A Conceptual Framework for Assessment of Governance Performance of Lake Basins: Towards Transformation to Adaptive and Integrative Governance

Abstract

Governance is essential to lake basin management, but it is the most challenged and needs increased attention. Lake Basin Governance performance assessment is designed to measure the progress and impacts of policies, institutions and the roles of various actors in ensuring sustainability. It measures the performance of technical/operational, social/networks, and institutional arrangement that make up the socio-ecological system. Governance performance assessment becomes very necessary with over-emphasis of institutions on resources utilization and exploitation. The purpose of this paper is to present a governance performance assessment framework specifically for lake basins. The Adaptive Integrated Lake Basin Management (AILBM) framework is a diagnostic and prescriptive performance assessment tool with an outcome to produce an adaptive and integrative system with equity, inclusiveness, transparency, accountability and flexibility to problem-solving and resilience. A case study on water governance performance assessment of the Songkhla Lake Basin (SLB) in Thailand is provided for illustration and application and indicated a poor performance rating on governance in the Basin, revealing gaps, defects, strengths and weaknesses in the current system, necessary to recommend future improvements.

Full text

hydrology
Article
A Conceptual Framework for Assessment of
Governance Performance of Lake Basins: Towards
Transformation to Adaptive and
Integrative Governance
Peter Emmanuel Cookey 1,2,3,*, Rotchanatch Darnsawasdi 2and Chatchai Ratanachai 3
1Faculty of Environmental Management, Prince of Songkla University, P. O. Box 50 Kho Hong, Hat Yai,
Songkhla 90112, Thailand
2Centre for Earth System Environment and Adaptation for Sustainability, Faculty of Environmental
Management, Prince of Songkla University, P. O. Box 50 Kho Hong, Hat Yai, Songkhla 90112, Thailand;
rotchanatch.d@psu.ac.th
3
Songhkla Lake Basin Research Centre, Faculty of Environmental Management, Prince of Songkla University,
P. O. Box 50 Kho Hong, Hat Yai, Songkhla 90112, Thailand; chatchai.ratanachai@gmail.com
*Correspondence: peter@earthwatchnigeria.org; Tel.: +66-7428-6800; Fax: +66-7442-9758
Academic Editors: Tamim Younos, Tammy E. Parece and Alaina J. Armel
Received: 12 November 2015 ; Accepted: 24 February 2016 ; Published: 15 March 2016
Abstract:
Governance is essential to lake basin management, but it is the most challenged and needs
increased attention. Lake Basin Governance performance assessment is designed to measure the
progress and impacts of policies, institutions and the roles of various actors in ensuring sustainability.
It measures the performance of technical/operational, social/networks, and institutional arrangement
that make up the socio-ecological system. Governance performance assessment becomes very
necessary with over-emphasis of institutions on resources utilization and exploitation. The purpose
of this paper is to present a governance performance assessment framework specifically for lake
basins. The Adaptive Integrated Lake Basin Management (AILBM) framework is a diagnostic and
prescriptive performance assessment tool with an outcome to produce an adaptive and integrative
system with equity, inclusiveness, transparency, accountability and flexibility to problem-solving
and resilience. A case study on water governance performance assessment of the Songkhla Lake
Basin (SLB) in Thailand is provided for illustration and application and indicated a poor performance
rating on governance in the Basin, revealing gaps, defects, strengths and weaknesses in the current
system, necessary to recommend future improvements.
Keywords:
assessment; lake basin; diagnostic; prescriptive; governance; management; performance;
conceptual framework
1. Introduction
Lake Basin Governance (LBG) is essential to the preservation of the resource-rich socio-ecological
system, especially considering the unique and peculiar characteristics of lake basins. But, it is one
key aspect in lake studies that has not received the attention it deserves and has fundamentally
challenged the sustainability of the world’s lakes, and sadly, often ignored in most management
plans. Ballatore and Muhamdiki (2001) [
1
] pointed out that in as much as scientific knowledge
about lakes is widely available, management and governance is just trying to catch-up and policy
makers have not fully considered the value of lakes [
2
,
3
]. The Great Lakes of the USA/Canada have
been richly studied and most of the scholars agree that governance is the most challenging aspect
and needs increased attention [
4
–
7
]. Lake Basin management and governance should capture the
Hydrology 2016,3, 12; doi:10.3390/hydrology3010012 www.mdpi.com/journal/hydrology

Hydrology 2016,3, 12 2 of 27
synergistic linkages and inter-connectivity as well as interactions between processes and actors to
ensure sustainable governance. To achieve this requires a comprehensive and systematic association
of all elements (policies, institutions, regulations, actors, resources, ecosystem characteristics and
management system) in a consistent manner for decision making and planning.
Governance is the structure and process that society uses to make decisions and power sharing [
8
]
especially in the interaction between the formal and informal institutions [
9
]. It essentially addresses
the horizontal and vertical linkages as well as processes between and within organizations and social
groups involved in making decisions, choices and trade-offs [
10
–
13
]. Moore (2010) [
14
] describes it as
the interaction of laws and other norms, institutions, and processes through which a society exercises
powers and responsibilities to make and implement decisions and ensure accountability. It sets the rules
under which management operates [
15
]. In other words, management is not merely a technical issue,
but should respond to the provisions of governance, and include technical guidelines and standards,
policies; institutions and regulatory issues, which if properly harnessed could provide better benefits to
society [
16
]. The definition of water governance reflects these issues: “
. . .
the range of political, social,
economic and administrative systems that are in place to develop and manage water resources, and
the delivery of water services, at different levels of society” [
10
]. Lake Basin Governance performance
assessment is designed to measure the progress and impacts of policies, institutions and the roles
of various actors in ensuring sustainability, measuring the performance of technical/operational,
social/networks, and institutional arrangements that make up the socio-ecological system [17].
Specific methodologies for performance assessment of Lake Basin Governance (LBG) are very
scanty and in most cases absent, where they exist, they focus on resource utilization, management
and conflict resolution. For example, socio-ecological system (SES) frameworks were applied for the
assessment of urban lake governance in Ahmedabad and Bangalore, India respectively [
18
,
19
], but the
SES concept was not specifically designed for LBG assessment. Other examples include the use of the
Integrated Lake Basin Management (ILBM) framework as a plan-do check for basin managers [
20
–
25
].
The point of note here is that none of these other frameworks assessed governance performance.
This study developed a specific lake basin water governance performance assessment framework
with an overall outcome to guide the transformation to more adaptive and integrative water governance
for lake basins as well as provide empirically based solutions and interventions for improvement. The
research questions addressed are: How can the assessment of lake basin water governance performance
be improved and what are the essential components of a framework that different stakeholders could
utilize for improving the collective governance performance? This article aims to contribute to the
development of the body of knowledge on governance as well as to identify and present components
of water governance performance assessment. This article is divided into six parts: introduction,
conceptual foundation, framework components, assessment process, application as well as discussion
and conclusion.
Lake Basin Governance
Lakes are traditionally under-valued, poorly managed and governed in most human society [
26
].
Managing lakes require taking cognizance of their drainage systems, catchment characteristics,
precipitation, groundwater inflows, surrounding wetlands, floodplains and pollutant pathways [
27
].
Lake characteristics of long retention, complex response, dynamic and integrating nature have
serious implications for the engagement of stakeholders in pollution management and their ability
to accommodate many water users represent major potential source of conflict [
20
]. This paper
defines Lake Basin Governance (LBG) as a process of interaction and collaboration for the purpose of
decision making among various actors in the basin aimed at proffering solutions to common problems
for sustainable use of resources and preservation of the socio-ecological system in a transparent
and accountable manner. This implies that governance instruments should account for all issues,
hydrological characteristics and socio-economics to ensure sustenance, especially since the issues,
that motivate stakeholders are in their essence not scientific, but political [
3
,
28
]. Resolving resource

Hydrology 2016,3, 12 3 of 27
use congestion, competition and conflicts are not simple because arriving at a generally agreeable
compromise plan for all stakeholders can be phenomenally difficult and time consuming. LGB should
be able to achieve a better compromise for overall well-being (Research Centre for Sustainability and
Environment (RCSE) and International Lake Environment Committee [29].
In order to understand Lake Basin Governance and proffer specific and long standing solutions, it
is essential that the governance performance be properly investigated to determine ecological, political,
social and economic conditions. Governance performance assessments are important diagnostic and
prescriptive tools guiding policy reforms, monitoring progress and ensuring that water resources are
sustainably managed [
30
]. Performance assessments guide the designs of effective policy interventions
by helping to identify where changes are needed and what actions can make them
happen [31,32]
.
Governance performance assessments include but are not limited to: identification of specific
institutional weaknesses and priority areas for reform; provision of information on the underlying
institutional structure; and creation of benchmarks for future monitoring activities [
33
]. Performance
assessments become very necessary with regard to institutional fragmentation and outmoded legal
instruments, inadequate coordination, stakeholders’ disconnectedness and apathy, weak enforcement
and over-emphasis of institutions on resources utilization and exploitation [
7
,
34
]. Some of the key
insights gained from the review of several studies are summarized thus:
I
Governance is essential to lake basin management [
35
–
37
], but, not yet a strong component of
development and management plans and where it is mentioned, mostly glossed over and rarely
reflected in programmes of actions or areas of priority investments) [20–22,29,38].
II
Institutional priorities of governance instruments are tilted more to resource utilization with little
or no regard for sustainable management and wise use of resources [39–48].
III
Institutional response to management of resources is grossly inadequate due to rigidity and
inflexibility [49–52]; often based on the assumption that natural resources can be controlled and
managed; and not integrative and adaptive [40,53,54].
IV
Systems are highly fragmented with problematic overlapping laws and agencies as well as
conflicting implementing mandates because different sets of institutions administer and regulate
different sets of resources, users and actors [55–62].
V
Governance is highly ridden with institutional gaps, mismatch and misfit across various scales,
hardly accounting for all aspects of the socio-ecological systems [63–65].
VI
Inadequate mechanisms for resolving disputes and conflicts over resources use, administration
and jurisdictional issues occur among state and non-state actors [53,66–69].
VII
Weak mechanisms for decentralization and inadequate financial support from the central/national
government to the local level as well as inadequate community empowerment for effective
participation exist [50,70–76].
VIII
Interagency and intergovernmental coordination and collaboration are very weak [20,27,39,40,77–81].
IX
Legal and regulatory frameworks are obsolete resulting in lack of adequate compliance and
enforcement for sustainable use of resources [67,82–84].
These factors affect lake basin governance and a performance assessment approach that
particularly distills these issues will go a long way to determine their true situation, highlight
problem areas and expose connected solutions. The purpose of the AILBM framework is to assist
decision-makers to assess LBG performance in order to determine the impact level on the resource
system, users and activities as well as make empirically based decisions towards resolving problems
and future planning. It can also guide managers in the design of their management systems
and assessments.
2. Conceptual Foundations
The conceptual foundation of the Adaptive Integrated Lake Basin Management (AILBM)
framework was derived from the Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM), Integrated

Hydrology 2016,3, 12 4 of 27
Lake Basin Management (ILBM) and Adaptive Management and Governance (AMG) to develop
an adaptive and integrative framework designed to assess governance performance. These three
frameworks formed the structural basis used in designing the AILBM. They provided different
understanding of socio-ecological system management and governance that could be adapted for
the effective governance performance assessment that can provide an in-depth understanding of
management operations.
The Adaptive Management and Governance (AMG) concept aims to increase the resilience of
socio-ecological systems in the face of future uncertainties [
65
,
85
]. Scholars have developed several
approaches for the assessment of adaptive management and governance such as adaptive capacity
and multi-level learning processes [
13
], the management and transition framework [
86
], the adaptive
capacity wheel [
87
] and resilience based framework [
88
] among others. However, these frameworks
were not specifically designed for the performance assessment of lake basins governance.
The Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) concept strives to integrate water
management across multiple scales while incorporating a multitude of stakeholder interests [
75
], and
was designed to assess the level of integration in governance and management systems [
89
–
93
]. Hooper
(2006) [
94
] developed indicators of best practice for the assessment of the IWRM performance at the
river basin level. However, according to ILEC (2011) [
22
], the IWRM did not take into consideration the
biophysical features, socio-economic and managerial requirements of the lake basin system, especially
as it covers the lentic-lotic properties.
The Integrated Lake Basin Management (ILBM) is a conceptual governance framework for
assisting lake basin managers and stakeholders to achieve sustainable management [
22
,
29
]. The Global
Environment Facility (GEF) project of the Lake Basin Management Initiative (LBMI) led to the birth of
the ILBM [
20
,
22
,
27
]. The ILBM assessment indicators took into consideration the concepts of basin
approach, lake characteristics, ecosystem services and governance challenges [
25
]. This framework
has six pillars (institutions, policies, participation, information, finance and technology) providing
the essential components of governance. However, the pillar of “institutions” refers to organizations
that pursue the collective aims of a group (government-sanctioned organizations and traditional or
nongovernmental organizations) [
27
]. Also, the ILBM pillar of “policy” covers laws and legislation
while policy in the AILBM is only an aspect of “institutions”. Lake Basin actors were not explicitly
captured in the ILBM concept, although it can be assumed that actors can come under the pillar
of “participation”.
The AILBM framework, however, is a conceptual framework to assess governance performance
of lake basins to critically diagnose problematic issues and areas, as well as, proffer empirically based
solutions and determine best possible steps towards transformational processes. This concept aims to
measure the adequacy of current solutions and strategies designed to ameliorate these challenges and
then develop and prescribe adequate futuristic solutions. For instance, while the ILBM is designed to
ensure sustainable management and governance, the AILBM measures governance performance. One
is how to and the other is measuring the impact of what has been done and what is being done. To this
effect, the AILBM does not attempt to improve on the ILBM or act as an alternative, but to push the
frontiers toward providing a framework that measures the impact and performance of governance
and management to determine a practical sustainable roadmap towards transformation.
3. The AILBM Framework
The Adaptive Integrated Lake Basin Management (AILBM) framework has two parts: diagnostic
and prescriptive. The diagnostic process generates data that determines the current situation of
management and governance, after which the prescriptive assessment uses the diagnostic results
to determine the degree of the prescriptive elements embedded in the current governance situation
and thereby come up with the performance level. The combinations of the results from both tiers of
assessments give a comprehensive picture of the performance status of the governance system.

Hydrology 2016,3, 12 5 of 27
The diagnostic (sectors, stressors, resource systems, institutions, actors and resource management
system) measures the how and why processes, which give more insight into the governance structure
of the lake basin. The diagnostics components are the socio-economic-ecological and biophysical
aspects that could impact the lake basin positively or negatively depending on how the interactions
are managed. These components were selected to cover the social, economic, political, physical and
ecological elements, and reflect the major issues of concern in lakes and their basins. These components
are the first tier assessment process to determine the status of the lake basin, i.e., checking out what is
the current situation in the lake basin: who is who? Who is doing what? What laws are operating?
What businesses and commercial concerns are operating? What are the challenges of the lake basins?
What are the resources? And what are the management systems? The diagnostic elements analyze
the complexities in the lake basin’s socio-ecological systems to identify the challenges and problems
peculiar to that ecosystem.
The prescriptive (adaptability, collaboration, resilience, decentralization, integration and
participation) assessment anticipates what will happen and when it will happen, but also why it
happened. Prescriptive measures the management and governance processes. This assessment
suggests decisions and options on how to take advantage of future opportunities or mitigate future
risks and shows the implication of each decisions options. This, the second-tier assessment, measures
the capacity of the governance system to be adaptive and integrative as well as proffers empirically
based solutions to challenges. In spite of the overwhelming challenge of developing a governance
system that is wholly lake basin focused, if we put into consideration the peculiarity of lakes (lentic-lotic
properties), then we can assume that lake basin governance should have certain and specific elements
to achieve fit-for-purpose governance [
95
]. To this regard, we selected these components directed to
the governance system and not the lake basins. Therefore, in order to be specific in the prescriptive
recommendations, it is expedient to first determine the level of the prescriptive components in the
governance system.
Prescriptive analysis is can continually take in new data to re-assess and re-prescribe, thus
automatically improving the empirically based solutions and also ingest hybrid or complex data from
the diagnostic to accurately prescribe better solutions without compromising other priorities [
96
]. It also
takes into account uncertainties and recommends ways to mitigate possible risks, while examining
potential outcomes [
97
,
98
]. It is not necessarily ideal, but provides practical solutions to the current
challenges, with extensive and expansive capacities to prepare for future changes [
99
]. Prescriptive
analysis has often been described as being too narrow, dictatorial, and restrictive and overlooking the
complex nature of governance. Contrary to this view, it is adaptive and does not only recognize the
complex nature of governance systems, but also the fact that only a pragmatic approach that produces
workable solutions for today and tomorrow will be effective (Table 1).
The prescriptive analysis is built upon the diagnostic to determine the current governance
performance level and the best course of action to reduce identified risks and optimize outcome
as well as provide reliable pathway toward transformation [
98
]. The AILBM framework is not a
normative (or ideal) framework because it can be adaptable and operated in any context. The outcomes
of these assessments will be dependent on individual contexts (i.e., lake basins) and the prevailing
governance challenges under consideration.

Hydrology 2016,3, 12 6 of 27
Table 1. Interpretation of the components of Adaptive Integrated Lake Basin Management (AILBM).
Components Interpretation
Diagnostics Components of AILBM
Sector
Major social and economic activities in the lake basin, which may affect the quality and
quantity of water and other natural resources in the basin [100].
Stressors Constitute major agents and sources of nuisance and impact negatively on the lake
basins resources [100–104].
Actors
Key players or stakeholders involved in the designing of the governance system as
well as those involved in the usage. The actors create or exacerbate many of the current
lake basin challenges [84,105–109].
Resource systems Ecosystems services and functions of the lake basin which includes the exploitation
and utilization of the basin resources [20,27,29,110].
Resource
management
systems
The core of the lake basin administration. It includes the entity of the resources
management, administration and technology for pollution control and funding
mechanisms for resource management in the basin [20,27,29].
Institutions Fundamental tools for resource management and reflect the way people interact with
one another and the environment [37,78,111–117].
Prescriptive Components of AILBM
Adaptability Focus on the ability of human actors in the lake basin to mainstream resilience in the
management of lake basins to achieve institutional fit [87,118–126].
Collaboration
Ability and measure of social actors in the lake basin to work together to enhance the
capacity of the socio-ecological systems to cope with intermittent
shocks [38,81,127–137].
Resilience Deals with the ability of the lake basin to absorb disturbance and still maintain the
functioning of the ecosystem [40,138–145].
Decentralization
Deals with the issue that the lake basin requires an organization, committees, agencies
or authorities of some sort to manage them at the lowest level of
government [70,73,74,146–149].
Integration
Synergistic interaction among agencies involved in lake basin management and related
policy fields and also the capacities of the actors to coordinate their activities between
government agencies and with other stakeholders [13,74,150,151].
Participation The ability of stakeholders to influence and share control over the development
initiatives and the decision and resource that affect them in the lake basin [152–156].
Figure 1shows the interaction between the diagnostic and prescriptive components of the AILBM
framework. On the left and right are the diagnostic components. The double straight arrows indicate
the inter-synergistic interactions in a systemic pattern. In the center are the prescriptive components
divided into two parts: adaptive (management) and integrative (governance) and the double straight
arrows also indicate the inter-synergistic interactions. Connecting between the components, the
single broken arrows indicate how the diagnostics feed into the prescriptive to assess the adaptive
and integrative capacity of the governance system. Consequently, the cumulative results of these
assessments make possible the recommendations of empirically based solutions, which provide the
transformation pathway towards the outcome of adaptive and integrative lake basin governance. After
the transformational outcome has being implemented, another AILBM performance assessment will
be completed for continuous improvement of the governance system, thereby making the process an
unending cycle. The double broken arrows indicate the iterative process of the AILBM framework
(Figure 1).

Hydrology 2016,3, 12 7 of 27
Hydrology 2016, 3, 12 7 of 27
Figure 1. The flowchart of the conceptual framework of the Adaptive Integrated Lake Basin
Management (AILBM) for assessment of governance performance of lake basins.
The significance of the AILBM framework is based on the need to concurrently strengthen the
enabling environment, institutional roles and functions of various administrative levels,
stakeholders, and management instruments, including effective regulation, monitoring and
enforcement of laws. The framework also aids decision making in identifying areas of required
actions and remediation as well as identifying factors that can impact each other. It is significant to
governance discourse because it provides a possible assessment tool for governance performance.
The comprehensive and analytical nature of the framework gives it a wide reach, and its open and
generic nature means that it is not restrictive to any particular lake basin.
4. Framework Assessment Process
In this section, the assessment process is described in more detail. The AILBM framework was
applied in the Songkhla Lake Basin (SLB), Thailand to qualitatively and quantitatively assess the
Figure 1.
The flowchart of the conceptual framework of the Adaptive Integrated Lake Basin Management
(AILBM) for assessment of governance performance of lake basins.
The significance of the AILBM framework is based on the need to concurrently strengthen the
enabling environment, institutional roles and functions of various administrative levels, stakeholders,
and management instruments, including effective regulation, monitoring and enforcement of laws.
The framework also aids decision making in identifying areas of required actions and remediation as
well as identifying factors that can impact each other. It is significant to governance discourse because
it provides a possible assessment tool for governance performance. The comprehensive and analytical
nature of the framework gives it a wide reach, and its open and generic nature means that it is not
restrictive to any particular lake basin.

Hydrology 2016,3, 12 8 of 27
4. Framework Assessment Process
In this section, the assessment process is described in more detail. The AILBM framework was
applied in the Songkhla Lake Basin (SLB), Thailand to qualitatively and quantitatively assess the water
governance performance. The steps in this process are: defining and analyzing the existing situation;
stakeholders’ selection; data gathering (interviews and surveys); governance performance analysis;
collation and triangulation of results to determine governance performance status; formulation of
prescriptive solutions and interventions to arrive at desired situation as well as monitoring and
evaluation. The assessment process takes seven steps based on the experience gained from the
application of the framework in the SLB. In this section, these steps are elaborated and described
(Figure 2).
Hydrology 2016, 3, 12 8 of 27
water governance performance. The steps in this process are: defining and analyzing the existing
situation; stakeholders’ selection; data gathering (interviews and surveys); governance performance
analysis; collation and triangulation of results to determine governance performance status;
formulation of prescriptive solutions and interventions to arrive at desired situation as well as
monitoring and evaluation. The assessment process takes seven steps based on the experience
gained from the application of the framework in the SLB. In this section, these steps are elaborated
and described (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Multidimensional AILBM governance performance assessment process.
4.1. Step 1: Defining the Existing Situation
The present situation on water and other related natural resources management and
governance in lake basins should be well defined and known before interventions and solutions can
be made. It focuses on the need for proper understanding of the hydrological and socio-economic
characteristic which is critical to performance assessment and analysis. This involves intensive
reviews on the current management and governance system and challenges as well as inventories of
stakeholders and other interest groups. Stakeholders could be officers of the central, regional and
local administrative government ministries/departments that have one responsibility or the other
related to water and other natural resources in the lake basins. Operators of water services as well as
relevant committees/agencies, academic institutions, NGOs/CBOs and private sector could also be
inventorised. Other populations of interest are representatives of the water user groups, traditional
authorities, farmer associations, fishermen and other community members with first-hand
knowledge or traditional wisdom on water management.
4.2. Step 2: Stakeholders’ Selection
After the first inventory of stakeholders is made in step one, stakeholder groups should be
approached for in-depth interviews, surveys and focus group discussions.
Figure 2. Multidimensional AILBM governance performance assessment process.
4.1. Step 1: Defining the Existing Situation
The present situation on water and other related natural resources management and governance
in lake basins should be well defined and known before interventions and solutions can be
made. It focuses on the need for proper understanding of the hydrological and socio-economic
characteristic which is critical to performance assessment and analysis. This involves intensive
reviews on the current management and governance system and challenges as well as inventories
of stakeholders and other interest groups. Stakeholders could be officers of the central, regional and
local administrative government ministries/departments that have one responsibility or the other
related to water and other natural resources in the lake basins. Operators of water services as well as
relevant committees/agencies, academic institutions, NGOs/CBOs and private sector could also be
inventorised. Other populations of interest are representatives of the water user groups, traditional
authorities, farmer associations, fishermen and other community members with first-hand knowledge
or traditional wisdom on water management.

Hydrology 2016,3, 12 9 of 27
4.2. Step 2: Stakeholders’ Selection
After the first inventory of stakeholders is made in step one, stakeholder groups should be
approached for in-depth interviews, surveys and focus group discussions.
4.3. Step 3: Data Gathering: Documents and Archival Records Reviews, Observations, Interviews and Surveys
For the purpose of this step, two major stakeholder interviews, surveys and focus group
discussions can be carried out. These include: experts/professionals interview surveys used for
evaluation of overall water governance performance and local communities perceptions from the
stakeholders assessment approaches. To assess the governance performance, experts/professionals
are requested to complete questionnaires developed for this purpose; and to determine the local
communities’ perceptions on governance performance, interviews and surveys could be targeted at
the participants drawn from members of households in the communities. Institutional assessments
may also require quantitative analysis such as text mining and other content analysis approaches in
addition to qualitative reviews of regulatory and legal documents as well as archival records reviews
and observations.
4.4. Step 4: Governance Performance Analysis
The analysis deploys qualitative and quantitative research tools in order to reveal and distill the
main status of governance performance, to make recommendations and provide well thought-out
pathways and strategies to direct transformation. A consistent and objective assessment begins at the
conceptual dimension using the AILBM framework, which targets more than one type and source
of information data, and ensures adequate triangulation in a more rigorous way (Figure 2). The first
level analysis targets institutional assessment using the qualitative and quantitative methodology
for assessment of the relevant and related water and other natural resources institutions using a
combination of text mining analysis and other content analysis approach [
56
,
58
,
157
,
158
]. Second
level focuses on social/networks analysis involving the use of the mixed method approach to
measure the local communities’ governance performance perception [
158
–
160
]. Third level targets the
technical/operational assessment using the quantitative approach of Lake Basin Water Governance
Performance Composite Index (LBWGPCI) [
158
,
161
]. Triangulation of these analyses provided a
clearer picture of the SLB water governance performance status. Also, other types of analysis can be
used to capture relevant data in the process.
4.5. Step 5: Collation and Triangulation of Results to Determine Governance Performance Status
At this stage the results of the performance assessment are collated and triangulated to
determine the lake basin’s water governance performance status. Summary of the results of the
governance performance assessment could measure the diagnostic components against the prescriptive
components to determine the overall performance status. The results of the diagnostic may highlight
the types of stressors and their magnitude as well as determine their impact. It could also identify
the actors, their roles and responsibilities and the degree of the impact of their activities as well as
their level of contribution to the improvement of the adaptive and integrative capacity of the system.
Further examination and inventorization of the resource system can be conducted here to determine
how they are exploited, utilized and managed. These results can also show the degree to which the
institutions support and enhance the operations of the resource management system, and have the
capacity to measure the institutional priority as well as the adaptive and integrative capacity of the
management system.
The prescriptive assessment could possibly show the level of integration and adaptation
in resource governance system and further confirm earlier results obtained from the diagnostic
components by revealing the degree of the adaptability, collaboration, integration and resilient capacity
of the governance and management system. The level of stakeholders’ connectedness and involvement

Hydrology 2016,3, 12 10 of 27
to mainstream resilience, the degree of their participation, their level of access to environmental
knowledge and information and their level of willingness to support improvement can be determined.
4.6. Step 6: Formulation of Prescriptive Solutions and Interventions
This is the stage where solutions are prescribed for governance challenges towards more adaptive
and integrative solutions. The recommended solutions are distilled from the engagement of the
stakeholders as well as the results of the various analyses. Some of the prescriptive solutions and
interventions may include: institutional reviews, administrative and management system reviews,
infrastructural improvements, increased local people participation in decision-making, as well as,
recommendations for a transformation pathway towards more adaptive and integrative governance.
4.7. Step 6.1: Formulation of Transformation Pathway Towards More Adaptive and Integrative Governance
The main outcome of the governance performance assessment is the determination of the
systems’ level in the Holling [
162
] adaptive cycle. The identification of the adaptive cycle stage of the
system enables for the development of a tailor-made, well-guided and coordinated transformation
process. This process promotes the organization of stakeholders around common vision, mobilizing
social capital, redesigning flow of political authority and resources, challenging technical and legal
frameworks and encouraging integration of local knowledge with experimentation and new scientific
frameworks [163].
4.8. Step 7: Monitoring and Evaluation
A monitoring and evaluation procedure is developed to see whether the interventions and
transformational processes are taking place as planned and whether the envisaged results are achieved.
5. Application of the Framework
5.1. Songkhla Lake Basin Case Study
The Songkhla Lake Basin (SLB) was chosen because it is the largest lagoon system as well as the
only lake basin in Thailand and is made up of 12 sub-basins covering three provinces in Southern
Thailand: Phattalung, Songkhla and Nakhon Si Thammarat [
164
,
165
]. It supports the livelihood of
more than 1.7 million members of the population [
166
], and the major economic activities in the
Basin include, rubber plantations, paddy rice farms, fruit tree orchards, fishery, aquaculture, animal
husbandries and a high attractive tourism [
167
]. The SLB is currently challenged with myriad of
socio-ecological and institutional issues. The fundamental cause of these problems is the management
approach, which regards water as an open access resource and the impact of indiscriminate discharge
of wastewater [
168
]. This has resulted in significant challenges for the existing water management
and governance despite several attempts by relevant stakeholders to rescue the SLB from imminent
ecological disaster (Figure 3).
The diagnostic and prescriptive aspects of this study were based on the application of a mixed
method or integrative research (qualitative and quantitative) [
169
,
170
] for investigations and data
analysis. The qualitative case study approach explored and evaluated the diagnostic and prescriptive
components to develop a rich and synthetic understanding of the governance structure and dynamics of
decision-making [
171
]. The quantitative approaches used in the application of this framework include:
local people perception analysis [
158
,
159
]; performance evaluation using composite index [
158
,
161
] and
application of text mining equations and computation for institutional analysis [
157
,
158
]. Qualitative
approaches of interviews, observations and content analysis were used to support the quantitative.
It is expedient to point out that the purpose for highlighting the SLB example in this paper is not to
present an in-depth analysis, but to demonstrate the potential of the application of this framework.

Hydrology 2016,3, 12 11 of 27
Hydrology 2016, 3, 12 11 of 27
Figure 3. Map of Songkhla Lake Basin showing the lagoon system of the Songkhla Lake in Thailand,
Source: [172].
5.2. Results of SLB’s Diagnostic Assessment
5.2.1. Actors
A diagnostic assessment of the actors involved in the governance and management revealed
that water management and governance are centrally coordinated from the national government’s
ministries, which supervise more than 30 departments (agencies) with various roles in water
resources management. These departments, in the spirit of de-concentration, delegate
responsibilities to their provincial/regional department offices under the direct supervision of the
provincial governors who are career civil servants appointed by the Ministry of Interior (MOI) [173,174].
Provincial/regional offices of the central government ministries and deconcentrated departments
(under the direct supervision of the provincial governors) are responsible for the direct management
and governance. The two Basin committees with similar mandates established by the Ministry of
Natural Resources and the Environment (MONRE) were the Songkhla Lake Basin Development
Committee (SLBDC), established in 1993 and disbanded in 2015, and the Songkhla Lake Basin
Committee (SLBC), established in 2007, by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) [166,174–176].
Also in existence are some active development-related civil society organizations in the Basin
[165,166,177–179]. Other actors include the fishers, farmers, etc. The diagnostic assessment revealed
the relationship and interactions between these actors as it relates to water governance.
Figure 3.
Map of Songkhla Lake Basin showing the lagoon system of the Songkhla Lake in Thailand,
Source: [172].
5.2. Results of SLB’s Diagnostic Assessment
5.2.1. Actors
A diagnostic assessment of the actors involved in the governance and management revealed
that water management and governance are centrally coordinated from the national government’s
ministries, which supervise more than 30 departments (agencies) with various roles in water resources
management. These departments, in the spirit of de-concentration, delegate responsibilities to their
provincial/regional department offices under the direct supervision of the provincial governors who
are career civil servants appointed by the Ministry of Interior (MOI) [
173
,
174
]. Provincial/regional
offices of the central government ministries and deconcentrated departments (under the direct
supervision of the provincial governors) are responsible for the direct management and governance.
The two Basin committees with similar mandates established by the Ministry of Natural Resources
and the Environment (MONRE) were the Songkhla Lake Basin Development Committee (SLBDC),
established in 1993 and disbanded in 2015, and the Songkhla Lake Basin Committee (SLBC), established
in 2007, by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) [
166
,
174
–
176
]. Also in existence are some active
development-related civil society organizations in the Basin [
165
,
166
,
177
–
179
]. Other actors include
the fishers, farmers, etc. The diagnostic assessment revealed the relationship and interactions between
these actors as it relates to water governance.

Hydrology 2016,3, 12 12 of 27
5.2.2. Sectors
The diagnostic assessment revealed that some of the economic activities include agriculture,
industrial/manufacturing, trade, services and tourism, and the agricultural sector is the major water
user. The fisheries sub-sector account for a large part of the economic activities, i.e., fishing and
aquaculture; some businesses and profit related concerns as well as government offices [
172
]. All these
sectors contribute negatively to the Basins’ well-being leading to natural resources deterioration and
also pose harm to humans and the ecosystem, as well as, positive impacts by providing livelihood
support. Studies on other lakes also show the impact of sectors like agriculture on water quality and
quantity on the ecosystems [105,148,180].
5.2.3. Stressors
Stressors investigations revealed that actors and sectors contribute to cause diverse effects through
overexploitation of the rich natural resources and serious environmental pollution resulting from
human and industrial activities such as depletion of biodiversity, devastation of life supporting
systems, deterioration of water quality, depletion of fishery resource, flooding and landslides, plus
social conflicts in resource uses [
172
,
181
–
183
]. The sources of stressors are water pollution from
households and industries, and deforestation of the catchment area. Industrial water pollution
originates mainly from rubber and food industries, agricultural pollution from the shrimp farms, pig
farms, crop farms and rubber plantations, tourism from the home-stays, restaurants and hotels, and
the human communities around the Lake [
104
,
168
,
181
–
191
]. Of increasing concerns is the possibility
of the negative effects of climate change on the SLB [
172
]. The assessment revealed the impact of
stressors following other similar studies [6,106].
5.2.4. Institutions
The assessment discovered at least 28 water related laws administered by over 30 departments
overseeing water issues in eight ministries [
192
,
193
]. The laws governing water and other natural
resources were derived from related legal instruments regulating natural resources for the whole
country. Noticeably, was the fact that the same law may regulate more than one single aspect of
use, however, no umbrella legislation linking these laws and codes exists [
194
], and coordination
and cooperation are very weak. In order to address these challenges, the government established
the National Water Resources Committee (NWRC) in 1996, co-ordinated by the Department of
Water Resources (DWR) [
175
,
176
]. The major deficiency is the lack of a specific law that makes
reference to the SLB and no legally authorized agency/body responsible for its management [
195
–
200
].
The results indicated serious institutional fragmentations and gaps, conflict issues, obsolete and
archaic laws and priority focus on resource utilization to the detriment of conservation and
protection [157,158,176,192,193,195,201–204].
5.2.5. Resource Systems
The complex ecosystem is rich in biodiversity with multitude of flora and fauna species including
endangered species as well as two national parks, two wildlife sanctuaries, two non-hunting areas
and two forest parks. It is one of the two lakes in the world that is home to the Irrawady dolphins
(Orcaella brevirostris) [
104
,
181
] and about 53 forest reserves [
172
]. An estimated 450 fish species and 30
shrimp species were found in Songkhla Lake in addition to serving as an important nursery ground for
many economically important species of fish, crabs and shrimps [
194
,
205
–
207
]. The diagnosis further
revealed that aquatic resources are the most exploited and are the most endangered [157,158].
5.2.6. Resource Management System
The water resources management system is the traditional top-down management approach
with a strong national focus administered by over 30 departments in eight ministries [
192
,
193
].

Hydrology 2016,3, 12 13 of 27
Inadequate development of the local and Basin institutions, inhibits effective implementation of the
decentralization policy of the government. It is mainly a command and control resource management
system that situates all major decisions on water and other natural resources management at the
central government level occasioned by weak coordination mechanisms [
176
,
182
,
201
,
202
,
204
]. The
decentralization of responsibilities to the Local Administrative Organizations (LAOs) has not yielded
successful results because central government agencies’ officers in the provincial/regional offices
under the direct supervision of the Provincial Governors are more accountable to their superiors at the
center because of career progression and other related incentives. Thus, vertical accountability and
interaction tend to take more priority than the horizontal communications [
208
–
211
]. Also, the SLB
does not have specific government agencies responsible for its management [157,158].
5.3. Results of SLB’s Prescriptive Assessment
The prescriptive assessment began by measuring the adaptive and integrative capacity of the
institutions used for the water governance. Collaboration and participation were also assessed, as well
as, the resilient capacity of the institutions and degree of decentralization. Table 2summarizes the
results of the governance performance assessment and measured the diagnostic components against
the prescriptive components to determine the overall performance status of the water governance.
Table 2. Summary of Songkhla Lake Basin governance performance status.
Diagnostic
Components
Prescriptive Components
Adaptability Collaboration Resilience DecentralizationIntegration Participation
Sectors + + + n/a + ++
Stressors n/a + n/a n/a + +
Actors + + + ++ + ++
Institutions + + + ++ + ++
Resource systems + n/a + n/a n/a n/a
Resource
management system + + + ++ + ++
Note Legend: + poor performance ++ average performance +++ good performance ++++ excellent performance
n/a not applicable.
Lake Basin Water Governance Performance Composite Index (LBWGPCI) developed from the
AILBM was used to assess the prescriptive components of adaptability, collaboration, integration
and resilience [
161
]. This assessment component is based on the concept that lake basins are
complex ecosystems and should be managed with considerations for sudden change, uncertainty and
unexpected occurrence. It assessed the system’s capacity to adapt to changing conditions as well as
the reduction of vulnerability of the system to actual or expected future changes. The results show that
the level of integration is very low and often lead to constant conflict between multi-agencies with
separate mandates [
209
]. The LBWGPCI for these groups of indicators recorded the lowest score in the
ranking system, showing serious poor performance.
This study revealed that the elements of adaptability, collaboration, integration and resilience are
currently lacking in the existing water governance instruments. Text mining analysis revealed that the
conventional resource management representative terms highest score was 6 percent (very low) while,
the representative terms for adaptive and integrative elements recorded zero percent [157].
The centralized characteristics of public administration challenged full implementation of the Thai
constitutional provisions on decentralization, most likely because the system practices de-concentration.
Effective decentralization requires that stronger efforts be put in place to ensure effective and efficient
vertical and horizontal coordination, collaboration and interaction. Stakeholders observed that the
direct supervision of the LAOs by the line officers of the central administration is an indirect way of
achieving re-centralization rather than decentralization.

Hydrology 2016,3, 12 14 of 27
Participation and collaboration assessed the degree of involvement, engagement and partnerships
of actors (stakeholders). The study revealed high level of stakeholders’ disconnectedness resulting in
low level of participation and involvement as well as in the level of collaboration and partnership with
the private sectors. Lack of cooperation and stiff rivalries among the departments in the ministries and
the deconcentrated departments’ offices under the supervision of the provincial governors were big
issues [
208
]. The Lake Basin Water Governance Performance Composite Index (LBWGPCI) showed
poor performance capacity for coordination, decentralization and participation.
5.4. Specific SLB Prescriptive Recommendation
The SLB’s existence is endangered and will require a re-alignment of the governance system with
the socio-ecological system to ensure adequate sustainable governance and wise use of resources of the
Basin. Overcoming these challenges will require among others, a performance assessment framework
that is diagnostic, prescriptive and iterative in approach and that encourages adequate built-in feedback
mechanisms. This will improve the relationships between the biophysical and socio-economic system,
as well as, recognize that the achievement of sound governance systems will depend on the adequate
integration of social, political, economic, scientific and institutional issues in a more holistic way. The
recommended prescriptive action for improvement and transformation towards more adaptive and
integrative system based on the AILBM includes:
I
Create a coordinating and policy harmonization mechanism that will promote coherent actions
among all the formal and informal actors involved in the governance using the Songkhla Lake
Basin Committee (SLBC) to, possibly, form the nucleus of the proposed coordinating mechanism
for the SLB;
II Enact the water draft law;
III
Establish specific institutions for the SLB’s governance and management and ensure that these
institutions are adaptive and integrative enough to incorporate the dynamic and complex nature
of the SLB;
IV
Give Local Administrative Organizations more powers to act on governance provisions and
upgrade their human, political and financial capacities;
V Allow LAOs to budget for certain protective and regulatory measures in the SLB;
VI
Involve Lake Basin communities and lower decision units in protecting and managing the Basin
because they are willing to commit their time and resources;
VII
Require regular engagement, deliberation and negotiations to improve the relationships between
regulators, users and Basin communities in order to overcome the mistrust and lack of confidence
which often lead to conflicts;
The AILBM framework can also be used to assess the governance performance of other areas of
focus in the SLB, for instance, tourism and hospitality, agriculture, fishery, aquaculture, industry and
business, local administration, etc. In order to get a total picture of the governance performance in the
Lake Basin, we recommend that the AILBM be used to assess the governance performance in these
areas as well and not just water governance as was done in this study.
SLB Transformation Pathway to More Adaptive and Integrative Governance
The AILBM supports prescriptive actions of transformational processes towards creating more
adaptive and integrative sustainable governance systems for lake basins. Figure 4shows the proposed
transformation processes for Songkhla Lake Basin, which include three major prescriptive actions:
(i)
The organization of two separate roundtables (technical and institutional reviews). Objectives
of roundtables, organized under the supervision of the Ministry of Natural Resources and
Environment (MONRE), were to develop strategies and guidelines for a transformation process
and coordinate participation of all state and non-state

Hydrology 2016,3, 12 15 of 27
(ii)
Formation of coalition of formal and informal actors (i.e., all stakeholders), called the
people transformation platform. Objectives of coalition were to produce Songkhla Lake Basin
Development Roadmap (SLBDR). The Roadmap is based on roundtables’ reports and as well
as stakeholders buy-in and support. The Roadmap leads to the establishment of a formal
management and policy harmonization organization with adequate legal mandates to implement
the SLBDR.
(iii)
International Partners Development Conference. The conference goal is to draw financial,
technical and knowledge assistance for the re-development and reorganization of the SLB. The
conference outcome will support and lead the execution of the transformative process of Songkhla
Lake Basin.
Hydrology 2016, 3, 12 15 of 27
(ii) Formation of coalition of formal and informal actors (i.e., all stakeholders), called the people
transformation platform. Objectives of coalition were to produce Songkhla Lake Basin
Development Roadmap (SLBDR). The Roadmap is based on roundtables’ reports and as well as
stakeholders buy-in and support. The Roadmap leads to the establishment of a formal
management and policy harmonization organization with adequate legal mandates to
implement the SLBDR.
(iii) International Partners Development Conference. The conference goal is to draw financial,
technical and knowledge assistance for the re-development and reorganization of the SLB. The
conference outcome will support and lead the execution of the transformative process of
Songkhla Lake Basin.
Figure 4. Possible transformation pathway towards adaptive and integrative Songkhla Lake Basin
water resources management and governance.
6. Discussion and Conclusion
The AILBM governance performance assessment framework proposed in this paper is not
designed to be a blueprint with limits and barriers, but as a guide for effective governance
performance assessment of lake basins. Its flexibility is guaranteed to enable its adoption in any
context and with all lakes and their peculiarities. The framework recognizes that individual lakes
have unique characteristics, differing communities and cultures, and are situated in countries with
different governance systems as well as the exceptional dynamics and complexities of the ecosystem
and the interactions and counteractions arising from the economic value of lake resources. The
central role of actors in creating resilient institutions are prioritized since they allocate resources,
manage, create awareness and conducive environment for formal and informal learning, and
ensure participation and collaboration, as well as embed decentralization, integration and
adaptability into the entire system.
Figure 4.
Possible transformation pathway towards adaptive and integrative Songkhla Lake Basin
water resources management and governance.
6. Discussion and Conclusions
The AILBM governance performance assessment framework proposed in this paper is not
designed to be a blueprint with limits and barriers, but as a guide for effective governance performance
assessment of lake basins. Its flexibility is guaranteed to enable its adoption in any context and
with all lakes and their peculiarities. The framework recognizes that individual lakes have unique
characteristics, differing communities and cultures, and are situated in countries with different
governance systems as well as the exceptional dynamics and complexities of the ecosystem and
the interactions and counteractions arising from the economic value of lake resources. The central role
of actors in creating resilient institutions are prioritized since they allocate resources, manage, create
awareness and conducive environment for formal and informal learning, and ensure participation and
collaboration, as well as embed decentralization, integration and adaptability into the entire system.
The AILBM is designed to assist sustainable governance in resolving conflicts among
multi-sectoral demands, actors and users of the resources. It is not case specific, but is transferable and
can be applicable to the assessment of governance performance of any lake basin. Some benefits of

Hydrology 2016,3, 12 16 of 27
this framework include but are not limited to the determination of institutional priorities, institutional
response to management of water and related natural resources, institutional fragmentation and gaps
as well as the measurement of the integrative and adaptive capacity of lake basin management and
governance, to mention but a few. Also, the framework stays within the peculiar features of lake basins
which include: integrating nature of lakes and their basins; the long retention time before problems are
noticed and the complex response dynamics of quick, anticipatory and multifaceted response to issues.
Recognizing all these, the AILBM seeks to introduce a balanced system, which allows the performance
assessment of lake basins within the individual context of their countries’ governance system and
the peculiar features of particular lakes, but still with the same goal of contributing to sustainable
governance and wise use of resources as well as continued existence of the lakes. In essence, the
AILBM is a guide for assessing governance performance in a synergistic, collaborative, integrative and
adaptive manner, which reflects the socio-ecological system they influence and the institutions that
manage them.
The results of the AILBM’s diagnostic and prescriptive investigations are able to capture a
comprehensive view of the current status of the lake basin’s governance system within the context of
the water governance structure of that country. It also ensures that performance assessment results are
unique to that lake basin and does not in any way imply that the country’s governance and management
be aligned to any other country’s system. The essence is to measure balance within the existing system
through adaptability, resilience, integration, collaboration, participation and decentralization. This
framework is contextual in nature, which makes it adaptable to different situations and locations. For
instance, if the AILBM is applied to two different lake basins the results will be different and specific
for each. Also, the components of the framework are generic to capture the essence of the complex,
dynamic and peculiar nature of lake basins as well as provide common typology that can enable the
comparison of governance performance across different lake basins globally.
The AILBM is not a governance design, analysis or how-to-do guide or management system
approach for planning. It is an assessment tool designed to measure governance performance in
order to determine current status, expose gaps and defects, strengths and weaknesses, and then
make recommendations for the future. It does not show how to develop governance structures or
systems, but assists in assessing the performance of already existing governance systems as well as
provide transformational pathways toward more adaptability and integration. The design of the
framework was geared towards seeking a balance between utilization and conservation in an adaptive
and integrative manner to ensure resilience and flexibility so that governance can easily relate with
the uncertainties and complexities of climate change, biodiversity, human interactions and extreme
hydrological events. We believe that a governance system that is open to continuous assessments
and learning with regular input from all actors will be more anticipatory and quick to respond to
unexpected changes, and the results and recommendations from the application of this framework can
support the governance system design or reforms.
However, the major limitations and drawbacks in the application of this framework are the
challenges of availability and accessibility of information and data, coupled with low response from
actors and falsification of data and information, which may lead to erroneous conclusions. Also,
acquiring huge reservoir of information and data for proper analysis is further heightened by poor
document management systems, which makes information and data to be scattered in various related
and unrelated sources. This framework, however requires further investigation through application in
other lake basins in order to assess its potential and limitations. We encourage readers to apply the
framework in their own research, to test it, challenge it and/or enhance it.
We believe that this framework can be used by policy makers, researchers and managers for
governance analysis, management, policy planning and development. Future research needs to study
the AILBM further and how it can be used to improve governance performance as well as test it on
other governance aspects of lake basins apart from water governance.

Hydrology 2016,3, 12 17 of 27
Acknowledgments:
Our sincere appreciation goes to the Faculty of Environmental Management, Prince of
Songkhla University, Hat Yai Campus, Songkhla, Thailand for all their support.
Author Contributions:
This work is part of Peter Emmanuel Cookey’s PhD research at the Faculty of
Environmental Management, Prince of Songkhla University, Hat Yai Campus, Songkhla, Thailand and was
supervised and directed by Rotchanatch Darnswasdi and Chatchai Ratanachai.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
AILBM
Adaptive Integrated Lake Basin Management
AMG
Adaptive Management and Governance
DWR
Department of Water Resources
ILEC
International Lake Environment Committee
ILBM
Integrated Lake Basin Management
IWRM
Integrated Lake Basin Management
MONRE
Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment
MOI
Ministry of Interior
MOAC
Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives
NWRC
National Water Resources Committee
LAOs
Local Administrative Organizations
LBG
Lake Basin Governance
LBMI
Lake Basin Management Initiative
RCSE
International Lake Environment Committee
SES
Socio-Ecological System
SLB
Songkhla Lake Basin
SLBC
Songkhla Lake Basin Committee
References and Notes
1.
Ballatore, T.J.; Muhamdiki, V.S. The Case for a World Lake Vision. Hydrol. Process.
2002
,16, 2079–2089.
[CrossRef]
2.
Bakker, K.; Kooy, M.; Shofiania, N.E.; Martijn, E.J. Governance failure: Rethinking the institutional
dimensions of urban water supply to poor households. World Dev. 2008,36, 1891–1915. [CrossRef]
3.
Ozawa, C. Putting Science in Its Place. In Adaptive Governance and Water Conflict; Scholz, J.T., Stiftel, B., Eds.;
New Institutions for Collaborative Planning, Resources for the Future: Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
4.
Karkkainen, B.C. New Governance in the Great Lakes Basin: Has Its Time Arrived? Mich. State Law Rev.
2006,2006, 1249.
5.
Manno, J.; Krantzberg, G. Rediscovering and Revitalizing the Great Lakes Governance. In Governance for
Sustainability: Issues, Challenges, and Successes; Bosselmann, K., Engel, R., Taylor, P., Eds.; Environmental
Policy and Law Paper 70; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 2014.
6.
Johns, C. Governance of the Great Lakes in North America and Transboundary Governance Capacity. 2013.
Available online: http://www.icpublicpolicy.org/IMG/pdf/panel33_s1_johns.pdf (accessed on 2 March 2016).
7.
Jetoo, S.; Thorn, A.; Friedman, K.; Gosman, S.; Krantzberg, G. Governance and geopolitics as drivers of
change in the Great Lakes—St. Lawrence basin. J. Great Lakes Res. 2015,41, 108–118. [CrossRef]
8.
Young, O.R. The effectiveness of international institutions: Hard cases and critical variables. In Governance
without Government: Order and Change in World Politics; Rosenau, J.N., Czempiel, E.O., Eds.; Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1992; pp. 160–194.
9.
Moench, M.; Dixit, A.; Janakarajan, S.; Rathore, M.; Mudrakartha, S. The Fluid Mosaic, Water Governance in
the Context of Variability, Uncertainty and Change. 2003. Available online: http://web.idrc.ca/uploads/
user-S/10492953541Fluid_Mosaic21.pdf (accessed on 4 March 2016).

Hydrology 2016,3, 12 18 of 27
10.
Rogers, P.; Hall, A.W. Effective Water Governance; TEC Background Papers No. 7; Global Water Partnership:
Stockholm, Sweden, 2003.
11.
Folke, C.; Hahn, T.; Olsson, P.; Norberg, J. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annu. Rev.
Environ. Resour. 2005,30, 441–473. [CrossRef]
12.
Tropp, H. Water Governance: Trends and Needs for New Capacity Development. Water Policy
2007
.
[CrossRef]
13.
Pahl-Wostl, C. A conceptual framework for analyzing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes
in resource governance regimes. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2009,19, 354–365. [CrossRef]
14.
Moore, P. Coming to Terms with Governance -Definition, Components, Principles, Regional National
Working Group Meeting: IUCN Mekong Water Dialogues Project, 2010, Golden Dragon Hotel, Kunming,
China, 2010.
15.
Pahl-Wostl, C.; Lebel, L.; Knieper, C.; Nikitina, E. From applying panaceas to mastering complexity: Toward
adaptive water governance in river basins. Environ. Sci. Policy 2012. [CrossRef]
16.
World Water Development Report 4 (WWDR4). Managing Water under Uncertainty and Risk; Earth Scan for
UNESCO: Paris, France, 2012; ISBN: 978-92-3-001045-4.
17.
Simons, R. Performance Measurement and Control Systems for Implementing Strategy; Prentice-Hall International:
London, UK, 2000.
18.
Bal, M.; Van Asta, J.A.; Boumaa, J.J. Sustainability of Urban Lakes: Role of Values in Lake Governance in
Ahmedabad. India Sociol. Study 2013,3, 182–206.
19.
Nagendre, H.; Ostrom, E. Applying the social-ecological system framework to the diagnosis of urban lake
commons in Bangalore, India. Ecol. Soc. 2014,19, 76. [CrossRef]
20.
ILEC (International Lake Environment Committee). Managing Lakes and their Basins for Sustainable Use: A
Report for Lake Basin Managers and Stakeholders; International Lake Environmental Committee Foundation:
Kusatsu, Japan, 2005.
21.
ILEC (International Lake Environment Committee). World Lake Vision Action Report: Implementing the World
Lake Vision for the Sustainable Use of Lakes and Reservoirs; ILEC (International Lake Environment Committee):
Kusatsu, Japan, 2007; ISBN: 4-9901546-3-0.
22.
ILEC. Methodology for the GEF Transboundary Waters Assessment Programme, Methodology for the
Assessment of Transboundary Lake Basins. 2011. Available online: http://www.unep.org/dewa/Portals/
67/pdf/TWAP-Volume-3-Methodology_for_Lake_Basins-low-res.pdf (accessed on 2 March 2016).
23.
NARBO. Network of Asian River Basin Organzations NARBO’s Performance Benchmarking Program. 2008.
24.
Saunders, B.A.; Rast, W.; Lopes, V. Stakeholders evaluation of the feasibility of watershed management
alternatives, using Integrated Lake Basin Management Principles. Lakes Reserviors Res. Manag.
2014
,19,
255–268. [CrossRef]
25.
Chidammodzi, C.L.; Muhandiki, V.S. Development of indicators for assessment of Lake Malawi Basin in an
Integrated Lake Basin Management (ILBM) framework. Int. J. Commons 2015,9, 209–236. [CrossRef]
26.
Thomas, R.; Meybeck, M.; Beim, A. Lakes. Water Quality Assessments—A Guide to Use of Biota, 2ed.
1996. Available online: http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/resourcesquality/watqualassess.pdf
(accessed on 2 March 2016).
27.
World Bank. Lessons for Managing Lake Basins for Sustainable Use, Report No. 32877; World Bank: Washington,
DC, USA, 2005.
28.
Allan, J.A. The Middle East Water Question: Hydropolitics and the Global Economy; IB Tauris: London, UK, 2000.
29.
RCSE; ILEC. Development of ILBM Platform Process: Evolving Guidelines through Participatory Improvement, 2nd
ed.; Nakamura and Rast for Research Center for Sustainability and Environment, Shiga University (RCSE-SU)
and International Lake Environment Committee Foundation (ILEC): Shiga-ken, Japan, 2014; Available online:
http://www.ilec.or.jp/en/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Development-of-ILBM-Platform-Process_2nd
_Edition11.pdf (accessed on 2 March 2016).
30.
Mercer, T.; Christensen, J. Measuring Performance of Water Systems in California. Water in the West
Working Paper 2. Available online: http://waterinthewest.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/Working_Paper
_on_Perfomance_Measurement_1.pdf (accessed on 2 March 2016).

Hydrology 2016,3, 12 19 of 27
31.
UNDP. Assessing Water Governance: User’s Guide. Oslo Governance Centre United Nations Development
Programme Democratic Governance Group, Bureau for Development Policy. 2013. Available online:
http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/Democratic%20Governance/OGC/Users%20Guide
%20on%20Assessing%20Water%20Governance1.pdf (accessed on 4 March 2016).
32.
Cap-Net and UNESCO-IHE. Performance and Capacity of River Basin Organizations—Cross Case
Comparison of Four RBOs. 2008. Available online: http://www.cap-net.org/databases/references
(accessed on 24 April 2008).
33.
Kaufmann, D.; Recanatini, F.; Biletsky, S. Assessing Governance: Diagnostic Tools and Applied Methods
for Capacity Building and Action Learning, The World Bank Publication. 2002. Available online:
http://www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/LearningProgram/anticorrupt/kaufassessing.pdf (accessed on
2 March 2016).
34.
Sandoval-Solis, S.; McKinney, D.C.; Loucks, D.P.T. Sustainability index for water resources planning and
management. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manage. 2011,137, 381–390. [CrossRef]
35.
Nowlan, L.; Bakker, K. UBC Program on Water Governance Delegating Water Governance: Issues and
Challenges in the BC Context. Paper for the BC Water Governance Project, a partnership of the Fraser
Basin Council, Ministry of Environment, Fraser Salmon and Watershed Program, Georgia Basin Living
Rivers Program and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2007. Available online: http://www.obwb.ca/fileadmin/
docs/fbc_watergovernance_final.pdf (accessed on 2 March 2016).
36.
Van Bueren, E.; ten Heuvelhof, E. Improving governance arrangements in support of sustainable cities.
Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 2005. [CrossRef]
37.
Saleth, R.M. Strategic Analysis of Water Institutions in India: Application of a New Research Paradigm; Research
Report 79; International Water Management Institute: Colombo, Sri Lanka, 2004.
38.
World Bank. Integrated Lake and Reservoir Management: World Bank Approach and Experience.
Technical Paper. 1997; No. 358. Available online: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/
WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2000/02/24/000009265_3971110141423/Rendered/PDF/multi_page.pdf
(accessed on 4 March 2016).
39.
Folke, C.; Pritchard, L., Jr.; Berkes, F.; Colding, J.; Svedin, U. The Problem of Fit between Ecosystems
and Institutions; IHDP Working Paper, No. 2; International Human Dimensions Program on Global
Environmental Change: Bonn, Germany, 1998.
40.
Folke, C.; Pritchard, L.; Berkes, F.; Colding, J.; Svedin, U. The problem of fit between ecosystems and
institutions: Ten years later. Ecol. Soc. 2007,12, 30.
41. Beverton, R. Fish, fact, and fantasy: A long view. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 1998,8, 229–249. [CrossRef]
42.
Wallis, P.J.; Ison, R.L. Appreciating institutional complexity in water governance dynamics: A case from the
Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. Water Resour. Manag. 2011,15, 4081–4097. [CrossRef]
43.
Clarvis, M.H.; Allan, A.; Hannah, D.M. Water, resilience and the law: From general concepts and governance
design principles to actionable mechanisms. Environ. Sci. Policy 2014,43, 98–110. [CrossRef]
44.
Craig, R.K. ‘Stationariy is dead’—Long Live Transformation: Five Principles for Climate Change
Adaptation Law. 2009; Florida State University, U.S.A. Available online: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/
papers.cfm?abstract_id=1357766 (accessed on 4 March 2016).
45.
Garmestani, A.S.; Benson, M.H. A framework for resilience-based governance of social-ecological systems.
Ecol. Soc. 2013,18, 9. [CrossRef]
46.
Hutchings, J.A.; Walters, C.; Headrich, R.L. Is scientific inquiry incompatible with government information
control? Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1997,54, 1198–1210. [CrossRef]
47. Yaffee, S.L. Why environmental policy nightmares recur. Conserv. Biol. 1997,11, 328–337. [CrossRef]
48.
Johnson, B.J. The role of adaptive management as an operational approach for resource management agencies.
Conserv. Ecol. 1999,3, 8.
49.
Benson, M.H.; Garmestani, A.S. Can we manage for resilience? The integration of resilience thinking into
natural resource management in the United States. Environ. Manage.
2011
,48, 392–399. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
50.
Garmestani, A.S.; Allen, C.R.; Cabezas, H. Panarchy, adaptive management and governance: Policy options
for building resilience. Nebraska Law Rev. 2009,87, 1036–1054.
51. Lazarus, R.J. The Making of Environmental Law; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2004.
52.
Hooghe, L.; Marks, G. Unraveling the Central State, but how? Types of multilevel governance. Am. Polit.
Sci. Rev. 2003,97, 233–243.

Hydrology 2016,3, 12 20 of 27
53.
Kalikoski, D.C.; Vasconcellos, M.; Lavkulicha, L. Fitting institutions to ecosystems: The case of artisanal
fisheries management in the estuary of Patos Lagoon. Mar. Policy 2002,26, 179–196. [CrossRef]
54.
Craig, R.K. Stationarity is dead: Long live transformation: Five principles for climate change adaptation law.
Harv. Environ. Law Rev. 2010,34, 9–74.
55.
Cumming, G.S.; Cumming, D.H.M.; Redman, C.L. Scale mismatches in social-ecological systems: Causes,
consequences, and solutions. Ecol. Soc. 2006,11, 14.
56.
Ekstrom, J.A.; Young, O.R. Evaluating functional fit between a set of institutions and an ecosystem. Ecol. Soc.
2009,14, 16.
57. Berkes, F. Cross-scale scale institutional linkages for commons management: Perspectives from the bottom
up. In The Drama of the Commons; Ostrom, E., Dietz, T., Dolsak, N., Stern, P.C., Stonich, S., Weber, E.U., Eds.;
Natl. Acad.: Washington, DC, USA, 2002; pp. 293–321.
58.
Ekstrom, J.A.; Young, O.R.; Gaines, S.D.; Gordon, M.; McCay, B.J. A tool to navigate overlaps in fragmented
ocean governance. Mar. Policy 2009,33, 532–535. [CrossRef]
59.
Hill, C.; Furlong, K.; Bakker, K.; Cohen, A. Harmonization versus subsidiarity in water governance: A review
of water governance and legislation in the Canadian provinces and territories. Can. Water Resour. J.
2008
,33,
315–332. [CrossRef]
60.
Clarvis, M.H.; Fatichi, S.; Allan, A.; Fuhrer, J.; Stoffel, M.; Romerio, F.; Gaudard, L.; Burlando, P.; Beniston, M.;
Xoplaki, E.; et al. Governing and managing water resources under changing hydro-climatic contexts: The
case of the upper Rhone basin. Environ. Sci. Policy 2014,43, 56–67. [CrossRef]
61.
Cook, C. Governing jurisdictional fragmentation: Tracing patterns of water governance in Ontario, Canada.
Geoforum 2014,56, 192–200. [CrossRef]
62.
Irwin, F.; Ranganathan, J. Action agenda for sustaining ecosystem services. In Policies for Sustainable
Governance of Global Ecosystem Services; Ranganathan, J., Munasinghe, M., Irwin, F., Eds.; Edward Elgar Pub:
Washington, DC, USA, 2008; pp. 21–69.
63.
Daily, G.C.; Alexander, S.; Ehrlich, P.; Goulder, L.; Lubchenco, J.; Matson, P.; Mooney, H.A.; Postel, S.L.;
Schneider, S.H.; Tilman, D.; et al. Ecosystem Services: Benefits Supplied to Human Societies by
Ecosystems. Issues in Ecology. 1997; 2. Available online: http://www.esa.org/esa/wp-content/uploads/
2013/03/issue2.pdf (accessed on 4 March 2016).
64. Levin, S. Fragile Dominion: Complexity and the Commons; Perseus: Reading, MA, USA, 1999.
65.
Luyet, V.; Schlaepfer, R.; Parlange, M.B.; Buttler, A. A framework to implement Stakeholder participation in
environmental projects. J. Environ. Manag. 2012,111, 213–219. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
66. Lee, K.N. Appraising adaptive management. Conserv. Ecol. 1999,3, 3.
67.
Hashimoto, M.; Barrett, B.F.D. Socio-Economic Aspects of Lake Reservoir Management. Guidelines on Lake
Management Vol. 2; The International Lake Environment Committee Foundation and United Nation
Environment Programme: Washington, DC, USA, 1991.
68.
DeCaro, D.A.; Stokes, M.K. Public participation and institutional fit: A social–psychologicalperspective.
Ecol. Soc. 2013,18, 40. [CrossRef]
69.
Moss, T. Spatial fit, from panacea to practice: Implementing the EU Water Framework Directive. Ecol. Soc.
2012,17, 2. [CrossRef]
70.
Jones, N.; Filos, E.; Fates, E.; Dimitrakopoulos, P.G. Exploring perceptions on participatory management of
NATURA 2000 forest sites in Greece. For. Policy Econ. 2015,56, 1–8. [CrossRef]
71. Manor, J. The Political Economy of Democratic Decentralization; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 1999.
72.
Moss, T. The governance of land use in river basins: Prospects for overcoming problems of institutional
interplay with the EU Water Framework Directive. Land Use Policy 2004,21, 85–94. [CrossRef]
73.
Lebel, L.; Garden, P.; Imamura, M. The politics of scale, position, and place in the governance of water
resources in the Mekong region. Ecol. Soc. 2005,10, 18.
74.
Ribot, J.C. Waiting for Democracy: The Politics of Choice in Natural Resource Decentralization; World Resource
Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2004; p. 140.
75.
Lebel, L.; Nikitina, E.; Pahl-Wostl, C.; Knieper, C. Institutional fit and river basin governance: A new
approach using multiple composite measures. Ecol. Soc. 2013. [CrossRef]
76.
Blomquist, W.; Dinar, A.; Kemper, K. Comparison of Institutional Arrangements for River Basin Management in
Eight Basin; World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3636; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2005.

Hydrology 2016,3, 12 21 of 27
77.
Cash, D.W.; Moser, S.C. Linking global and local scales: Designing dynamic assessment and management
processes. Glob. Environ. Change 2000,10, 109–120. [CrossRef]
78.
Moss, T. Solving Problems of ‘Fit’ at the Expense of Problems of ‘Interplay’? The Spatial Reorganisation
of Water Management following the EU Water Framework Directive. In Integrated Water Resources
Management: Global Theory, Emerging Practice and Local Needs; Mollinga, P.P., Dixit, A., Athukorala, K.,
Eds.; Sage Publications: New Delhi, India, 2007.
79.
Young, O.; Underdal, A. Institutional Dimensions of Global Change; International Human Dimensions
Programme: Bonn, Germany, 1997.
80.
Gerlak, A.K.; Heikkila, T. Collaboration and Institutional Endurance in U.S. Water Policy. Available online:
http://water.columbia.edu/files/2011/11/Heikkila2007Collaboration.pdf (accessed on 2 March 2016).
81. Cumming, G.S. Scale mismatches and reflexive law. Ecol. Soc. 2013,18, 15. [CrossRef]
82.
Scholz, J.T.; Stiftel, B.; (Eds.) Adaptive Governance and Water Conflict: New Institutions for Collaborative Planning;
Resources for the Future: Washington, DC, USA, 2005.
83. Peczenik, A. Vad ar ratt? Om demokrati, rattssakerthet, etik och juridisk argumentation. Norstedts juridik,
Stockholm. 1995.
84.
Ostrom, E.; Burger, J.; Field, C.B.; Norgaard, R.B.; Policansky, D. Revisiting the commons: Local lessons,
global challenges. Science 1999,284, 278–282. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
85.
Young, O.R. IDGEC (Institutional Dimensions of Global Environmental Change) Science Plan; IHDP Report Series:
Bonn, Germany, 1999.
86.
Huitema, D.; Mostert, E.; Egas, W.; Moellenkamp, S.; Pahl-Wostl, C.; Yalcin, R. Adaptive water governance:
Assessing the institutional prescriptions of adaptive (co-) management from a governance perspective and
defining a research agenda. Ecol. Soc. 2009,14, 26.
87.
Pahl-Wostl, C.; Holtz, G.; Kastens, B.; Knieper, C. Analysing complex water governance regimes: The
management and transition framework. Environ. Sci. Policy 2010. [CrossRef]
88.
Gupta, J.; Termeer, K.; Klostermann, J.; Meijerink, S.; van den Brink, M.; Jong, P.; Nooteboom, S.; Bergsma, E.
Institutions for Climate Change: A Method to Assess the Inherent Characteristics of Institutions to Enable
the Adaptive Capacity of Society. Environ. Sci. Policy 2010. [CrossRef]
89.
Plummer, R.; Armitage, D. A resilience based framework for evaluating adaptive co-management: Linking
ecology, economics and society in a complex world. Ecol. Econ. 2007,61, 62–74. [CrossRef]
90.
Jønch-Clausen, T.; Fugl, J. Firming up the Conceptual Basis of Integrated Water Resources Management.
Water Resour. Dev. 2001,17, 501–510. [CrossRef]
91.
Global Water Partnership (GWP). In Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) and Water Efficiency Plans
by 2005. Why, What and How?; TAC Background Papers No. 10. GWP; Global Water Partnership (GWP):
Stockholm, Sweden, 2004.
92.
Hooper, B.P. Integrated Water Resources Management and River Basin Governance. Water Resources
Update; Universities Council on Water Resources. 2003. Available online: http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=1108&context=jcwre (accessed on 2 March 2016).
93.
Jonker, L. Integrated Water Resources Management: Theory, Practice, Cases. Phys. Chem. Earth
2002
,27,
719–720. [CrossRef]
94.
Odendaal, P.E. Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM), with Special Reference to Sustainable
Urban Water Management. In Proceedings of the Conference and Exhibition on Integrated Environmental
Management in South Africa (CEMSA) 2002, Johannesburg, South Africa, 27–30 August 2002.
95.
Hooper, B.P. Key Performance Indicators of River Basin Organizations. 2006-VSP-01. Available online:
http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/Portals/70/docs/iwrreports/2006-VSP-01.pdf (accessed on 8 March 2016).
96.
Rijke, J.; Brown, R.; Zevenbergen, C.; Ashley, R.; Farrelly, M.; Morison, P.; van Herk, S. Fit-for-purpose
governance: A framework to make adaptive governance operational. Environ. Sci. Policy
2012
,22, 73–84.
[CrossRef]
97.
Riabacke, M.; Danielson, M.; Ekenber, L. State-of-the-Art Prescriptive Criteria Weight Elicitation. Adv. Dec. Sci.
2012. [CrossRef]
98.
IBM. Descriptive, Predictive, Prescriptive: Transforming Asset and Facilities Management with Analytics.
Available online: https://static.ibmserviceengage.com/TIW14162USEN.PDF (accessed on 2 March 2016).

Hydrology 2016,3, 12 22 of 27
99.
Grant Thornton. White Paper on Prescriptive Analytics: Winning in a Competitive Environment.
Available online: http://www.grantthornton.com/~/media/content-page-files/advisory/pdfs/2014/BAS-
prescriptive-analytics.ashx (accessed on 2 March 2016).
100.
Walker, M. Predictive, Descriptive, Prescriptive Analytics. 2012. Available online: www.analyticbridge.com
(accessed on 2 March 2015).
101.
Jorgensen, S.E.; Vollenweider, R.A. Principles of Lake Management, Guidelines of Lake Management
Volume 1. Available online: http://www.ilec.or.jp/en/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Vol.1_Princioles
_of_Lake_Management.pdf (accessed on 2 March 2016).
102.
USEPA. National Lakes Assessment: A Collaborative Survey of the Nation’s Lakes; EPA 841-R-09-001; US
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water and Office of Research and Development: Washington,
DC, USA, 2009.
103.
UNEP–DHI. Methodology for the GEF Transboundary Waters Assessment Programme. Methodology for
the Assessment of Transboundary River Basins. 2011. Available online: http://www.unep.org/dewa/
Portals/67/pdf/TWAP-Volume-1-low-res.pdf (accessed on 2 March 2016).
104.
Kira, T. Survey of the State of World Lakes. In Guidelines of Lake Management: The World’s Lakes; Jorgensen, S.E.,
Matsui, S., Eds.; International Lake Environment Committee: Kusatsu, Japan, 1997.
105.
Iwasaki, S.; Shaw, R. Integrate Lagoon Fisheries Management: Resource Dynamics and Adaptation. Community,
Environment and Disaster Risk Management; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2010; Volume 3,
ISBN: 978-0-85724-163-4.
106.
Servos, M.R.; Munkittrick, K.R.; Constantin, G.; Mngodo, R.; Aladin, N.; Choowaew, S.; Hap, N.; Kidd, A.K.;
Odada, E.; Parra, O.; et al. Science and management of transboundary lakes: Lessons learned from the global
environment facility program. Environ. Dev. 2013,7, 17–31. [CrossRef]
107.
UNU-INWEH. Transboundary Lake Basin Management: Laurentian and African Great Lakes; UNU-INWEH:
Hamilton, ON, Canada, 2011.
108.
Young, O.R. The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay, and Scale; MIT Press:
Cambridge, UK, 2002.
109.
Young, O. Institutional Dimensions of Global Environmental Change; IHDP Report No. 16. Science Plan;
International Human Dimensions Programme: Bonn, Germany, 2005.
110.
Young, O.R. The Architecture of Global Environmental Governance: Bringing Science to Bear on Policy.
Glob. Environ. Polit. 2008. [CrossRef]
111.
UN/ECE Working Group on Monitoring and Assessment (WGMA). Guidelines on Monitoring and Assessment
of Transboundary and International Lakes. Part B: Technical Guidelines; UN/ECE Working Group on Monitoring
and Assessment (WGMA): Helsinki, Finland, 2003; ISBN: 952-11-1499-1.
112.
Saleth, R.M.; Dinar, A. Institutional changes in global water sector: Trends, patterns, and implications.
Water Policy 2000,2, 175–199. [CrossRef]
113.
Cosens, B.A. Legitimacy, adaptation, and resilience in ecosystem management. Ecol. Soc. 2013,18, 3. [CrossRef]
114.
North, D.C. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance; Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge, UK, 1990.
115.
Ostrom, E. Governing the Commons. The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action; Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge, UK, 1990.
116. Scott, R.W. Institutions and Organizations, 2nd ed.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2001.
117.
Bandaragoda, D.J. A Framework for Institutional Analysis for Water Resources Management in a River Basin;
Working paper 5; International Water Management Institute: Colombo, Sri Lanka, 2000.
118. Armitage, D. Resilience and administrative law. Ecol. Soc. 2013,18, 11. [CrossRef]
119.
Walker, B.; Carpenter, S.; Anderies, J.; Abel, N.; Cumming, G.; Janssen, M.; Lebel, L.; Norberg, J.; Peterson, G.;
Pritchard, R. Resilience management in social–ecological systems: A working hypothesis for a participatory
approach. Conserv. Ecol. 2002,6, 14.
120.
Chapin, S.F.; Folke, C.; Kofinas, G. Principles of Ecosystem Stewardship: Resilience-Based Natural Resource
Management in a Changing World; Springer Verlag: New York, NY, USA, 2009.
121.
Brown, K.; Westaway, E. Agency, Capacity, and Resilience to Environmental Change: Lessons from Human
Development, Well-Being, and Disasters. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2011,36, 321–342. [CrossRef]
122.
Smit, B.; Wandel, J. Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Glob. Environ. Chang.
2006
,16, 282–292.
[CrossRef]

Hydrology 2016,3, 12 23 of 27
123.
Gallopin, GC. Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity. Glob. Environ. Chang.
2006
,
16, 293–303. [CrossRef]
124.
Gunderson, LH. Ecological resilience—In theory and application. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst.
2000
,31, 425–439.
[CrossRef]
125.
Folke, C.; Carpenter, S.R.; Walker, B.; Scheffer, M.; Chapin, T.; Rockström, J. Resilience thinking: Integrating
resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecol. Soc. 2010,15, 20.
126.
Walker, B.H.; Holling, C.S.; Carpenter, S.R.; Kinzig, A. Resilience, adaptability and transformability in
social–ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 2004,9, 5.
127.
Nelson, D.R.; Adger, W.N.; Brown, K. Adaptation to environmental change: Contributions of a resilience
framework. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2007,32, 395–419. [CrossRef]
128.
Gates, C.; Moore Lappé, F.; Purdy, J.; Chafin Rash, B. NCR dialogue. Collaborative problem solving.
Natl. Civic Rev. 1991,80, 105–112. [CrossRef]
129.
Blumenthal, D.; Jannink, J.L. A classification of collaborative management methods. Conserv. Ecol. 2000,4, 13.
130.
Tompkins, E.L.; Adger, W.N. Does adaptive management of natural resources enhance resilience to climate
change? Ecol. Soc. 2004,9, 10.
131.
Newman, L.; Dale, A. Network structure, diversity and proactive resilience: A response to Tompkins and
Adger. Ecol. Soc. 2005,10, r2.
132.
Imperial, M.T. Collaboration and Performance Management in Network Settings: Lessons for Three Watershed
Governance Efforts; IBM Center for the Business of Government: Washington, DC, USA, 2004.
133.
Ostrom, E. A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action: Presidential address,
American Political Science Association, 1997. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 1998,92, 1–22. [CrossRef]
134.
Cousins, P.D. A conceptual model for managing long-term inter-organizational relationships. Eur. J. Purch.
Supply Manag. 2002,8, 71–82. [CrossRef]
135.
Gerlak, A.K.; Heikkila, T. Collaborative mechanisms in Large-Scale Ecosystem Governance. Natl. Resour. J.
2006,46, 657–707.
136. Hall, W. Managing Cultures: Making Strategic Relationships Work; John Wiley: Chichester, UK, 1995.
137.
Kinnaman, M.L.; Bleich, M.R. Collaboration: Aligning resources to create and sustain partnerships.
J. Prof. Nurs. 2004,20, 310–322. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
138.
Imperial, M.T. Using collaboration as a governance strategy: Lessons from six watershed management
programs. Adm. Soc. 2005,37, 281–320. [CrossRef]
139.
Berkes, F.; Colding, J.; Folke, C.; (Eds.) Navigating Social–Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity
and Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2003.
140. Holling, C.S. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1973,4, 1–21. [CrossRef]
141.
Berkhout, F.; Hertin, J.; Gann, D.M. Learning to adapt: Organisational adaptation to climate change impacts.
Clim. Chang. 2006,78, 135–156. [CrossRef]
142.
Næss, L.O.; Bang, G.; Eriksen, S.; Vevatne, J. Institutional adaptation to climate change: Flood responses at
the municipal level in Norway. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2005,15, 125–138. [CrossRef]
143.
Eriksen, S.H.; Kelly, P.M. Developing credible vulnerability indicators for climate adaptation policy
assessment. Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Glob. Chang. 2007,12, 495–524. [CrossRef]
144.
Nelson, D.R.; Howden, M.; Smith, M.S. Using adaptive governance to rethink the way science supports
Australian drought policy. Environ. Sci. Policy 2008,11, 588–601. [CrossRef]
145.
Ebbesson, J. The rule of law in governance of complex socio-ecological changes. Glob. Environ. Change
2010
,
20, 414–422. [CrossRef]
146.
Folke, C. Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Glob. Environ.
Change 2006,16, 253–267. [CrossRef]
147.
Folke, C.; Colding, J.; Berkes, F. Synthesis: building resilience and adaptive capacity in social-ecological
systems. In Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change; Berkes, F.,
Colding, J., Folke, C., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2003; pp. 352–387.
148.
Folke, C.; Carpenter, S.; Walker, B.; Scheffer, M.; Elmqvist, T.; Gunderson, L.; Holling, C.S. Regime shifts,
resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem management. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2004,35, 557–581. [CrossRef]
149.
Were, A.N.; Isabirye, M.; Poesen, J.; Maerten, M.; Deckers, J.; Mathijs, E. Decentralized Governance of
Wetland Resources in the Lake Victoria Basin of Urganda. Natl. Resour. 2013,4, 55–64.

Hydrology 2016,3, 12 24 of 27
150.
Larson, A.M.; Soto, F. Decentralization of Natural Resource Governance Regimes. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.
2008. [CrossRef]
151.
Paavola, J.; Gouldson, A.; Kluvánková-Oravská, T. Interplay of actors, scales, frameworks and regimes in
the governance of biodiversity. Environ. Policy Gov. 2009,19, 148–158. [CrossRef]
152.
WETwin. Analysis of Institutional Capacity in Wetland Management Report. Available online:
http://www.wetwin.eu/downloads/D4-3.pdf (accessed on 2 March 2016).
153.
Ramsar Convention Secretariat. Participatory Management, Establishing and Strengthening Local Communities
and Indigenous People’s Participation in the Management of Wetlands; Handbook 5 of Ramsar Handbooks for the
Wise Use of Wetlands; 2nd eds.; Ramsar Convention Secretariat: Gland, Switzerland, 2003.
154.
EU. The EU Water Framework Directive—Integrated River Basin Management for Europe. Directive
2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council Establishing a Framework for the Community
Action in the Field of Water Policy. 2000. Available online: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/
TXT/?uri=CELEX:32000L0060 (accessed on 2 March 2016).
155.
EU. The EU Water Framework Directive—Guidance Document No. 8: Public Participation in
Relation to The Water Framework Directive. Common Implementation Strategy for the Water
Framework Directive 2000/60/EC. 2003. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-
framework/impl_reports.htm (accessed on 2 March 2016).
156.
Krick, T.; Forstater, M.; Monaghan, P.; Sillanpää, M. The Stakeholder Engagement Manual. Available online:
http://www.accountability.org/images/content/2/0/207.pdf (accessed on 2 March 2016).
157.
Luyet, V. A framework for the participative process in a environmental projects. Case study: The 3rd Rhone
river correction. Ph.D. Thesis, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2005.
158.
Cookey, P.E.; Darnsawadi, R.; Ratanachai, C. Using Text Mining to Evaluate the Integrative and Adaptive
Elements of Water Resource Institutions for Songkhla Lake Basin, Thailand. J. Water Resour. Hydraul. Eng.
2015,4, 339–357. [CrossRef]
159.
Cookey, P.E. Water Governance Performance Assessment of Songkhla Lake Basin, Thailand. Ph.D. Thesis,
Faculty of Environmental Management. Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Songkhla, Thailand, 2016.
160.
Cookey, P.E.; Darnsawadi, R.; Ratanachai, C. Local People’s Perceptions of Lake Basin Water Governance
Performance in Thailand. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2016. [CrossRef]
161.
Cookey, P.E.; Darnsawadi, R.; Ratanachai, C. Understanding Stakeholders Perception for Effective
Governance of Songkhla Lake Basin: Case Study of some Tambons (sub-districts) in Songkhla Province,
Thailand. In Proceedings of the 2nd National Songkhla Lake Basin Annual Conference, Songkhla, Thailand,
14–15 August 2014.
162.
Cookey, P.E.; Darnsawadi, R.; Ratanachai, C. Performance Evaluation of Lake Basin Water Governance Using
Composite Index. Ecol. Indic. 2016. [CrossRef]
163.
Holling, C.S. The Resilience of Terrestrial Ecosystems: Local Surprise and Global Change. In Sustainable
Development of the Biosphere; Clark, W.C., Munn, R.E., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK,
1986; pp. 292–317.
164.
Westley, F.R.; Tjornbo, O.; Schultz, L.; Olsson, P.; Folke, C.; Crona, B.; Bodin, Ö. A theory of transformative
agency in linked social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 2013. [CrossRef]
165.
Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning (ONEP). Master Plan of Songkhla
Lake Basin Development Project (Final Report); Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment: Songkhla,
Thailand, 2005.
166. Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning (ONEP). Final Report of Songhkla Basin
Development Project; Ministry of Natural Resources and Management: Bangkok, Thailand, 2011.
167.
National Statistical Office (NSO). Report of per Capita Income of Population by Region and Province:
2000–2010. 2012. Available online: http://www.nso.go.th/nso/E111114-43-53.xls (accessed on 10 January 2012).
168.
Tanavud, C.; Kimura, M.; Yongchalermchai, C.; Komamura, M.; Bennui, A. Effects of land use patterns
on ecosystems in Thailand: Land use changes and its environmental consequences in Songkla Lake
Basin. In Proceedings of the International Seminar on Japan-Southeast Asian Agricultural Research
Cooperation: Past Accomplishments and Future Needs (JSARC), Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen,
Thailand, 18–23 November 1999.

Hydrology 2016,3, 12 25 of 27
169.
Global Water Partnership (GWP). Thailand: Partnership Policy in Songkhla Lake (#269). 2012. Available
online: http://www.gwp.org/en/ToolBox/CASE-STUDIES/Asia/Thailand-Partnership-policy-in-Songkhla
-Lake-269 (accessed on 8 December 2013).
170.
Feldman, R.; Sanger, J. The Text Mining Handbook: Advanced Approaches in Analyzing Unstructured Data;
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2007; ISBN-13970-0-511-33507-5.
171. Berelson, B. Content Analysis in Communications Research; Free Press: Glencoe, IL, USA, 1952.
172.
Yin, R.K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 6th ed.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2009.
173.
Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning (ONEP). Final Report Songkhla Lake
Basin Sustainable Development Project (SLBSDP); Ministry of Natural Resources and Management: Bangkok,
Thailand, 2013.
174.
Nagai, F.; Funatsu, T.; Kagoya, K. Central-Local Government Relationship in Thailand: Analysis of the
Local Administration Structure Organization Survey. Available online: http://www.ide.go.jp/English/
Publish/Download/Jrp/147.html (accessed on 2 March 2016).
175.
Uraiwong, P. Failure Analysis of Malfunction Water Resources Project in the Northern Thailand: Integrated
Mental Models and Project Life Cycle Approach. Ph.D. Thesis, Kochi University of Technology, Kochi,
Japan, 2013.
176.
Department of Water Resources (DWR). National Water Development Report: Thailand, UN-World Water
Assessment Programme. 2006. Available online: http://waterwiki.net/images/1/1d/Thailand_full_cs.pdf
(accessed on 2 March 2016).
177.
Kanjina, S. Participatory water Resource Management in Thailand: Where are the local communities? In
Proceedings of the 12th Biennial Conference of the International Association for the Study of Commons
(IASC) With the Theme: Governing Shared Resources: Connecting Local Experience to Global Challenges,
University of Gloucestershire, Cheltenham, UK, 14–18 July 2008.
178.
Bandaragoda, D.J.; Firdousi, G.R. Institutional Factors Affecting Irrigation Performance in Pakistan: Research and
Policy Priorities; IIMI Country Paper – Pakistan; International Irrigation Management Institute: Colombo,
Sri Lanka, 1992.
179.
Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning (ONEP). Policy and Prospective Plan for
Enhancement and Conservation of National Environmental Quality, 1997–2016; Ministry of Science, Technology
and Environment: Bangkok, Thailand, 1997.
180.
Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board (ONESDB). National Economic and
Social Development Plan the First-Eleventh Plan. 2008. Available online: http://www.nesdb.go.th/
Default.aspx?tabid=427 (accessed on 5 February 2012).
181.
Ceo, M.T.; Foley, J.A. Human and natural impacts on the water resources of the Lake Chad Basin.
J. Geophys. Res. 2001,106, 3349–3356.
182.
Ratanachai, C.; Sutiwipakorn, W. Master Plan for Songkhla Lake Basin Development. In Proceedings of the
International Conference on Hazardous Waste Management for a Sustainable Future, Bangkok, Thailand,
10–12 January 2006.
183.
Pornpinatepong, K. Pollution Control and Sustainable Fisheries Management in Songkhla Lake, Thailand; Economy
and Environment Programme for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA): Singaphore, 2010; ISBN: 978-981-08-7708-8.
184.
Chesoh, S.; Lim, A. Forecasting fish catches in the Songkhla Lake basin. Sci. Asia
2008
,34, 335–340. [CrossRef]
185.
Thailand State of Pollution Report (TSPR). 2010. Available online: http://infofile.pcd.go.th/mgt/Report_Eng2553.pdf
(accessed on 8 March 2016).
186.
Chufamanee, P.; Lenholdt, J. Case Study. Application of integrated environmental management through the
preparation of an environmental action programme: Case study from the Songkhla Lake Basin in southern
Thailand. Lake Reserviors Res. Manag. 2001,6, 323–334. [CrossRef]
187.
Fezzardi, D. Community Participation in Coastal Resources Management: Lesson Learned from a Case
Study of Songkhla Lake, Southern Thailand. Master’s Thesis, Asian Institute of Technology, Pathumthani,
Thailand, 2001.
188.
Nue, P.B.; Chanachai, S. Marine conservation and restoration zone. In: B. Na-Sae (Ed.), Community Based
natural resources management: Case studies from Southern Traditional fisher folk communities, 2002,
pp. 49–72, Thailand: Piyachol Intaranives.

Hydrology 2016,3, 12 26 of 27
189.
Department of Environmental Quality Promotion (DEQP) Thailand National Environmental Performance
Assessment (EPA) Report. National Performance Assessment and Subregional Strategic Environment
Framework for the Greater Mekong Sub Region, ADB T.A. No. 6069-REG. Available online: http://www.adb.
org/sites/default/files/project-document/64416/36037-reg-tacr.pdf (accessed on 2 March 2016).
190.
Flaherty, M.; Vandergeest, P.; Paul, M. Rice paddy or shrimp pond: Tough decisions in rural Thailand.
World Dev. 1994,27, 2045–2060. [CrossRef]
191.
Wongbandit, A. Water Law in Thailand: Constraint or Facilitation for Sustainable Development? In The
Third WWAP (World Water Assessment Programme), 2012. The United Nations World Water Development Report 4.
Managing Water under Uncertainty and Risk; UNESCO: Paris, France, 1995.
192.
Kraisoraphong, K. Evolving water policy in the Bangkok Metropolitan Region, Ph.D. Thesis, University of
British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1995.
193.
Biltonen, E.; Kwanyuen, B.; Kositsakulchai, E.; Pattani, S. Development of Water Management Institutions in
the Mea Klong River Basin, Thailand. Available online: http://publications.iwmi.org/pdf/H032947.pdf
(accessed on 2 March 2016).
194.
Biltonen, E. Development of Effective Water Management Institutions in Thailand. Available online:
http://publications.iwmi.org/pdf/H034251.pdf (accessed on 2 March 2016).
195. UN-Water/WWAP. National Water Development Report: Thailand. Prepared within the framework of the
2nd phase of the World Water Development Programme (WWDP). Available online: http://waterwiki.net/
images/1/1d/Thailand_full_cs.pdf (accessed on 8 March 2016).
196.
Wongbandit, Amnet. Water Law Reforms in Thailand. 2005. Available online: http://www.adb.org/Water/
Operations/2005/2SEAWF/ReformsAmanat-Bali-Water-Law.pdf (accessed on 20 November 2010).
197.
Hirsch, P.; Carrard, N.; Miller, F.; Wyatt, A. Water Governance in Context: Lessons for Development
Assistance. Available online: http://sydney.edu.au/mekong/documents/completed_projects/water
_governance_in_context_overviewreport.pdf (accessed on 8 March 2016).
198.
Sethaputra, S.; Thanopanuwat, S.; Kumpa, L.; Pattanee, S. Thailand’s water vision: A case study. The
FAO-ESCAP Pilot Project on National Water Visions: From Vision to Action. A synthesis of Experience in
Southeast Asia, editied by Le Huu Ti and Thierry Facon. RAP/2001/06. ISBN: 974-88406-3-8, Bangkok, 2001;
Available online: http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/ab776e/ab776e04.htm (accessed on 8 March 2016).
199.
Doungsuwan, N.; Ratanachai, C.; Somgpongchaiyakul, P.; Sangganjanavanich, P. Impacts of the National
Economic and Social Development Plan on Songkhla Lake Basin Development Thailand. Int. Bus. Econ.
Res. J. 2013,12, 8.
200.
Sirichai, L.; Doungsuwan, N. The Development in The usage of resource in Songkhla Lake: A Study of Fisherfolk
Community (Final Report); The Thailand Research Fund (TRF): Bangkok, Thailand, 2009.
201.
Danish Cooperation for Environment and Development (DANCED) and Ministry of Science, Technology
and Environment (MOSTE). In Environmental and Socio-Economic Profile; the EMSONG Project. Technical
Background Report No. 21, VKI in Association with DHI, PEM Consult A/S, COWI A/S; Prince of Songkla
University and Seatec International Ltd.: Songkhla, Thailand, 1998; p. 90.
202.
Sukhsri, C. Water Resources Law in Thailand. Faculty of Engineering, Chulalongkong University and
Department of Energy Development and Promotion (DEDP), Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and The
Japanese Institute of Irrigation and Drainage (JIID), 1999. Available online: http://www.tnmckc.org/upload/
document/bdp/2/2.7/Legal/Thailand/T-waterresources-law-DEDP-JICA.pdf (accessed on 8 March 2016).
203.
Christensen, S.R.; Boon-Long, A. Institutional Problems in Thai Water Management. Available online:
http://tdri.or.th/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/N37.pdf (accessed on 2 March 2016).
204.
Molle, F. Water pricing in Thailand: Theory and Practice. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/
877264/Water_pricing_in_Thailand_Theory_and_practice (accessed on 2 March 2016).
205.
Neef, A. Lost in translation: The participatory imperative and local water governance in North Thailand and
Southwest Germany. Water Altern. 2008,1, 89–110.
206.
Sookchareon, P. Larval Stages of Penacid Shrimp in Songkhkla Lake and Adjacent Areas. Annual Report; Songkhla
Marine Fishery Station. Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives: Songkhla,
Thailand, 1965; pp. 40–62.
207.
Choonhapran, A.; Ratanachai, C.; Meechookunt, A. Assessment of Fisheries Resources in Songkhla Lake During
1994–1995; Technical paper No 4/1996; National Institute of Coastal Aquaculture, Department of Fisheries,
Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives: Songkhla, Thailand, 1996.

Hydrology 2016,3, 12 27 of 27
208.
Mabuntham, J. Species Diversuty and Quantity of Aquatic Caught with Standing Traps in Outer Songkhla
Lake. Master’s Thesis, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla, Thailand, 2002.
209.
Thomas, D.E.; World Agroforestry Centre. Developing Watershed Management Organizations in Pilot
Sub-Basins of the Ping River Basin. Final Report to ONEP under the Participatory Watershed Management
Consultancy. Supported by the World Bank. ASEM II Trust Fund No. TF 053040 TH, 2005. Available online:
http://www.mekonginfo.org/assets/midocs/0002137-inland-waters-developing-watershed-management-
organizations-in-pilot-sub-basins-of-the-ping-river-basin.pdf (accessed on 8 Mach 2016).
210.
Simachaya, W.; Yolthantham, T. Policy and Implementation on Water Environment in Thailand; Pollution Control
Department of Thailand: Bangkok, Thailand, 2006.
211.
MRC (Mekong River Commission). Stakeholder Analysis for the MRC Basin Development Plan
Programme Phase 2 (BDP2), 2010. Available online: http://www.mrcmekong.org/assets/Other-Documents/
BDP/BDP-SHA-Final-Mar-2010.pdf (accessed on 8 March 2016).
©
2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons by Attribution
(CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).