4.7 Article

Perspectives of natural resource sector firms on collaborative approaches to governance for water

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
卷 135, 期 -, 页码 1117-1128

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.166

关键词

Collaboration; Water governance; Natural resource firms; Canada; Policy Delphi

资金

  1. Canadian Water Network: Governance for Watershed-Based Source Water Protection in Canada: A National Assessment [2007-4-150-75]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Firms in the natural resource sector (forestry, mining, oil and gas, and hydroelectric power production) are dependent on water in their operations. They also affect water quality and quantity through their practices. In response to rising costs, increasingly restrictive regulations, reduced water availability and growing public criticism of industrial water use and management practices, companies are attempting to improve their environmental performance. One approach being used by firms in the natural resource sector is participation in collaborative, multi-actor approaches to governance for water. A policy Delphi survey of 22 representatives from firms in Canada's natural resource sector was used to explore the benefits and challenges flowing from natural resource sector firm participation in multi-actor collaborative processes. The panel identified and then evaluated 67 positions regarding roles, benefits and challenges. Panelists clearly saw many benefits and challenges to companies from becoming engaged in collaborative processes. They also were also aware of ways in which the participation of large firms in multi-actor collaborative initiatives can create both benefits and challenges for those initiatives. The fact that natural resource sector firms do not have to give up their traditional avenues of influence to participate in collaborative initiatives raises concerns about the long-term viability of collaboration as a governance strategy. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据