Search

Trust is generally considered to play a key enabling role in water governance. Despite this notion, there have been no systematic assessments examining the way in which the literature on water governance engages with 'trust'. Our article fills this gap by providing an overview of the way in which this literature has engaged with trust as a conceptual lens, analytical device and empirical phenomenon. Through an explorative systematic literature review of N  = 200, mainly peer-reviewed journal articles, our findings reveal that the knowledge base on the role of trust in water governance is fragmented, poorly conceptualized, and contextually dispersed. We also observe that the role of trust is often understudied, especially in the context of the global south and with regard to ethnic minorities and indigenous people as the subjects of trust. We recommend that future research should build on solid empirical evidence, diversify its foci, go beyond an instrumental approach to trust and rely on clear and transparent conceptualizations that acknowledge the context-specific and dynamic nature of trust relationships. The results of this review should serve to better systemize future research and to further the understanding on the role(s) of trust in varying contexts and related to different water governance issues., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Scaled up planning and implementation of nature-based solutions requires better understanding of broad characteristics (typologies) of the current governance and financing landscape, collaborative approaches amidst local complexities, and factors of scalability. An inventory was compiled of water-related ecological infrastructure intervention projects in two river systems in South Africa, incorporating actor, environmental, social, and financial dimensions and benefits. Qualitative participatory analysis revealed eight typologies. Post-hoc classification analysis determined similarities and/or unique characteristics of seven quantitative typologies. Key characterising factors included the complexity/size of financial flows, complexity of partnership/governance arrangements, mandates/goals of actors, type of ecological infrastructure, trade-offs in investment in ecological/built infrastructure, and the model used for social benefits. Identified scalable typologies offer structures suited to increased investment, with other typologies offering specialised local value. A range of ecological infrastructure intervention typologies with differing biophysical and socioeconomic outcomes provide choices for investors with specific goals, and benefits to landscape actors.