Actors and organizations must continually adapt to address problems that existing structures and knowledge systems cannot adequately address (Berkhout, 2012). In terms of drought management, the premise of this study is that the challenges of coordination will require modification of formal rules which govern water and drought management as well as the adoption of new water management practices to address regional and
watershed-scale vulnerabilities. Insights regarding the implementation of watershed- and river basin-based management, and from environmental governance research, are
discussed in the following section and then used to develop the framework to assess institutional change and adaptations that enable drought management collaboration and coordination.
4.4.1 Watershed and river basin management and governance issues
Using the watershed and river basins as a focal point of coordination has been advocated in water policy and planning literature. The approach is intended to resolve issues and problems created or exacerbated by fragmentation by convening groups with diverse responsibilities over a shared resource. Expected benefits include improved cooperation between different water users and the development of shared policies, programs, or management approaches (Berardo and Gerlak, 2012; Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007b). However, while it assumed that watershed and basin-scale arrangements and processes will lead to integration and help manage multiple interests, the literature often does not specify or demonstrate how to achieve integration in practice (Cook, 2014).
Furthermore, critics argue that proponents of the concept envision the watershed as the preferred jurisdiction for water management, emphasizing the technical advantages of this solution but without fully considering the governance challenges this approach presents.
As with any other management unit, watershed or basin-oriented management will also intersect with disparate interests, authorities, and policies and face external stressors and pressures that come from outside its borders. Other challenges relate to how decisions about the delineation of watershed boundaries and issues to be addressed are made and the potential lack of formal mechanisms to ensure accountability,
representation, and public participation (Cohen and Davidson, 2011; Cook, 2014;
Davidson and de Loë, 2014). In addition, processes to develop watershed approaches also involve the relinquishment of some power or authority by actors and organizations
participating in new form of decision making or management (Norman and Bakker, 2009). Consequently, watershed and basin-based efforts need to be clear about the problem to be solved, determine if the watershed or another scale is most appropriate to address the problem, and be deliberate about identifying the potential governance challenges and mechanisms to address those challenges (Cohen and Davidson, 2011; Davidson and de Loë, 2014). Efforts should also be wary of the “panacea problem,” in which a predetermined solution (i.e., using the river basin or watershed as a governance unit) is assumed to apply in multiple and diverse contexts (Ostrom and Cox, 2010).
These critiques highlight the importance of distinguishing between management and governance, particularly as concerns about water resources crises are increasingly focusing on governance issues, rather than questions of management or technical capacity
(Pahl-Wostl et al., 2011). Understanding the aspects of both management and governance are important for improving society’s capacity to address water-related challenges.
Management refers to the measures used to implement policy goals and objectives. Water resources management includes the on-the-ground activities required to monitor, secure, control, and provide water supplies. Governance refers to the range of processes, social actors and networks, and formal and informal institutions that influence who participates in decision making, how power and authority are applied or shared, how decisions are made and carried out, the extent to which decisions are considered legitimate, and decisions makers are held accountable (Dovers and Hezri, 2010; Folke et al., 2005; Pahl- Wostl, 2009; Reed and Bruyneel, 2010, citing Bakker, 2007). As such, attention should be directed to 1) the processes through which various interests are represented and allowed or encouraged to participate in watershed management and 2) the mechanisms through which watershed-based efforts develop effective solutions to water management problems (Sabatier et al., 2005).
4.4.2 The roles and functions of collaborative institutions
It is through governance processes that an environment conducive to enhancing collective action, coordination, and collaboration across different perspectives is created (Folke et al., 2005). Furthermore, institutions play a key governance function by
providing the norms, cultural expectations, and formal rules that affect what opportunities are available to expand the decision making arena.
Institutions can support processes that bring together stakeholders with different types and levels of authority, address resource issues where users are interdependent, and provide space for trade-offs to be evaluated and policies to be modified over time
(Andonova and Mitchell, 2010; Folke et al., 2005; Paavola, 2007). It is through such processes that shared learning about the system as a whole can occur and opportunities to share information and jointly produce knowledge are facilitated (Brondizio et al., 2009, from Cash et al., 2006; Folke et al., 2005). Such processes can help to reduce transaction costs associated with addressing watershed-scale problems (Lubell, 2005). By
contributing to new linkages across different actors and organizations, the institutional framework can also contribute to “rescaling,” the processes through which environmental governance shift and/or expands vertically and horizontally across scales. Such processes seek to include multiple levels of government, local communities, and non-state and private actors in decision making processes, but may require institutional change to enable new administrative arrangements (Andonova and Mitchell, 2010; Reed and Bruyneel, 2010; Thiel and Egerton, 2011).
The above summary implies that the appropriate institutional arrangements will create the conditions for cooperation and resolve fragmentation issues. However, the ability of new institutions to accomplish these goals will depend on the wider institutional context and the extent to which existing structures can integrate innovations or new practices. In practice, as institutional arrangements vary across the landscape, patterns of collaboration and governance processes will also differ (Bromdizio et al., 2009; Cook, 2014; Hughes and Pincetl, 2014). This calls attention to the ongoing need to better
understand the conditions that contribute to the realization of collaborative efforts and the factors that limit their success (Hughes and Pincetl, 2014).
4.4.3 Identifying and assessing collaborative institutions
In addressing new challenges, such as improved drought management and preparedness, the need for institutional change, and better coordinated and collaborative institutions, is frequently cited (Dovers and Hezri, 2010). Research is increasingly paying attention to the mechanisms of institutional change by examining “on-the-ground”
governance processes, changes to those processes, and the interplay of the formal and informal components of institutions (Pahl-Wostl, 2009; Reed and Bruyneel, 2010; Weber, 2009).
Collaborative institutions create the “conditions under which institutions are most likely to foster meaningful cooperation in the management of shared rivers” (Berardo and Gerlak, 2012, pp. 101-102). Institutional mechanisms that affect cooperation in multi- jurisdictional basins are those that foster agreement across interests, shape cooperative relationships in the use and allocation of resources, and contribute to transparency and legitimacy through the production and dissemination of information and opportunities for public participation and conflict resolution. (Berardo and Gerlak, 2012).
The formal components of collaborative institutions include rules as articulated in regulatory and legal frameworks (Pahl-Wostl, 2009). Formal institutions, in the form of shared rules and joint organizational membership, can serve to link different actors and organizations and reinforce the functional interdependencies across groups that may facilitate or hinder collaboration (Berardo and Gerlak, 2012; Heikkila et al., 2011; Young, 2002). Elements of shared rule elements include the setting of agreed-to project boundaries, issues, and proposed solutions, e.g., a monitoring or management plan (Cook, 2014). Formal rules can also influence cooperation by requiring members to engage in
collective activities, such as implementing response actions or administering agreements, and determining actor and organizational responsibilities for group interactions (Heikkila et al., 2011).
The informal components of collaborative institutions include the shared beliefs and values that are produced and reinforced through social relations (Pahl-Wostl, 2009; Reed and Bruyneel, 2010). It is through social interactions and processes that trust, norms of reciprocity, and interpersonal relationships and networks are produced (Brondizio et al., 2009). While changes to formal rules often represent the more tangible signs of institutional adaptation (Weber, 2009), uncovering the informal dimensions of institutional change is not a clear cut task.
As learning plays a central role in guiding change, examining the types and extent of learning that occurs in group processes is one approach to understanding the more informal dimensions of institutional change.
4.4.4 Assessing learning in institutions
The ability to learn is a key dimension of adaptive capacity, and flexibility within institutions can contribute to change in those institutions. This study builds on others that use learning as a conceptual framework to analyze change (Balazs and Lubell, 2014; Heikkila and Gerlak, 2013; Pahl-Wostl, 2009). This literature assumes that learning is an integral component of adaptive capacity and a necessary part of the adaptation process in which actors experience impacts, identify problems, assess options, and develop solutions (Armitage et al., 2008; Gupta et al., 2010). Part of that learning is assessing the potential and value in different forms of collaboration and what actions are useful in fostering it. For example, Heikkila and Gerlak (2013) recommend identifying and examining the
“products of learning” to understand how collective processes and groups enact policy change. “Learning products” include cognitive changes, including changes to ideas, beliefs, values related to the nature of the policy problem or the appropriate solutions to address the problem. Cognitive changes may lead to behavioral changes, such as changes to collective actions, routines, and strategies. These changes may be signified by
expanded plans or programs that influence group behavior or new formalized rules or sets of institutional arrangements. Learning and shifts in institutional arrangements do not occur in a vacuum. It is also important to consider the overall characteristics of the setting, including the existing institutional structure, social dynamics, technological infrastructure, organizational environment, and external political, social, or economic processes.
Learning can be a deliberate process as actors examine previous approaches and outcomes of implemented policies and programs and implement tangible measures to adapt (Brooks and Adger, 2005; Huntjens et al., 2010; Storbjörk, 2010). Learning can also occur through a continuous process of reflection and examination, involving changes in behavior, attitude, perceptions, and relationships (Pelling et al., 2008). Different types and forms of learning correspond to the types of adaptation options that are identified, considered, and ultimately selected and implemented (Storbjörk, 2010; Berkhout, 2012). At the organizational level, social learning is understood as the process through which diverse individuals and groups collaborate to develop a shared definition of a problem and a new, collective knowledge of the system (Armitage et al., 2011; Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007a).
Pahl-Wostl (2009) suggests that social learning may also indicate institutional change and adaptation. Social learning processes facilitate the creation and use of new knowledge and expertise that is not individually-based but emerges through social interactions and the evolution of new shared rules and practices (Armitage et al., 2011; Pahl-Wostl et al., 2010). The extent to which collaboration is successful and enduring will depend on a range of adaptations, including changes to legal frameworks, expanded social networks, use of new knowledge and information used in decision making, and modifications to operational protocols.
Social learning can support these institutional changes (Pahl-Wostl 200s; Pahl- Wostl et al., 2007a), but new innovations will also need to be supported through
institutionalization, so they become routine and embedded in standard practices (Burch, 2010). And, the development of collaborative institutions is a long-term process.
Institutional change may emerge only gradually as individuals and organizations continue to learn from experiences, interact with other actors, and reconfigure a system’s dominant norms through practice (March and Olsen, 1989; Ostrom, 1990).
In these learning frameworks, formal and informal institutional change is conceptualized as moving from single-, to double-, to triple-loop learning, each with deeper insights and implications for resource management and governance frameworks. Single-loop learning refers to an incremental improvement of strategies and actions without questioning the underlying assumptions of established routines or practices (Pahl-Wostl, 2009). Such learning results in small and incremental adjustments to rules, routines, activities, technologies, or procedures (Burton et al., 1993; Crabbé and Robin, 2006; Berkhout et al., 2006). These “business as usual” actions occur within the existing
organizational or management framework to ensure that the organization is able to fulfill its mission, goals, and core functions (Ivey et al., 2004). Such changes may occur
consciously or unconsciously through direct experience, gaining expertise, or problem- solving (Berkhout et al., 2004). Adaptations may draw from an array of already-known and available choices, rather than invest in a search for novel or optimal solutions, as resource users experiment with new combinations of already-familiar rules, seek to improve the efficiency of ineffective rules or routines, or reduce transaction costs (Birkland, 2005; Berkhout et al, 2006; Dovers, 2008). Incremental changes are likely to be consistent with the underlying values and norms that underpin a particular institution.
Double-loop learning occurs when an organization questions and reexamines the conditions and assumptions that created a problem in the first place. Learning and change may involve reframing goals and problems, revisiting assumptions about how to achieve goals, and correcting errors through policy modification (Pahl-Wostl, 2009). Double-loop learning may result in limited adjustments to the underlying goals, values, and norms of an organization, although the overall functioning of the system is maintained.
Triple-loop learning occurs when actors begin to reconsider the values, beliefs, and worldviews that underpin governance and management paradigms (Pahl-Wostl, 2009). Triple-loop learning may be represented by transformational change, through the re-designing of governance norms or the creation of a fundamentally new institutional system. For example, there may be a change in constitutional rules such as national water law, or a paradigm shift in water management i.e., from command and control to
norms, and assumptions are unable to resolve significant problems (Armitage et al., 2008; Herrfardt and Pahl-Wostl, 2012).
In combination, formal and informal institutions can serve as a form of social capital for environmental governance, by providing processes to develop shared
understandings and norms of behavior, opportunities to develop new relationships, and forums to engage with alternate ideas and perspectives (Brondizio et al., 2009; Folke et al., 2005; Pelling and High, 2005; Weber, 2009). Cross-scale institutional arrangements can serve a linking function, by connecting actors that operate at different political jurisdictions or social organization and enabling emerging networks to develop new relationships, patterns of interactions, and shared practices (Armitage et al., 2011; Heikkila et al., 2011). Over the long-term, new linkages and social relations can be supported through social learning.
4.5 Methods
4.5.1. Case study approach and context
This analysis relies on a case study approach as a comprehensive strategy to examine the process of adaptation and the evolution of drought management in the Carolinas. A case study approach is appropriate when the researcher seeks to understand 1) a complex phenomenon with many components/units of analysis and layers and 2) a process, where the researcher asks “how” and “why” questions and has little or no control over the events being studied (Yin, 2009). This approach is suited to studying the drought management landscape which is complex, shaped by hydroclimatological and social processes and populated by many different stakeholders operating on different
basin as the unit of analysis and as a decision-making arena consisting of actors, decisions, actions, and interactions among actors. Selecting two basins for analysis enabled a comparison of similar processes and deeper insight into the institutional factors that contributed to enhanced collaboration amongst stakeholders within the basins
(Pulwarty and Maia, 2015).
The author selected the Catawba-Wateree and Yadkin-Pee Dee as case study basins as they experienced significant impacts during the 1998-2002 drought and have similar institutional arrangements. First, the basins are shared by North Carolina and South Carolina, which creates some interstate allocation issues. However, the
overarching state and local systems of water allocation, water provision, and drought management are generally similar. Second, the flow and availability of water resources are affected by the entities that own and operate dams and reservoirs in those basins. Dam operations are regulated through licenses granted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). In 2003, shortly after the 1998-2002 drought ended, all three licensees (Duke Energy, Alcoa Power Generating Inc. [APGI], and Progress Energy) initiated relicensing, the multiple-year process through which a dam owner applies for a new operating license. Due to the length of the license terms (30- to 50 years), relicensing provides an invaluable opportunity to formally and systematically change license
conditions, and in light of the region’s recent drought experiences, incorporate learning from the drought event into the new license applications. In summer 2007 another “drought of record” struck the Carolinas. During this second event, many of the adaptations initiated after 2002, such as drought response plans and protocols, were implemented in the study basins. This provided the author with a unique research
opportunity to observe and examine the implementation of drought adaptations and the constraints stakeholders faced during the process.
4.5.2 Data collection
The author collected data for this project from May 2007 to November 2008, a period of exceptional drought conditions in the Carolinas. The author used several methods of data collection to ensure that a range of perspectives would be captured, including those from key drought decision makers. Data and information sources for the project included interviews, observation of drought management meetings and
conference calls, and stakeholder documents. These sources were used jointly to trace the key events and processes through which collaborative institutions developed and evolved (Tansey, 2007).
The author conducted thirty-eight semi-structured interviews with representatives from federal agencies, state agencies, non-governmental organizations, community groups, and industry. Twenty-three of the interviewees had participated in FERC
relicensing processes in the CW and/or YPD Basins, and an additional three interviewees had experience with other processes. These interviews provided in-depth information and insights about drought decision making and the relicensing processes.
The author conducted forty-nine interviews with community water system
managers and local officials engaged with water and drought management across the two states. Thirteen of seventeen interviewees in the Catawba-Wateree Basin were involved with the Duke Energy relicensing processes, and ten of sixteen in the Yadkin-Pee Dee Basin participated in either the APGI or Progress Energy processes. These interviews were important for understanding how drought risks were perceived and addressed in the
context of water system operations and planning and how participation in collective efforts affected local water and drought management decision making.
The onset of dry conditions in spring 2007 triggered basin- and state-level drought response meetings and conference calls which continued regularly throughout the data collection period. Long-term observation of drought management meetings provided the author with an invaluable opportunity to observe the adaptation and implementation process as stakeholders discussed and debated the successes, and consequences, of previous adaptations (i.e., after the 1998-2002 drought). The author recorded notes and observations from sixty-nine meetings and conference calls into MS-Word documents.