Integrated Water Resources Management: A Reassessment

By A. Biswas. 2004

940 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ocean Engineering, Water Science and Technology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f812c83b3ec6c114ea54dbb1b267a5141f0f91ff

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ocean Engineering

In Water Science and Technology

Citations in the corpus

Assessing marginal water values in multipurpose multireservoir systems via stochastic programming (2008, background): “IWRM is now advocated by international and Northern bilateral agencies and is being considered by many water professionals as applicable worldwide even though some authors are challenging this idea [Biswas, 2004]. IWRM relies on four principles which have been debated during the Dublin conference on”
Integrated and Adaptive Management of Water Resources: Tensions, Legacies, and the Next Best Thing (2011, background): “IWRM, whose formal foundations can be traced to the 1977 United Nations Water Conference (Biswas 2004), is geared toward decentralizing institutions around major river basins, or a particular watershed scale, and joining together various elements of water resources planning, such as groundwater and ”
Maturing the New Water Management Paradigm: Progressing from Aspiration to Practice (2011, background): “For example, Biswas (2004) has argued that the kind of institutional and organisational integration demanded by IWRM may not be possible, whilst Walters (1997) noted that many AM initiatives have either ‘vanished with no visible product’ or become ‘trapped in an apparently endless process of model…”
Social Learning and Water Resources Management (2007, background): “For example, Biswas (2004) and several of those who responded to his article pointed out a number of barriers to implementation.”
Spatial Fit, from Panacea to Practice: Implementing the EU Water Framework Directive (2012, background): “A fourth, more fundamental, criticism is that determining spatial fit or misfit in terms of “natural” boundaries alone overlooks the multiple geographies of a social–ecological system (Biswas 2004).”