Integrated Water Resource Management, Public Participation and the ‘Rainbow Nation’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article provides varied examples of Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) and public participation interaction in South Africa. It critically examines the inadequate application of IWRM, and shows how the unbalanced interpretations of IWRM as well as a lack of good development practice and participatory rights manifest in negative outcomes for the poorest and most vulnerable. This paper, first, highlights that if decision-makers are primarily fixed on economic concerns, they induce inefficient IWRM framework that fails to balance water as a social, economic and ecological concern. Second: when the state fails to consult people and violate human and environmental rights, court battles ensue between the state and the people. These court cases are generally expensive for both sides and marred with delay. Third: positive outcomes can be attained through multi-stakeholder dialogue platforms which can operate as a sort of conflict resolution mechanism encompassing divergent views, but still offering beneficial outcomes. The frameworks and practical examples set by the Water Dialogues South Africa can facilitate public participation and capacity building if applied at local levels by decision-makers. IWRM with public participation at its heart engenders an ultimate objective for better water sustainability and water security in South Africa.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".