**1. Introduction**

Complexity analysis is an approach that is gaining strength when evaluating environmental policies [1]. In the water sector, complexity has been associated with problems such as environmental pollution, the overexploitation of aquifers, and the insufficient supply of adequate quality water to all people. This complexity results in the difficulty of fully understanding all variables that influence how these problems may be resolved [1,2]. These variables are linked to social, cultural, political, economic, technological, and environmental factors at different scales [3]. Moreover, complexity is an attribute assumed to be inherent in water governance, which is in part due to specific water-related problems [1,3,4] and the social–ecological system in which it is immersed [5–7]. Other studies have attributed complexity as a characteristic of adaptive [8] and polycentric governance models [9,10] due to their ability to incorporate uncertainty and feedback into the decision-making and water

**Citation:** Gumeta-Gómez, F.; Sáenz-Arroyo, A.; Hinojosa-Arango, G.; Monzón-Alvarado, C.; Mesa-Jurado, M.A.; Molina-Rosales, D. Understanding the Complexity of Water Supply System Governance: A Proposal for a Methodological Framework. *Water* **2021**, *13*, 2870. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/w13202870

Academic Editors: Athanasios Loukas and Luis Garrote

Received: 10 September 2021 Accepted: 11 October 2021 Published: 14 October 2021

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

managemen<sup>t</sup> process. Nonetheless, we argue that water governance can be complex not only as a characteristic of an adaptative or polycentric governance model but because of the complex problems it addresses across different jurisdictional, spatial, and temporal scales.

However, in the field of water governance, there is a lack of appropriate frameworks and pertinent variables to address complexity beyond a heuristic concept. In other research areas, such as the forest, fisheries, and aquaculture sectors, the diversity of stakeholders and institutions [11], the multilevel governance structure [12], legal pluralism [13], and the nestedness of the institution [14,15] have been proposed as approximations to understand the complexity of governance. However, these approaches largely ignore local processes, fail to identify multilevel structural elements or processes that contribute to complexity, or are unable to clearly define nestedness measures by overlooking the ambiguity between what is or what is not nested. In addition, we consider that approaching complexity via a single property is short-sighted while not being fully linked to the theory of complexity. In this theory, complexity attempts to holistically and synergistically understand the outcomes based on the interactions (e.g., exchange of information, goods, services, or energy) of system components (e.g., stakeholders and institutions), the evolution of the system, and the manner in which component interactions define the structure of the system while allowing for the emergence of qualities that cannot be either predicted or controlled [16]. In this sense, the question of how the complexity of water governance may be understood in a way that allows for analyses of empirical cases remains unanswered. Understanding the complexity of water governance is relevant due to the tendencies towards water managemen<sup>t</sup> decentralization in many countries [17–19] and the existence of a multi-level process regarding the human right to water and sanitation that operates from global to local levels [20]. The decentralization of water managemen<sup>t</sup> and the creation of new institutions and rights (e.g., human water rights) can create legal pluralism, resulting in new or different interactions between stakeholders and institutions. Evaluations of these new interactions will provide a solid foundation to establish new water policies, reform existing laws, or transition to more desirable polycentric or adaptative governance models [14] to ensure the human right to water and sanitation.

In this study, we propose a new conceptual–methodological framework called the Water Governance Complexity Framework, which is based on some elements of the Kooiman Interactive Governance Framework [14,21,22], to understand the complexity of water governance. To illustrate this framework, we used the water supply system for domestic use in Mexico. As in many other rural and suburban locations in Latin America, the inhabitants of Oaxaca use a variety of institutional arrangements to govern the water supply system. In this study, we argue that framing the governance of this system under the lens of complexity allows for its structure and function at state and national levels to be evaluated. For this, we aimed to answer three questions: (1) How is the current governance of the water supply system for domestic use in Oaxaca, Mexico, structured, and how does it function, considering the different jurisdictional levels? (2) Over time, how have institutional changes shaped the current governance structure of the water supply system for domestic use? (3) Can the water governance for domestic use in Mexico be considered complex?

### **2. Materials and Methods**

### *2.1. Building the Water Governance Complexity Framework*

To develop the Water Governance Complexity Framework, we began by establishing and linking basic concepts such as water governance and complexity. Subsequently, based on the Interactive Governance Framework (IGF) [14], we structured a new conceptual– methodological framework to understand the complexity of water governance.

We adopted a water governance definition in a broad sense to avoid controversy. Thus, we define water governance as a set of interactions used to make decisions among different stakeholders and institutions with common objectives to manage water resources [23]. These different stakeholders include governments, the private sector, and civil society [24]. Meanwhile, we distinguished institutions as formal rules, laws, and norms (e.g., constitutions, laws, regulations, and policies) and informal institutions as social agreements, as defined by North [25], which guide and regulate stakeholder decision making and actions. According to complexity theory, complexity is related to uncertainty and the challenges associated with predicting non-linear interactions between constantly changing entities [16]. A looser approach relates complexity to patterns and structures that are not easily describable or predictable [26]. If it is assumed that entities can be stakeholders and institutions and that the variables are their interactions (e.g., linear and non-linear) and change (e.g., institutional change), the first link is established between complexity and water governance. The second link between complexity and water governance is offered by the IGF proposed by Kooiman [14], as it considers the diversity of the governance system. A greater diversity of stakeholders and institutions may produce more dynamic and less predictable interactions between these entities. Ostrom sees the diversity of institutions as similar to that of ecological systems. In ecological systems, greater species diversity increases the structural complexity of biotic communities [27]. In ecological and economic systems, diversity helps to promote complexity and functionality [27,28]. However, diversity alone is not enough to produce complexity given that it requires that entities establish interactions and that new structures emerge as a result of those interactions [26]. These properties are vital in understanding the functionality of the system, which in our case, is water governance.

In this sense, the IGF offers a good starting point for integrating the variables of interaction, change, diversity, and complexity as properties of the stakeholders and institutions. The IGF is a relatively broad framework that addresses the *societal system*, defined as "the whole of interrelations among a given number of entities belonging to the natural and social worlds" [28]. According to the IGF, the societal system is made up of three parts that characterize it: the governing system (GS), system-to-be-governed (SG), and governing interactions (GI), in addition to the properties (i.e., *complexity*, *diversity*, *dynamics*, and scale), elements (i.e., image, instrument, and action), and orders (first- and second-order and meta-governance). The IGF mainly focuses on interactions to solve social problems and create opportunities, emphasizing interactions as its main innovation [15]. In this study, we focus on the properties of the GS in the first and second orders of governance. A full description of the other framework components can be found in Kooiman [14] and Kooiman and Bavinck [22].

Our proposal includes the following:

	- - Diversity is defined in terms of variation in the attributes or characteristics [26] of stakeholders and institutions [15] in the GS, SG, or GI [21]. Bavinck and Kooiman propose legal pluralism as a proxy for GS in the fisheries and aquaculture sectors [15].
	- - Dynamics "create the potential for change" [15]. Bavinck and Kooiman propose institutional change as a proxy for GS in the fisheries and aquaculture sectors [15]. The principal analysis of institutional theory focuses on how stakeholders, institutions, and arrangements change over time [29]. The analysis also focuses on institutions that do not change or resist change due to stagnation, atrophy, or robustness [29].
	- - Scale "represents the level at which the combined effects of diversity and dynamics can be best observed and analyzed" [21]. Following Gibson et al. [30], we clarify that scale and level are two different but related aspects. Scale refers to any dimension (e.g., spatial, temporal, and jurisdictional), and level refers to the unit of analysis in a different place on a given scale.

• Order of governance focuses on different processes.


Our approach differs from the Kooiman IGF by viewing complexity as an umbrella property encompassing diversity and dynamics. Additionally, we propose incorporating nestedness as a property (Figure 1). Nestedness is a property linked to the interactions between entities (e.g., stakeholders and institutions). The importance of this property lies in analyzing the influence of the structure of the system on the behavior of the subsystem [33]. In this sense, emphasis is placed on the nestedness of the scalar property [34], which for our purposes represents a jurisdictional scalar (i.e., local, state, or national levels). We argue that considering complexity as a supra-property can help reconcile the IGF approach with the conceptualizations derived from complexity theory. Therefore, we consider scale to be a cross-sectional condition of all properties, as it is not practical to begin an analysis without clearly defining the scales or levels under observation [35].

**Figure 1.** The Water Governance Complexity Framework proposes the analysis of diversity, nestedness, and dynamics properties in at least three levels in jurisdictional (i.e., local, state, and national) and temporal (levels are defined a posteriori according to periods of institutional change) scales in the first and second orders of governance. Source: Adapted from Kooiman and Bavinck [22].

### *2.2. Case Study: Water Supply System for Domestic Use in Oaxaca and Mexico*

This study applies the Water Governance Complexity Framework to analyze the complexity of the governance of the water supply system for domestic use in Oaxaca and Mexico. This system refers to water obtained from freshwater resources using hydraulic infrastructure, which allows for its storage, treatment (to ensure it is suitable for human consumption), and transport (to satisfy the food, health, and hygiene needs of each household). Our analysis focuses on formal and informal stakeholders and institutions immersed or involved in managing the water supply system for domestic use to solve appropriation and provision problems [36] through jurisdictional and temporal scales.

At the national level, we reviewed the institutions, stakeholders, and institutional changes of the nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first centuries related to the managemen<sup>t</sup> of the water supply system for domestic use. At the state level, we selected Oaxaca and its legislation related to water for domestic use. We chose 13 rural communities in the Mixtecan Alta region in Oaxaca (Figure 2) to explore the diversity of stakeholders and institutions, nestedness, and dynamics at the local level. In its broadest sense, we emphasize that community refers to a social unit that shares things in common, such as norms, religion, values, or identity [37]. We selected Oaxaca because the local governmen<sup>t</sup> systems are considered unique and relatively more autonomous than those of other Mexican states [38]. The 13 rural communities selected for this study (Figure 2) are indigenous and cover different political and administrative configurations. Six communities are municipal seats (San Francisco Teopán, Santa Magdalena Jicotlan, Concepción Buenavista, Santiago Ihuitlán Plumas, San Juan de los Cues, and Santiago Tepetlapa), and seven communities are municipal agencies (El Enebro, San Miguel Aztatla, Santa Cruz Corunda, San Antonio Abad, La Mexicana, Santiago Quiotepec, and Santa Cruz Capulalpam). Municipal agencies are subdivisions of the same municipality that encompass peripheral population centers and are subordinate to the municipal seat. In the municipal seat, the municipal council is established and acts as the leading local authority in the municipality.

### *2.3. Operationalization, Data Collection, and Analysis*

The diversity, nestedness, and dynamics of the Water Governance Complexity Framework were approached by assessing proxies for legal pluralism, formal and informal stakeholders, nestedness among jurisdictional levels, and institutional change at national and local levels, following the proposal of Kooiman [14,15,39]. We present the proxies, their operative definitions (Table 1), the methodology used to obtain data, and the implemented analyses in detail in the following subsections.
