Abstract

Given the water governance regime, how potent is the normative practice idea in the case of hydrosystems management? How can the normative practice framework explain the failure of the water governance of the Zayandehrud, and how can this explanation improve water governance both in thsi case and more generally? Can the govervance of the Zayandehrud be understood as a normative practice? If so, how can the distribution of responsibilities, interests and norms, as analysed by the normative practice framework, be seen as a cause of the conflicts that have arisen in the water governance of this river? How are different ways of thinking in the Zayandehrud case shaping the distribution of responsibilities, interests and norms that are causing the conflict within a water-management practice?