Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T13:33:57.679Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Environmental Review: A Framework for Sustainable Water Management: Integrating Ecological Constraints in Policy Tools in the United Kingdom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2009

Sandrine Simon
Sandrine Simon*
Affiliation:
Research Fellow, Department of Environmental Social Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, U.K.
*
Research Fellow, Keele University, Department of Environmental Social Sciences, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, U.K.; (fax) (01782) 58 4144; (e-mail) [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Freshwater in the United Kingdom constitutes a typical example of a supposedly abundant resource for which no system of sustainable use and management has been planned in the past Indeed, as H. Cook (The Protection and Conservation of Water Resources: A British Perspective, 1998) has shown, it has been a neglected area of concern compared with other areas of public policy. Recent droughts, problems of water pollution caused by excessive levels of nitrate and pesticides in groundwater, and acidification and pollution by heavy metals, as well as freshwater wildlife at risk, constitute important environmental problems. The management of water needs guidance, and this guidance needs to be very strongly ecologically based. However, this ecological information must also be integrated at the economic-policy level if water resources, which are fundamental for the survival of ecosystems, economies, and humans, are to be managed in a sustainable way in the long run. This paper presents a policy framework that is based on the reform of national accounts heavily relied on by policy makers, that uses “indicators of sustainability” (more and more viewed as the practical solution to operationalize the concept of sustainability), and that is oriented towards the pursuit of economic goals while respecting ecological constraints (“sustainability standards”). It is hoped that the construction of such a framework, based on the review of existing literature, can be a useful contribution to the sustainable management of water resources.

Type
Features & Reviews
Information
Environmental Practice , Volume 1 , Issue 4 , December 1999 , pp. 227 - 238
Copyright
Copyright © National Association of Environmental Professionals 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, V. 1991. Alternative Economic Indicators. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Bryant, C., and Cook, P.. 1992. Environmental Issues and the National Accounts. Economic Trends 469:99–122.Google Scholar
CAG Consultant. 1997. What Matters and Why. Environmental Capital: a New Approach, CAG, London.Google Scholar
Clayton, A.M.H., and Raddiffe, N.J.. 1997. Sustainability: A System Approach. Earthscan, London, 258 pages.Google Scholar
Cook, H. 1998. The Protection and Conservation of Water Resources: A British Perspective. Wiley and Sons, Chichester.Google Scholar
Council for the Protection of Rural England. 1993. Water on Demand? CPRE, London.Google Scholar
De Groot, R. 1992. Functions of Nature. Wolters-Noordhoff, Amsterdam.Google ScholarPubMed
De Haan, M., and Keuning, S.. 1995. Taking the environment into account: the Netherlands NAMEA for 1989, 1990, 1991. Statistics Netherlands. Occasional paper, Nr NA-074. Voorburg. 25 pages.Google Scholar
Department of the Environment. 1992. Using Water Wisely. HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Department of the Environment. 1994. Sustainable Development; The U.K. Strategy. HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Department of the Environment. 1997. Digest of Environmental Statistics. No. 19, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Ekins, P. and Simon, S.. 1998. Determining the Sustainability Gap-National Accounting for Environmental Sustainability. In U.K. Environmental Accounts 1998, Vaze, P., ed. ONS, HMSO, London, pp. 147–168.Google Scholar
English Nature. 1996. Impact of Water Abstraction on Wetland SSSIs. English Nature Freshwater Series No. 4. English Nature, Peterborough, 19 pages.Google Scholar
English Nature. 1997a. 6th report April 1996-March 1997. English Nature, Peterborough, 142 pages.Google Scholar
English Nature. 1997b. Wildlife and Freshwater; An Agenda for Sustainable Management. English Nature, Peterborough.Google Scholar
Environment Agency. 1998. A Price Worth Paying. Environment Agency, Bristol, 44 pages.Google Scholar
Gleick, P. 1998. Water in crisis: path to sustainable water use. Ecological Applications 8(3):571–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keuning, S. 1996. The NAMEA Experience. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Integrated Economic and Environmental Accounting in Theory and Practice, March, Tokyo, Statistics Netherlands.Google Scholar
Rees, J. 1993. Water for Life. CPRE, London.Google Scholar
Richardson, J. 1994. European Union Water Policy: Uncertain Agendas, Shirting Networks and Complex Coalitions. Environmental Politics 3(4):139–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheng, F. 1995. Real Value for Nature. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland, 158 pages.Google Scholar
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. 1992. Agenda 21. United Nations Report, Earth Council, National University, Earth Council Documents Series.Google Scholar
Vaze, P. and Schweisguth, D.. 1998. Water Accounts in U.K. Environmental Accounting. In U.K. Environmental Accounts 1998, Vaze, P., ed. ONS, HMSO, London, pp. 83–98.Google Scholar