Browsing by Author "Whaley, Luke"

Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Competition, conflict, and compromise: Three discourses used by irrigators in England and their implications for the co-management of water resources
    (Water Alternatives Association, 2015-02-01) Whaley, Luke; Weatherhead, E. K.
    In this paper we use discourse analysis to explore the current dynamic that exists among farmer irrigators in England, and between irrigators and water managers in order to understand the potential for co-management to develop. To do this we employ two concepts from the field of critical discursive psychology – 'interpretive repertoires' and 'subject positions' – and apply them to a qualitative analysis of 20 interviews with farmers who are members of irrigator groups and two focus group discussions with farmers thinking about forming an irrigator group. The findings reveal that the participants drew upon three interpretive repertoires when talking about the relationship between farming and water resources management, namely the 'competition', 'conflict', and 'compromise' repertoires, with the latter being the least dominant. We situate the repertoires in their wider historical context to reveal the ideological forces at play, and conclude that the relative dominance of the competition and conflict repertoires serve as a barrier to co-management. In particular, this is because they engender low levels of trust and reinforce a power dynamic that favours individualism and opposition. At the same time, the less-dominant compromise repertoire challenges the power of the other two, providing some hope of achieving more participatory forms of water resources management in the future. To this end, we discuss how the restructuring of current agri-environment schemes and government water programmes may be used to promote the adoption and institutionalisation of the compromise repertoire in order to facilitate the emergence of co-management.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    An integrated approach to analyzing (adaptive) co-management using the 'Politicized' IAD Framework
    (The Resilience Alliance, 2014-01-31T00:00:00Z) Whaley, Luke; Weatherhead, E. K.
    Scholars of co-management are faced with a difficult methodological challenge. As co-management has evolved and diversified it has increasingly merged with the field of adaptive management and related concepts that derive from resilience thinking and complex adaptive systems theory. In addition to earlier considerations of power sharing, institution building, and trust, the adaptive turn in co-management has brought attention to the process of social learning and a focus on concepts such as scale, self-organization, and system trajectory. At the same time, a number of scholars are calling for a more integrated approach to studying (adaptive) co-management that is able to situate these normative concepts within a critical understanding of how context and power fundamentally influences the behavior of a system. In this paper we propose that Clement’s (2010) ‘politicized’ version of the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) Framework, originally developed by Elinor Ostrom and her colleagues, is well suited to addressing this challenge. The Framework provides breadth, clarity and structure by drawing the analyst’s attention to the range of variables and questions to be considered when attempting a study of co-management, the various components of the situation and the ways in which they interact, and the criteria the analyst may wish to adopt in evaluating the outcomes of the process. Alongside its ability to address contextual factors and power dynamics, the socio-economic and institutional dimension of the politicized IAD Framework means that it can be used to conduct analyses that result in sound policy recommendations.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Managing water through change and uncertainty: comparing lessons from the adaptive co-management literature to recent policy developments in England
    (Taylor and Francis, 2015-09-02) Whaley, Luke; Weatherhead, E. K.
    Abstract Water management is set to become increasingly variable and unpredictable, in particular because of climate change. This paper investigates the extent to which water policy in England provides an enabling environment for ‘adaptive co-management’, which its proponents claim can achieve the dual objective of ecosystem protection and livelihood sustainability under conditions of change and uncertainty. Five policy categories are derived from a literature review, and are used to conduct a directed content analysis of seven key water policy documents. The findings reveal that although, in part, English water policy serves as an enabling environment for adaptive co-management, there is a level of discrepancy between substantive aspects of the five policy categories and water policy in England. Addressing these discrepancies will be important if English water policy is to allow for the emergence of processes, like adaptive co-management, that are capable of coping with the challenges that lie ahead
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Power-Sharing in the English Lowlands? Exploring Farmer Cooperation and Participation in Water Governance
    (Cranfield University, 2014-11) Whaley, Luke; Weatherhead, E. Keith
    Involving stakeholders in water governance is becoming an increasingly important topic in England. In this thesis I consider this ambition from the farming perspective, by investigating the potential for farmers to cooperate and participate in water governance. This dynamic is viewed through the conceptual lens of adaptive comanagement, an approach which its proponents claim can achieve the dual focus of ecosystem protection and livelihood sustainability under conditions of change and uncertainty. The relevance of adaptive comanagement is highlighted by the increasing complexity and uncertainty surrounding water governance in England, amongst other things because of the effects of climate change and a growing population. The research adopts an integrated methodological approach that revolves around a “politicised” version of the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) Framework. Initially, three separate analyses investigate the context surrounding farming and water governance. The results of the contextual phase are incorporated into a more focused analysis, involving five farmer irrigator groups in the lowlands of eastern England. Here the intention is to explore the broader issues the research raises by investigating the potential for these groups to comanage water resources. Nine factors of success are identified, from which deeper, more abstract causal mechanisms are inferred. The relevance of the findings are discussed in relation to farming and water governance in England going forwards. Several key outcomes emerge from this research, including: 1) a theoretical and practical demonstration of the applicability of the politicised IAD Framework to studies of adaptive comanagement, 2) an understanding of the ways in which power, policy, and levels of trust influence the ability of lowland farmers to cooperate and participate in water governance, 3) specific strategies that can be used to develop comanagement arrangements between farmer groups and water managers.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Power-sharing in the English lowlands? The political economy of farmer participation and cooperation in water governance
    (Water Alterntives Association, 2015-02-01) Whaley, Luke; Weatherhead, E. Keith
    Participatory and cooperative forms of water governance have become regular features of government discourse and stated policy objectives in England. We consider this aspiration from the perspective of farmers in the English lowlands, by analysing the current power dynamic that exists among these farmers, and between them and the key stakeholders involved in water management. To do this we undertake a political economy analysis that places lowland farming and water governance within the evolution of historical processes that, over time, have influenced the ability of farmers to participate in the governance of their water environment. These historical developments are interpreted through the lens of the Power Cube, an analytical tool for thinking about the interplay between different forms of power operating in different types of spaces and at different levels of governance. Our findings reveal that, despite there being a number of structural changes that provide lowland farmers with the opportunity to participate and cooperate in water governance, three distinct barriers stand in the way. These relate to the power 'within' these farmers, which continues to align with a productivist ideology founded on individualism and competition, often at the expense of the environment; the power that government water managers still exercise 'over' farmers instead of 'with' them; and the relationship between lowland farming and environmental interests, where historically the two sides’ power 'to' act has been diametrically opposed. The findings point to the importance of developing suitable programmes designed to support and incentivize farmer participation and cooperation.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Using the politicized institutional analysis and development framework to analyze (adaptive) comanagement: farming and water resources in England
    (Resilience Alliance, 2015-09-01) Whaley, Luke; Weatherhead, E. K.
    The challenge of managing water resources in England is becoming increasingly complex and uncertain, a situation reflected in many countries around the world. Cooperative and participatory forms of governance are now seen as one way of addressing this challenge. We investigated this assertion by focusing on five farmer irrigator groups in the low-lying east of England. The groups’ relationship with water resources management was interpreted through the lens of comanagement, which over the past decade has increasingly merged with the field of adaptive management and related concepts that derive from resilience thinking and complex adaptive systems theory. Working within a critical realist paradigm, our analysis was guided by the politicized institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework. Two previous studies concerned with the broader context surrounding farming and water governance in lowland England revealed low levels of trust between farmers, and between farmers and water managers, as well as a power dynamic that stands in the way of farmer cooperation and participation. Within this context, our findings pointed to a number of mechanisms and structural conditions that appear to generate or facilitate comanagement. Of these, institution building through the specific group strategy of adopting a company structure and the “stationarity” of the resource group members extract from were seen to be the most crucial. These and other key findings were used to inform a discussion of farming and water resources management in England going forward. In doing so, we also reflected on the relationship between comanagement and market-based approaches to managing water resources. Beyond this, the research serves as a practical demonstration of how the politicized IAD framework can be used to analyze potential (adaptive) comanagement situations and the related benefits. The analysis complements a previous submission to this journal, in which we discussed the relationship between the framework and (adaptive) comanagement from a theoretical and methodological perspective.