A Content Analysis of the Strictest Water Resources Management Policy in China

1. Introduction

The security and management of water resources are a major challenge to economic growth and urban development in China at the stage of rapid development (Wang et al.2010). China supports nearly 20% of the world’s population with only 6% of the world’s water resources. In addition, China is also one of the 13 countries with the poorest per capita water resources. China’s per capita water resources are only a quarter of the world’s average level, ranking 121st in the world (Xinhuanet2004). Consequently, policy intervention is a critical measure to address water resources challenges and improve water governance (Zhou et al.2016). First, the water saving and water use efficiency will be improved by mandatory policies. Second, the uneven spatial distribution of water resources will be enhanced through policies and state-led water projects in China, such as the south–north water diversion work. Third, the prevention and control of water pollution and improvement of water quality will be strengthened through policy intervention. Finally, the importance of water resources and water-saving consciousness in popular will be strengthened through policy intervention. The strictest water resources management (SWRM) policy is an important water resources management measure proposed by the Ministry of Water Resources in 2009, which aims to deal with human–water conflicts, water pollution, and institutional dysfunction in China.

The strictest water resource management is a policy system consisting of a series of policy documents and institutions. The most important policy document is the Opinions of The State Council on Implementing the Strictest Water Resource Management System issued by the Central Government of China in 2012. To implement this core policy, local governments and the ministry of water resources have formulated a series of specific policies and institutions. The basic institution of the SWRM policy includes “three red lines,” namely, red line of water resources development and utilization, red line of water use efficiency, and red line of restriction of pollution in water functional areas, and “four systems,” namely, a system of control of total water consumption, a system of control of water efficiency, a system of restriction of pollution in water function areas,¹ and a system of responsibility and assessment of water resources management.

As an important water governance policy, the SWRM policy has received much attention. Existing studies of SWRM policy have focused on constructing a theoretical policy framework, evaluating regional implementation effects, the impact on industrial development, and policy comparison under the institutional background, and is dominated by qualitative studies, lacking quantitative studies (Zuo et al.2014; Liu and Speed2009; Ge et al.2018). Current research helps to understand the rationality of the SWRM policy, policy process, and impact on specific industries and regions. Still, it lacks a holistic understanding of the policy text and content analysis. Although policy evaluation has been involved, there are few studies from the perspective of policy instruments. Therefore, we study the SWRM policy through text mining and content analysis. Content analysis is an empirical method that combines quantitative and qualitative analysis effectively by coding non-quantitative content data into quantitative data.

This study takes the policy text of the SWRM as the object and conducts a quantitative analysis through text mining and content analysis based on the policy instruments theory. This study followed the procedure of “policy text selection — construction of analysis framework — policy content-coding — statistical analysis.” We first select the SWRM policy as analysis samples, construct an analytical framework that includes the policy instrument dimension and the policy target dimension, and then code and classify policy instruments in the policy text and conduct a statistical analysis. Finally, conclusions are drawn based on the content analysis, and policy optimization suggestions are put forward.

This study makes two primary contributions. On the one hand, this study focuses on the conflicts and shortcomings of the SWRM policy in the selection, allocation, and combination of policy instruments and proposed optimization suggestions. In response, this study aims to contribute to the improvement of rational and scientific soundness of SWRM policies, and provides decision-making reference for optimizing and promoting China’s water resources management policy. Another contribution is to create a baseline of design, evaluation, and implementation of water policy instruments for China and other developing countries. This study contributes to the knowledge body of water policy evaluation, and provides peer reference for water governance in other developing countries.

The remainder of the article is organized as follows. After this introduction, Sec. 2 reviews the literature this study relies on. Section 3 investigates the research method this study deploys and analytical materials this study adopts. Section 4 demonstrates the study results. Section 5 focuses on the discussion of factors and mechanisms. Section 6 concludes and draws out some of the policy implications.

2. A Brief Overview of Policy Instruments Literature

Public policy consists of policy targets and policy instruments (Howlett and Rayner2007). Policy instruments, also known as policy tools or policy measures, are an important concept in public policy research; there is no commonly accepted definition, but it is generally considered that policy instruments are a set of political techniques, actions, and behaviors to achieve policy objectives or results (Lilja2015; Acciai and Capano, 2021). The policy instrument theory believes that when governments and public authorities formulate and implement policies, they must organically combine several policies based on the relationship between policies to form policy synergy and complement each other to achieve better policy effects (Jang et al.2015).

Policy instruments have long been popular in economic research, including currency, finance, and taxation (Carley2011). However, in public management, the application of policy instruments theory has only been popular in recent decades. Since the 1980s, policy instruments have obtained increasing attention along with the failure of western welfare state, reflection on the government inefficiency, and the rise of the new public management movement (Jordan et al.2005; Polese et al.2015). With the development of big data, digitalization in public administration, and new public governance movement, new policy instruments such as market-based instruments, e-government, benchmarking, and co-regulation have grown dramatically worldwide (Zito et al., 2003; Jordan et al.2005).

Researchers in public administration have focused their studies mostly on specific policy instruments such as law, plan, regulation, procurement, and economic incentive (Acciai and Capan, 2021; Kautto and Simila2005; Capano et al.2019). The research fields of policy instruments covered many topics such as environmental management (Werdiningtyas et al.2020), energy management (Li and Taeihagh2020), urban development (Mao et al.2019), land use (Doernberg et al.2019), tourism management (Logar2010), and technology transfer (Gan et al.2020). Based on the categorization of policy instruments, increasing research attention nowadays is on the policy mix to combine and interact with various policy instruments (Howlett and Rayner2007). The policy mix emphasizes carefully chosen policy instruments with positive interactions (Wilts and OBrien2019). The policy mix attempts to develop an optimal portfolio of policy instruments to address the policy’s context-specific target in complex decision-making and implementation contexts (Oikonomou et al.2014).

In integrated water management, water policy instruments are tools, strategies, and mechanisms for policy-makers to overcome barriers and achieve good water governance (Mirzaei et al.2019). A comprehensive assessment of water policy instruments is critical to achieving sustainable water development for all countries (Feike and Henseler2017). The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) proposed that different policy instruments can be applied by governments at all levels to strengthen water governance to fit the current and future water challenges (OECD2011). The OECD also proposed the following principles: effectiveness, efficiency, trust, and engagement, which the OECD Regional Development Policy Committee approved in 2015 (OECD2015). Considering water governance is highly contextual with countries and regions, water policy formulation and implementation must be tailored on local characteristics and demand, and the analysis and optimization of water policy instruments need to be detailed, explored, and analyzed for different places.

An extended list of policy instruments has been developed in China to facilitate water resources management targets for sustainable water development, water security, and energy governance (Guo et al.2020; Shen and Wu2017). Current studies on the effects of water resources management policies include the effect of policy intervention on pollution-induced water shortage areas (Wu2020); policy effects on water resources use efficiency in the Yangtze River Economic Belt (Tian et al.2020); policy effects on the agriculture drought in Beijing, Tianjin and Hebei (Liu et al.2020); policy effects on industrial water efficiency (Zhang et al.2020); and a comparison of water resource management policy networks between China and America (Gong, 2015). However, current academic research on the SWRM policy has mainly focused on theoretical analysis and policy implementation on regional development, and is dominated by qualitative studies, lacking quantitative studies. Although policy evaluation has been conducted in many articles, there are few studies from the perspective of policy instruments. Attention to policy instruments steering action at the national- and province-level is under-researched.

3. Method and Materials

This study adopts a text mining and content analysis approach to explore the characteristics and trends of water governance based on the example of the strictest water management policy from the perspective of policy instruments and policy targets. Text mining is a popular data mining method in recent decades. It finds potential data patterns, internal connections, rules, and development trends from a large number of unstructured text information, and extracts effective, novel, and valuable knowledge scattered in texts (Hassani et al.2020). Text mining can overcome the inherent shortcomings of policy texts such as too many words and difficult classification, and has unique advantages in policy studies (Arenal et al.2021). Content analysis is a systematic textual quantitative technique by coding and employs a categorizing approach, used for exploring large amounts of textual information to explore characteristics and trends of the specified text, word frequencies and relationships, structures, and discourses (Stemler2001). The aim of content analysis is to mine, identify, and elicit valuable rules from the data collected and to draw a realistic and meaningful conclusion (Bengtsson2016). In public policy research, content analysis is an effective method to identify and describe the specified characteristics of targeted policy messages (Zhang et al.2019). Therefore, content analysis is popular in policy studies covering many topics such as water policy (Schiff2022; Caniglia et al.2016), environmental policy (Liao2018), family policy (Yang and Huang2020), talent policy (Zhang et al.2019), and health policy (Collins2005).

3.1. Selecting the policy text

In China, per capita water resources are scarce, and the water resources distribution is extremely unbalanced. Therefore, the Chinese government has consistently targeted the regulation of water resources through policies, and China’s water management policy is under continuous reform based on the changes in water problems (Yu et al.2018). In recent years, the government has focused on water management, public water service, and water resources protection.

The SWRM policy is an important water policy in China, and its development is as follows. In the initial stage (2009–2011), China’s Ministry of Water Resources originally proposed the strictest water management system in 2009. In 2011, the central government officially accepted and issued the SWRM policy. In the development stage (2011–2014), under the guidance of the central government’s policy, the provinces, prefectures, and counties established the local SWRM policy and implementation plan. In the mature stage (since 2015), to ensure the effectiveness of policy implementation, the aim was to actively improve supporting systems, via documents such as the Measures for Publishing and Expanding the Pilot Implementation of Water Tax Reform, Regulations on Water Intake Permit and Regulations on Water Resources Fee Collection and Management, and the Notification on publishing the National Water Saving Action Plan by the Ministry of Water Resources and the Development and Reform Commission.

The policy documents of the SWRM as the research object in this study are from 2011 to 2020. The policy documents are collected from the Peking University Law Database (www.pkulaw.com), the website of the government of the People’s Republic of China (www.gov.cn), the websites of provincial governments, and the website of the Department of Water Resources of the People’s Republic of China (www.mwr.gov.cn). The principles to be followed in selecting policy documents are as follows: policy is issued by the State Council and provincial governments, the topic is directly related to the SWRM policy, and the types of policy are general policies such as implementation opinions, notices, and measures, excluding specific guidelines for policy assessment. Finally, 30 qualified policy documents are screened and collected, as shown in Table 1. All policy documents are in Chinese, and the content analysis is conducted in a Chinese context.

3.2. Constructing the analytical framework

Most previous quantitative analyses of policy text have mainly focused on a single concept of policy instruments or policy targets, through which it is hard to achieve a holistic understanding of the policy system and how policies evolute and interact (George and Prabhu2003; Kassim and Galès2010). Huang et al. (2018) proposed a policy analysis method based on policy target–policy instrument patterns. Based on Huang’s method and drawing on the Xie et al. (2021) study, we construct a two-dimensional analytical framework to analyze the characteristics and policy content of SWRM in China. The analytical framework includes an $X$-dimension and $Y$-dimension; the $X$-dimension refers to policy instruments, whereas the $Y$-dimension refers to policy targets, as shown in Figure 1.

3.2.1. Dimension X: Policy instruments

Given the current policy instruments-intertwined environment in water policy, interactions between policies are inevitable and diversified. Interactions between policies instruments can affect positively or negatively the effect of a policy. This is crucial for the success of new policy design. In contrast, the current research evaluates water policy instruments as an individual policy and considers their characteristics and impact in a single approach.

Various categories of policy instruments are generally divided into voluntary policy instruments, mandatory policy instruments, and hybrid policy instruments. Rothwell (1985) classified policy instruments into three types: supply-side, environment-side, and demand-side. Hood’s famous “NATO” typology classified policy instruments into four categories, namely: nodality, authority, treasure, and organization (Hood and Margetts2007). McDonnell and Elmore (1987) proposed a four-fold classification of policy instruments: mandates, inducements, capacity-building, and system-changing (McDonnell and Elmore1987). In this study, the policy instruments are classified into three categories and 14 sub-categories according to the studies of Huang et al. (2018) and Xie et al. (2021) and the specific content of the SWRM policy. The first is the mandatory policy instruments, which implemented policy using government authority and force, including laws and regulations, the work system, target planning, evaluations and assessments, supervision, and management. Work system refers to the norms and institutions that encourage target groups and individuals to take actions to achieve policy objectives, such as the simultaneous design, construction, and operation of water-saving facilities and water projects, and the approval and assessment system of drinking water. The second is the economic inducement of policy instruments, which refers to the use of economic incentives or market regulation to achieve policy objectives, including fees and fines, fiscal subsidies, tax revenue, government investments, and demonstration creation. The third is interactional policy instruments, which refer to the interaction between the government and policy target groups to achieve policy objectives, including technical support, information disclosure, publicity and education, and public participation.

3.2.2. Dimension Y: Policy targets

A single dimension of policy instruments cannot comprehensively summarize all the characteristics of the SWRM policy. It is necessary to conduct a multi-dimensional analysis from the policy process to reflect the policy target and value orientation. The policy implementation process, management, technology, and funding are basic policy elements and control means from the perspective of the implementation process. According to the focus of the policy mix, policies can be divided into economic, technology, management, and environmental policies. Conversely, policy targets can be divided into resource allocation, technological progress, institutional management, and ecological environment. Different policy targets reflect different policy values and the orderly combination of multiple policy values is the value chain of policy targets. Different policy instruments act on different stages of the value chain of policy targets and produce different effects. This study regards the four policy targets, namely resource allocation, technological progress, institutional management, and ecological environment, as dimension $Y$ of the analysis framework of the SWRM policy. The resource allocation refers to the rational allocation of water resources in different regions and sectors through individual policy instrument or a combination of several policy instruments. The technological progress refers to the improvement and application of water-saving and water use technologies through the policy instruments. The institutional management refers to the policy instruments aimed at constructing and strengthening water resources management such as investigation, planning, license, supervision, and assessment. The ecological environment refers to policy instruments that aims to achieve environmental protection, water pollution control, and sustainable development. Each policy instrument does not relate to only one policy target, each policy instrument may relate to one or several policy targets.

3.3. Coding the policy content

The analysis categories/sub-categories of policy documents include “mandatory policy instruments,” “economic inducement policy instruments,” “interactional policy instruments,” “resource allocation,” “technological progress,” “institutional management,” “ecological environment,” “laws and regulations,” “work system,” “target planning,” “evaluation and assessment,” “supervision and management,” “fees and fines,” “fiscal subsidies,” “tax revenue,” “government investment,” “demonstration creation,” “technical support,” “information disclosure,” “publicity and education,” and “public participation.” The analysis unit is the SWRM policy text’s provision, including independent words, sentences, or paragraphs.

This study codes the 30 selected policy texts according to the format of “policy number — policy chapter/clause (the policy text content analysis unit in Table 2).” In the coding process, the principles of “unified coding in order” and “non-subdivision of paragraphs” should be followed to cover all the contents of the selected policy text. Then, coded policy contents are classified according to the two-dimensional analysis framework. In the specific coding, if the policy document has only chapters, it is coded into a two-level format, such as 1-1. If there are several clauses under a chapter, it is coded into a three-level format, such as 1-1-1. Finally, the SWRM policy text’s content analysis unit coding table based on policy instruments is formed, as shown in Table 2. The table shows only part of the content owing to space limitations.

4. Results

4.1. Analysis of policy instruments

Figure 2 and Appendix A show the statistical analysis results of the SWRM policy’s instrument dimensions. According to the statistics of policy provisions, there are significant differences in the use of the three major policy instruments; the mandatory policy instruments were used the most, accounting for 74% of the total, economic inducement policy instruments followed by 15%, and interactional policy instruments were used the least, at only 11%. These statistics show the government tends to use mandatory policy instruments in formulating and implementing the SWRM policy. In other words, the government mainly implements the SWRM policy using government authority and enforcement power, including laws and regulations, the work system, target planning, assessment, supervision, and management, to provide a good policy environment and ensure the effective operation of water resources management.

Further analysis reveals there are also significant differences in the use of the sub-categories of policy instruments, as shown in Table 3. Among the mandatory policy instruments, supervision and management account for as much as half (49%), work system, evaluation and assessment, and target planning policy instruments are relatively close, accounting for 47%, whereas laws and regulations only account for 4%. Among the economic inducement policy instruments, three policy instruments are mainly used: demonstration creation, fees and fines, and government investment, accounting for 84%. This shows that China’s government relies on the fees collected for water resources management and supports key water projects; on the other hand, governments invest in ensuring the conservation, protection, and management of water resources. The use of fiscal subsidies accounts for 13%. In comparison, taxation only accounts for 3%, indicating that the government paid little attention to the role of taxation in policy-making to manage water resources. Among the interactional policy instruments, the use of each sub-category of policy instrument is relatively balanced, and technical support accounts for the largest proportion (33%). However, interactional policy instruments only account for 11% in the three major policy instruments, indicating that the SWRM policy does not pay enough attention to mobilizing the public to participate in water resource protection and saving, highlighting a development direction to be improved upon in subsequent policy making.

4.2. Analysis of policy targets

Based on the analysis of major policy instruments, the measurement of policy targets is added to obtain the overall statistical results of the SWRM policy, as shown in Table 3. The 14 types of policy instruments cover all levels of policy targets, but there are significant differences in the distribution of policy instruments under different policy targets. Frequency statistics from 30 texts of the SWRM policy are shown in Table 4, including resource allocation (9.9%), institutional management (81.7%), technical progress (3.8%), and ecological environment (4.6%). According to the distribution of policy provisions, most policy instruments focus on the target of institutional management, followed by resources allocation, technological progress, and the ecological environment. Presently, the government prefers to issue a mandatory, standardized, and restrictive policy in water resources management, such as supervision and management, the work system, target planning, evaluation, and assessment. Simultaneously, policy instruments are used less frequently for policy targets such as resource allocation, technological progress, and the ecological environment.

5. Discussion

We clarify the configuration of policy instruments in the SWRM policy’s documents by text mining and content analysis. Based on the results of this study, we further discuss the potential causes and possible trends from the two-dimensional perspectives of policy instruments and policy targets.

There is a structural imbalance in the application of major policy instruments. Mandatory policy instruments dominate the SWRM policies in China, supplemented by economic inducement policy instruments and interactional policy instruments. The government prefers to use compulsory means to achieve policy targets, especially the construction of various water resources management systems, such as supervision and management, the work system, evaluation, and assessment. The application cost of that policy instrument is low; the effect is fast and relatively stable in an authoritarian state like China. However, it tends to be economically ineffective because of institutional costs and inflexibility. The application of economic inducement policy instruments is still in the infant stage, and does not play its due role in the SWRM policy. Policy instruments such as fiscal subsidies, taxes, fees, fines, and government investment can reduce opportunity costs, correct externalities, and balance stakeholders in the process of water resources management and protection. As for the interactional policy instruments, some policy instruments such as technical support are rarely used. Consequently, there are insufficient studies and applications of advanced technology and equipment in the SWRM policy. The market mechanism plays an important role in regulating and allocating water resources because water resources are an irreplaceable scarce resource. Following the market laws and creating a competitive policy environment are key to water resources protection. However, the current policy instruments in this respect are relatively lacking.

Based on the 4 water policy targets proposed in this study, combined with the assessment results of the SWRM by the Ministry of Water Resources in 2017, 2018, and 2019, we can see clearly that water resources supervision has been strengthened, water resources protection has continued to be strengthened, and water resources management has achieved remarkable achievements since the implementation of the SWRM policy. In specific, the improvement of the ecological environment is the most significant. The total water consumption of 31 provinces in 2017, 2018, 2019 is 604.34 billion m³, 601.55 billion m³, and 602.12 billion m³, the water qualification rate of the important river and lake water functional areas were 76.9%, 83.1%, and 86.9% (the Ministry of Water Resources requires more than 80% by 2020). The improvement of technological progress target is also obvious, water consumption per 10,000 yuan of GDP decreased by 13.2%, 19.2%, and 23.8% compared to 2015 (calculated at constant price). Water consumption per 10,000 yuan of industrial added value decreased by 15.2%, 20.6%, and 27.5% compared to 2015 (calculated at constant price). The assessment results of the SWRM have no direct evidence of data and material to support the targets of resource allocation, and institutional management.

However, there are still some shortcomings in the SWRM policy’s implementation process. For example, total water consumption and water intensity must be further reduced, water-saving priority must be fully implemented, and water resources supervision and the protection of water resources must improve, especially the ecological protection of rivers and lakes. In addition, sustainable development in the SWRM policy must further improve. The concept of sustainable development has been embedded in the SWRM policy, such as the development of water resources recycling; building a water-saving society; using water resources fees, taxes, fiscal subsidies; and other means to regulate water resources, and strengthening public awareness of water conservation. Institution construction and management account for most of the SWRM policy, which aims to solve the problems of water shortages and contradictions between supply and demand. Presently, the ecological protection of water resources is far from enough, only 4.6% of the policy instruments were under the policy target of ecological environment (see Table 4). The results and the previous discussion show that the current configuration of policy instruments in SWRM policy needs to be improved. Rational allocation of policy instruments and the construction of integrated water resources management of “saving water resources, controlling water pollution, and broadening water sources” highlight the direction of future water policy.

6. Conclusion and Policy Implications

This study quantitatively analyzes the SWRM policy via a text mining and content analysis method at national and provincial scales. This study aims to give insight and analysis on the SWRM policy implementation to achieve good water governance in China, and focus on strengthening the synergy between policy instruments and building a water-saving society. Here, we developed an analytical framework, that combinates policy instruments with policy targets and assessed the SWRM policy’s characteristics.

This study shows the Chinese government has adopted a series of policy instruments to address the SWRM policy in water governance and sustainable water development. However, it is found that the major policy instruments are structurally imbalanced; the main policy instruments are mandatory policy instruments, supplemented by economic inducement policy instruments and interactional policy instruments. China’s government prefers to issue a mandatory, standardized, and restrictive policy in water resources management. According to the analysis of policy targets, most of the policy instruments are focused on the target of institutional management, followed by resources allocation, technological progress, and the ecological environment. This study can assist policy-makers in discovering effective water policy instruments and improving the policy effectiveness of water policy based on their policy purpose and preference, for example, the economic inducement policy instruments and interactional policy instruments should be added in the water policy, tax and market mechanism should play a more regulating role in water resources management.

Given the water governance trend, integrated water resources management needs, and research results of this study, we propose some policy suggestions. First, reasonably optimize the mix of policy instruments, and give more play to the role of economic inducement policy instruments and interactional policy instruments. The formulation of water resources management policy can reduce the frequency of mandatory policy instruments and simultaneously pay attention to the implementation of existing sub-categories of policy instruments such as target planning, working system, evaluation, and assessment. Further, promote the water management policy and institution implementation, and improve the operability and effectiveness of water management policy. The state should pay more attention to the economic inducement policy instruments and interactional policy instruments in water management policy, strengthen the application of policy instruments such as fiscal subsidies, taxes, fees, fines, and government investment. Second, publicize and promote the idea of paying equal attention to water resources management and protection. The SWRM policy emphasizes the integration of water resources development, utilization, management, and protection. Therefore, the government should pay great attention to sustainable water development. Various policy instruments should be fully used to build a good water governance system with simultaneous management and control, equal emphasis on rewards and punishments, and unified rights and responsibilities.

Some limitations exist in this study. On the one hand, the number of selected policy texts is limited. The SWRM policy texts at the prefecture and county levels are not covered, which affects the accuracy of the analysis of policy instruments in China’s SWRM policy. On the other hand, the classification of two dimensions in the analytical framework is not detailed and comprehensive enough; some policy text analysis units are repeated and overlap.

Acknowledgment

The research is sponsored by the grants of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 71734001), the Key projects of scientific research plan of Department of Education of Shaanxi Province (No. 20JT038), the Soft Science Research Program of Science and Technology Department of Shaanxi Province (No. 2021KRM060), the Major Program of Philosophy and Social Science of Guizhou Province (No. 21GZZB28), and the Major Program of Philosophy and Social Science of Chinese Ministry of Education (No. 21JZD034).

Notes