Stakeholder Value Orientations in Water Management

Abstract

Current water management issues are characterized by factual uncertainty, relating to limits of scientific knowledge, and value uncertainty, relating to the policy process of making subjective choices. Developing and informing approaches for integrated water management (IWM) requires bringing facts and values together. This study examines the way value orientations differentiate themselves among IWM stakeholders and assesses implications for the scientific support and policy context of integrated approaches. Using Q-methodology, we identify five orientations that represent characteristically different ways of valuing water systems and their management by stakeholders in terms of cognitive, ethical, and affective value priorities. The findings indicate that scientific support to substantiate IWM needs to be extended to include social sciences and that preferences regarding the outcome of policy strategies may differ between stakeholders due to divergent orientations. Decision makers can benefit from the understanding of different value orientations to resolve conflicts, develop planning scenarios, and build consensus.

Keywords:

• affective values
• cognitive values
• ethical values
• integrated water management
• Q-methodology
• stakeholder orientations

This study has been financed by the Interdepartmental Institute Science & Society of the Radboud University Nijmegen (grant W&S 2004-04). We thank Tobie Chamuleau (Centre for Water Management) for helping with data collection, Riyan van den Born (Philosophy and Science Studies, Radboud University) for assisting with the construction of statements, and Theo van der Weegen (Research-technical Support Group, Radboud University) for statistical support.

Notes

Note. Statistically significant pure loadings (p < .001) indicated in bold type.

Note. Statements were originally in Dutch. Asterisks indicate distinguishing statements for that factor: *p < .05; **p < .01.

Note. Part B, the one participant of the civilian deliberative body was not included as it presented a single case stakeholder representative.