G Model

AGWAT-4458; No. of Pages 11 ARTICLE IN PRESS

Agricultural Water Management xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Agricultural Water Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat

A table for five: Stakeholder perceptions of water governance in

Alberta
Jenna Montgomery a , Wei Xu a,∗ , Henning Bjornlund b , Jane Edwards b
a
Department of Geography, University of Lethbridge, Canada
b
School of Commerce, University of South Australia, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: By the 1990s, the issue of sustainable management of water had become a global priority. By the end of
Received 3 September 2015 the decade, the UN promoted the development of the Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM)
Received in revised form 12 April 2016 framework to assist governments in reaching water sustainability goals. With IWRM being the accepted
Accepted 18 April 2016
method of managing water, traditional government led top-down management was observed to be
Available online xxx
insufficient to meet the demands of diverse stakeholders, inspiring a transition from government to
governance. This transition emphasized inclusiveness, as well as active stakeholder participation in iden-
Keywords:
tifying problems and solutions. While governance has been readily adopted around the world, it has not
Water sharing
IWRM
been consistently defined, resulting in diverse understandings and applications that have focused on
Governance individual aspects such as economics or social justice, and making evaluations of governance systems
Q-method difficult. To serve as criteria for evaluations, five pillars of good governance have been drawn from a
Canada systematic review of peer-reviewed and grey literature. These five pillars are then used to better under-
stand and evaluate water governance under Alberta’s Water for Life (WFL) strategy; a water governance
system that has been operational for over a decade. The evaluation is conducted using the Q-method
to qualitatively and quantitatively identify distinct perspectives within the stakeholder population. Five
perspectives emerged from the data, each reflecting unique values, priorities, and interests related to the
water governance process and the five pillars of good governance. These perspectives provide insight
into how each of these pillars operate in practice under WFL, and how they can be improved to enhance
good governance.
© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction While governance has been widely adopted, its components

Water supply is finite and increasingly uncertain given the
likely impacts of climate change and an increased demand for
water as population increases, and agricultural and industrial activ-
ity expands (Bjornlund et al., 2013). Concerns are also escalating
about water quality and the health of riparian ecosystems (United
Nations, 1987). These pressures have made sustainability central
to water management and in 1992 the UN adopted the Dublin
Principles, which continues to serve as a guide for developing
sustainable water management (Solanes and Gonzalez-Villarreal,
1999). Informed by the Dublin Principle, the Integrated Water
Resources Management (IWRM) framework has had a significant
impetus on the global development of governance in water man-
agement (Agarwal et al., 2000; Ako et al., 2009; Charnay, 2011).
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: wei.xu@uleth.ca (W. Xu).
have not been identified with sufficient clarity to allow for a
consistent understanding of governance. While a general concep-
tualization of governance is available, there is little guidance on
the operational and evaluative components of a governance sys-
tem. With IWRM as the default template, governance has become a
tool rather than a participatory and collaborative process for reach-
ing outcomes (Castro, 2007; Lautze et al., 2011). Literature also
relates the emergence of governance as a response to societal pres-
sure and unwillingness by the state to relinquish decision-making
power, or a shift to neoliberalism and a decentralised approach that
uproots the traditional state level command-and-control methods
(Kjaer, 2010; Loughlin, 2009; Wallis and Ison, 2011). However, this
is challenged by a recognition that the state has a role to play in
environmental management as the decision-making power (Duit,
2016; Lee, 2014). Based on peer-reviewed and grey literature, this
paper proposes five pillars of good governance that recognize gov-
ernance as a process, rather than a tool, and demonstrates how
those pillars can serve as evaluative criteria.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2016.04.013
0378-3774/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Montgomery, J., et al., A table for five: Stakeholder perceptions of water governance in Alberta. Agric.
Water Manage. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2016.04.013
G Model
AGWAT-4458; No. of Pages 11 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 J. Montgomery et al. / Agricultural Water Management xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
These pillars are then applied to evaluate the governance pro-
cesses involved in the Alberta’s Water For Life (WFL) strategy, a
governance system instituted in 2004 (Government of Alberta,
2005). Alberta was considered an ideal context within which to
evaluate governance as it experiences many of the dilemmas of con-
temporary water management and has a relatively long history of
transitioning from government to governance. The Q-method was
used to qualitatively and quantitatively uncover stakeholder per-
spectives of the current water governance system in Alberta and
their satisfaction with how the five pillars are being integrated and
expressed. Stakeholders’ satisfaction with governance processes
are critical to the success and effectiveness of any governance pro-
cess. From the data, five unique perspectives were identified. These
results provide insight into where the existing governance process
can be improved.
2. Literature review
The transition from government to governance is the result
of globalism and the emergence of Neoliberalism, which has
challenged the post-World War II era of centralized control and
decision-making (Loughlin, 2009). Neoliberalism in particular has
undermined the notion of the top-down, interventionist state
that was the template for command-and-control approaches to
water management. This shift favours deregulation, privatization
and decentralization. With decentralization came the development
of systems that allow greater citizen participation in decision-
making such as IWRM, which promotes a participatory approach to
decision-making that devolves some power and authority from the
government to public stakeholders. While this transition has been
widely implemented around the world, the literature review iden-
tified a need for a consistent and comprehensive understanding of
governance and good governance for implementation and evalua-
tion of the governance process. To support consistency, five pillars
of good governance were extracted from the literature to categorize
and simplify the characteristics of an effective governance system.
2.1. Governance
The move to adopt governance around the globe was hasty
and lacked consistency (Lautze et al., 2011). Consequently, there
has been no standard or commonly accepted definition of gov-
ernance and few guidelines for governance practices, processes
and institutions (Rogers and Hall 2003). Due to differing contexts,
existing definitions of governance are diverse in their orientation
and emphasis and lack consistency and insight into operation and
implementation. However, it can be said that governance encom-
passes both the institutions and the process of decision-making
(Lautze et al., 2011). Table 1 reveals a number of definitions that
include Kaufmann’s (1999) definition that focuses on democracy
and economics, a definition that was used by the United Nations
Development Programme (1997) that highlights elements related
to freedom and justice. None of these definitions are incorrect nor
is the list exhaustive in its scope; they merely highlight different
dimensions of governance. Nevertheless, without a common defi-
nition of governance it is difficult to see how it can be effectively
implemented and, just as importantly, evaluated (Castro 2007;
Lautze et al., 2011; Pahl-Wostl and Krantz, 2010; Tortajada, 2010).
For the purpose of this paper, water governance will be defined
as:
“. . .the processes and institutions by which decisions affect-
ing water are made. It does not include practical, technical
and routine management functions such as modelling, forecast-
ing, staffing and constructing infrastructure. It does not include
water resource outcomes (Lautze et al., 2011).”
Please cite this article in press as: Montgomery, J., et al., A table for five: Stakeholder perceptions of water governance in Alberta. Agric.
Water Manage. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2016.04.013
This definition is used based on a literature review of gover-
nance because it offers clarity about what governance includes
and excludes providing a solid framework upon which an eval-
uation can occur. It emphasizes that governance is the processes
and institutions, not the outcomes and reinforces the significance
stakeholders and participants play in the decision-making process.
2.2. Good governance
Evaluations of governance systems typically evaluate it in terms
of good governance. However, much like governance, there is a
lack of consistency in how good governance is defined. Previous
attempts to conceptualize and evaluate governance have relied
on IWRM as a framework (Lautze et al., 2011; Ako et al, 2009;
Charnay, 2011; Hammer et al., 2011). When governance is under-
stood within the IWRM framework, it is regarded as a tool to achieve
specific outcomes (Castro, 2007; Lautze et al., 2011; Connick and
Innes, 2003). From this perspective, a good outcome is a signifier
of good governance. However, this neglects the role collaboration
and participation play in reaching outcomes, which are essential to
resolving water management issues (Biswas and Tortajada, 2010;
Castro, 2007; De Stefano, 2010; Lautze et al., 2011). Effective gover-
nance or good governance needs to create structures and processes
that allow for equitable negotiation between stakeholders. While
there is no universally accepted understanding of what good gover-
nance is, the literature can be distilled into pillars, or components,
that promote good governance. The pillars selected reflect the defi-
nition of governance as stated above and do not attempt to describe
good governance in universal terms.
2.2.1. The five pillars of good governance
While governance is almost by definition unique to its context,
this article proposes five principles or pillars that are integral to
good governance. They are the result of extracting and distilling
the material gathered in a systematic review of peer-reviewed and
grey literature on governance from the perspective of governance
as a process. These pillars reflect on the structures and processes
characterizing good governance and include accountability, adapt-
ability, participation, rule of law, and transparency. The elements
listed below are simplified to reflect common aspects described in
the literature and are not exhaustive.
2.2.1.1. Accountability. This centres on how well formal structures
facilitate outcomes. It ensures that each element of the governance
system is working effectively, by:
• specifying roles and responsibilities (Lockwood et al., 2010; de
Löe et al., 2009);
• identifying needed skills and resources (de Löe et al., 2009);
• improving coordination and collaboration (de Löe et al., 2009);
• ensuring checks and balances mitigate the abuse of power (Taylor
and de Löe, 2012; de Löe et al., 2009);
• transparently designating authority (Lockwood et al., 2010);
• incorporating science and local knowledge (Taylor and de Löe,
2012; Rogers and Hall, 2003), and
• balancing power and priorities (Taylor and de Löe, 2012; Rogers
and Hall, 2003).
2.2.1.2. Adaptability. This refers to how well governance systems
respond to uncertainty and change (de Löe et al., 2009). It entails:
• responding to new information (Lockwood et al., 2010);
• anticipating and managing threats, opportunities and risks;
• systematic reflection on individual, organizational and system
performance (Lockwood et al., 2010);
G Model
AGWAT-4458; No. of Pages 11 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Montgomery et al. / Agricultural Water Management xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 3

Table 1
Definitions of governance.

Definitions of governance

Exercise of economic, political and administrative authority to manage a country’s affairs, at all levels, comprising mechanisms, processes and institutions
through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise legal rights, meet their obligations and mediate their differences.
(United Nations Development Programme, 1997)
Ways of managing relationships through spatially and temporally specific articulation of the rules of behaviour about allocating resources among individuals
and collectives within a given setting.
(Rist et al., 2007)
A structure where governments and other stakeholders agree to share responsibility for the development and delivery of policy, planning and programs or
services, but where the government retains legislative accountability. It is a collaborative goal-setting and problem-solving process built on trust and
communication. It requires clear roles, responsibilities, accountabilities and relationships.
(Alberta Water Council, 2008)
A complex process that considers multi-level participation beyond the state and where decision-making includes public institutions, the private sector, civil
society and society in general.
(Tortajada, 2010)
Consists of the processes and institutions by which decisions affecting water are made. It does not include practical, technical and routine management
functions such as modelling, forecasting, staffing and constructing infrastructure. It does not include water resource outcomes.
(Lautze et al., 2011)
Traditions and institutions by authority is exercised in a country. Includes the processes by which governments are elected, monitored and replaced; the
capacity of the government to formulate and implement sound policies; the respect of citizens and the state for the institutions that govern economic and
political relations between them.
(Kaufmann et al., 1999)
The processes and institutions through which decisions are made about water. Includes the range of political, organizational and administrative processes
used to make and implement decisions and the accountability of decision-makers.
(National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, 2011)

• including, but extending beyond, conflict resolution (Funder et al.,
2010);
• promoting effective responses to changing political, economic,
social and environmental conditions (Akamani and Wilson,
2011);
• addressing uncertainty and ongoing change through knowledge
development and application (de Löe et al., 2009), and
• encouraging informal relationships (outside formal political
structures) into formal decision-making processes (Innes et al.,
2004).
• the application of appropriate scales and boundaries for gover-
nance partnerships (United Nations Development Programme,
1997; Wyborn and Bixler, 2013);
• communication and coordination among many layers of govern-
ment and stakeholders that adheres to the rule of law (United
Nations Development Programme, 1997), and
• financial, technical and administrative support (Lurie and Hib-
bart, 2008).
2.2.1.5. Transparency. This facilitates open and visible governance
structures and processes. It requires

2.2.1.3. Participation. This is a pivotal component of the de-
centralizing transition from government to governance. It requires:
• the engagement of government, key stakeholders and the general
public (de Löe et al., 2009; Reed, 2008);
• the general public being given information and opportunities to
participate (Slavíková and Jílková, 2011);
• key stakeholders engaging with formal decision-making struc-
tures (Slavíková and Jílková, 2011);
• participation that is broad, balanced and inclusive (Cuppen, 2011;
Reed, 2008);
• having processes that meet the needs and wishes of all stakehold-
ers (Webler and Tuler, 2001);
• inviting local and traditional knowledge into decision-making
structures and processes, and
• hearing the voices of those most affected by water issues (Reed,
2008).
2.2.1.4. Rule of law. This is crucial to achieving tangible outcomes.
It necessitates:
• aligning governance structures with broader social and political
structures (Rogers and Hall, 2003; Ferreyra et al., 2008);
• establishing governance within a just legal and ethical framework
to encourage compliance with existing legislation, policies and
regulations (Lockwood et al., 2010);
• support from relevant tiers of government (Lurie and Hibbard,
2008; United Nations Development Programme, 1997);
• clear, defensible rationales for the decisions made (Lockwood
et al., 2010);
• open agendas and the free expression of opinions (de Löe et al.,
2009; Lockwood et al., 2010);
• networks that facilitate effective communication and
knowledge-sharing to generate communication, collabora-
tion, integration, trust, honesty and respect (de Löe et al., 2009;
Alberta Water Council, 2011; Weible et al., 2011);
• clear, reliable communication between all scales of operation
leading to the integration of goals, identification of problems and
proposed solutions between all stakeholders (Smith and Kelly,
2003), and
• sharing of data and information with the government, the public
and all stakeholders (Lockwood et al., 2010).
Given that governance requires stakeholder participation, the
process of governance is unlikely to be effective if stakeholders are
not satisfied with its operation. Stakeholder perceptions of these
pillars can provide insight into how well a governance process
is functioning by identifying their current satisfaction with how
the five pillars are being realized in practice. It can also encourage
improvements to the processes by exposing stakeholder values and
interests regarding the five pillars.
2.3. The Alberta context
This study aims to evaluate an established, IWRM based gover-
nance system with broad stakeholder participation. The case study
selected was Alberta’s Water for Life strategy, focusing on the South
Saskatchewan River Basin. Participants were selected from the

Please cite this article in press as: Montgomery, J., et al., A table for five: Stakeholder perceptions of water governance in Alberta. Agric.
Water Manage. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2016.04.013
G Model
AGWAT-4458; No. of Pages 11 ARTICLE IN PRESS
4 J. Montgomery et al. / Agricultural Water Management xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
three water partnerships – Water Planning and Advisory Councils
(WPAC), the Alberta Water Council (AWC) and Water Stewardship
Groups (WSG) – to represent the stakeholder sectors included in
the Water for Life strategy, and to answer the question: is the water
governance process in Alberta fulfilling elements of accountability,
adaptability, participation, rule of law and transparency?
The province has been moving towards sustainable water
resource management since the creation of the Ministry of the
Environment in 1971. By the 1990s, public concerns were grow-
ing in southern Alberta, particularly in the Bow and Oldman river
basins, over water quality and availability due to population growth
and economic development. To address water quality issues in the
Bow River Basin, the Bow River Basin Council (BRBC) was formed,
establishing collaboration between stakeholders. In the Oldman
River Basin, the Oldman River Basin Water Quality Initiative (ORB-
WQI) was formed to lead a 5-year study between 1998 and 2003 to
monitor the human impact on water quality in the Oldman basin
(Koning et al., 2006). To further support sustainable water man-
agement, the Water Act was passed in 1999 and Basin Advisory
Councils (BAC) were formed as public consultation bodies to assist
the Government of Alberta in writing basin management plans.
The BACs were early governance bodies with representation from
major stakeholder groups but had no authority or accountability in
the development of plans (Government of Alberta, 2006). In 2004
the Water for Life (WFL) strategy was adopted, formalizing gover-
nance bodies, including the Alberta Water Council (AWC), Water
Planning and Advisory Councils (WPAC), and Watershed Steward-
ship Groups (WSG). In response, the ORBWQI and the Oldman BAC
merged to form the Oldman Watershed Council WPAC, while the
BRBC became formally designated a WPAC. By 2009, sustainable
resource management was formally extended to land, air and bio-
diversity via the Alberta Land Stewardship Act and the Land-use
Framework. Today work is being done to integrate the WFL pol-
icy with the Land-use Framework’s regional plans (Government of
Alberta, 2009).
WFL enshrines stakeholder involvement in monitoring and
responding to watershed conditions (Government of Alberta,
2003). While the overarching goals set out in the strategy are broad,
it is the responsibility of public stakeholders to decide how those
goals can be met. Representative participation is formally estab-
lished, ensuring all key sectors have a seat at the table. These
sectors include various industries, non-government organizations,
all levels of government, First Nations, and the general public. As
mentioned above, three partnerships were established to imple-
ment this process of participatory governance to focus on water
issues at varying scales: WPACs focus on regional/watershed level
issues and are the organizations tasked with developing Integrated
Watershed Management Plans for their respective river basins,
advising government and the AWC on water issues and plans,
supporting WSGs, and educating the public; WSGs focus on stew-
ardship activities at the local level; and the AWC, with input from
the WPACs and WSGs, produces provincial level recommenda-
tions for government bureaucrats to use in policy development
(Government of Alberta, 2008). The Government is responsible for
decision-making and serves as a partner in the strategy by sup-
porting and assisting the partnerships. Fig. 1 shows the pathways
that recommendations and collaboration travel between all of the
Water for Life partnerships, including government.
The South Saskatchewan River Basin, which includes the Red
Deer River Basin, Bow River Basin, the Oldman River Basin, and
for geographical convenience as it is not a tributary of the South
Saskatchewan River, the Milk River Basin, was selected as the study
area. The region is the most populated in the province, economic
development is ongoing, irrigation and agriculture are mainstays of
the region, the basin has been over allocated with a moratorium on
new allocations in place, and water governance has been formally
Please cite this article in press as: Montgomery, J., et al., A table for five: Stakeholder perceptions of water governance in Alberta. Agric.
Water Manage. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2016.04.013
Fig. 1. Water for life strategy partnerships and information sharing/collaboration
pathways.
established since 2004. As directed by the Land-use Framework, the
South Saskatchewan Regional Plan became legally binding in 2014
making the evaluation in this study an assessment of governance
prior to the transition to regional planning.
3. Methods
Evaluation of governance must focus on the processes of gover-
nance, as well as its outcomes but there are few, widely accepted
methods of evaluating governance. While attempts have been
made, devising standardized, large-scale self-assessment evalua-
tion instruments have been less than successful (De Stefano, 2010;
Hooper, 2010). Differences between basins are significant enough
to disallow the development of a standardized instrument; each
governance situation has its own specific indicators of good gov-
ernance (Hooper, 2010). Case studies and interviews have been
the primary means of data collection because they accommodate
stakeholder perspectives, gauge contextual effects and heed gover-
nance’s inherent complexity (Biswas and Tortajada, 2010; Rist et al.,
2007). However, case studies and interviews lack the same rigor as
a mixed method approach. This study attempts to address this by
utilizing the Q-method, which combines the qualitative benefits of
interviews and case studies with statistical analysis.
Originating from the field of psychology, the Q-method has
emerged as a tool for a broad range of disciplines and fields of
study as it enables the qualitative and quantitative identification of
common perspectives within a population in regards to a specific
idea or question (Brown, 1980). The Q-method differentiates shared
perspectives within a population (Watts and Stenner, 2012). The
benefit of the Q-method is that a small number of participants, typi-
cally fewer than 40, is sufficient to produce reliable and statistically
significant results (Watts and Stenner, 2012).
The Q-method begins by establishing a clear question of inquiry,
and identifying a study area and population. Once these prelimi-
nary details are finalized, a concourse is formulated through the
gathering of opinion statements related to the question from any
variety of available sources. Print materials, radio, television, social
media, interviews and so on are valid sources for extracting opin-
ion statements to develop a broad and thorough concourse (Watts
and Stenner, 2012). The concourse contains hundreds of opinion
statements or Q-statements, which are then reduced significantly
to form the Q-set. Q-statements depict all unique opinions related
to the initial question and each is formulated in such a way that
multiple interpretations are possible. This enables participants to
impress their beliefs and values onto the meaning of the statements
relative to each other, thereby allowing their perspectives to be
captured (Watts and Stenner, 2012).
To build the concourse, opinion statements were gathered from
grey literature and pre-sort interviews that were conducted with
the selected stakeholders, most of whom would later perform the
G Model
AGWAT-4458; No. of Pages 11 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Montgomery et al. / Agricultural Water Management xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 5

Table 2
Number and distribution of expected and actual pre-sort interviewees and Q-sort participants by Water for Life partnership, by sector.

Sector Category Sectors with Assigned Membership # of Desired # of # of Q-Sort

Interviewees Interviewees Participants

AWC Industry Chemical and Petrochemical 1 1 1

Irrigation
Cropping
Mining
Oil and Gas
Forestry
Livestock
Power Generation
NGOs Environmental (Biodiversity Conservation) 1 1
Environmental (Habitat Conservation)
Environmental (Law)
Wetlands Conservation
Fisheries Habitat Conservation
Lake Environment Conservation
WPACs 1 1
Government Large Urban 1
Small Urban
Rural
Métis Settlements 1
GOA and Provincial Alberta Agriculture and Forestry 1
Authorities Alberta Energy
Alberta Environment and Parks
Alberta Health
Science and Research 1 1 1
WPAC Industry Tourism/Recreation 1 1
Agriculture–Non-Irrigated 2 1 1
Agriculture–Irrigated 2 1
Business 2 2
Industry–Renewable
Industry–Non-Renewable
Government First Nations 1 1
Health 1 1 1
Municipalities 1 1 2
Prov. Government 1 2 2
Fed Government 0 0
Other Academia 1 2 1
ENGOs 2 2 3
General Public 2
WSG Government Municipal Government 1
Prov. Government
NGOs/Societies/Agencies i.e. Cows and Fish, Trout Unlimited 1 1 1
Industry Landowners 2 2 2
None First Nations 1
Others 2
TOTAL 24 21 21

Q-sort and participate in post-sort interviews, which is acceptable
practice (Frantzi et al., 2009). To gather comprehensive opinions
on the processes, invitations to participate in pre-sort interviews
were sent to active stakeholders representing all three Water for
Life partnerships and key stakeholder groups as shown in Table 2
below.
In this study, the pre-sort interview questions were semi-
structured and designed to learn what the five pillars meant to
the participants relative to the partnerships. Interviews were con-
ducted over the phone or in person, depending on the participant’s
location and preference. Grey literature and policy documents were
also used to generate statements. In this study, the final concourse
was composed of 449 statements, which were then reduced to 40
statements equally representing key characteristics of each of the
five pillars of good governance (Frantzi et al., 2009; Watts and
Stenner, 2012). These 40 statements were termed the Q-set as
shown in Table 3. It is the Q-set that is sorted by the participants
through a Q-sort procedure.
With the focus of the study on the governance processes used
within the WPAC structure, invitations to participate in the Q-sort
were sent to stakeholders who were actively involved in the WPAC
process and who represented key sectors assigned membership to
the partnership. Due to availability it was only possible to secure
participation from 21 out of 24 desired stakeholders as shown in
Table 2. Although some sectors or sub-sectors were not repre-
sented, broad representation from key stakeholder groups was still
retained. Since the variables within the Q-method are the partic-
ipants rather than the Q-set statements, good results can still be
gathered despite the absence of representation of some sectors.
The Q-sort differentiates perspectives that are shared to varying
degrees between the participants despite their sectorial affiliation.
Therefore, it is possible to use Q-sort data to generalize perspectives
within a population using a small number of participants (Barry and
Proops, 1999; Frantzi et al., 2009). Since the Q-method is used to
uncover perspectives within a specific population, great care must
be taken when applying the results to other regions or populations.
Participants were asked to interpret and sort the Q-set state-
ments in accordance with their individual opinions, beliefs and
values. The Q-sort participants were asked to rank the 40 state-
ments on a regular distribution curve spanning from −4 to +4
(Watts and Stenner, 2012). In this way the participants become
the variables. Due to participants being located throughout south-
ern Alberta, the web-based Q-sort application Q-Assessor was used.
At the end of the q-sort the participants were asked to fill out a
structured post-sort questionnaire to help clarify and validate the

Please cite this article in press as: Montgomery, J., et al., A table for five: Stakeholder perceptions of water governance in Alberta. Agric.
Water Manage. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2016.04.013
G Model
AGWAT-4458; No. of Pages 11 ARTICLE IN PRESS
6 J. Montgomery et al. / Agricultural Water Management xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Table 3
Final Q-set.

ID# Statement Pillar

9 Decisions are made by rule of thumb, not on scientific basis Accountability

11 The government can feel more assured in implementing policy because even
those who may be negatively affected by it have agreed that it is going to be OK
14 I’m not sure how long the whole thing can keep going if the recommendations
are not moving forward
15 We’ve got some good buy-in from the public
19 It’s difficult for us to do our job when some sectors choose not to participate
20 It’s not always clear what role the province wants us to play
21 Water for Life gives locals the responsibility and wherewithal to keep on the
issues
36 We don’t have the science to understand the watershed
2 We run the risk of the work we do becoming irrelevant by the time we Adaptability
complete it
13 The mechanisms are in place to resolve conflicts
26 We’ve gotten away from experimenting with solutions
27 I don’t think currently we’re well equipped to adapt to changing conditions
28 Decision-making places more emphasis on short-term economic
considerations over environmental sustainability
30 We’re trying to create the perfect governance institution and then hope we
can fit solutions into it
31 Sitting at the table, I develop an understanding of all the different views
32 The hard data is available for us to understand the water issues
4 Without a greater release of power from the bureaucracy to the partnerships, Participation
change won’t happen.
5 I find it difficult to represent the different views found in my group
6 You end up with volunteer burnout
8 The way things are set up limits the representation of some social groups
10 Water for Life oversimplifies who is involved in water management
12 The public isn’t as engaged as they need to be
34 Everyone that comes to the table has interest in trying to make things better
40 Everyone who is affected has an opportunity to participate
3 I think water governance and the overarching political structure are two Rule
systems running parallel, neither affecting the other of
16 The partnerships get down to the appropriate spatial scales Law
17 The government stands up to its leadership role
22 The government is committed to the partnerships
25 Support from the government is sketchy
33 There‘s nothing in the law to encourage or incent people to do this work
37 Everybody‘s kind of bumped along in their own way without having a
framework, often working outside of the law
39 Collaborative governance doesn’t work for all water related issues
1 We can actually have a let-your-hair-down, open and completely frank and Transparency
honest discussion about things that sometimes may not be in the best interest
of our stakeholder’s to disclose.
7 All partners share their expertise, information and resources
18 I don‘t know if the government respects us
23 We have to be careful what we say because we don’t want to bite the hands
that give you money
24 There is an internal process happening in government that seems to be
running contrary to the public governance process
29 Water for Life is improving public knowledge about water
35 There is some good coordination between the partnerships
38 There‘s not a lot of trust between us and the government

responses, particularly ensuring that the statements were arranged
respective to the imposed scale (2).
Factor analysis was performed on the completed Q-sorts expos-
ing the perspectives held by the stakeholder population. From this,
factor arrays (see Table 4) were generated showing the rankings
of all 40 statements relative to each other and serve as general-
ized Q-sorts for each factor. Further analysis using the pre-sort
interviews, post-sort questionnaires, Q-sorts and statistical anal-
ysis provided the content for developing a qualitative description
of each perspective.
4. Analysis and discussion
While the factors uncovered through the Q-method are gener-
alized, the factor analysis uncovered five unique and statistically
significant perspectives within the active stakeholder population.
Analysis of the data permitted narratives to be developed to provide
a better, practical understanding of the factors. As such, descriptive
names were given to the factors: Protectors, Opportunists, Decen-
tralists, Skeptics, and Supporters. Table 5 summarizes the factors.
Allfactors have eigenvalues above 1.00 indicating significance,
composite of reliability scores above 0.80 indicating strong repro-
ducibility, and low standard error scores indicating high precision
in the factor scores (Brown, 1980). The number of defining vari-
ables reflects the number of participants whose values and beliefs
were most strongly aligned with each factor and whose Q-sorts,
questionnaires and interviews were used to develop the narratives
described below.
The first factor, labelled Protectors, are stakeholders who place
themselves at the governance table to serve the voiceless, par-
ticularly the environment and future generations, and appreciate
the Water for Life partnerships as venues for developing innova-
tive solutions to water issues. Protectors are largely affiliated with

Please cite this article in press as: Montgomery, J., et al., A table for five: Stakeholder perceptions of water governance in Alberta. Agric.
Water Manage. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2016.04.013
G Model
AGWAT-4458; No. of Pages 11 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Montgomery et al. / Agricultural Water Management xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 7

Table 4
Q-sort factor arrays for factors A, B, D, E, G arranged by statement.

# Statement Factor

A B D E G

1 We can actually have a let-your-hair-down, open and completely frank and honest −1 1 0 −3 4
discussion about things that sometimes may not be in the best interest of our stakeholders
to disclose
2 We run the risk of the work we do becoming irrelevant by the time we complete it 1 1 2 −2 −2
3 I think water governance and the overarching political structure are two systems running 2 0 −1 −1 1
parallel, neither affecting the other.
4 Without a greater release of power from the bureaucracy to the partnerships, change 3 −1 4 −2 −2
won’t happen.
5 I find it difficult to represent the different views found in my group −1 −1 −4 −1 0
6 You end up with volunteer burnout 0 3 2 0 2
7 All partners share their expertise, information and resources −2 1 1 3 0
8 The way things are set up limits the representation of some social groups 0 −3 −3 −2 −3
9 Decisions are made by rule of thumb, not on scientific basis 1 −3 0 −3 0
10 Water for Life oversimplifies who is involved in water management 0 −2 −2 0 −2
11 The government can feel more assured in implementing policy because even those who −1 2 0 3 −1
may be negatively affected by it have agreed that it is going to be OK
12 The public isn’t as engaged as they need to be 1 4 2 −3 −2
13 The mechanisms are in place to resolve conflicts −4 −2 0 1 2
14 I’m not sure how long the whole thing can keep going if the recommendations are not 2 −1 3 1 −1
moving forward
15 We’ve got good buy-in from the public −2 0 −4 1 −1
16 With Water for Life, dividing the province into the different watersheds was the best thing 2 0 4 3 4
to do
17 The government upholds its leadership role −4 0 −2 2 3
18 I don’t know if the government respects us 0 −1 1 −4 −3
19 It’s difficult for us to do our job when some sectors choose not to participate 1 0 −1 1 −4
20 It’s not always clear what our role is 3 3 2 −1 1
21 Water for Life gives locals the responsibility to keep on the issues 0 4 −2 2 0
22 The government is committed to the partnerships −2 2 0 2 0
23 We have to be careful what we say because we don’t want to bite the hands that give you −3 −4 −1 0 −4
money
24 There is an internal process happening in government that seems to be running contrary 2 −2 0 0 −1
to the public governance process
25 Support from the government is sketchy 1 −4 1 0 −2
26 We’ve gotten away from experimenting with solutions −1 −1 3 0 0
27 I don’t think currently we’re well equipped to adapt to changing conditions 3 0 −1 −1 −1
28 Decision-making places more emphasis on short-term economic considerations over 4 −2 −1 −2 3
environmental sustainability
29 Water for Life is improving public knowledge about water 0 2 1 4 1
30 We’re trying to create the perfect governance institution and then hope we can fit −1 −1 −2 −1 2
solutions into it
31 I develop an understanding of all the different views at the table 2 1 2 2 2
32 The hard data is available for us to understand the water issues −2 0 1 4 0
33 There is nothing in the law to encourage or incent people to do this work 1 2 −2 0 3
34 Everyone that comes to the table has interest in trying to make things better −2 2 1 1 −1
35 There is good coordination between the partnerships −3 1 0 2 1
36 It is obvious where accountability lies in Water for Life −3 −2 −1 1 0
37 Everybody’s kind of bumped along in their own way without having a framework, often 0 0 −3 −1 −3
working outside of the law
38 There’s not a lot of trust between us and the government 0 −3 0 −4 1
39 Collaborative governance doesn’t work for all water related issues 4 3 −3 −2 2
40 Everyone who is affected has an opportunity to participate −1 1 3 0 1
Variance 4.25
Standard Deviation 2.062

Environmental Non-Government Organizations (ENGOs) and are
dedicated people who often refuse to give up or leave the table.
“I’m not going to abandon my work on these governance agen-
cies because I think they do good work. . . You have to maintain
some kind of hopefulness” (Interview 10, Line 343).
They see governance as a beacon of hope that someday the sta-
tus quo will fall away and make room for greater environmental
protection. For this to happen, Protectors consider participation
key and express concern when groups such as First Nations, spe-
cial interest groups, industry, and government ministries are not
at the table (Statement 17, Rank −4). Protectors argue that some
stakeholders are not interested in sitting at the table to negotiate
solutions as they see greater value in lobbying government directly;
to protectors, these actions severely undermine governance and
request that government action be taken to ensure all groups are at
the table to discuss solutions (39, +4). Protectors desire change and
with a keen eye, watch the government’s response to recommen-
dations submitted by the stakeholders. They see frustration with
the government’s poor response to recommendations in not only
themselves but all other stakeholder groups. They are proud of the
work they do and are disappointed that the government does not
seem to be acting on it.
“If the government showed any signs of acting on recommenda-
tions, on the plethora of recommendations that have been made
to them, then I would feel very happy” (Interview 10, Line 61).
At a regional level, this disappointment and frustration has led
to ongoing discussions about WPACs abandoning their role as an
advisory body to become a more active advocate for water issues.

Please cite this article in press as: Montgomery, J., et al., A table for five: Stakeholder perceptions of water governance in Alberta. Agric.
Water Manage. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2016.04.013
G Model
AGWAT-4458; No. of Pages 11 ARTICLE IN PRESS
8 J. Montgomery et al. / Agricultural Water Management xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
Table 5
Factor characteristics from Q-sort statistical analysis.
Factor
Protector Opportunists
Pillar(s) of High Priority Adaptability, Rule of Accountability,
Law Participation
Pillar(s) of Low Priority Participation, Rule of Law
Transparency
Affiliated Sector(s) Environment Industry
(non-agriculture),
Academia
Number of defining 6 3
variables
(stakeholders)
Composite Reliability 0.960 0.923
Standard Error of factor 0.200 0.277
Scores
Eigenvalue 3.30 2.03
Variance 15.7% 9.7%
These discussions are controversial as they mean WPACs would
cease to be a Water for Life partnership and threaten balanced
decision-making that Protectors value (Interview 10, Line 536).
The second factor was labelled Opportunists and represents the
views of industry and academia. Accountability and participation
in governance are top priorities to these stakeholders and they
place great value on acquiring, analysing and interpreting data, and
using technical knowledge (9, −3). They believe that participation
from government, stakeholders and the general public is essential
in providing technical capacity. However, they believe that strict
volunteer membership and insufficient resources are barriers to
acquire the specialists and experts needed to collect and analyse
data (Interview 7, Line 242). Issues with retaining technical capacity
is also related to WPACs being “. . .much too reliant on volunteers.
People are generous [with their time and skills] but with year-after-
year frustrations and efforts, burnout is inevitable” (Questionnaire
5454). While experts and skilled people are needed, broad engage-
ment and public participation are also necessary for supporting
watershed plans and solutions, and they believe that governance
“isn’t well understood by the general public” (Interview 7, Line
309). Opportunists see the WFL partnerships as opportunities to
collaborate on finding innovative solutions, which is something
that government cannot do alone. However this factor questions
the role industry plays at the governance table. Many of the issues
brought forward fall outside of industry’s business scope and their
contributions become limited (39, +3). Greater accountability and
support from government is requested to ensure projects are sus-
tainable, particularly securing funding for long-term data collection
and management. Opportunists see opportunity for change and
advancement but not without clear roles, reliable technical capacity
and broad participation.
Valuing greater devolution of power to stakeholders, the third
factor was given the name Decentralists. While there is no dis-
cernible sectoral affiliation, the stakeholders that informed this
factor, support local level decision-making, rather than provincial-
level plans and regulations (4, +4). They recognize water issues as
being local problems with local solutions (Questionnaire 5512). As
non-governmental bodies, the Water for Life partnerships are seen
as open and transparent and have the ability to attract groups who
distrust the government (Interview 14, Line 277).
“I think government sees that [WPACs] can bring more folks
together to find practical solutions than often times they can.
(Interview 14, Line 286)”
Currently the governance process is well supported by a broad
spectrum of players, but greater participation by the general pub-
lic is missing and is needed to fuel change. Decentralists perceive
Please cite this article in press as: Montgomery, J., et al., A table for five: Stakeholder perceptions of water governance in Alberta. Agric.
Water Manage. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2016.04.013
Decentralists Skeptics Supporters
Participation, Rule of Law Transparency Rule of Law, Transparency
Transparency Participation Accountability
(no trend) Industry (Agriculture) Provincial Government
3 2 3
0.923 0.889 0.923
0.277 0.333 0.277
1.65 1.37 1.37
7.8% 6.5% 6.5%
three major weaknesses in the system: poor levels of government
action (14, +3), ineffective coordination between ministries (Inter-
view 3, Line 386), and a lack of understanding by bureaucrats of
what happens on the ground. Implementation of recommenda-
tions is considered to be weak and Decentralists attribute this to
a lack of clear roles for partnerships, and ideas being stalled at the
government level.
“This is where I think the problem exists to date is people don’t
know who they should rely on to make. . . change. (Interview 3,
Line 439)”
To overcome this, partnerships require clearer roles, more
authority and responsibility with respect to decision-making,
and greater public engagement through education (Questionnaire
5656).
Primarily representing the views of landowners from the agri-
cultural sector, the fourth factor demonstrates skepticism towards
the government and the Water for Life strategy based on past expe-
riences.
“When you hear about a government [initiative] coming out to
do something you think, ‘OK, if I get started with this, is it still
going to be there in a year?”’ (Interview 21, Line 310)?
Once this mistrust is overcome, Skeptics value the governance
process and the role government plays in maintaining fair decision-
making (Interview 20, Line 86). Skeptics give transparency and
participation top priority, largely due to a perceived need for
fairness in decision-making. Governance is observed to provide
opportunities to share and learn from others and generate sci-
ence based decisions through consensus (9, −3; 32, +4). Skeptics
observe threats to the agricultural industry in the water issues
being brought up by special interest groups and fear that gov-
ernment support for Water for Life is unreliable, undermining the
fairness that governance can provide (Interview 20, Line 135). Skep-
tics believe that participation and transparency can ensure that
all perspectives are given an equal opportunity at the table; how-
ever, they also fear that emotion influences the work partnerships
do, leading to biases in how information is presented, shared and
interpreted.
“Emotion is definitely affecting how decisions are made. It
doesn’t matter how good the science is, that’s still going to hap-
pen because the general public isn’t science based; it’s emotion
based” (Interview 21, Line 197).
While they value the opportunities governance can provide in
terms of sharing knowledge, Skeptics believe government inter-
vention is much better for overruling emotion and controlling bias
G Model
AGWAT-4458; No. of Pages 11 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Montgomery et al. / Agricultural Water Management xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
(Questionnaire 5970). To further develop the fairness in governance
processes, Skeptics believe that improved coordination between
partnerships and the government is needed. Some have observed
a breakdown in governance through the acts of some government
departments and stakeholders pursuing their aims outside the WFL
structure and process (Interview 21, Line 474). While Skeptics see
value in the Water for Life strategy, they stress that the partnerships
are only viable if fairness and government support is upheld.
The fifth factor, Supporters, tends to represent stakeholders that
regard themselves as internal resources, or supporters of the pro-
cess rather than true stakeholders. Individuals with this perspective
do not come to the table with a set agenda and expectations,
but serve as an advocate for the governance process: gathering
resources, data, guidance, and information to assist with decision-
making (Interview 2, Line 32; Interview 15, Line 107). Primarily
expressed by provincial government representatives, Supporters
value the rule of law and help partnerships function within the
existing political structures. They feel that without government
support, the partnerships could not exist (Interview 2, Line 297).
In terms of participation, Supporters regard broad participation
essential for the success of the governance process and believe that
sectoral representation can result in situations where some issues
and solutions may be missed as not all voices have a place at the
table. Those sitting at the governance table are required to repre-
sent multiple views within their respective sectors, which can be
challenging.
“. . .it’s really difficult to have an agricultural voice because agri-
culture is so diverse. . . so to come to a consensus or have an
opinion on agriculture as a whole is really difficult to do” Inter-
view 2, Line 186).
Balance around the table becomes less about filling seats and
more about filling seats well; ensuring the most voices are heard. In
order for all of the voices to be heard, transparency become critical.
Supporters observe high levels of communication between stake-
holders around the table enabling good discussions and problem
solving (1, +4). Transparency is not an issue, the issue is public
engagement (Interview 15, Line 580). Without public engagement
no progress will occur on the ground.
4.1. Good governance in Alberta
From the five factors uncovered by this study and the expressed
level of satisfaction with the five pillars of good governance, a crit-
ical evaluation of the current governance process in Alberta can
be generated. The results showed the presence of all five criteria
without any significant displays of dissatisfaction with the overall
governance system. All perspectives expressed appreciation for a
governance system that enables them to shape the policies that will
affect their livelihoods. Stakeholders value the opportunity gover-
nance provides for sharing information, dissolving misconceptions
and assumptions, building cooperation and collaboration, stimu-
lating innovation, and bringing people together as a community
to identify issues and reach consensus. However, there is room
for improvement and more study is required to fully understand
the priority issues listed here and find appropriate solutions. The
greatest concerns were expressed in terms of the government’s
accountability to acting on the partnerships’ work and a lack of
engagement of the general public.
Generally, elements of accountability were given little priority
by the stakeholders. This may be indicative of either perceived low
human health risks associated with water issues, or the application
of appropriate governance boundaries (Hahn, 2011; Taylor and de
Löe, 2012). While the participants indicated satisfaction with the
Water for Life boundaries, it is inconclusive as to whether or not
this influenced the views of accountability. In regards to human
Please cite this article in press as: Montgomery, J., et al., A table for five: Stakeholder perceptions of water governance in Alberta. Agric.
Water Manage. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2016.04.013
9
risk levels, this study did not include analysis of water issues. Across
the majority of interviewees, there was an observed hesitation and
explicit confusion as to how to define accountability. It is unknown
if and how a lack of clarity may contribute to the low priority of
accountability elements.
While more closely related to the rule of law, the one element
of accountability that was held strongly by all factors was that gov-
ernment is ultimately accountable for decision-making. This belief
aligns with how governance is expected to work within a demo-
cratic system such that while government action in relation to
regulation and administration is still essential, governance gives
stakeholders the capacity to make a contribution to the content
of that regulation and administration. Duit (2016) describes the
role that the state has taken within environmental management
regimes, where governance has moved the state away from exer-
cising a heavy regulatory framework to having a ‘softer’ role of
promoting ‘network governance,’ public-private partnerships and
facilitating stakeholder dialogues. While the state releases its role
as the director and becomes just one actor, it does retain a unique
capacity to create collectively binding rules, which is its regula-
tory function. The state has a unique and almost unparalleled role
in influencing market actors, monitoring the health and human
aspects of the environment, implementing policy and generating
knowledge and norms in relation to the environment (Duit, 2016).
While some data from this study indicated a need for further devo-
lution of power from the government to the partnerships, it was
clear that many stakeholders in Alberta’s Water for Life strategy
regard the role of the state in the governance process as impor-
tant, particularly in relation to regulation and administration. There
were clear expectations that the government is required to retain
the decision-making role to maintain democracy, which leads to
expressions of frustration when the government does not seem to
be acting on the work being done by the partnerships. To improve
governance, it is recommended that the government respond to the
governance bodies in a timely and effective manner that reinforces
the commitment and contributions of the stakeholders.
The partnerships, especially the WPACs also rely upon the
government to supply technical expertise to ensure recommenda-
tions are science based and adaptable to changing environmental,
social, economic, and political conditions. Concern for adaptabil-
ity was expressed in terms of technical capacity, local knowledge
and data collection, conflict resolution, and short-term decision-
making. With stakeholder turnover and open qualifications for
participants, it is never guaranteed that those sitting around the
table will possess the skills and knowledge required to deal with the
technical issues at hand. The government is the only stakeholder
with the resources to supply stable and reliable technical capacity.
With the desire to make well-informed decisions, stakeholders are
concerned that the data needed to fully exercise a science-based
approach is lacking: existing watershed data is incomplete, and
data collection and monitoring is underfunded. Without data and
sufficient technical capacity, local knowledge takes precedence.
While local knowledge is highly valued by the stakeholders for
finding practical solutions, there is concern that relying too heav-
ily upon traditional knowledge clouds decision-making in emotion
and personal desire, eroding the balance and foresight a science-
based approach provides. Without the proper data, concern that
short-term solutions are being favoured that neglect future sustain-
ability. The stakeholders indicated that stable technical capacity
and sufficient data are required for governance processes to work
in the best interests of the people as a whole.
Although personal agendas can be more easily pushed when
scientific data and technical capacity is lacking, political processes
outside of Water for Life can also threaten balanced decision-
making. Participation in Water for Life is voluntary. Within the legal
framework, governance is not the exclusive way stakeholder seek
G Model
AGWAT-4458; No. of Pages 11 ARTICLE IN PRESS
10 J. Montgomery et al. / Agricultural Water Management xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
to influence change. Lobbying is still an accepted way for groups to
influence the decision-making process, which is of concern to those
who choose to sit at the table and who are willing to work with oth-
ers to find consensus. Rather than being transparent and working
through issues, groups have been observed to withdraw from the
table and turn to lobbying government directly. This undermines
the satisfaction and trust stakeholders have in governance. Gov-
ernance could be enhanced by extending greater authority to the
partnerships as a venue for influencing government decisions to
ensure discussions and negotiations occur to find the best solutions
that meet the needs of more than one group.
The final priority concern expressed was related to public
engagement. As Howarth (2009) describes, the issues discussed
at the governance table are often too technical in nature for the
general public to engage in. Water for Life stakeholders value
the negotiations and information sharing that occurs between the
sectors and recognizes that the discussions require expert knowl-
edge rather than general public input; however, all perspectives
indicated that without broad support from the public on the rec-
ommendations being put forward, change is difficult. While WPACs
hold the responsibility to educate and recruit public engagement,
resources and government support is considered to be too weak for
ensuring effective programming. For governance to generate real
change on the ground, clear and attainable methods of improving
public participation and engagement are required. Greater collab-
oration between WPACs and the government may be required.
5. Conclusion
The intention of this study was to simplify the vast definitions
and elements of governance into five pillars of good governance
that could be used in the evaluation of the governance processes
within an existing system. Much of the literature describes evalu-
ations based on a single element of good governance. This study
took a unique multidimensional approach using the five pillars,
something that has not been documented in the literature. The
five pillars included: accountability, adaptability, participation, rule
of law, and transparency. The Water for Life strategy, particularly
the processes that affect the Water Planning and Advisory Councils
(WPAC) were evaluated using these five pillars and the Q-method
to expose the level of satisfaction stakeholders feel and to identify
priority areas that can be improved. The successes and issues asso-
ciated with the Water for Life strategy can then be used as a model
for the processes of other governance systems.
While attempts were made to ensure all stakeholder sectors
were represented in the study, there were still some groups not
represented in the study. While a member of a local First Nations
community participated in a pre-sort interview, no member was
available to participate in the Q-sort. This is another example
of the ongoing struggles with designing research that effectively
engages First Nations communities. The voice of the First Nations is
extremely valuable and while attempts were made, this study failed
to effectively include them. Another group that was excluded was
those who do not participate in water governance and the Water
for Life partnerships, whether it be stakeholders or the general
public. Their perspectives may be able to shed light on a different
understanding of the governance process.
The existing literature indicates that perspectives are not nec-
essarily synonymous with sectors and in order to ensure balanced
representation, perspectives should be identified and used to iden-
tify stakeholders (Cuppen 2011). However, in the case of Alberta the
perspectives were aligned with sectors. The results also exposed
where beliefs and values overlap, even between those groups who
potentially are considered at odds with each other. The results
of this study may be useful in finding common ground between
Please cite this article in press as: Montgomery, J., et al., A table for five: Stakeholder perceptions of water governance in Alberta. Agric.
Water Manage. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2016.04.013
stakeholder groups to enable greater cooperation and collabo-
ration. The results also exposed common elements that require
improvement to enhance the level of stakeholder satisfaction as
participants in water governance. These include the responsive-
ness of the state to the recommendations made by the governance
bodies, technical capacity and data availability for informed and
balanced decision-making, the recognition of governance partner-
ships as authoritative bodies with recognized influence over the
decision-making process, and public engagement. These priorities
expressed by the stakeholders further validate recommenda-
tions previously identified in the Rosenberg Report (Rosenberg
International Forum on Water Policy, 2007) and by the Alberta
Water Council (2008, 2011) for improved coordination and inte-
gration between ministries and partnerships, improved reporting,
and defined implementation tools..
While governance entails a move away from government con-
trol of water management, it does not mean the state is redundant
in relation to governance. The state’s role must change from a
command-and-control function to becoming an enabler and an
enforcer (Agarwal et al., 2000). In most respects Alberta is meet-
ing these requirements and is setting a strong example. However,
it is a lack of follow through on recommendations that is looked
upon with dissatisfaction by the stakeholders and still requires
improvement.
In accordance with the tenets of the rule of law pillar, gover-
nance must be aligned with politico-legal structures that deliver
outcomes derived from the governance process. Almost all groups
perceive that the role of the state in WFL’s governance is essen-
tial; however, former methods of influencing the decision-making
process, such as lobbying, can weaken the effectiveness of gov-
ernance. This serves to demonstrate that while the systems and
processes in place for governance are well-developed, external sys-
tems and processes may conflict and reduce the need for various
groups to participate in governance processes. Governance systems
must assert processes that meet the needs and concerns of all stake-
holders (Webler et al., 2001). Innes et al. (2004) thus advocates
incorporating and integrating relationships outside the governance
system into its formal operation, transforming the governance table
into the primary venue to influence governance.
New policy can also have an effect on governance. As Alberta
moves towards adopting legally binding regional plans under the
Alberta Land Stewardship Act, questions surrounding how the
existing governance bodies will comply with and support the goals
and targets of the Regional Plans are still being raised.
The fact that different groups give weight to different aspects
of governance indicates how important it is to have a nuanced
understanding of it. It is a concept with many components and
is neither singular nor one-dimensional. Evaluation of governance
needs to recognize its components and the way they function. It is
also important to recognize that different groups will quite legiti-
mately identify different pillars of governance and will give priority
to particular pillars. This illustrates that governance is an inher-
ently political undertaking, because stakeholders frequently have
divergent and conflicting interests. It also underlines the point that
governance is not, nor should be, a tool kit to define problems and
impose solutions. But it does underscore the need for governance
because water management does involve a multiplicity of voices
and interests which to be taken into account to achieve politi-
cally palatable water management regimes. Water management
based on technocratic methods, market based mechanisms only or
command-and-control approaches are unlikely to be able to recog-
nize and accommodate the diverse stakeholders involved in water
management. The recognition of stakeholder claims also indicates
the need to be aware of the specific contextual forces operating
in each ‘governance site’. However, for governance to be effective
and for it to be able to be evaluated and improved, it is essential
G Model
AGWAT-4458; No. of Pages 11 ARTICLE IN PRESS
J. Montgomery et al. / Agricultural Water Management xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 11

to understand its operational principles. This paper has outlined Hahn, T., 2011. Self-organized governance networks for ecosystem management:
them and shown how various stakeholders regard them, which pro- who is accountable? Ecol. Soc. 16 (2) (online).
Hammer, M., Balfors, B., Mörtberg, U., Petersson, M., Quin, A., 2011. Governance of
vides insight into the operation of governance and ways in which water resources in the phase of change: a case study of the implementation of
its functioning can be improved. the EU water framework directive in Sweden. Ambio 40 (2), 210–220.
Hooper, B., 2010. River basin organization performance indicators: application to
the Delaware river commission. Water Policy 12 (4), 1–24.
Acknowledgements Howarth, W., 2009. Aspirations and realities under the water framework directive:
proceduralisation, participation and practicalities. J. Environ. Law 23 (3),
We are thankful for the funding from the Social Sciences and 391–417.
Innes, J.E., Connick, S., Booher, D.E., 2004. Informality as a planning strategy:
Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) of Canada grant: Water Eco- collaborative water management in the CALFED bay-delta program. J. Am.
nomics, Policy and Governance Network, and Alberta Ingenuity: Plann. Assoc. 73 (2), 195–210.
Environment and Energy Solutions which made the fieldwork on Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., Zoido-Lobatón, P., 1999. Governance Matters. World Bank
Group, Washington DC.
which this paper is based possible.
Kjaer, P.F., 2010. Between Governing and Governance: on the Emergence, Function
and Form of Europe’s Post-National Constellation. Hart Publishing, Oxford.
References Koning, C.W., Saffran, K.A., Little, J.L., Fent, L., 2006. Water quality monitoring: the
basis for watershed management in the Oldman River Basin, Canada. Water
Sci. Technol. 53 (10), 153–161.
Agarwal, A., et al., 2000. Integrated Water Resources Management. Global Water
Lautze, J., De Silva, S., Giordano, M., Sanford, L., 2011. Putting the cart before the
Partnership, Denmark.
horse: water governance and IWRM. Nat. Res. 35, 1–8.
Akamani, K., Wilson, P., 2011. Toward the adaptive governance of transboundary
Lee, M., 2014. EU Environmental Law, Governance and Decision-Making, 2nd
water resources. Conserv. Lett. 4 (6), 409–416.
edition. Hart Publishing, Oxford.
Ako, A.A., Eyong, G.E.T., Nkeng, G.E., 2009. Water resources management and
Lockwood, M., Davidson, J., Curtis, A., Stratford, E., Griffith, R., 2010. Governance
integrated water resources management (IWRM) in Cameroon. Water Resour.
principles for natural resource management. Soc. Nat. Res. 23 (10), 986–1001.
Manage. 24 (5), 871–888.
Loughlin, J., 2009. The ‘hybrid’ state: reconfihuring territorial governance in
Alberta Water Council, 2008. Strengthening Partnerships: a Shared Governance
western europe. Perspect. Eur. Polit. Soc. 10 (1), 51–68.
Framework for Water for Life Collaborative Partnerships. Alberta Water
Lurie, S., Hibbard, M., 2008. Community-Based natural resource management:
Council, Alberta.
ideals and realities for Oregon Watershed Councils. Soc. Nat. Res. 21 (5),
Alberta Water Council, 2011. Moving from Words to Actions: Recommendations to
430–440.
Improve Communication, Corrdination and Collaboration Between and Among
National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, 2011. Charting a
Water for Life Partmerships. Alberta Water Council, Alberta.
Course: Sustainable Water Use by Canada’s Natural Resource Sectors. NRTREE,
Barry, J., Proops, J., 1999. Seeking sustainability discourses with q methodology.
Ontario.
Ecol. Econ. 28 (3), 337–345.
Pahl-Wostl, C., Krantz, N., 2010. Water governance in times of change. Environ. Sci.
Biswas, A., Tortajada, C., 2010. Water supply of Phnom Penh: an example of good
Policy 13, 567–570.
governance. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 26 (2), 157–172.
Reed, M.S., 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a
Bjornlund, H., Zuo, A., Wheeler, S., Xu, W., Edwards, J., 2013. Policy preferences for
literature review. Biol. Conserv. 141 (10), 2417–2431.
water sharing in Alberta, Canada. Water Res. Econ. 1, 93–100.
Rist, S., Chidambaranathanb, M., Escobarc, C., Wiesmannd, U., Zimmermanne, A.,
Brown, S.R., 1980. Political Subjectivity. Yale University Press, Connecticut.
2007. Moving from sustainable management to sustainable governance of
Castro, J.E., 2007. Water governance in the twenty-first century. Ambiente
natural resources: the role of social learning processes in rural India, Bolivia
Sociedade 10 (2), 97–118.
and Mali. J. Rural Stud. 23 (1), 23–37.
Charnay, B., 2011. A system method for the assessment of integrated water
Rogers, P., Hall, A., 2003. Effective Water Governance. Global Water Partnership,
resources management (IWRM) in mountain watershed areas: the case of the
Sweden.
Giffre watershed (France). Environ. Manage. 48 (1), 189–197.
Rosenberg International Forum on Water Policy, 2007. Report of the Rosenberg
Connick, S., Innes, J., 2003. Outcomes of collaborative water policy making:
International Forum on Water Policy to the Ministry of Environment.
applying complexity theory to evaluation. J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 46 (2),
University of California, Province of Alberta, Berkeley, California.
177–197.
Slavíková, L., Jílková, J., 2011. Implementing the public participation principle into
Cuppen, E., 2011. Diversity and constructive conflict in stakeholder dialogue:
water management in the Czech Republic: a critical analysis. Reg. Stud. 45 (4),
consideration for design and methods. Policy Sci. 45 (1), 23–46.
545–557.
de Löe, R., Armitage, C., Plummer, R., Davidson, S., Moraru, L., 2009. From
Smith, W., Kelly, S., 2003. Science, technical expertise and the human
Government to Governance: A State-of-the-Art Review of Environmental
environment. Prog. Plann. 60 (4), 321–394.
Governance: Final Report. Rob de Löe Consulting Services, Ontario.
Solanes, M., Gonzalez-Villarreal, F., 1999. The Dublin Principles for Water as
De Stefano, L., 2010. Facing the water framework directive challenges: a baseline
Reflected in a Comparative Assessment of Institutional and Legal
of stakeholder participation in the European union. J. Environ. Manage. 91 (6),
Arrangements for Integrated Water. Global water Partnership, Sweden.
1332–1340.
Taylor, B., de Löe, R.C., 2012. Conceptualizations of local knowledge in
Duit, A., 2016. The four faces of the environmental state: environmental
collaborative environmental governance. GEOFORUM 43 (6), 1207–1217.
governance regimes in 28 countries. Environ. Polit. 25 (1), 69–91.
Tortajada, C., 2010. Water governance: some critical issues. Int. J. Water Resour.
Ferreyra, C., de Löe, R., Kreutzwiser, R., 2008. Imagined communities, contested
Dev. 26 (2), 297–307.
watersheds: challenges to integrated water resources management in
United Nations Development Programme, 1997. Governance for Sustainable
agricultural areas. J. Rural Stud. 24 (3), 304–321.
Human Development: UNDP Policy Document. UNDP, New York.
Frantzi, S., Carter, N.T., Lovett, J.C., 2009. Exploring discourses on international
United Nations, 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, New York.
environmental regime effectiveness with Q methodology: a case study of the
Wallis, P., Ison, R., 2011. Appreciating institutional complexity in water
mediterranean action plan. J. Environ. Manage. 90 (1), 177–186.
governance dynamics: a case from the murray-darling basin, Australia. Water
Funder, M., Mweembab, C., Nyambeb, I., van Koppenc, B., Ravnborga, H.M., 2010.
Resour. Manage. 25 (15), 4081–4097.
Understanding local water conflict and cooperation: the case of namwala
Watts, S., Stenner, P., 2012. Doing Q Methodological Research: Theory, Method and
district. Zambia Phys. Chem. Earth 35 (13–14), 758–764.
Interpretation. Sage Publications, London.
Government of Alberta, 2003. Water for Life: Alberta’s Strategy for Sustainability.
Webler, T., Tuler, S., Krueger, R., 2001. What is a good public participation process?
Government of Alberta, Alberta.
five perspectives from the public. Environ. Manage. 27 (3), 435–450.
Government of Alberta, 2005. Enabling Partnerships: a Framework in Support of
Weible, C., Siddiki, S.N., Pierce, J.J., 2011. Foes to friends: changing contexts and
Water for Life. Government of Alberta, Alberta.
changing intergroup perceptions. J. Comp. Policy Anal. Res. Pract. 13 (5),
Government of Alberta, 2006. Water Management Plan for the South
499–525.
Saskatchewan River Basin. Government of Alberta, Alberta.
Wyborn, C., Bixler, R.P., 2013. Collaboration and nested environmental governance
Government of Alberta, 2008. Water for Life: a Renewal. Government of Alberta,
scale dependency, scale framing, and cross-scale interactions in collaborative
Alberta.
conservation. J. Environ. Manage. 123, 58–67.
Government of Alberta, 2009. Water for Life Action Plan. Government of Alberta,
Alberta.

Please cite this article in press as: Montgomery, J., et al., A table for five: Stakeholder perceptions of water governance in Alberta. Agric.
Water Manage. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2016.04.013