Water-related problématiques: five archetypical contexts of water governance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is necessary to consider the contextual factors surrounding water governance systems to understand their performance. We conducted a review of 165 empirical studies and 223 cases from the water governance literature to investigate water-related contexts. Our analysis is based on an archetype analysis of three dimensions of water-related contexts across 160 cases: water resources, related water uses, and sustainability issues. Our results show that there are five distinct water-related problématiques: “groundwater exploitation in agriculture,” “land and water systems sustainability,” “surface water pollution,” “industrial and household water security,” and “hydropower vs. water ecology.” These problématiques often exhibit geographical patterns and regional associations. Noteworthy insights from the analysis of problématiques include the prominence of the groundwater exploitation in agriculture problématique, contrary to arguments that groundwater is understudied, and the limited coverage of hydropower governance compared to other problématiques. Overall, our results enhance the understanding of contextual factors in water governance and suggest potential avenues for developing middle-range theories and advancing water governance diagnostics.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".