Research, part of a special feature on The Coproduction of Conflicts in Environmental Sustainability: Concepts, Methods, and Ethics

INTRODUCTION

Ambiguity is an inherent feature of multi-stakeholder water management processes, highlighting differences among stakeholders regarding the main issues of concern and how to approach them (Brugnach et al. 2011, Brugnach and Ingram 2012). In multi-stakeholder settings, as various actors come together, differences in ways of knowing, experiences, values, roles, and power dynamics intertwine. These differences often lead to divergent understandings of key concepts, objectives, and pathways forward, introducing ambiguity into the management process, which can profoundly impact decision making around water issues.

Ambiguities over rights and water availability can fuel tensions, especially when coupled with unclear legal and institutional frameworks and divergent priorities (Dewulf et al. 2005, Brugnach et al. 2011, Brugnach and Ingram 2012, Craps and Brugnach 2015). Climate change further complicates decision making by introducing uncertainty about future water availability. Additionally, historical grievances, competing governance systems, and power struggles contribute to mistrust and intensify competition among stakeholders. These factors collectively exacerbate the complexity of water management issues, often resulting in discrepancies and conflicts (Zeitoun and Warner 2006).

We argue that high-quality relational practices can help coping with ambiguity and the potential water conflicts associated with it (Brugnach et al. 2017). High-quality relational practices are structured, and intentional modes of interaction facilitate open communication, trust-building, and the co-construction of meaning among diverse stakeholders. These practices enable the negotiation of shared agreements, the resolution of ambiguities, and the development of mutual understanding, ultimately supporting collaborative problem solving and collective action in complex governance and decision-making processes (Bouwen and Taillieu 2004, Hovelynck et al. 2020). Building on the concept of multi-stakeholder collaboration (Gray 1989, Lewicki et al. 2003, Savage et al. 2010, Freeman et al. 2016), we examine how relational practices within the multi-stakeholder platform of the Katari River Basin (KRB) navigate ambiguities. Specifically, we analyze how these practices address conflicts arising from the ambiguities created by differing interpretations of water issues and potential pathways forward.

The KRB serves as a case study to operationalize this research. The KRB, the most populated river basin in Bolivia, discharges into Lake Titicaca, the world’s highest navigable lake and the most important water resource in the Andes region. However, anthropogenic activities such as mining, large urbanization, industrialization, and agriculture have turned this river basin into the main source of water contamination for Lake Titicaca (Archundia et al. 2017; Fig. 1). Water contamination in Lake Titicaca has had a profound negative impact on the local ecosystem, endangering aquatic life and compromising the livelihoods of local Indigenous communities that rely on its resources (Rivera Gironas et al. 2024). The literature suggests that the local challenges in water resource management often arise from institutional relationships characterized by power asymmetries (Mancilla García 2016) and a lack of trust (Mancilla García 2017), which influences interactions among stakeholders in the water sector.

A striking example of the damaging effects of water contamination from the KRB into Lake Titicaca occurred in 2015, when high pollutant levels caused the deaths of two tons of fish, frogs, and birds along the lake’s shores (La-Razon 2015). The degradation of water quality in the KRB discharge area has significantly weakened the buffering capacity of the lake and its surrounding ecosystems, leaving them highly vulnerable to the severe temperature and precipitation fluctuations anticipated under climate change.

Since 2002, government policies and international cooperation efforts have aimed to tackle water contamination challenges in the KRB. However, despite these interventions, environmental degradation, and its socio-environmental impacts, particularly downstream, continued. Recent research shows that water contamination in the KRB discharge areas has increased significantly in the past few decades, affecting an area of approximately 83 km² of Lake Titicaca (Baltodano et al. 2022).

Recognizing the complex governance system (Mancilla García et al. 2019), in 2018, the Bolivian government established a river basin multi-stakeholder platform to address severe water contamination. This platform includes representatives from national and regional government authorities, municipalities, universities, NGOs, cooperation agencies, rural communities, and Indigenous based organizations, exploring participatory practices to jointly collaborate on solutions to the problem of water contamination. Consequently, given the unique characteristics of this case study, it provides a rich context for understanding the interplay between relational practices, ambiguity, and water conflicts.

ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK

Ambiguity and nested water conflicts

Ambiguity refers to the differences that emerge in a group when identifying concerning issues or coping strategies (Brugnach et al. 2011). Ambiguity, characterized by a state of confusion where different actors assign different significance to issues, discern distinct causal relationships, and consider various solutions, can be reinforced by a lack of clarity, doubt, mistrust, a multiplicity of goals and interpretations, lack of resources and measures, insufficient understanding, and discontinuity in decision making (Weick 1995). The inherent ambiguity in multi-stakeholder settings must, therefore, be considered to reduce the equifinal space required for collective decision making (Donnellon et al. 1986). The diversity involved in multi-stakeholder water governance settings requires acknowledging the importance of the different perspectives and the constant process of negotiation between the parties involved (Dewulf et al. 2011, Agramont et al. 2022). High quality relational practices can help address ambiguity by fostering mutual understanding and equifinal meanings. These practices facilitate effective negotiation and co-creation of new perspectives, ultimately enhancing the collaborative decision-making process (Bouwen and Taillieu 2004, Hovelynck et al. 2020).

On the other hand, without proper attention, ambiguity may turn the processes into a competitive setting, where participants concentrate on their individual concerns and defend their own interests, perceiving themselves in rivalry with others (Lewicki et al. 2003, Prins 2010). Moreover, because of asymmetrical power dynamics, decision makers can strategically manipulate ambiguity by employing labels and symbols to influence meanings and emphasize specific dimensions of the problem over others (Zahariadis 2003), which typically fuels diverse forms of conflicts (Dewulf et al. 2009). Consequently, ambiguity arising from inconsistent information and diverse stakeholder perspectives can exacerbate conflicts over water resources. Understanding the complexities of water conflicts, particularly their connection to ambiguity, is crucial for multi-stakeholder river basin governance settings.

In multi-stakeholder governance, the nested theory of conflicts provides a valuable framework for understanding water conflicts in highly ambiguous contexts (Dugan 1996). This theory distinguishes between three types of conflicts: issue-specific, relational, and structural. Issue-specific conflicts arise from disagreements such as conflicting interests or interpretations among stakeholders; relational conflicts emerge from interaction patterns or emotional dynamics between parties; and structural conflicts originate from societal inequities embedded within unequal water allocation policies or lack of robust water governance frameworks. Relational conflicts inherently include issue-specific conflicts, and structural conflicts encompass both. These conflicts are nested within one another. In this research, nested water conflicts entail disagreements regarding the allocation of benefits and losses in accessing water-related services arising from the spatial-temporal interaction of up-downstream dynamics at issue-specific, relational, and structural conflict levels that interplay in decision making.

The failure to recognize the nested nature of conflicts can significantly impede efforts to address water challenges. For example, national water policies can exacerbate local conflicts, like those between farmers and city residents competing for limited water resources for agriculture and domestic use. This competition can become even more strained by historical distrust or a lack of communication between communities. For instance, farmers might argue for increased irrigation allotments, while city residents prioritize household needs. Further upstream, mining, and industrial waste exceeding permitted levels can contaminate downstream communities’ water sources, leading to conflicts with the polluting industries over stricter regulations. These instances highlight the complex nature of water management challenges, where issue-specific conflicts over scarcity or pollution are nested within relational tensions and structural policy shortcomings.

Relational practices in multi-stakeholder collaboration

Relational practices refer to communication-based practices by which the involved actors shape and develop mutual and shared sense-making relationships. They favor collaborative, interactive processes that aim at fostering trust, connection, and shared commitment among diverse stakeholders within multi-stakeholder governance frameworks (Bouwen and Taillieu 2004, Craps and Brugnach 2015, Craps et al. 2019, Hovelynck et al. 2020). They are particularly relevant in addressing “wicked” problems, complex issues characterized by interdependencies among actors with differing, sometimes conflicting, interests and goals (Rittel and Webber 1973). In these settings, relational practices are essential for enabling collective action by helping stakeholders bridge perspectives and manage ambiguity. These practices are enacted through three primary processes: connecting, confronting, and committing (Gray 1989, Hovelynck et al. 2020).

The initial phase, connecting, involves building linkages among stakeholders, fostering mutual understanding, and creating a shared sense of purpose. The ability to bring stakeholders together plays a central role in launching collaborative initiatives. Connecting requires moving beyond individual perspectives to establish a domain-level understanding that acknowledges shared responsibilities and interdependencies (Gray and Clyman 2003). Exploring collective strengths and similarities rather than focusing on deficiencies, can foster a constructive atmosphere for collaboration (Cooperrider and Srivastva 2013).

As collaboration progresses, relational practices involve addressing and reconciling differences. This process, known as confronting, provides space for stakeholders to openly discuss conflicting views and assumptions without jeopardizing their relationships (Bushe 2013). Constructive confrontation is facilitated by ground rules that encourage addressing conflicts substantively, focusing on the issues rather than on personal differences (Curșeu and Schruijer 2017). In some cases, third-party facilitators, such as NGOs, researchers, or mediators, can play a crucial role in supporting safe and inclusive dialogues, especially in contexts marked by historical or cultural tensions (Gray 2007).

Commitment develops progressively as trust is built through consistent follow-up on agreements, equitable contributions, and mutual reliance. Establishing boundary spanners, individuals who navigate between different groups, also helps bridge divides, especially in contexts of cultural diversity or organizational differences (Schilke and Cook 2013). Effective commitment within relational practices requires minimal but clear structures that support ongoing problem-solving without limiting flexibility (Termeer and Kranendonk 2008).

Relational practices are particularly valuable in contexts like water conflict resolution, where competing claims, ecological impacts, and social justice issues converge (Mostert et al. 2008). For instance, in a water management initiative in the Andes, relational practices facilitated the engagement of Indigenous communities, NGOs, and public authorities to address historic conflicts and develop sustainable governance structures. These practices enabled the establishment of a multi-stakeholder consortium that promoted shared ownership and long-term, community-centered solutions for water distribution (Craps et al. 2004). This emphasizes the relevance of relational practices in trust-building and adaptive governance mechanisms to achieving sustainable outcomes for shared water resources.

In multi-stakeholder contexts marked by high ambiguity, relational practices provide a means to manage ambiguity and support sense-making. Multi-stakeholder initiatives often lack pre-defined goals or centralized leadership, which can complicate collaborative efforts (Gray and Clyman 2003). Relational practices enable stakeholders to engage in ongoing learning, adapt to new insights, and redefine goals as circumstances evolve. Addressing the “two-table” tension, where representatives balance commitment to the collaborative group with obligations to their constituencies, relational practices emphasize social learning and flexible interaction protocols to manage this ambiguity effectively (Bouwen and Hovelynck 2006, Craps and Brugnach 2015).

High-quality relational practices enable the different actors involved to have the same opportunities to express, to be listened, to negotiate, and co-create new meanings (Peres-Cajías 2023). Language plays a critical role in shaping these practices, acting as both a medium of communication and a means of constructing meaning, negotiating power, and fostering trust (Ford and Ford 1995, Alvesson and Karreman 2000). The way language is used, whether through technical terminology, cultural expressions, or region-specific languages, profoundly influences how participants interpret each other’s interests, values, and knowledge systems (Whyte et al. 2016). These linguistic nuances can either promote or obstruct mutual understanding, depending on their alignment with the participants’ diverse perspectives and communication styles. In multilingual or culturally heterogeneous settings, language becomes a key factor in promoting inclusivity, because it can validate diverse knowledge systems and facilitate equitable participation (Droz et al. 2023). Moreover, language plays a pivotal role in navigating power dynamics by determining whose voices are heard, whose knowledge is legitimized, and how decisions are framed and made. Multi-stakeholder settings can bridge gaps in understanding by critically examining and adapting language practices (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2008). This can enhance collaboration, and strengthen the legitimacy of outcomes, ensuring that relational interactions are not only effective but also respectful and just.

Relational practices constitute essential frameworks for facilitating effective multi-stakeholder participation, particularly in addressing complex governance challenges and water conflicts. These practices enhance collaborative problem-solving through the cultivation of connections, the management of differences, and the establishment of commitments, which traditional unilateral approaches fail to achieve. Furthermore, the promotion of adaptive governance and social learning through relational practices strengthens sustainability, inclusivity, and resilience in complex multi-stakeholder contexts (Bouwen and Taillieu 2004, Craps et al. 2019).

METHODOLOGY

This study employs qualitative research design, applying three data collection tools: semi-structured interviews, participatory observation, and secondary data review. The research team consists of researchers from Vrije Universiteit Brussels, the Bolivian Catholic University, and Antwerp University, who participated in data collection conducted between 2020 and 2021. This study incorporates 28 semi-structured interviews (Kvale and Brinkmann 2009) conducted in May 2021, including five individuals from Indigenous communities; one from the Bolivian-Peruvian Binational Autonomous Authority of the Titicaca Lake; two from the Regional Government; one from International Cooperation; nine from the Ministry of Environment and Water; two from the Ministry of Health and Sports; one each from the Ministry of Mining and Metallurgy and the Ministry of Rural Development and Lands; three from Municipal Governments; one from a Non-Governmental Organization; and two from universities. All these stakeholders were present at the meetings of the KRB multi-stakeholder platform. The selection of participants was based on the registration lists from the previous platform meetings provided by the Bolivian Ministry of Water and Environment. The participatory observation process centered on meetings held during the data collection period: The General Assembly (December 2020) and meetings of the KRB’s organizational clusters (Directory, Technical Council, Social Forum) in July 2021. This observation aimed to capture actors’ interactions, claims, actions, and organizational dynamics (Salman et al. 2018). Secondary data were collected through document analysis to gain a deeper understanding of the river basin context. The documents analyzed included Law 2798, the 2010 KRB Plan, the 2014 Bolivian Controller Environmental Audit, and the 2018–2030 KRB Plan, which is the current policy being implemented. Additionally, previous studies on the subject were reviewed to complement the socio-environmental understanding of the KRB (Chudnoff 2009, Duwig 2014, Archundia et al. 2017, Gloria Rodrigo et al. 2018, Agramont et al. 2022).

For data analysis, a coding process was implemented based on an analytical framework considering relational practices, ambiguity, and nested water conflicts (Fig. 2). This framework draws upon works by Brugnach et al. (2017), Brugnach and Ingram (2012), Craps & Brugnach (2015), Dugan (1996), Salman et al. (2018), and Peres-Cajías (2023). Interview transcripts were analyzed to identify content related to these themes, providing insights into how different actors experience, express, and navigate them within the KRB Interinstitutional Platform. Coded segments were then categorized by actor clusters (e.g., government, local communities) to reveal how diverse groups approach these themes.

We analyzed relational practices within the KRB Interinstitutional Platform meetings, focusing on interaction patterns, actions, and reactions among participants. The goal was to identify the types of participation processes that can facilitate or hinder multi-stakeholder dialogue. To achieve this, the research team observed meetings and conducted follow-up interviews. We examined interaction patterns associated with active participation, including participants’ positions and actions, language use, the distribution of speaking time, speech content, meeting organization, and decision-making processes. Interview data was used to complement and contrast these observations, exploring access to information, perceptions of interactions, and participant roles within the KRB platform. To understand ambiguity, we analyzed interview content related to how actors framed problems and solutions within the KRB. Nested water conflicts were identified based on disagreements within the interinstitutional interplay, as observed in issue-specific contexts and interviews. Additionally, we examined conflicts arising from the allocation of benefits and losses in accessing water-related services, considering the spatial-temporal dynamics of upstream-downstream interactions.

The Katari River Basin multi-stakeholder platform

In 2018, the Bolivian Ministry of Water and Environment launched the KRB Master Plan (2018–2023) establishing the following objective:

To improve the integrated management of the life systems in the basin through the implementation of the Master Plan for the Katari Basin and the Minor Lake of Titicaca as a planning tool that enhances the population’s quality of life with resilience to climate change in the short, medium, and long term.

The KRB plan incorporated the establishment of a multi-stakeholder platform aimed at joint strategic, programmatic, and operational planning. This platform was designed to bring together various stakeholders to address the complex issue of water contamination within the hydrological system. According to the KRB Master Plan, the platform is organized into three cluster groups (see Fig. 3). The Social Participatory Forum brings together grassroots organizations like irrigation unions and Indigenous community-based organizations. These groups discuss local water challenges and provide information to the Technical Council. The Technical Council includes representatives from universities, research institutes, and international cooperation agencies. They advise the decision makers on the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors comprises public authorities from municipal, regional, and national governments. Table 1 provides a detailed list of the organizations participating in the KRB multi-stakeholder platform.

The KRB Management Unit, a decentralized branch of the Ministry of Water and Environment, plays a coordinating role in the platform’s governance and operations, as outlined in the KRB Master Plan. Under the master plan, each stakeholder cluster has a distinct role. The Social Participatory Forum gathers grassroots information on socio-environmental challenges within the basin, while the Technical Council uses this information to propose scientific and technical recommendations to the Board of Directors to address these challenges. The Board of Directors, the platform’s highest decision-making body, is responsible for developing action plans. To guide the functioning of the KRB multi-stakeholder platform, the Ministry of Water and Environment also established an Organic Statute (2018) and Operational Bylaws (2018), stipulating that each group meets once a year and that an annual general assembly is held, including representatives from all clusters.

RESULTS

Disentangling issue-specific conflicts

In the headwaters of the river basin (see Fig. 4), various companies have exploited minerals since the 16th century. The most significant of these was “La Fabulosa Mine Consolidated,” a British-owned company that operated in the valley for over 60 years. Following the depletion of mineral resources, large-scale mining activities in the valley ceased in the 1990s. This legacy of mining activity resulted in acid mine drainage (AMD) contaminating the main watercourses with several heavy metals, including lead, arsenic, copper, zinc, and cadmium.

This alteration in water quality triggers two interconnected conflicts: First, the AMD highly deteriorates the water quality of the second largest drinking water reservoir in the region, the Milluni Dam. In response, the local water provider implemented additional treatment processes, incurring increased operational costs. They also developed complementary infrastructure to ensure safe drinking water for El Alto and La Paz. Ironically, metals “filtered” from the row water are discharged back into the rivers without treatment, transferring the socio-environmental hazards downstream. Despite the drinking water operator’s ability to treat the contaminated water, the ongoing mining polluting the regional drinking water reservoir remains a latent relational conflict. Second, all the mining contamination is transported to another spatial scale downstream. Studies performed at the downstream region of the river basin reflect the presence of heavy metals in the local food web (Gloria Rodrigo et al. 2018), impacting downstream local ecosystems and consequently the Indigenous communities settled in Lake Titicaca. At the structural level, the management of natural resources in the Milluni Valley has led to issue-specific conflicts over the benefits and losses associated.

The urban-rural dynamics also reproduced another kind of water conflict. Although the dynamic population growth turned El Alto into the second largest city of the country, the development of services such as wastewater treatment and urban solid waste management did not develop at the same pace. El Alto yearly discharges about 20 million cubic meters of untreated or ineffectively treated urban wastewater and around 800 million tons of solid waste into the rivers crossing the city. Furthermore, several industries also contribute with liquid and solid discharges. This aggregated contamination manifests in the downstream rural areas of the river basin where the waters are classified as highly eutrophic. Since the early 2000s indigenous communities impacted by the contamination organized protests requesting the national authorities to take action to stop the contamination. However, the appearance of 2 million tons of dead fish, birds, and frogs at the Titicaca Lake shores in 2015 mobilized the municipal authorities and local communities:

In my municipality, I’m responsible for the well-being of 30,000 people, and I fear for their safety. We’re organizing protests because it seems like that’s the only way to make our voices heard. Pucarani played a key role in the Gas War, and I hope we won’t have to start another conflict over [water] pollution Pucarani’s Mayor 2012 (Chuquimia 2015 [Authors’ translation])

As long as they live in the city, they will never fully understand the problem. For them, it’s easy to simply send polluted water our way without facing the consequences (Community Representative 2).

Unlike the countryside, the city has no real solutions; it doesn’t provide a sustainable way of life (Community Representative 5).

This conflict has been active ever since, and despite national government efforts to find a solution to the contamination problem through the KRB interinstitutional platform, the contamination has intensified (Agramont et al. 2022). By 2019, it impacted an area of approximately 83 km² in Lake Titicaca (Baltodano et al. 2022). During the meeting of the platform, the indigenous communities claimed that they are still organizing protests:

Since they’re ignoring us, we’re considering shutting off the water supply to El Alto. We’re already coordinating with four municipalities, and we’re planning to cut off the water (Community Representative 4).

While the KRB Interinstitutional Platform focuses on collaborative solutions to address KRB’s water pollution challenges, the national government has pursued a separate initiative since 2017. This $133 million project aims to double El Alto’s drinking water supply through a water transfer from a neighboring river basin. Although this project offers a potential solution for El Alto’s water security, it raises concerns about potential conflicts in the source basin. Community members from the donor basin have expressed anxieties, as evidenced by the following quote:

How can we ensure that the population won’t face water shortages when the supply is redirected to El Alto? ... The wetlands must be preserved for the well-being of our animals. First, the water should meet our needs, and whatever remains can go to El Alto ... The project will move forward, but water will not be supplied to El Alto, ensuring that local needs are prioritized (CPM 2013).

The river basin transfer project has divided the local indigenous communities with some supporting it and others opposing it. This division extends to the source basin, where the project essentially transfers water conflicts to the 32 rural communities from which the water originates. These communities face fears about potential water shortages and environmental impacts. Further exacerbating the situation, the project does not include increasing sanitation services in El Alto. Although it will provide more drinking water, this will inevitably lead to a rise in urban and industrial wastewater discharges within the city itself, potentially intensifying existing pollution problems.

The structural conflicts of handling ambiguity through fragmentation

The KRB multi-stakeholder platform’s governance structure reveals a systematic fragmentation of knowledge limiting the relational practices. Under this structure, relational practices are characterized by a division into three knowledge domains: public service, scientific-technical, and customary. Although the board of directors primarily gathers public authorities, the technical council focuses heavily on scientific and technical participation. Furthermore, community representatives are channeled into the social participatory forum. Consequently, the ways in which water challenges are known tend to be fragmented.

Our observations suggest that separate meetings between the three actor clusters influence how participants understand water challenges within the KRB basin and their potential solutions. For instance, indigenous community representatives referred to the following:

The city of El Alto produces a substantial amount of wastewater, which is the main source of contamination for Lake Titicaca ... We need to begin environmental education for children at an early age, starting in kindergarten. It’s essential to raise their awareness of environmental issues from the very beginning (Community Representative-1).

The authorities say it (the industry) has an environmental license, but what does that license actually entail? We’re not sure (Community Representative-3).

We can create a project with a pipeline that directs the pollution to Achocalla, the neighboring valley. I’ve already suggested this in the workshop we had. This is the ultimate and definitive solution. (Community Representative-2).

Indigenous representatives identify three primary drivers of water contamination: urban wastewater discharge, inadequate environmental education, and insufficient industrial oversight. El Alto’s wastewater significantly contributes to pollution, yet effective management remains elusive. One representative emphasizes the critical need for early childhood environmental education to advance long-term environmental responsibility. Meanwhile, uncertainty surrounding industrial licenses undermines enforcement efforts, reflecting broader governance failures. Proposed solutions exhibit diversity, ranging from advocating for improved education and strengthened regulations to proposing drastic measures such as diverting pollution sources.

At the same time, indigenous representatives also refer to problems of low involvement of local stakeholders, policy effectiveness, and inadequate coordination:

We need to involve local people from different areas around the shores of Lake Titicaca in this team and the KRB platform (Community Representative-5).

The call for increased local involvement in the KRB platform highlights significant gaps in stakeholder engagement and coordination within Lake Titicaca’s governance framework. Indigenous representatives emphasize that effective policy implementation demands the integration of local knowledge and meaningful participation.

Regional government authorities refer to problems of lack of personnel and funding, solid waste management, mining pollution, inconsistent political support, deficiency of legislation, and the need for improving coordination and collaboration:

Essentially, the departmental secretariat is understaffed due to budget constraints. As a result, the departmental government cannot afford to hire permanent staff specifically for monitoring purposes (Department Government Representative-1).

The solution must begin with providing garbage containers, training people, and planning for a solid waste collection service that can effectively reintegrate this waste into the production chain for reuse. (Ministry of Environment and Water Representative-2)

Budget constraints prevent the hiring of permanent monitoring staff, weakening enforcement capacity. Addressing solid waste pollution requires not only infrastructure but also public training and integrated waste management strategies. These deficiencies highlight systemic governance failures that limit effective environmental management.

International cooperation representatives placed emphasis on issues related to aquifer contamination from antibiotic release, outdated water legislation, urban-rural imbalances in representation, political agendas influencing policy, and the lack of institutional coordination. For instance, one of their statements refers to the following:

There is a high consumption of antibiotics in El Alto, likely because of the presence of numerous pharmaceutical industries that produce antibiotics not commonly used in many other parts of the world (International Cooperation Representative).

This highlights the environmental risks associated with pharmaceutical industries producing substances that are not widely used elsewhere, contributing to aquifer contamination, compounded by insufficient regulatory frameworks, and limited institutional coordination.

Ministry representatives referred to environmental pressures originating from the industrial sector, mining, and solid waste. Also, one of their statements refers to:

The water quality in the system has been deteriorating because of increased discharges in recent years. We lack adequate institutional oversight and essential legislation, such as water laws, to enforce stricter regulations on these discharges (Bolivian-Peruvian Binational Autonomous Authority of the Titicaca Lake representative).

This emphasizes that the deterioration of water quality problem is primarily attributed to an inadequate institutional oversight and a deficiency of crucial water legislation to enforce more strict regulations. In the absence of robust legal frameworks and effective enforcement mechanisms, pollution persistently continues.

University representatives proposed a strategy to collect water quality data and demonstrate its connection to both health and agricultural outcomes:

By analyzing water quality, farming practices, and their impact on health, we can develop a comprehensive understanding of the interconnected issues in this region (University Representative-1).

This statement frames the issue from an academic technical perspective, where water quality data production is considered crucial for understanding the system’s dynamics.

Although these results confirm the presence of conflicting ambiguity linked to this governance structure, a ministry representative offered an explanation:

It’s essential to hold separate meetings with each group instead of one large assembly. A combined meeting risks escalating tensions, as representatives from local communities might make demands of the mayors. Without complete information, the mayors could end up clashing with the ministry (Ministry of Environment and Water Representative-2).

It is noteworthy that Bolivia officially recognized the severity of the situation by declaring the KRB an environmental disaster zone and placing it under hydric emergency status. This designation demonstrates the gravity of the ecological crisis and positions the restoration and recovery of the region’s environmental ecosystems as a national priority. Despite this official acknowledgment, the discrepancy between governmental declarations and concrete actions remains a point of concern.

Furthermore, the Master Plan and the KRB platform, despite their well-intentioned yet ambiguous objectives, have made limited progress in tackling the KRB’s environmental challenges. This emphasizes the crucial need for a comprehensive reevaluation of the governance structure and operational mechanisms to enhance conflict management and facilitate engagement and collaboration among all relevant stakeholders. The continued ineffectiveness of these initiatives, without such revisions, jeopardizes the achievement of sustainable environmental management in the region.

Fragmenting relational practices that sustain water conflicts.

Beyond the structure of the interinstitutional platform, another challenge arises in how interactions among participants are facilitated during implementation meetings. Meetings in each cluster typically begin with lengthy presentations, consuming a dominant portion of the allocated 3–3.5-hour timeframe. Delivered by the ministry, these presentations focus on introducing the KRB management plan, outlining identified problems, and presenting projects designed to address the socio-environmental challenges within the basin. Following these presentations, the ministry provides an update on the KRB plan’s implementation and invites other ministerial representatives to showcase progress. Three to four ministry staff members typically present their experiences in implementing specific projects. Once the ministry concludes, participants are invited to gather at round tables. However, the ministry representatives predetermined both the discussion topics and the composition of these roundtable groups.

The General Assembly, designed to be inclusive of all clusters in the platform, replicates the methodology and meeting structure of previous iterations. Ministry representatives deliver extensive presentations, further limiting participants’ agency by predetermining the roundtable composition and assigning topics to each group. As a result, participants lament the lack of dedicated time to voice their ideas and engage in a meaningful dialogue about the challenges faced in this river basin.

While I’ve attended the Assembly, it often feels like a one-way street. Ideas are presented and summarized, but there’s no real discussion or exchange. We need dedicated time for back-and-forth dialogue, not just a list of points. True progress requires meaningful discussion, not just summaries. (University Representatives-1).

This platform appears to be designed to showcase the UGCK’s [the ministry] coordination efforts to outsiders, but it feels biased. While UGCK presents information, there’s no opportunity for us to share our own experiences or perspectives. We need a more balanced conversation, rather than just hearing about what UGCK has accomplished (International Cooperation Representatives).

The assemblies have turned into ministry presentations. We receive constant updates on project progress and how challenges are being addressed, but there’s no opportunity for our input. I haven’t seen any instances where they ask for our ideas or propose projects we could manage through the platform (Municipal Government Representative-1).

The uneven voice distribution and limited opportunities for interaction among participants demonstrate the Ministry of Water and Environment’s systemic control over the platform during its meetings. Community-based organizations were largely marginalized, with limited opportunities to contribute to the discussions. Community-based representatives were often relegated to providing brief introductory remarks, a token gesture of grassroots inclusion that did not reflect their substantive contributions. Given their direct experience and vested interests, these communities should have a decisive voice in matters affecting their territories. Their exclusion from the decision-making process is a significant oversight.

Also, universities and international organizations were limited to providing input on narrowly defined topics, defined by the Ministry of Water and Environment. Interviews with stakeholders further corroborate these findings, with participants expressing dissatisfaction with the limited opportunities for meaningful engagement within the UGCK framework. A local community representative emphasized the need for improved coordination, stating:

To achieve our goals, we need a collaborative effort that involves everyone, community members, political leaders, unions, students, and teachers. (Community Representative-2).

Some ministry representatives emphasized the need for collaborative and participatory work to address environmental issues at KRB:

The key to achieving participatory action is to involve everyone, not just high-level officials like mayors, governors, and ministries. As we’ve seen, the university also plays a role, and that’s crucial. Many stakeholders have valuable experience working in the lake basin, and we need to leverage their expertise and resources to effectively address this issue (Ministry of Environment and Water Representative-1).

DISCUSSION

In this study we examined how relational practices within the KRB multi-stakeholder platform address ambiguity and manage nested water conflicts. Our findings highlight significant limitations in the platform’s current design and functioning. We observed unilateral control over ambiguity management and unaddressed water conflicts stemming from transactional relational patterns, characterized by power asymmetries and governance fragmentation.

Although the establishment of a multi-stakeholder platform in the KRB can be considered a positive development, the primary interaction pattern observed within the KRB multi-stakeholder platform is characterized by the Ministry’s unilateral control over issue framing, coping strategies, and participation dynamics. The ministry determines the language employed, who speaks, when, and what is discussed during the platform’s meetings. Ambiguity is managed persuasively (Brugnach et al. 2011), reflecting a strategy that resolves ambiguity by imposing a single frame. This approach neglects connecting, confronting, and committing processes, which are crucial in high quality relational practices, as Gray (1989) and Hovelynck et al. (2020) amongst others have demonstrated. Through suppressing alternative narratives and reinforcing power asymmetries, the current relational practices hinder efforts to develop co-created solutions that delegitimizes the knowledge actors bring to the table and undermines trust among them. Consequently, the existing relational patterns limit the platform’s ability to collaboratively address the differences ambiguities bring.

Moreover, the findings illustrate how ambiguity exacerbates nested conflicts at three interrelated levels: issue-specific, relational, and structural (Dugan 1996). Issue-specific conflicts, such as disputes over contamination from mining and urban wastewater, are compounded by relational tensions, including mistrust between Aymara Indigenous communities and government, regional, and municipal authorities. Structural conflicts, rooted in inequitable governance systems, further embed these challenges, limiting Aymara Indigenous communities’ influence in decision-making processes (Apaza Huanca 2019).

The platform’s governance structure fragments knowledge by segregating stakeholders, isolating technical expertise, public administration, and Indigenous knowledge, perpetuating divergent understandings of water issues and misaligned priorities (see Dewulf et al. 2011, Agramont et al. 2022). For example, whereas Indigenous representatives highlight socio-environmental impacts, technical actors focus on regulatory and infrastructural solutions, often disregarding local realities. The absence of high-quality relational practices in the KRB undermines efforts to resolve water conflicts by maintaining distrust, excluding key stakeholders, and hindering collaborative solutions (Lewicki et al. 2003). Addressing nested conflicts could benefit from such practices by integrating diverse perspectives to develop more comprehensive and inclusive governance strategies (Craps et al. 2004, Dewulf et al. 2011, Agramont et al. 2022). Without mechanisms to build shared understanding, trust, and ownership, water tensions will persist, deepening inequities and obstructing sustainable water management (Prins 2010, Schilke and Cook 2013). Unfortunately, the relational practice patterns observed in the KRB multi-stakeholder platform are failing to address water conflicts.

With this study we stress the importance of adopting relational practices that respect and integrate cultural diversity into knowledge co-creation systems in which language plays a critical role (Howard et al. 2024). Technical terminology and culturally insensitive communication have maintained a distance between Indigenous stakeholders, whose primary language is Aymara. This reinforces exclusion and misunderstanding. Without mechanisms to integrate language diversity into relational practices, it is difficult to collaboratively manage, navigate ambiguity, and address water conflicts, especially for the diverse voices most affected by water contamination in the KRB (Apaza Huanca 2019).

CONCLUSIONS

The study highlights the critical role of relational practices in navigating ambiguity and addressing nested water conflicts in the Katari River Basin (KRB). Our analysis reveals that the current multi-stakeholder platform, although designed to foster collaborative water governance, is hindered by asymmetrical power dynamics and fragmented relational practices, which limit its effectiveness in addressing the water contamination and dealing with conflicts. The platform’s governance structure, which separates stakeholders into distinct clusters, has contributed to knowledge fragmentation. This structure restricts opportunities for diverse groups to develop shared meanings and coordinate actions, leaving local stakeholders, particularly Indigenous communities, without adequate influence over decision-making processes.

The relational practices observed within the multi-stakeholder platform in the KRB illustrate how ambiguity is often managed by imposing a dominant frame, which is reinforced by significant power asymmetries that intensify the dynamics of water conflicts. Current practices, controlled predominantly by government representatives, restrict the capacity of diverse stakeholders to share and negotiate their perspectives openly. This approach impedes adaptive governance and hinders collective problem solving in addressing water pollution challenges. High quality relational practices could foster mutual understanding and transparency, helping manage ambiguity through inclusive dialogue.

The persistent issue-specific, relational, and structural conflicts across different spatial scales in the KRB illustrate the complexity of water governance in settings characterized by multiple competing interests and values. Relational practices that prioritize equitable participation and active listening can help navigate these complex conflicts by addressing both immediate and deep-rooted issues of water contamination, resource allocation, and policy misalignment. However, power asymmetries in current relational practices perpetuate these conflicts rather than resolving them, leaving stakeholders’ grievances unaddressed and exacerbating tensions across scales and sectors.

Language played a critical role in shaping relational practices within the KRB case study. Although language can be a tool for connection, exclusive language often exacerbates divisions among stakeholders. The use of technical, culturally insensitive language hindered motivation for collaborative engagement, reinforcing misunderstandings and silencing marginalized voices. In contrast, relational practices that embraced inclusive language, acknowledging both technical and cultural perspectives, proved more effective in fostering shared understanding and trust. This case emphasizes the importance of cultivating an inclusive language that respects all participants’ backgrounds, which can bridge knowledge gaps, validate diverse perspectives, and empower underrepresented voices in the governance process.

To improve collaborative outcomes, we stress the importance of high-quality relational practices that can help bridge knowledge gaps and empower marginalized voices. Developing an inclusive language and fostering mutual understanding among all stakeholders are essential for managing ambiguity constructively and promoting equity in water governance. Without these adjustments, the platform’s capacity to address the KRB’s water contamination and mitigate conflicts will remain constrained.

Additionally, ambiguity can be a strategic asset. When constructively engaged, ambiguity can serve as a space for innovation and collaboration, fostering shared sense-making and adaptive decision making. Rather than attempting to eliminate ambiguity, the key lies in understanding how various actors navigate it through different relational dynamics and positioning. The KRB Platform has the potential to bring together the different actors with their ways of knowing in a shared space, which can facilitate the co-creation of creative solutions.

After the present study was conducted, the research team continued to participate in the KRB platform. Currently, the platform has initiated a promising shift toward a more participatory approach. For instance, in a recent meeting in 2024, actors had multiple mechanisms to present and discuss their perspectives, and diverse voices were heard during the round table discussions. Commitments and agreements were deliberated upon in each table and subsequently presented in the plenary session. These are promising changes for the potential of the multi-stakeholder platform to address the complex challenges in the KRB and to attend the urgent needs of the affected people and environment. Overall, embracing relational practices that prioritize inclusivity, knowledge co-creation, and transparency can enhance the platform’s capacity to navigate ambiguity, foster cooperation, and create sustainable solutions for water governance in the KRB.

LITERATURE CITED

Agramont, A., N. Van Cauwenbergh, A. Van Griesven, and M. Craps. 2022. Integrating spatial and social characteristics in the DPSIR framework for the sustainable management of river basins: case study of the Katari River Basin, Bolivia. Water International 47(1):8-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2021.1997021

Alvesson, M., and D. Karreman. 2000. Varieties of discourse: on the study of organizations through discourse analysis. Human Relations 53(9):1125-1149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726700539002

Apaza Huanca, Y. K. 2019. Non-Western epistemology and the understanding of the pachamama (environment) within the world (s) of the Aymara identity. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy 8(3):6-22. https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcjsd.v8i3.1241

Archundia, D., C. Duwig, L. Spadini, G. Uzu, S. Guédron, M.-C. Morel, R. Cortez, O. Ramos Ramos, J. Chincheros, and J. Martins. 2017. How uncontrolled urban expansion increases the contamination of the Titicaca Lake Basin (El Alto, La Paz, Bolivia). Water, Air, & Soil Pollution 228:1-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-016-3217-0

Baltodano, A., A. Agramont, I. Reusen, and A. van Griensven. 2022. Land cover change and water quality: how remote sensing can help understand driver-impact relations in the Titicaca Lake Basin. Water 14(7):1021. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14071021

Bouwen, R., and J. Hovelynck. 2006. The group-in-the-making: from ‘group dynamics’ to ‘relational practices.’ Pages 128-147 in D. M. Hosking and S. McNamee, editors. The social construction of organisation: advances in organization studies. Copenhagen Business School Press, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Bouwen, R., and T. Taillieu. 2004. Multi‐party collaboration as social learning for interdependence: developing relational knowing for sustainable natural resource management. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 14(3):137-153. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.777

Brugnach, M., M. Craps, and A. Dewulf. 2017. Including indigenous peoples in climate change mitigation: addressing issues of scale, knowledge and power. Climatic Change 140(1):19-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1280-3

Brugnach, M., A. Dewulf, H. J. Henriksen, and P. van der Keur. 2011. More is not always better: coping with ambiguity in natural resources management. Journal of Environmental Management 92(1):78-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.08.029

Brugnach, M., and H. Ingram. 2012. Ambiguity: the challenge of knowing and deciding together. Environmental Science & Policy 15(1):60-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2011.10.005

Bushe, G. R. 2013. Generative process, generative outcome: the transformational potential of appreciative inquiry. Pages 89-113 in D. Cooperrider, D. P. Zandee, L. N. Godwin, M. Avital, and B. Boland, editors. Organizational generativity: the appreciative inquiry summit and a scholarship of transformation. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, UK. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1475-9152(2013)0000004003

Chudnoff, S. M. 2009. A water quality assessment of the Rio Katari River and its principle tributaries, Bolivia. Thesis. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.

Chuquimia, L. 2015. Pobladores inician protestas por la contaminación del lago. Página Siete, 10 May.

Cooperrider, D. L., and S. Srivastva. 2013. A contemporary commentary on appreciative inquiry in organizational lifeappreciative inquiry in organizational life. (1987). Appreciative inquiry in organizational life. In R. Woodman and W. Pasmore (eds.), research in organizational change and development, vol. 1, pp. 129-169. Pages 3-67 in D. Cooperrider, D. P. Zandee, L. N. Godwin, M. Avital, and B. Boland, editors. Organizational generativity: the appreciative inquiry summit and a scholarship of transformation. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, UK. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1475-9152(2013)0000004001

Craps, M., and M. Brugnach. 2015. A relational approach to deal with ambiguity in multi-actor governance for sustainability. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment 199:233-243. https://doi.org/10.2495/RAV150201

Craps, M., A. Dewulf, M. Mancero, E. Santos, and R. Bouwen. 2004. Constructing common ground and re-creating differences between professional and indigenous communities in the Andes. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 14(5):378-393. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.796

Craps, M., I. Vermeesch, A. Dewulf, K. Sips, K. Termeer, and R. Bouwen. 2019. A relational approach to leadership for multi-actor governance. Administrative Sciences 9(1):12. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci9010012

Curșeu, P. L., and S. G. Schruijer. 2017. Stakeholder diversity and the comprehensiveness of sustainability decisions: the role of collaboration and conflict. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 28:114-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.09.007

Dewulf, A., M. Craps, R. Bouwen, T. Taillieu, and C. Pahl-Wostl. 2005. Integrated management of natural resources: dealing with ambiguous issues, multiple actors and diverging frames. Water Science and Technology 52(6):115-124. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2005.0159

Dewulf, A., B. Gray, L. Putnam, R. Lewicki, N. Aarts, R. Bouwen, and C. Van Woerkum. 2009. Disentangling approaches to framing in conflict and negotiation research: a meta-paradigmatic perspective. Human Relations 62(2):155-193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726708100356

Dewulf, A., M. Mancero, G. Cárdenas, and D. Sucozhanay. 2011. Fragmentation and connection of frames in collaborative water governance: a case study of river catchment management in southern Ecuador. International Review of Administrative Sciences 77(1):50-75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852310390108

Donnellon, A., B. Gray, and M. G. Bougon. 1986. Communication, meaning, and organized action. Administrative Science Quarterly 31:43-55. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392765

Droz, L., M. Brugnach, and U. Pascual. 2023. Multilingualism for pluralising knowledge and decision making about people and nature relationships. People and Nature 5(3):874-884. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10468

Dugan, M. A. 1996. A nested theory of conflict. A Leadership Journal: Women in Leadership - Sharing the Vision 1:9-20. https://emu.edu/cjp/docs/Dugan_Maire_Nested-Model-Original.pdf

Duwig, C. 2014. Characterisation of the Katari watershed in Bolivia in terms of hydrodynamics and geochemistry. Elsevier BV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Ford, J. D., and L. W. Ford. 1995. The role of conversations in producing intentional change in organizations. Academy of Management Review 20(3):541-570. https://doi.org/10.2307/258787

Freeman, C., M. Wisheart, K. Hester, D. Prescott, and D. Stibbe. 2016. Delivering on the promise: in-country multi-stakeholder platforms to catalyse collaboration and partnerships for agenda 2030. World Vision International and The Partnering Initiative, Uxbridge, UK.

Gloria Rodrigo, M., T. Ortuño, R. Isela, C. Becerra, R. Choque, and C. Ibañez. 2018. Contaminación por metales pesados y su efecto sobre organismos vivos en un gradiente de la cuenca katari. Universidad Mayor de San Andrés: La Paz, Bolivia.

Gray, B. 1989. Collaborating: finding common ground for multiparty problems. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, California, USA.

Gray, B. 2007. The process of partnership construction: anticipating obstacles and enhancing the likelihood of successful partnerships for sustainable development. Pages 27-41 in P. Glasbergen, ‎Frank Biermann, ‎A. P. J. Mol, editors. Partnerships, governance and sustainable development: reflections on theory and practice. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781847208668.00011

Gray, B., and D. Clyman. 2003. Difficulties fostering cooperative agreements in multiparty negotiations: cognitive, procedural, structural, and social. Pages 401-421 in M. A. West, ‎D. Tjosvold, ‎K. G. Smith, editors. International handbook of organizational teamwork and cooperative working. Wiley, Chichester, UK. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470696712.ch19

Hovelynck, J., M. Craps, A. Dewulf, K. Sips, T. Taillieu, and R. Bouwen. 2020. Relational practices for generative multi-actor collaboration. Pages 258-267 in S. McNamee, ‎M. M. Gergen, ‎C. Camargo-Borges, and E. F. Rasera, editors. The Sage handbook of social constructionist practice. SAGE, Los Angeles, California, USA. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529714326.n25

Howard, B., W. Buytaert, S. Krause, and D. M. Hannah. 2024. Connecting global water agendas: from wicked problematization to opportunities for action. Perspectives of Earth and Space Scientists 5(1):e2024CN000248. https://doi.org/10.1029/2024CN000248

Kvale, S., and S. Brinkmann. 2009. Interviews: learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, California, USA. .

La-Razon. 2015. Dos toneladas de ranas, peces y aves mueren en el titicaca. La-Razon, 26 April. https://www.la-razon.com/lr-article/dos-toneladas-de-ranas-peces-y-aves-mueren-en-el-titicaca/

Lewicki, R. J., B. Gray, and M. Elliott. 2003. Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts: frames and cases. Island, Washington, D.C., USA.

Mancilla García, M. 2016. Explicit arguments, hidden biases: uncovering the role of institutional relationships in a dispute over scientific data in Lake Titicaca (Bolivia). Society & Natural Resources 29(9):1110-1123. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2016.1150540

Mancilla García, M. 2017. Negotiating in the absence of trust: exploring the interactions between officials and residents in a waste management project in Copacabana, Bolivia. Local Environment 22(6):667-681. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2016.1252319

Mancilla García, M., J. Hileman, and Ö. Bodin. 2019. Collaboration and conflict in complex water governance systems across a development gradient: addressing common challenges and solutions. Ecology and Society 24(3):28. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11133-240328

Mostert, E., M. Craps, and C. Pahl-Wostl. 2008. Social learning: the key to integrated water resources management? Water International 33(3):293-304. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060802275757

Pahl-Wostl, C., D. Tàbara, R. Bouwen, M. Craps, A. Dewulf, E. Mostert, D. Ridder, and T. Taillieu. 2008. The importance of social learning and culture for sustainable water management. Ecological Economics 64(3):484-495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.08.007

Peres-Cajías, G. 2023. Symmetrical interactions, shared experiences and dialogical communication: keys for collective sensemaking towards transdisciplinarity in inter-university cooperation for development. Dissertation. Vrije Universiteit Brussels, Belgium.

Prins, S. 2010. From competition to collaboration: critical challenges and dynamics in multiparty collaboration. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 46(3):281-312. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886310369885

Rittel, H. W., and M. M. Webber. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4(2):155-169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730

Rivera Gironas, N., C. A. Garnica Gonzalez, B. I. Salvatierra Terrazas, L. Villafuerte Philippsborn, and A. Agramont Akiyama. 2024. Contaminación hídrica y derecho a la seguridad alimentaria de comunidades indígenas Andino-Bolivianas del Titicaca en la cuenca Katari. Revista Economía y Política 39:136-158. https://doi.org/10.25097/rep.n39.2024.08

Salman, T., M. De Theije, and I. Vélez-Torres. 2018. Structures, actors, and interactions in the analysis of natural resource conflicts. Ecology and Society 23(3):30. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10221-230330

Savage, G. T., M. D. Bunn, B. Gray, Q. Xiao, S. Wang, E. J. Wilson, and E. S. Williams. 2010. Stakeholder collaboration: implications for stakeholder theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics 96(1):21-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0939-1

Schilke, O., and K. S. Cook. 2013. A cross-level process theory of trust development in interorganizational relationships. Strategic Organization 11(3):281-303. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127012472096

Termeer, C. J., and R. P. Kranendonk. 2008. Governance of regional innovations towards sustainability. EGPA Conference, Wageningen, The Netherlands. https://edepot.wur.nl/42005

Weick, K. E. 1995. Sensemaking in organizations. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.

Whyte, K. P., J. P. Brewer II, and J. T. Johnson. 2016. Weaving indigenous science, protocols and sustainability science. Sustainability Science 11(1):25-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0296-6

Zahariadis, N. 2003. Ambiguity and choice in public policy: political decision making in modern democracies. Georgetown University Press, Washington, D.C., USA..

Zeitoun, M., and J. Warner. 2006. Hydro-hegemony: a framework for analysis of trans-boundary water conflicts. Water Policy 8(5):435-460. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2006.054