| Summary: | <p>Small and medium-sized cities of the Global South have different characteristics than large cities or the Global North. These intermediate cities have rapid urban growth rates and often lack financial and human resources to tackle water-related risks such as floods, water supply inadequacies, and river pollution. In short, the problems of “too much, too little, and too dirty”. Yet, policies and practices to address water risks are often modelled on the experiences of larger cities. In addition to a smaller pool of human resources and finances, governance challenges are compounded as decision-making powers are held up among the higher state-level actors rather than the local, thus creating a bottleneck of delays. Existing paradigms for managing urban water risk often overlook local governance dynamics, thus creating institutional mismatches and associated political and governance challenges.</p>
<p>Further, research and policy communities also tend to examine the governance of different water risks separately, i.e., only urban floods or water supply, rather than together. However, cities experience and govern multiple water risks. In riverine cities, water risks become complicated due to the proximity to rivers and their floodplains. Moreover, this post-colonial dive is essential as cities’ current-day political and physical infrastructure has grown in the last 50 years. Yet, there are few detailed insights into the specific urban trends arising in this era. Therefore, there is a growing need to explore the co-evolution of water risks and governance processes to understand and improve water and urban development in intermediate riverine cities of the global South.</p>
<p>In this thesis, I examine the co-evolution of water risks and their governance within Guwahati, India. Guwahati, situated on the Brahmaputra River, is emblematic of the trends confronting similarly situated riverine cities in the Global South due to its intermediate size (compared to other Indian cities), resource-strapped governance, and interconnected riverine-urban water risk dynamics. The historical focus I use multiple complementary methods to examine three urban-riverine risks - urban flooding, water supply inadequacies, and river pollution. Through an integrated assessment of these three risks, I understand the difference (and similarities) in modes of governance based on a systems perspective that links social, urban and water systems. The main research objective is to understand how and why centralized models of urban governance develop and persist despite the diversity of actors involved in addressing water risks within resource-strapped intermediate riverine cities. Specifically, I expand the concept of the participation paradox by exploring how decision-making remains vested in national and state-level agencies despite decades of efforts to broaden inclusion and local participation.</p>
<p>This thesis contributes to the intersection of three interconnected bodies of literature— multi-level governance, networked governance, and environmental discourses and narratives. These three parts come together through a systems perspective that draws careful attention to resources, risks, actors, institutions, and external influences in cities like Guwahati, which often lack the resources and capacities available in larger cities. These differences increase the reliance of intermediate cities on decisions taken at national and international centres of power and finance.</p>
<p>The first part of this research (Chapter 4) examines how patterns of multi-level institutional change by focusing on the interplay between water risk characteristics and governance responses (formal and informal). The second part (Chapter 5) contributes to network governance theory by drawing attention to centralization, decentralization patterns, and neglected actors in local governance. Specifically, Chapter 5 research quantitatively draws out the patterns and interaction issues among various actors. Finally, the third part (Chapter 6) analyses how local media coverage framing of water risks influences and promotes specific priorities and visions for urban development.</p>
<p>Altogether, the research demonstrates that the distribution of authority in water governance (centralization vs decentralization) is not static but an ongoing product of struggles between “making do” via local governments, civil society, and informal actors, on the one hand, and centralized and bureaucratic systems, on the other. These insights are empirically supported by mapping the changes in governance networks. The mapping shows that despite an increasing diversity of actors over time, high-level actors, such as the chief minister, district commissioner, and water-related ministers, maintain their position as focal actors in the water risks’ decision-making and governance. Finally, within these resource-strapped governance structures, I find that media, through dominant narratives, frequency, and repetition, assigns priority to specific risks (water supply) and limit the visibility of solution choices (centralized infrastructure). These framings are increasingly reflected in the decisions made and the funds allocated for investment in infrastructure and policy reforms. However, civil society organizations play a growing role in building accountability and bringing attention to lesser prioritized risks (river pollution) and vulnerabilities (informal settlements).</p>
<p>Theoretically, the research advances the insights and application of multi-level governance theory by experimenting with an approach that includes both formal and informal processes that influence governance within data-scarce regions. Further, this research showcases that despite ongoing urban reforms promoting decentralization, governance in intermediate riverine cities is increasingly reinforcing centralized structures. The findings and methods used in this research are relevant to intermediate cities of the Global South and can also be applied to other cities across the global South and North alike. The qualitative approaches here can be used to study multiple risks in tandem, plus quantitative findings are applicable to assess how the broadening of stakeholders impacts decision-making processes.</p>
<p>Enabling inclusive governance of water risk mitigation in intermediate riverine cities requires a different strategy than that followed in large cities due to differences in the mode of governance experienced. Further, for cities at large in the global South, there is a need to review resource allocation strategies to allow the devolution of decision-making to local actors to accommodate the multiple nuances experienced within cities.</p>
<p>A way forward for urban risk mitigation includes proactive, inclusive, and flexible governance processes with insights into vulnerabilities, access to resources, and the capacity of local actors to make needs-based decisions.</p>
|
|---|