premier temps, nous décrivons la mise en place de cette infrastructure et qualifions cette activité en mobilisant le concept de science réglementaire. Nous identifions ensuite les formes de critique mobilisées par les acteurs de l'eau au sein des comités sécheresse. Nous proposons enfin un outil, la chaîne opératoire, pour rendre visible et discutable la structure et le fonctionnement de l'infrastructure, et plus généralement la science réglementaire dont elle est issue. Cet outil permet de dépasser les formes de critique observées et de prendre en charge collectivement la tension entre principes de justice et d'adaptation aux conditions locales.

L'infrastructure sociotechnique nécessaire à la mise en ½uvre des politiques environnementales recèle un véritable contenu politique : elle cadre et influence l'orientation et les effets de l'action publique, souvent de manière implicite. Une perspective normative de gouvernance démocratique demande de la rendre discutable. Nous abordons les problématiques relatives à cette mise en discussion sur le cas de la gestion des pénuries d'eau en France. Dans un premier temps, nous décrivons la mise en place de cette infrastructure et qualifions cette activité en mobilisant le concept de science réglementaire. Nous identifions ensuite les formes de critique mobilisées par les acteurs de l'eau au sein des comités sécheresse. Nous proposons enfin un outil, la chaîne opératoire, pour rendre visible et discutable la structure et le fonctionnement de l'infrastructure, et plus généralement la science réglementaire dont elle est issue. Cet outil permet de dépasser les formes de critique observées et de prendre en charge collectivement la tension entre principes de justice et d'adaptation aux conditions locales.

International audience ; Socio-hydrology advanced the field of hydrology by considering humans and their activities as part of the water cycle, rather than as external drivers. Models are used to infer reproducible trends in human interactions with water resources. However, defining and handling water problems in this way may restrict the scope of such modeling approaches. We propose an interdisciplinary socio-hydrological approach to overcome this limit and complement modeling approaches. It starts from concrete field-based situations, combines disciplinary as well as local knowledge on water-society relationships, with the aim of broadening the hydrocentric analysis and modeling of water systems. The paper argues that an analysis of social dynamics linked to water is highly complementary to traditional hydrological tools but requires a negotiated and contextualized interdisciplinary approach to the representation and analysis of socio-hydro systems. This reflection emerged from experience gained in the field where a water-budget modeling framework failed to adequately incorporate the multiplicity of (nonhydrological) factors that determine the volumes of withdrawals for irrigation. The pathway subsequently explored was to move away from the hydrologic view of the phenomena and, in collaboration with social scientists, to produce a shared conceptualization of a coupled human-water system through a negotiated approach. This approach changed the way hydrological research issues were addressed and limited the number of strong assumptions needed for simplification in modeling. The proposed socio-hydrological approach led to a deeper understanding of the mechanisms behind local water-related problems and to debates on the interactions between social and political decisions and the dynamics of these problems.

International audience ; Socio-hydrology advanced the field of hydrology by considering humans and their activities as part of the water cycle, rather than as external drivers. Models are used to infer reproducible trends in human interactions with water resources. However, defining and handling water problems in this way may restrict the scope of such modeling approaches. We propose an interdisciplinary socio-hydrological approach to overcome this limit and complement modeling approaches. It starts from concrete field-based situations, combines disciplinary as well as local knowledge on water-society relationships, with the aim of broadening the hydrocentric analysis and modeling of water systems. The paper argues that an analysis of social dynamics linked to water is highly complementary to traditional hydrological tools but requires a negotiated and contextualized interdisciplinary approach to the representation and analysis of socio-hydro systems. This reflection emerged from experience gained in the field where a water-budget modeling framework failed to adequately incorporate the multiplicity of (nonhydrological) factors that determine the volumes of withdrawals for irrigation. The pathway subsequently explored was to move away from the hydrologic view of the phenomena and, in collaboration with social scientists, to produce a shared conceptualization of a coupled human-water system through a negotiated approach. This approach changed the way hydrological research issues were addressed and limited the number of strong assumptions needed for simplification in modeling. The proposed socio-hydrological approach led to a deeper understanding of the mechanisms behind local water-related problems and to debates on the interactions between social and political decisions and the dynamics of these problems.