Social leaning approach in integrated river basin management-lessons from the Langat River Basin, Malaysia

42 Advances in Natural and Applied Sciences, 6(1): 42-51, 2012 ISSN 1995-0772 This is a refereed journal and all articles are professionally screened and reviewed

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Corresponding Author: M.E Toriman, School of Social, Development and Environmental Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, National Universty of Malaysia Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

E-mail:[email protected]

Social Leaning Approach in Integrated River Basin Management-Lessons from the Langat River Basin, Malaysia M.E.Toriman, M.B. Mokhtar and Md. A.A.Hossain, Nor Azlina Abdul Aziz, Sulong Mohamad, Noorazuan Md. Hashim, Shaharuddin Ahmad, Noraziah Ali, Mohd Fuad, M.J., A. Habibah, J. Hamzah.,A.C.Er. Mohd Yusof Hussain School of Social, Development and Environmental Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, National Universty of Malaysia Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

M.E.Toriman, M.B. Mokhtar and Md. A.A.Hossain, Nor Azlina Abdul Aziz, Sulong Mohamad, Noorazuan Md. Hashim, Shaharuddin Ahmad, Noraziah Ali, Mohd Fuad, M.J., A. Habibah, J. Hamzah.,A.C.Er. Mohd Yusof Hussain; Social Leaning Approach in Integrated River Basin Management-Lessons from the Langat River Basin, Malaysia

ABSTRACT While the intended objective of integrated river basin management (IRBM) is to attain sustainable development, institutional challenges behind environmentally less sensitive society to manage natural resources in a river basin are remained unexplored. Therefore, this study attempted to determine institutional challenges and understand the complexity and interconnectedness of factors affecting policy processes and outcomes of IRBM in the Langat River Basin (LRB), Malaysia using institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework, literature review, field observation and stakeholder interview. This analysis has defined three categories of action arenas of governance structure for IRBM in LRB. Action arena for newly formed river basin organization was not isolated but nested within hierarchic and polycentric Federal administrative structure which is responsible for constitutional and collective choice rules formation from beyond the river basin boundary. Action arena for individual stakeholders remained inactive in operational rules formation. As a result society remained environmentally insensitive to respond to uncertain and complex IRBM issues related to the consequences of rapid land use change, degradation and fragmentation of forest cover, water quality degradation, and disappearance of wetlands in LRB. Results of stakeholder interview revealed that 71 percent respondents were not aware of the objectives and activities of river basin organization in LRB. However, 82 percent of respondents have shown their strong interest to join social learning programme as collective choice opportunity. Therefore, social learning approach was suggested to bring change into an environmentally sensitive society. A framework for social learning was proposed to adopt into existing inter-organizational network for IRBM in LRB. Findings and recommendations of this study will be useful those who are concerned for successful IRBM implementation, strategize institutional change and further research in LRB and else where. Key words: Integrated river basin management, sustainable development, Langat River Basin, Institutional

Analysis and Development (IAD) framework, social learning. Introduction Integrated river basin management (IRBM) is the subset of integrated water resources management (IWRM) which is commonly defined as a process to promote the coordinated development and management of water, land, and related resources, in order to maximize the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems (GWP 2004). While the intended objective of IRBM is to attain sustainable development as endorsed in Dublin Principles, institutional challenges behind environmentally less sensitive society to manage natural resources of the river basin were remained unexplored. Experiences from across the globe revealed that management of this resource has been facing numerous challenges (Kgarebe 2002; Svendsen 2005; GWP 2006; Rockström et al 2007; Tan and Mokhtar 2009) with uncertainty and complexity mainly because of lack of information and learning mechanism. Blessed

43 Adv. in Nat. Appl. Sci., 6(1): 42-51, 2012

by equatorial zone for abundance of water, Malaysia’s water resources management also has been facing numerous challenges which compelled Malaysia to adopt IRBM. But existing institutional arrangements for IRBM could not provide scope to form environmentally sensitive society, an institution, which was deemed necessary to act for desired policy outcomes. Existing attributes of biophysical settings of Langat River Basin (LRB) indicates that policy outcomes still remained significantly short of policy intentions in terms of IRBM in LRB. For institutional analysis, using institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework, action arenas were defined for IRBM in LRB. It was observed that the provision of formal rules-in-use have less scope for individual stakeholder participation in decision making. While reviewing situation this framework also provides scope to understand the complexity and interconnectedness of factors affecting policy processes and outcomes. This analysis has defined three categories of action arenas for IRBM in LRB. Action arena for newly formed river basin organization was not isolated but nested within hierarchic and polycentric Federal administrative structure responsible for constitutional and collective choice rules formation. Individual stakeholders were also remained inactive in action arena for decision making on operational rules. As a result society remained environmentally less sensitive to respond to uncertain and complex IRBM issues related to the consequences of rapid land use change, degradation and fragmentation of forest cover, water quality degradation, and disappearance of wetlands in LRB. Results of stakeholder interview revealed that 71 percent respondents were not aware of the objectives and activities of river basin organization in LRB. However, 82 percent of respondents have shown strong interest to join social learning programme as collective choice opportunity. Therefore, this study suggests that unless an iterative learning process is developed by bringing change to form environmentally sensitive society, existing policy processes associated with IRBM initiatives will fail to provide desired policy outcomes in LRB. This iterative learning is conceptualized as social learning which is a process of learning by doing together and balancing top-down and bottom-up approaches of decision making by gradually improving stakeholder participation beyond informative or consultative participation which might end up with co-designing and co-deciding mechanism. A framework for social learning is proposed to adopt into existing organizational network for IRBM in LRB. Findings and recommendations of this study will be useful those who are concerned for successful IRBM implementation, strategize institutional change and further research in LRB and else where. Materials And Methods Langat River Basin (LRB): LRB is a trans-state river basin and situated at the mid western part of Peninsular Malaysia. A map of Langat River Basin showing its location in Peninsular Malaysia (inset) is given in Figure 1. This basin has been recognized as UNESCO led Evolving HELP basin. Total population of this river basin was more than 1.59 million (since population of small area of Putrajaya not included) (DoSM 2008) and is expected to be 2.50 million by 2050. Spatial extent and hydrological characteristics of this basin are given in Table 1. This basin is experiencing rapid development in terms of urbanization, industrialization, road network and agriculture as commonly found in many river basins across the globe. During last two decades, considerable forest areas have been converted to other land uses leaving only 803.8 km2 of forest cover in 2000 (Abdullah 2000). Whole basin area is portrayed by both natural and man made ecosystems. From landscape ecological perspective, this basin is under huge disturbances in its matrix, patches and corridors to form land mosaics and support functional integrity (Abdullah and Hezri 2008; Abdullah and Nakagoshi 2008). Table 1: Spatial extent and hydrological characteristics of LRB.

Parameters Characteristics River basin area : 2,938 km2 (2.21% of Peninsular Malaysia and 35.89% for Selangor

state). Total length of river : 120 km

Total number of tributaries : 39 Nos. Annual average rain fall : 2,469 mm

Minimum and maximum range of rainfall : 1,521mm and 2,883 mm respectively Average rainy day per year : 190 days per year

Basin level water production capacity : 1,052 million liters/day Average annual flow : 35 cumecs

Annual flood : 300 cumecs Water abstraction range : 3.41 – 5.86 m3/second

Average temperature : 320C Humidity : 80%

Source: Modified from DID 2003; Yusuf 2001;


Fig. 1: Map of Langat River Basin Showing its Location in Peninsular Malaysia (Inset). Integrated River Basin Management in LRB: Integrated river basin management (IRBM) in LRB began by forming a river basin organization under the Selangor Waters Management Authority Enactment 1999. Major tasks of this organization are to implement the Integrated River Basin Management Plan (IRBM Plan) and Integrated Coastal Zone Management Plan (ICZM Plan) and to coordinate in the preparation of other development plans (structure plan, local district plan, special area plan) as part of planning and zoning basin area. There is also provision to involve stakeholders in decision making. The Selangor Waters Management Authority Enactment 1999 (GoM 1999) is an exhaustive law in terms of authority, function, enforcement, licensing and financial dealings. As per the provision of this law, by and large the governance structure and processes of IRBM in LRB are partially conducive to the IRBM paradigm but existing operation is still insufficient particularly in terms of enforcement of different provisions of the law, frequency of coordination efforts and participation of stakeholders for decision making at the lowest appropriate level. Authority of this organization still remains under the hierarchic Federal administrative structure. Thus institutionally both implementation challenges and design challenges are present in the operation of this river basin organization. Institutional Arrangements for IRBM in LRB: Institutional analysis identifies institutional challenges through the processes of analyzing design and performance of institutional arrangements which includes policy, rules, laws and organizations. These institutional arrangements form the governance structure of a river basin (Saleth and Dinar 2005). As such a brief account of institutional arrangements for IRBM in LRB is summarized below. There is an enduring expectation to have an over-arching national water policy in Malaysia. Apparently absence of such a policy deemed constraining IRBM in Malaysia but the situation is quite different. Existence of some forums for policy dialogues and recent organizational reforms including formation of river basin organization has been filling up this policy gap. For example: Malaysia’s Water Vision 2025 was developed by


one of the policy dialogue forums and is now endorsed by the Ninth Malaysia Plan 2006-2010 and its objectives - (a) water for people; (b) water for food and rural development; (c) water for economic development and (d) water for environment - are now the national policy objectives for overall water resources development in Malaysia. At least 17 major formal secotral laws are there (DID 2003), that form a complex rule making processes and hierarchic inter-organizational network for the IRBM in LRB. Figure 2 depicts the inter-organizational network for LRB.

Fig. 2: Inter-organizational Network for IRBM in LRB. Some ad-hoc institutional changes have been observed within inter-organizational network since 1998. Formation of the National Water Resources Council (NWRC) in 1998, enactment of the Selangor Waters Management Act 1999 for adoption of IRBM in Selagor State, reforming ministries in 2004 to accommodate clear mandate for environment and natural resources into government process, enactment of National Water Services Commission Act (Act 654) 2006 and the Water Services Industry Act 2006 (Act 655) to form regulatory body known as SPAN (Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Air Negara) for improving water supply and sanitation services (GoM 2006a and 2006b) are among the major initiatives apparently contributing institutional support for IRBM in LRB. Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) Framework: Taking major insights from Imperial (1991), institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework (Kiser and Ostorm 1982; Ostrom 1986; Crawford and Ostrom 1995; Imperial 1999; Ostrom 2005; Koontz 2006) was used to define action arena, rules-in-use and action situation for IRBM in LRB. Stakeholder Interview and Field Observation: For empirical study on identified institutional challenges, randomly selected 181 stakeholders from three different locations – upstream, middle stream and down stream –of LRB were interviewed using simple questionnaire during three Gotong-royong days (village level social occasion for the Malay community) held during 22-03-2009 to 9-08-2009. Necessary statistical and social science methods were carefully followed to avoid unnecessary errors in data collection, entry, and analysis. Simple percentile analysis was carried out to interpret the data for this study. Field observation has been carried out in addition to stakeholder interview.


Results And Discussion Institutional Challenges for IRBM in LRB: Main focus of this study was to draw solution based on identified institutional challenges facing individual stakeholders for participation in learning processes that determine intended governance structure in LRB. Besides, effort was made to interpret inter-organizational relations and their learning processes responsible to form environmentally sensitive society, an institution, to respond to successful IRBM in LRB. Action Arena for IRBM in LRB: A total of three categories of action arenas have been identified for IRBM in LRB as shown in Table 2. While categorizing action arenas, all actors were categorized as: (a) primary stakeholder who enjoys products and services from the river basin but not formally engaged/employed with agency(ies) responsible for managing product and services of river and associated resources or (b) secondary stakeholder who may or may not getting product and services but formally engaged/employed with agency(ies) responsible for managing product and services of rive basin and associated resources. Indeed this secondary stakeholder plays duel role because he/she becomes primary stakeholder after his/her office work while staying with the community. In case of water use and IRBM, roles and responsibilities of this secondary stakeholder are rather higher than the primary stakeholders. The levels of rules-in-use and action situation are also defined from literature review and observation. After defining action arenas, attributes of contextual factors were analyzed. Table 2: Table of major action arenas, level of rules-in-use and resulting action situation within LRB.

Action arena category Actors and their interactions Level of rules-in-use Action situation Action arena category 1: Interactions among the Secondary stakeholders

- Federal Government Vs. State Government - Among National Councils

- Within National Water Resources Councils - Ministry Vs. Ministry

- Ministry Vs. Federal Departments. - Within Each Ministry

- Federal Departments Vs. State Departments - Within Federal Departments

- State Department Vs. State Department - Within State Departments

- State Departments Vs. Local Authority - Selangor State Government Vs. Negeri Sembilan

State Government. - Among Local Authorities

- SPAN Vs. Concessionaires - LUAS Vs. Other Government Agencies - LUAS Vs. Research Organizations and

Universities

- CNR

- CNR - CNR

- CNR and CCR - CNR and CCR - CCR and OPR - CNR, CCR and

OPR - CCR and OPR - CCR and OPR

- CCR and OPR

- CNR, CCR and

OPR - CCR and OPR - CCR and OPR - CCR and OPR

- OPR

- OPR

Pro-active in process but

complexity in hierarchic

structure and beyond the reach

of primary stakeholders to influence rule

making process.

Action arena category 2: Interactions between primary stakeholders and secondary

stakeholders

- LUAS Vs. water users and local communities - SPAN Vs. water users and members of water

forums

- OPR

- CCR

Active in nature and collective

choice arena open for community

Action arena category 3: Interactions among primary

stakeholders

- Among water users - Among local communities

- OPR - OPR

Inactive and free ride problem

Note: Level of rules-in-use: Constitutional rule = CNR; Collective choice rule = CCR; and Operational rule = OPR). Biophysical Setting in LRB: While environmentally sensitive society is deemed capable to provide intended policy outcomes through their meaningful interactions, literature review on existing attributes of bio-physical settings in LRB are giving different outcomes. There are huge disturbances in landscape integrity (Abdullah and Hezri 2008; Abdullah and Nakagoshi 2008), degradation of environment and water quality (Abdul Samad et al 2003; Chamhuri and Shaharudin 2006; DOE 2007; Heng et al 2003), fragmentation of forests (Nor et al (2003), rapid land use changes (Idrus et al 2003) and degradation of environmentally sensitive areas (Selangor State Government 2003). These attributes of bio-physical settings of LRB not only indicate the policy outcomes but also influence action situations in focal action arenas (Ostrom 1986).


Availability of water in LRB with respect to demand is now passing the time of scarcity. If not demand is properly managed, situation would be characterized as over exploitation. Demand for water from the LRB in the year 2000 was 0.468 million m3 / day and it will be increased to 2.141 million m3 /day by the year 2050. The basin is capable to produce only 1.052 million m3 /day and 65 percent of which is transferred to Klang River for water supply to Kuala Lumpur. Under such circumstance, Government has undertaken inter-state raw water transfer project in 2005 to transfer 2,260 million liters of water per day from Pahang State. Such an arrangement apparently solves the water demand problem. But for sustainability, creation of incentives for stakeholder motivation would be more desirable. At the moment per capita water consumption in Selangor State and Negeri Sembilan State is 194 and 202 liters per day respectively (Kim 2007) which is much higher than global standard. Extreme events of climate change are now serious concerns particularly in the water sector. Many flood prone areas like Sg. Langat, Sg. Bangi, Sg. Jernih, Sg. Bala, Sg. Sekamat and Sg. Pangkas within LRB have been identified by Department of Irrigation and Drainage, Selangor. These areas will be more susceptible to flood when climate change extreme events will occur in the basin area. At the moment some structural measures are prescribed for organizational intervention to protect flood events or reducing flood sequences. But because of ecological sensitivity, conservationists argued that riverine flood plains should not be disturbed from its flooding by structural intervention rather local inhabitants must know how to adopt this incidence which require environmentally sensitive society. Attributes of the Community: At the moment individual stakeholders in LRB are environmentally less sensitive due to lack of information among them because of their non participation in the decision making for operational rule formation of IRBM. However, a homogeneous social structure with certain shared norms of behaviors, common understanding about actions, homogeneity of individual preferences and uniform and abundant distribution of resources were observed in LRB. These attributes indicates the ability of the community to interact for desired outcomes. Besides ethnicity, religion, culture and history are also favorable to define incentive structure for interaction among the members of the community. From literature review and field observation this study suggests that the community at the rural level represents homogeneous social structure having three ethnic groups in harmony while at the urban area represents heterogeneous social structure. About 96 percent respondents of the stakeholder interview were able to mention the name of their neighboring river and its contribution to their livelihood indicating long history of human dependency on rivers. Therefore, community attributes are deemed conducive to the adoption of social learning for IRBM in LRB. Rules-in-use: Different formal rules have defined different organizational entities that are providing parochial solution which causes a number of governance problems. But enactment of new rule for LUAS has created inter-organizational network of Federal administration, State administration and sectoral agencies who are coordinating for the development of all the three levels of rules – operational rules, collective choice rules, and constitutional choice rules - that cumulatively affect the actions and outcomes and thus developed certain conducive patterns of inter-organizational relationships for IRBM in LRB. Main challenge remains with individual stakeholder participation in decision making because of limited scope defined in existing formal rules. A list of existing legislative provision of individual stakeholder participation is given in Table 3. Table 3: Legitimate provisions of stakeholder participation.

Law/Acts Provisions The Environmental Quality Act 1974 - Public participation in the implementation of the Environmental Impact Assessment on

prescribed project. The Town and Country Planning (Act

1976), 1984 - Public participation is in the form of public viewing and written comments on local plans

and structure plans By law of the Ministry of Works

(Government Order) - Scope for public opinion survey prior to road design.

Selangor Waters Management Authority Enactment 1999

- Formation, operation and management of stakeholder groups. - Encourage local area management committees and stakeholder groups to work with the

authority Agenda 21 of the Selangor State - Public participation is encouraged in project planning and implementation as part of

implementing Action Plan

Strong local interest to participate in collective action situation is stymied in absence of formal rules for stakeholder participation in decision making. It has been observed that 82 percent of the respondents had strong support to participate in social learning progamme, but provision of existing formal rules-in-use hardly defined such action situation for participation of individual stakeholder at local level.


Discussion: Environmentally sensitive society is deemed to act for desired policy outcomes only when members of society have opportunity to join iterative learning process within a governance structure conducive to emerging aspects of power sharing, institution building, building trust and social capital, process of sharing management rights, ability to select alternatives for problem solving, people centered governance, innovative and conflict resolution for natural resources management. Successful IRBM completely depends on performance of this governance structure responsible for natural resources management in a river basin. To understand this governance structure, in its simplest form, action arena was defined for IRBM in LRB. It was observed that action arenas for IRBM in LRB are not isolated in themselves rather hierarchic and nested both structurally and spatially by a number of functionally linked rules of other action arenas of Malaysian Government beyond river basin boundary. As it has been grouped, in the Action Arena category 1, secondary stakeholders are found pro-active in their action situation and participating in rule making decisions within complex hierarchic structure. Collective choice rules and constitutional rules are built within this action arena where primary stakeholder participation is beyond their reach. In Action Arena category 2, formation of LUAS and SPAN has opened up new action situation where primary stakeholder can participate with secondary stakeholders to can make their rules that they would follow for desired outcomes. But in practice, only the organizational actors are joining the dialogues for operational rules making purposes Action situation in these action arenas was found active in nature and open for community to influence rule making processes. For example, SPAN is responsible to review and settle water tariff based on proposals from water forums. But this mechanism is still at infant stage and in practice individual stakeholders are not participating in such rule making process. In Action Arena category 3, the practice of rule making processes among individual stakeholders were missing. Primary stakeholders are enjoying free riding benefits while government agencies are doing almost every thing for them. Thus the society remained less sensitive to respond to uncertain and complex IRBM issues related to the consequences of rapid land use change, degradation and fragmentation of forest cover, water quality degradation, and disappearance of wetlands in LRB. Existing practice of LUAS probably has created incentives to over come collective action problems by creating scope for sharing information, maximizing coordination and minimize non-cooperative behavior among agencies. As a river basin organization and the coordination platform created by LUAS can provide scope for iterative learning among organizations and also can extend decision making to individual stakeholders as the provision is embedded in its legitimate law. Scholars are always supportive of having autonomy for resources users to design their own rules for governing and managing common-pool resources to achieve better outcomes (Ostrom 1990; Schlager and Ostrom 1992; Ostrom et al 1994; Gibson et al 2000; Agrawal and Gupta 2005). It requires learning and institutional innovations (Walters 1986; Imperial and Hennessey 1996; Pahl-Wostl et al 2008; Allan and Stnakey 2009). In that respect social learning is a good option and it will provide desired policy outcomes with respect to IRBM in LRB. Social Learning: Social learning is a process of learning by doing together and balancing top-down and bottom-up approaches of decision making by gradually improving stakeholder participation beyond informative or consultative participation which might end up with co-designing and co-deciding mechanism. Main philosophy of this learning refers to continuous capacity building (Wolters et al 2006) resulting into a environmentally sensitive society. In its evolution, the concept of collaboration, coordination and participation in natural resources management are now largely emphasizing on the process and learning (Berkes 2009). Learning is a popular term in natural resources management (CIFOR 2001) to over come uncertainty and complexity (Wals 2007) and may be applied for organizational learning (HarmoiCOP 2005). It has been applied in many European countries for IWRM implementation (Wilson 1996). Therefore, considering institutional challenges facing existing inter-organizational network, a framework of social learning in LRB has been developed as given in Figure 3: Conclussion: Adoption of social learning, both for individual stakeholders as well as for organizations of existing inter-organizational network will fulfill the gaps of information required for meaningful decision making thus reduce uncertainty and complexity for IRBM in LRB. Such practice will bring change in the society which will be environmentally sensitive and able to respond meaningfully to desired policy outcomes. Strong interests of the people to join social learning programme in LRB should be considered as strong incentives for initiating social learning in LRB. This study has just unfolds the institutional challenges behind environmentally less sensitive society to manage natural resources in a river basin. Through practice of social learning and by carrying out


empirical research, more insights will be revealed and thus help to form environmentally sensitive society to provide desired outcomes for IRBM in LRB.

Fig. 3: Framework for social learning in LRB. Acknowledgment Funding support from the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MOSTI), Malaysia (Project Code: 04-01-02-SF0343) is greatly appreciated. The authors would like to thank Prof. Hj. Dr. Kamaruzaman Jusoff, Mr. Shaharudin Idrus and Mr. Lim Choun Sian for their assistances. Support of LESTARI, UKM is also greatly acknowledged. Although MOSTI, Malaysia has commissioned and funded this research, MOSTI does not bear the responsibility for the information, views and suggestion expressed in this paper. References Abdul Samad, H., I. Shaharudin and H.S. Hadi, 2003. People’s vulnerability and environmental change: a

discussion based on the Langat basin. In. Mokhtar, M. B., Shaharudin, I. and Shar A. (eds.), Ecosystem health of the Langat basin, proceedings of the 2003 research symposium on ecosystem of the Langat basin, pp: 58-66. Bangi: LESTARI, UKM.

Abdullah, S.A. and A.A. Hezri, 2008. From forest landscape to agricultural landscape in the developing tropical country of Malaysia: pattern, process, and their significance on policy. Environmental Management, 42: 907-917.

Abdullah, S.A. and N. Nakagoshi, 2008. Landscape ecological approach in oil palm land use planning and management for forest conservation in Malaysia. In Hong, S. K., Nakagoshi, N., Fu, B. J. and Morimoto, Y. (eds.), Landscape ecological applications in man-influenced areas: linking man and nature system, pp: 179-191. Berlin: Springe-Verlag.

Abdullah, S.A., 2000. Changes of forested areas and wildlife diversity in the Langat basin. In Hasan, M. N. (ed.), Langat basin ecosystem health, proceedings of the 1999 Langat basin research symposium, pp: 215-233. Bangi: LESTARI, UKM.

Agrawal, A. and K. Gupta, 2005. Decentralization and participation: the governance of common pool resources in Nepal’s Terai. World Development, 33(7): 1101-1114.

Allan, C. and G.H. Stankey, (eds.), 2009. Adaptive environmental management: a practitioner’s guide. Dorderecht: Springer Science and Collingwood: CSIRO Publishing.

Berkes, F., 2009. Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management, 90: 1692-1702.

Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), 2001. Social learning in community forests. In. Wollenberg, E., Edmunds, d. buck, L., Fox, J., and Brodt, S. (eds.), Center for International Forestry Research, Jakarta, Indonesia,

Chamhuri, S. and I. Shaharudin, 2006. Poverty, water and environmental degradation: Langat River Basin, Malaysia. In Tvedt, T. and Jakobsson, E. (eds.), A history of water – water control and river biographies, pp: 277- 298. London: I.B. Tauris Publishers.


Crawford, S. and E.A. Ostrom, 1995. Rammar of institutions. American Political Science Review, 89(3): 582-600.

DID, 2003. Integrated river basin management plan for Langat River Basin, Volume 3. Department of Irrigation and Drainage, Kuala Lumpur: Department of Irrigation and Drainage.

DOE, 2007. Malaysia environmental quality report 2007. Malaysia: Department of Environment, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment.

DoSM, 2008. Basic population characteristics by administrative districts 2008. June 2008. Malaysia: Department of Statistics, Malaysia.

Gibson, C.C., M.A. McKean and E. Ostrom, (eds.), 2000. People and forests- communities, institutions, and governance. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

GoM., 1999. The Selangor Waters Management Authority Enactment 1999. Government of Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Government of Malaysia.

GoM., 2006. Surahanjaya Perkidmatan Air Negara (Act 654) 2006. Government of Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Percetakan National Malaysia Berhad.

GoM., 2006b. The Water Services Industries Act (Act 655) 2006. Government of Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Percetakan National Malaysia Berhad.

GWP., 2004. Catalyzing change: a handbook for developing integrated water resources management (IWRM) and water efficiency strategies. Technical Committee. Stockholm Global Water Partnership (GWP).

GWP., 2006. Integrated water resources management: strengthening local action. Thematic Document, Framework Theme 2. Fourth World Water Forum. Prepared by Global Water Partnership Mexico City, March 2006.

HarmoniCOP., 2005. Harmonizing collaborative planning (HarmoniCOP), learning together to manage together-improving participation in water management. In. Ridder, D., Mostert, E., and Wolters, H. A. (eds.), Osnabrűck: University of Osnabrűck.

Heng, L.Y., M.B. Mokhtar, B.A. Rohani and J.J. Pereira, 2003. Developing indicators for effluent pollution and ecosystem health assessment of the Langat River Basin. In Mokhtar M. B., Shaharudin, I. and Sarah, A. (eds.), Ecosystem health of the Langat basin, proceedings of the 2003 research symposium on ecosystem of the Langat basin, pp: 44-57. Bangi: LESTARI, UKM.

Idrus, S., A.H.H. Shah and A.F. Mohamed, 2003. Analysis of land use and land cover changes 1974-2001 in the Langat basin, Malaysia using geographic information system (GIS). In Mokhtar M. B., Idrus S. and Aziz, S (eds.), Ecosystem health of the Langat basin, proceedings of the 2003 research symposium on ecosystem of the Langat basin, pp: 209-225. Bangi: LESTARI, UKM.

Imperial, M.T. and T. Hennessey, 1996. An ecosystem-based approach to managing estuaries: an assessment of the National Estuary Program. Coastal Management, 24: 115-139.

Imperial, M.T., 1999. Institutional analysis and ecosystem-based management: the institutional analysis and development framework. Environmental Management, 24(4): 449-465.

Kgarebe, B.V., 2002. Water resources management: the challenge of integration. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 27: 865.

Kim, C.L.H., 2007. Social policies and private sector participation in water supply –the case of Malaysia. Draft working document for UNRISD. Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.

Kiser, L.L. and E. Ostrom, 1982. The three worlds of action: a metatheoretical synthesis of institutional approaches." In Ostrom, E. (ed.), Strategies of political inquiry, pp: 179-222. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Koontz, T.M., 2006. Collaboration for sustainability? A framework for analyzing government impacts in collaborative-environmental management. Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy, 2(1): 15-24.

Nor, S.M., N. Ahmad, A.W. Samad, W.A. Juliana, A.G. Idris, M B. M.-Zain and M.N. Said, 2003. Summary on studies of flora and fauna in forest fragments of Langat basin, Selangor. In Mokhtar, M. B., Idrus, S. and Aziz, S (eds.), Ecosystem health of the Langat basin, proceedings of the 2003 research symposium on ecosystem of the Langat basin, pp: 267-279. Bangi: LESTARI, UKM.

Ostrom, E., 1986. An agenda for the study of institutions. Public Choice, 18(1): 3-25. Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambirdge:

Cambridge University Press. Ostrom, E., 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Ostrom, E., R. Gardner and J. Walker, 1994. Rules, games, and common-pool resources. Ann Arbor: The

University of Michigan Press. Pahl-Wostl, C., 2008. Requirements for adaptive water management. In Pahl-Wostl, C., Kabat, P. and Möltgen,

G.J. (eds.). Adaptive and integrated water management- coping with complexity and uncertainty, pp: 2-22. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Rockström, J., M. Lannerstad and M. Falkenmark, 2007. Assessing the water challenge of a new green revolution in developing countries. PNAS, 104(15): 6253-6260.

Saleth, R.M. and A. Dinar, 2005. Water institutional reforms: theory and practice. Water Policy, 7: 1-19.


Schlager, E. and E. Ostrom, 1992. Property-rights regimes and natural resources: a conceptual analysis. Land Economics, 68(3): 249-262.

Selangor State Government, 2003. Agenda 21 Selangor – Selangor’s commitment to sustainable development. Selangor: The Town and Country Planning Department, Malaysia.

Svendsen, M., 2005. Irrigation and river basin management: options for governance and institutions. Wallingford, UK and International Water Management Institute, Colombo: CABI Publishing.

Tan, K.W. and M.B. Mokhtar, 2009. An appropriate institutional framework towards integrated water resources management in Pahang River Basin, Malaysia. European Journal of Scientific Research, 27(4): 536-547.

Wals, A.E.J., 2007. Social learning towards a sustainable world: principles, perspectives, and praxis. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.

Walters, C., 1986. Adaptive management of renewable resources. New York: Macmillan. Wilson, P., 1996. Empowerment: Community economic development from the inside out. Urban Studies, 33(4-

5): 617-630. Wolters, H., D. Ridder, E. Mostert, H. Otter and M. Patel, 2006. Social learning in water management: lessons

from the HarmoniCOP6 Project. E-Water, Official publication of the European Water Association (EWA), EWA 2006.

Yusuf, M.A., 2001. River water quality and ecosystem health in Langat Basin, Selangor, Malaysia. Ph.D. thesis. Bangi: LESTARI, UKM.

Documents

Social leaning approach in integrated river basin management-lessons from the Langat River Basin, Malaysia