Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
From Network Structure to Policy Design in Water Protection

Part of the book series: Springer Water ((SPWA))

  • 380 Accesses

Abstract

The introduction highlights the importance of the underlying research: to explore whether network structures are partially responsible for the variance of policy designs. In order to follow through on this research objective, the case of micropollutants policies is chosen, which constitutes an emerging issue of water protection. Section 1.1 details aquatic micropollutants as a political issue in more detail and highlights associated challenges for water protection policy. By analyzing micropollutants policies and their variation among countries located along the Rhine River, i.e., Switzerland, Germany, France, and the Netherlands, this book contributes to the understanding of how complex policy decisions are generally made today. The idea behind this research is to uncover the mechanisms behind policymaking in order to design more effective policies. Toward this goal, Sect. 1.2 outlines in more detail the value of adopting a network approach to policy design and points to existing research gaps. Sect. 1.3 then provides an overview of the structure of this book.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Mandate for the MIKRO project group of the ICPR, see: http://www.iksr.org/index.php?id=317&L=3 (last access 13.9.2015).

  2. 2.

    While in some single cases naturally occurring substances may impact water quality, the broader phenomenon of anthropogenic and synthetic pollution remains in the foreground of political regulation. In this book, the term micropollutants therefore refers to anthropogenic rather than naturally occurring pollution.

  3. 3.

    An alternative to measuring concentration levels in waters is to analyze the frequency and level of entry into the aquatic system of compounds.

  4. 4.

    To assess whether exposure levels are safe, researchers calculate the ratio of the predicted environmental concentration (PEC; based on statistical averages) to the predicted no-effect concentration (PNEC; the level at which there are no negative consequences for the ecosystem). If PEC:PNEC ratios are greater than one, an environmental quality norm value is established, and the substance is proposed for inclusion in future monitoring (Schwarzenbach et al. 2006).

  5. 5.

    To overcome this monitoring issue, a few monitoring stations, e.g. Weil am Rhine, introduced screening methods, which search for all substances in waters, rather than only those that are known (Müller 2011).

  6. 6.

    Many micropollutants are also organic and/or polar, the latter being water soluble. Organic- or carbon-based compounds are generally persistent (or only degrade into harmful chemicals). They are prone to bioaccumulation because living tissue is also organic (Hollender et al. 2008).

  7. 7.

    More technically, one can define the reduction of pollutants in waters, for example, as the total emission reductions in relation to economic growth (Jänicke and Weidner 1995, p. 14).

  8. 8.

    See also the Website of the European Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/index_en.htm (last access 6.8.2015).

  9. 9.

    See Website of the European Commission: http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/europe-2020-in-a-nutshell/targets/index_en.htm (last access 6.8.2015).

References

  • Altmann, D., Schaar, H., Bartel, C., Schorkopf, D. L., Miller, I., Kreuzinger, N., et al. (2012). Impact of ozonation on ecotoxicity and endocrine activity of tertiary treated wastewater effluent. Water Research, 46(11), 3693–3702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, M. S. (2001). Economic instruments and clean water: Why institutions and policy design matter. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Auberson-Huang, L. (2002). The dialogue between precaution and risk. Nature Biotechnology, 20(11), 1076–1078. doi:10.1038/nbt1102-1076

  • Bendz, D., Paxéus, N., Ginn, T., & Loge, F. (2005). Occurrence and fate of pharmaceutically active compounds in the environment, a case study: Höje River in Sweden. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 122(3), 195–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bercu, J., Parke, N., Fiori, J., & Meyerhoff, R. (2008). Human health risk assessments for three neuropharmaceutical compounds in surface waters. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 50(3), 420–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bressers, H., & Huitema, D. (2000). What the doctor should know: Politicians are special patients. The impact of the policy-making process on the design of economic instruments. In M. S. Andersen & R.-U. Sprenger (Eds.), Market-based instruments for environmental management (pp. 67–88). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bressers, H., & O’Toole, L. (1998). The selection of policy instruments: A network-based perspective. Journal of Public Policy, 18(3), 213–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bressers, H., & O’Toole, L. (2005). Instrument selection and implementation in a networked context. In P. Eliadis, M. Hill, & M. Howlett (Eds.), Designing government: From instruments to governance (pp. 132–153). Montreal, Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bressers, H., O’Toole, L., & Richardson, J. (Eds.). (1995). Networks for water policy: A comparative perspective. London: Frank Cass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brodin, T., Fick, J., Jonsson, M., & Klaminder, J. (2013). Dilute concentrations of a psychiatric drug alter behavior of fish from natural populations. Science, 339(6121), 814–815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buser, H.-R., Balmer, M., Schmid, P., & Kohler, M. (2006). Occurrence of UV filters 4-methylbenzylidene camphor and octocrylene in fish from various Swiss Rivers with inputs from wastewater treatment plants. Environmental Science & Technology Online News, 40(5), 1427–1431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, N. (2007). The politics of the environment: Ideas, activism, policy. Cambridge: Cambridge Univiversity Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, P. M., & Wang, F. (2001). Assessing sediment contamination in estuaries. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 20(1), 3–22. doi:10.1002/etc.5620200102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cleven, C. D., Howard, A. S., Little, J. L., & Yu, K. (2013). Identifying “Known unknowns” in commercial products by mass spectrometry. LCGC Chromatography, 26(3).

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, S., & Ostrom, E. (1995). A grammar of institutions. The American Political Science Review, 89(3), 582–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, V., Binks, S., & Olson, M. (2009). Human health risk assessment from the presence of human pharmaceuticals in the aquatic environment. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 53(1), 39–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, R., & Lindblom, C. (1953). Politics, economics and welfare. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daugbjerg, C., & Marsh, D. (1998). Explaining policy outcomes: Integrating the policy network approach with macro-level and micro-level analysis. In D. Marsh (Ed.), Comparing policy networks (pp. 53–71). Philadelphia: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daughton, C. G. (2004). Non-regulated water contaminants: Emerging research. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24(7–8), 711–732. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2004.06.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doern, B., & Niosi, J. (1996). Flexible innovation: Technological alliances in Canadian industry. Canadian Public Policy, 22(4), 407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doern, B., & Phidd, R. (1983). Canadian public policy: Ideas, structure, process (2nd ed.). Michigan: University of Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, M. (2013). Policy network structures, institutional context, and policy change. Paper presented at the COMPASSS working paper 73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, M. (2014). Coalition structures and policy change in a consensus democracy. Policy Studies Journal, 42(3), 344–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Förstner, U., Heise, S., Schwartz, R., Westrich, B., & Ahlf, W. (2004). Historical contaminated sediments and soils at the river basin scale. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 4(4), 247. doi:10.1007/bf02991121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Götz, C., Kase, R., & Hollender, J. (2010). Mikroverunreinigungen - Beurteilungskonzept für organische Spurenstoffe aus kommunalem Abwasser. Studie im Autrag des BAFU. Dübendorf: Eawag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grabosky, P. (1995). Counterproductive regulation. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 23, 347–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. (1992). Economic institutions as social construction: A framework of analysis. Acta Sociologica, 35, 3–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunningham, N., Grabosky, P., & Sinclair, D. (1998). Smart regulation: Designing environmental policy. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunningham, N., & Sinclair, D. (1991). Regulatory pluralism: Designing policy mixes for environmental protection. Law and Policy, 21(1), 49–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunningham, N., & Young, M. (1997). Toward optimal environmental policy: The case of biodiversity conservation. Ecology Law Quarterly, 24, 243–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, R. (1989). A primer on environmental policy design. Chur: Harwood Academic Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science (162), 1243–1248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry, A. D. (2011). Ideology, power, and the structure of policy networks. Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 361–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henry, A. D., Lubell, M., & McCoy, M. (2010). Belief systems and social capital as drivers of policy network structure: The case of California regional planning. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(3), 419–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, M., & Hupe, P. (2002). Implementing public policy. Governance in theory and in practice. London: Sage Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogenboom, A., van Leerdam, J. A., & de Voogt, P. (2009). Accurate mass screening and identification of emerging contaminants in environmental samples by liquid chromatography-hybrid linear ion trap Orbitrap mass spectrometry. Journal of Chromatography A, 1216(3), 510–519. doi:10.1016/j.chroma.2008.08.053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollender, J., Singer, H., & McArdell, C. (2008). Polar organic micropollutants in the water cycle. In P. Hlavinek, O. Bonacci, J. Marsalek, & I. Mahrikova (Eds.), Dangerous pollutants (Xenobiotics) in urban water cycle (pp. 103–116). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M. (2002). Do networks matter? Linking policy network structure to policy outcomes: Evidence from four Canadian policy sectors 1990–2000. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 35(2), 235–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M. (2004). Beyond good and evil in policy implementation: Instrument mixes, implementation styles, and second generation theories of policy instrument choice. Policy and Society, 23(2), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M. (2005). What is a policy instrument? Tool, mixes, and implementation styles. In P. Eliadis, M. Hill, & M. Howlett (Eds.), Designing government. From instruments to governance (pp. 31–49). Montreal, Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M. (2011). Designing public policies: Principles and instruments. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M., & Rayner, J. (2007). Design principles for policy mixes: Cohesion and coherence in ‘New governance arrangements’. Policy and Society, 26(4), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ICPR. (2010). Evaluation report radiocontrast agents (Vol. Report Number 187e). Koblenz: International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine.

    Google Scholar 

  • ICPR. (2012). Evaluation report on industrial chemicals (Vol. Report Number 202e). Koblenz: International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingold, K. (2008). Analyse des mécanismes de décision: Le cas de la politique climatique suisse. Zürich and Chur: Rüeggger Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingram, H., & Fraser, L. (2006). Path dependency and adroit innovation: The case of California water. In R. Repetto (Ed.), Punctuated equilibrium and the dynamics of U.S. environmental policy. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jänicke, M., & Weidner, H. (Eds.). (1995). Successful environmental policy. A critical evaluation of 24 cases. Berlin: Edition sigma.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, A., Jürgens, M., Williams, R., Kümmerer, K., Kortenkamp, A., & Sumpter, J. (2008). Do cytotoxic chemotherapy drugs discharged into rivers pose a risk to the environment and human health? An overview and UK case study. Journal of Hydrology, 348(1–2), 167–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, A., Wurzel, R., & Zito, A. (2013). Still the century of ‘new’ environmental policy instruments? Exploring patterns of innovation and continuity. Environmental Politics, 22(1), 155–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kidd, K., Blanchfield, P., Mills, K., Palace, V., Evans, R., Lazorchak, J., et al. (2007). Collapse of a fish population after exposure to a synthetic estrogen. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(21), 8897–8901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon, J. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klijn, E.-H., Steijn, B., & Edelenbos, J. (2010). The impact of network management stratergies on the outcomes in governance networks. Public Administration, 88(4), 1063–1082.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knill, C. (2006). Theoretical perspectives on the implementation of European policies. In J. Richardson (Ed.), European union: Power and policy-making (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knill, C., & Lenschow, A. (2003). Modes of regulation in the governance of the european union: Towards a comprehensive evaluation. European Integration Online Papers, 7(1), 4–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knoke, D. (1990). Political networks. The structural perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Koontz, T., & Thomas, C. (2006). What do we know and need to know about the environmental outcomes of collaborative management? Public Administration Review, 66, 111–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kortenkamp, A., Faust, M., Scholze, M., & Backhaus, T. (2007). Low-level exposure to multiple chemicals: Reason for human health concerns? Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(S-1), 106–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krauss, M., Singer, H., & Hollender, J. (2010). LC-high resolution MS in environmental analysis: From target screening to the identification of unknowns. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 397(3), 943–951. doi:10.1007/s00216-010-3608-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laing, T., Sato, M., Grubb, M., & Comberti, C. (2013). Assessing the effectiveness of the EU emissions trading system. Working paper number 126 and 106 (C. f. C. C. E. a. P. a. G. R. I. o. C. C. a. t. Environment, Ed.). London: London School of Economics and Political Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lascoumes, P., & Le Gales, P. (2007). Introduction: Understanding public policy through its instruments—From the nature of instruments to the sociology of public policy instrumentation. Governance-An International Journal of Policy and Administration, 20(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leusch, F. L., Jager, C., Levi, Y., Lim, R., Puijker, L., & Sacher, F. (2010). Comparison of five in vitro bioassays to measure estrogenic activity in environmental waters. Environmental Science & Science Technol, 44. doi:10.1021/es903899d

  • Linder, S., & Peters, G. (1984). From social theory to policy design. Journal of Public Policy, 4(3), 237–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linder, S., & Peters, G. (1989). Instruments of government: Perceptions and contexts. Journal of Public Policy, 9(1), 35–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowi, T. (1964). American business, public policy, case-studies, and political theory. World Politics, 16(04), 677–715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowi, T. (1972). Four systems of policy, politics and choice. Public Administration Review, 32(4), 298–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubell, M., Scholz, J., Berardo, R., & Robins, G. (2012). Testing policy theory with statistical models of networks. Policy Studies Journal, 40(3), 351–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luzi, S., Abdelmoghny Hamouda, M., Sigrist, F., & Tauchnitz, E. (2008). Water policy networks in Egypt and Ethiopia. The Journal of Environment & Development, 17(3), 238–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marin, B., & Mayntz, R. (1991). Policy network: Empirical evidence and theoretical considerations. Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, D. (1998). Comparing policy networks. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menahem, G. (1998). Policy paradigms, policy networks and water policy in Israel. Journal of Public Policy, 18(3), 283–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metz, F., & Ingold, K. (2014). Sustainable wastewater management: Is it possible to regulate micropollution in the future by learning from the past? A policy analysis. Sustainability, 6(4), 1992–2012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miao, X.-S., Yang, J.-J., & Metcalfe, C. (2005). Carbamazepine and Its metabolites in wastewater and in biosolids in a municipal wastewater treatment plant. Environmental Science and Technology, 39(19), 7469–7475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintrom, M., & Norman, P. (2009). Policy entrepreneurship and policy change. Policy Studies Journal, 37(4), 649–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintrom, M., & Vergari, S. (1996). Advocacy coalitions, policy entrepreneurs, and policy change. Policy Studies Journal, 24(3), 420–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintrom, M., & Vergari, S. (1998). Policy networks and innovation diffusion: The case of state education reforms. The Journal of Politics, 60(1), 126–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mostafa, F., & Helling, C. (2002). Impact of four pesticides on the growth and metabolic activities of two photosynthetic algae. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part B, 37(5), 417–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, M. S. (2011). Polar organic micro-pollutants in the River Rhine: Multi-compound screening and mass flux studies of selected substances. Eawag, Technische Universität Berlin Dübendorf: Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newig, J., & Fritsch, O. (2009). Environmental governance: Participatory, multi-level—And effective? Environmental Policy and Governance, 19(3), 197–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Toole, L. (1997). Treating networks seriously: Practical and research-based agendas in public administration. Public Administration Review, 57(1), 45–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pape, J. (2009). Domestic driving factors of environmental performance: The role of regulatory styles in the case of water protection policy in France and the Netherlands. Konstanz: Universität Konstanz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peel, J. (2005). The precautionary principle in practice: Environmental decision-making and scientific uncertainty. Sydney: The Federation Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, S., & Ternes, T. (2011). Water analysis: Emerging contaminants and current issues. Analytical Chemistry, 83(12), 4614–4648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richey, S., & Ikeda, K. I. (2006). The influence of political discussion on policy preference: A comparison of the United States and Japan. Japanese Journal of Political Science, 7(3), 273–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, S. (2006). A decade of treating networks seriously. Policy Studies Journal, 34(4), 589–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowney, N., Johnson, A., & Williams, R. (2009). Cytotoxic drugs in drinking water: A prediction and risk assessment exercise for the Thames catchment in the United Kingdom. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 28(12), 2733–2743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. (2007). Theories of the policy process. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salamon, L. (2002). The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez, W., & Porcher, J. M. (2009). Fish biomarkers for environmental monitoring within the water framework directive. Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 28. doi:10.1016/j.trac.2008.10.012

  • Sandström, A., & Carlsson, L. (2008). The performance of policy networks: The relation between network structure and network performance. The Policy Studies Journal, 36(4), 497–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwaiger, J., Ferling, H., Mallow, U., Wintermayr, H., & Negele, D. (2004). Toxic effects of the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug diclofenac: Part I: Histopathological alterations and bioaccumulation in rainbow trout. Aquatic Toxicology, 68(2), 141–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarzenbach, R., Escher, B., Fenner, K., Hofstetter, T., Johnson, A., Von Gunten, U., et al. (2006). The challenge of micropollutants in aquatic systems. Science, 313(5790), 1072–1077.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scruggs, L. (2003). Sustaining abundance: Environmental performance in industrial democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sedlak, D., Gray, J., & Pinkston, K. (2000). Peer reviewed: Understanding microcontaminants in recycled water. Environmental Science and Technology, 34(23), 508A–515A.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stavins, R. (1989). Clean profits: Using economic incentives to protect the environment. Policy Review, 48, 58–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thalmann, P. (2004). The public acceptance of green taxes: 2 million voters express their opinion. Public Choice, 119(1–2), 179–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Touraud, E., Roig, B., Sumpter, J., & Coetsier, C. (2011). Drug residues and endocrine disruptors in drinking water: Risk for humans? International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 214(6), 437–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von der Ohe, P. C., Dulio, V., Slobodnik, J., Deckere, E. D., Kühne, R., Ebert, R.-U., et al. (2011). A new risk assessment approach for the prioritization of 500 classical and emerging organic microcontaminants as potential river basin specific pollutants under the European Water Framework Directive. Science of the Total Environment, 409(11), 2064–2077.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wernersson, A.-S., Carere, M., Maggi, C., Tusil, P., Soldan, P., James, A., et al. (2015). The European technical report on aquatic effect-based monitoring tools under the water framework directive. Environmental Sciences Europe, 27(1), 1–11. doi:10.1186/s12302-015-0039-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J. (1974). Political organizations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J. (1986). American government: Institutions and policies (3rd ed.). Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittmer, I., Bader, H.-P., Scheidegger, R., Singer, H., Lück, A., Hanke, I., et al. (2010). Significance of urban and agricultural land use for biocide and pesticide dynamics in surface waters. Water Research, 44(9), 2850–2862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, A. (2005). The social logic of politics: Personal networks as contexts for political behavior. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Political Science, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

    Florence Metz

Authors
  1. Florence Metz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Florence Metz .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Metz, F. (2017). Introduction. In: From Network Structure to Policy Design in Water Protection. Springer Water. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55693-2_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation