Sustainable and participatory forestry under Mediterranean conditions: criteria and indicators for monitoring in a forest management unit of Comunidad Valenciana (Spain)

Tesis por compendioSustainable forest management (SFM) considers the social and ecological aspects of forestry apart from the productive ones. However, the relative importance of its principles changes in each type of forest. Criteria and indicators (C&I) extend the knowledge and understanding of SFM in each different situation. A set of C&I to be applied under Mediterranean conditions is proposed in this thesis. The scope was set for the forest management unit (FMU). The C&I proposed took into account the Spanish context and the Forestry Regional Plan for the region of Valencia (whose Spanish acronym is PATFOR) served as a reference. The thesis is made of three papers, two of them published and one accepted. The first identified the requirements of SFM under Mediterranean conditions and analysed the Spanish situation. For that purpose, a strengths-weaknesses-opportunities-threats (SWOT) analysis was carried out and strategies for improvement were determined. The results of the SWOT analysis together with the strategies and the requirements identified by means of literature review were verified in a questionnaire sent to experts. In the second paper, a group of criteria recommended to take into account for the success of a participatory process were established. A review of case studies which had developed decision support systems (DSSs) including elements of participation was completed. Conslusions were considered for the method applied in the third paper and they helped to identify indicators for the criterion “participatory processes”, which is one of the criteria proposed in this thesis. Besides, PATFOR recommends including participation in forestry decision-making. The third paper started adaptating various ecosystem services frameworks to Mediterranean conditions. PATFOR suggests that forestry is more sustainable if it stems from the provision of ecosystem services, even more in Mediterranean forests because they are not very productive in general. Management criteria which maintain and improve the provision of ecosystem services were identified. A participatory process took place in Ayora (a village in the region of Valencia); participants were asked to rank the criteria identified according their management preferences for La Hunde y La Palomera, a FMU near the village. A proposal of indicators was another output of this paper. The thesis includes another chapter which does not correspond to any published paper; it describes the elaboration of a questionnaire that was sent to experts. The questionnaire asked respondents to prioritise the indicators proposed in the third paper following the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) methodology. The result is a proposal of 15 criteria and 90 indicators. Criteria were inspired by the requirements of the first paper and the ecosystem services. 7 out of 15 criteria are social, noticeably increasing the weight of the social pillar in comparison with other existing C&I sets. Nevertheless, participants ranked ecological implications of forestry as the most preferred ones. However, they did not reject any of the criteria and this suggests that considering ecosystem services in forest management is realistic and desirable. Although the AHP questionnaire sent to experts was different from the participatory process, both in appearance and content, some comparisons can be made. Experts search for feasibility in their answers. It may be recommended from these differences that forestry decision-making takes into account the views of affected people, but their preferences might pass an expert filter before carrying out actions. Regarding the indicators, some more work on them is still necessary, but they show a simple writing and they refer to a specific aspect of each criterion.Valls Donderis, P. (2015). Sustainable and participatory forestry under Mediterranean conditions: criteria and indicators for monitoring in a forest management unit of Comunidad Valenciana (Spain) [Tesis doctoral no publicada]. Universitat Politècnica de València. https://doi.org/10.4995/Thesis/10251/48540TESISCompendi

AHP for indicators of sustainable forestry under Mediterranean conditions

[EN] Aim of study: To verify and prioritise a set of sustainable forestry indicators using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Area of study: Participants were Spanish; indicators were meant to be applied in forest management units (FMUs) under Mediterranean conditions. Material and methods: An AHP questionnaire was developed and sent to experts. Main results: the set of indicators aimed to be comprehensive. Indicators were ranked and the ranking allows ascertaining what aspects are more relevant in relation to Mediterranean sustainable forestry. Issues like regeneration or habitats conservation got high values, whereas others like hunting activity were not seen as important by most experts. Research highlights: - Sustainable forest management (SFM) considerations for Mediterranean forests. - Indicators adapt to ecosystem services.Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (Project ECO2011-27369); the Regional Council of Education, Culture and Sports (Valencia, Spain) financed a PhD fellowship to PVD (Ref. ACIF/2010/248).Valls Donderis, P.; Vallés-Planells, M.; Galiana, F. (2017). AHP for indicators of sustainable forestry under Mediterranean conditions. Forest Systems. 26(2):1-5. doi:10.5424/fs/2017262-10075S15262AENOR, 2007. Gestión forestal sostenible. Criterios e indicadores. Parte 1: Genéricos para la unidad de gestión. Norma UNE162002-1. Asociación Espa-ola de Normalización y Certificación, Madrid, Spain.Barbati, A., Corona, P., & Marchetti, M. (2007). A forest typology for monitoring sustainable forest management: The case of European Forest Types. Plant Biosystems - An International Journal Dealing with all Aspects of Plant Biology, 141(1), 93-103. doi:10.1080/11263500601153842Bernard HR, 2000. Social research methods. Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sage Publications, Inc. Thousand Oaks.Casta-eda F, 2000. Criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management: international processes, current status and the way ahead. Unasylva 203 (51): 34-40.GTC-FSC, 2012. Estándares espa-oles de gestión forestal para la certificación FSC. Grupo de trabajo espa-ol para la certificación FSC, Madrid, Spain. FSC-STD-ESP-01-2006 Espa-a (V2-0) ES.Macharis, C., Springael, J., De Brucker, K., & Verbeke, A. (2004). PROMETHEE and AHP: The design of operational synergies in multicriteria analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 153(2), 307-317. doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(03)00153-xMARM, 2008. Forest fires in Spain. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural y Marino, Gobierno de Espa-a.Maroto Álvarez, C., Segura, M., Ginestar, C., Uriol, J., & Segura, B. (2013). Sustainable Forest Management in a Mediterranean region: Social preferences. Forest Systems, 22(3), 546. doi:10.5424/fs/2013223-04135Mendoza, G. A., & Prabhu, R. (2000). Multiple criteria decision making approaches to assessing forest sustainability using criteria and indicators: a case study. Forest Ecology and Management, 131(1-3), 107-126. doi:10.1016/s0378-1127(99)00204-2Osem Y, Ginsberg P, Tauber I, Atzmon N, Perevolotsky A, 2008. Sustainable management of Mediterranean planted coniferous forests: An Israeli definition. J Forest 106 (1): 38-46.Saaty TL, 1980. The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, NY.Saaty TL, 2006. Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the analytic hierarchy process. RWS Publ, Pittsburgh, USA.Valls-Donderis, P., Vallés, M. C., & Galiana, F. (2015). Criteria and indicators for sustainable forestry under Mediterranean conditions applicable in Spain at the forest management unit scale. Forest Systems, 24(1), 004. doi:10.5424/fs/2015241-05542Wijewardana, D. (2008). Criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management: The road travelled and the way ahead. Ecological Indicators, 8(2), 115-122. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2006.11.00

Criteria and indicators for sustainable forestry under Mediterranean conditions applicable in Spain at the forest management unit scale

This work has three Supplementary Files[EN] Aim of study: to identify criteria and indicators (C&I) of sustainable forest management (SFM) under Mediterranean conditions. The indicators are meant to monitor changes in the provision of ecosystem services at a local scale (forest management unit, FMU). We support that if a forest provides a bundle of ecosystem services its management can be considered sustainable; thus, we adjust C&I to an ecosystem services classification. Area of study: La Hunde y La Palomera, a public FMU in the region of Valencia (east of Spain), 100km southwest of the city of Valencia. Material and methods: first, a literature review of the following themes took part: SFM, features of Mediterranean forests, ecosystem services and C&I. Some C&I were proposed and, later on, a participatory process in Ayora, the municipality where the mentioned FMU is located, was carried out with different stakeholders (forestry professionals, users for recreation, hunters, environmentalists and professionals of cultural and rural development activities) in order for them to value the C&I proposed according to their management preferences for La Hunde y La Palomera. Research highlights: 15 criteria and 133 indicators were identified: a balance has been achieved among economic, social and ecological concerns. People value the ecological issues associated to forestry on top and the economic ones at the bottom. Results suggest that SFM under Mediterranean conditions is based on more than one product and on the provision of several ecosystem servicesThe Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness supports the project Multicriteria Techniques and Participatory Decision-Making for Sustainable Management (Ref. ECO2011-27369) and the Regional Council of Education, Culture and Sports (Valencia, Spain) finances a research fellowship (Ref. ACIF/2010/248).Valls Donderis, P.; Vallés-Planells, M.; Galiana, F. (2015). Criteria and indicators for sustainable forestry under Mediterranean conditions applicable in Spain at the forest management unit scale. Forest Systems (antes Investigación Agraria. Sistemas y Recursos Forestales). 24(1):1-21. doi:10.5424/fs/2015241-05542S12124

Sustainability of Mediterranean Spanish forest management through stakeholder views

[EN] The management of forests that considers the social and environmental aspects associated to the forest activity is called sustainable forest management (SFM). There is not an agreed definition to be applied worldwide. This study intends to find out the requirements of SFM in the Mediterranean region and takes Spain as a case study. It is also aimed to determine the sustainability of current forest management in Spain, the difficulties to achieve SFM and proposals to do so. An initial diagnosis of the situation in Spain is obtained by means of a SWOT analysis and, then, a questionnaire with forestry experts is carried out to verify and broaden the conclusions of the analysis. Results show that the key aspects of SFM are management planning, the consideration of the natural resources (biodiversity, habitats, soil and water), and the contribution to rural development. Management planning and rural development are scarcely considered currently in forest management (12% of the forest area has a management plan). The main difficulties that explain this situation are the low profitability of Mediterranean forests, the lack of economic compensation for the ecosystem services (ES) provided by forests, and the bad coordination between forestry and land planning. The way to SFM goes through the existence of fair mechanisms that pay forest owners for the ES provided and the market promotion of all forest products. For the previous to succeed, it is relevant to make society aware of the matter. Finally, it is important to increase inventory and data collection on forests to identify priorities of research and management.[ES] Se define la gestión forestal sostenible (GFS) como aquélla que considera los aspectos sociales y ambientales asociados a la actividad forestal. No existe una definición universal del concepto. Este estudio trata de identificar los requerimientos de GFS en la región mediterránea y se centra en España como estudio de caso. Se busca también determinar el nivel de sostenibilidad de la gestión forestal actual en España, las dificultades de su sistema para alcanzar los objetivos de GFS y propuestas para mejorar la gestión. Se realiza un diagnóstico inicial de la situación española por medio de un análisis DAFO (debilidades, amenazas, fortalezas y oportunidades) y posteriormente se lleva a cabo una consulta a expertos a través de un cuestionario para corroborar y ampliar las conclusiones del análisis. Los resultados muestran que los aspectos clave de GFS son la planificación de la gestión, la consideración de los recursos naturales (biodiversidad, hábitats, suelos y agua), y la contribución al desarrollo rural. La gestión forestal presente presta poca atención a la planificación de la gestión y al desarrollo rural (sólo el 12% de la superficie forestal tiene un plan de gestión). Las principales dificultades que explican esta situación son la baja rentabilidad de los bosques mediterráneos, la falta de compensación económica por la provisión de los bosques de servicios ambientales, y la poca coordinación entre la planificación forestal y la territorial. El camino hacia la GFS pasa por la existencia de mecanismos justos de pago a los propietarios forestales por los servicios ambientales provistos y la promoción en los mercados de todos los productos forestales. Finalmente, es importante aumentar y estandarizar la recolección de datos del estado de los bosques para identificar prioridades de investigación y de gestión.This project started with funds of Dirección General del Medio Natural y Política Forestal of Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural y Marino (Spanish ministry for the environment), it is supported now by Generalitat Valenciana (government of the region of Valencia) through the training programme VALi+d for new researchers (code ACIF/2010/248), and it is framed in a research funded by Dirección General de Investigación y Gestión del Plan Nacional de I+D+i of Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (Spanish ministry of science) (reference: ECO2011-27369).The project takes place in Universitat Politècnica de València. Authors would like to thank the four institutions for providing the means and resources for this project.Valls Donderis, P.; Jakešová, L.; Vallés-Planells, M.; Galiana, F. (2012). Sustainability of Mediterranean Spanish forest management through stakeholder views. European Countryside. 4(4):269-282. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10091-012-0028-1S2692824

Differences in Inter-Rectus Distance and Abdominopelvic Function between Nulliparous, Primiparous and Multiparous Women

Widening of the inter-rectus distance (IRD) is highly prevalent among postpartum women and can lead to dysfunction of abdominopelvic muscles. The aim of this study was to evaluate the differences in IRD and abdominopelvic function between nulliparous, primiparous and multiparous women. A cross-sectional study was conducted on 75 women (25 nulliparous, 25 primiparous and 25 multiparous at 6 months postpartum). The participants underwent ultrasound assessment under three conditions (at rest, abdominal draw-in maneuver (ADIM) and curl-up) at two locations (2 cm above and 2 cm below the umbilicus). Furthermore, abdominopelvic muscle function was determined by prone, supine and side bridge tests. In all conditions and locations, the IRD were significantly higher (p 0.05) IRD at rest and during ADIM compared to the primiparous women. Regarding abdominopelvic muscle function, differences were only significant (p < 0.05) between the nulliparous with primiparous women in prone and supine conditions. These findings suggest that parity influences IRD: women at 6 months postpartum present greater IRD compared to nulliparous women; multiparous women present greater IRD at rest and during the activation of deep abdominal muscles than primiparous women; and primiparous women exhibit worse abdominopelvic muscle function than nulliparous women

Participatory development of decision support systems: which features of the process lead to improved uptake and better outcomes?

Decision support systems (DSSs) are important in decision-making environments with conflicting interests. Many DSSs developed have not been used in practice. Experts argue that these tools do not respond to real user needs and that the inclusion of stakeholders in the development process is the solution. However, it is not clear which features of participatory development of DSSs result in improved uptake and better outcomes. A review of papers, reporting on case studies where DSSs and other decision tools (information systems, software and scenario tools) were developed with elements of participation, was carried out. The cases were analysed according to a framework created as part of this research; it includes criteria to evaluate the development process and the outcomes. Relevant aspects to consider in the participatory development processes include establishing clear objectives, timing and location of the process; keeping discussions on track; favouring participation and interaction of individuals and groups; and challenging creative thinking of the tool and future scenarios. The case studies that address these issues show better outcomes; however, there is a large degree of uncertainty concerning them because developers have typically neither asked participants about their perceptions of the processes and resultant tools nor have they monitored the use and legacy of the tools over the long term.The authors would like to thank COST Action FP0804-Forest Management Decision Support Systems (FORSYS) for financing a three month Short-Term Scientific Mission (STSM) in Forest Research (Roslin, UK) in 2012, making possible this research; Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness for supporting the project Multicriteria Techniques and Participatory Decision-Making for Sustainable Management (Ref. ECO2011-27369) where the leading author is involved; and the Regional Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports (Valencia, Spain) for financing a research fellowship (Ref. ACIF/2010/248).Valls Donderis, P.; Ray, D.; Peace, A.; Stewart, A.; Lawrence, A.; Galiana, F. (2013). Participatory development of decision support systems: which features of the process lead to improved uptake and better outcomes?. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research. 29(1):71-83. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2013.837950S7183291Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder Of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216-224. doi:10.1080/01944366908977225Atwell, R. C., Schulte, L. A., & Westphal, L. M. (2011). Tweak, Adapt, or Transform: Policy Scenarios in Response to Emerging Bioenergy Markets in the U.S. Corn Belt. Ecology and Society, 16(1). doi:10.5751/es-03854-160110Barac, A., Kellner, K., & De Klerk, N. (2004). Land User Participation in Developing a Computerised Decision Support System for Combating Desertification. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 99(1-3), 223-231. doi:10.1007/s10661-004-4022-6Bennet, A., & Bennet, D. (2008). The Decision-Making Process in a Complex Situation. Handbook on Decision Support Systems 1, 3-20. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-48713-5_1Blackstock, K. L., Kelly, G. J., & Horsey, B. L. (2007). Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability. Ecological Economics, 60(4), 726-742. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.05.014Breuer, N. E., Cabrera, V. E., Ingram, K. T., Broad, K., & Hildebrand, P. E. (2007). AgClimate: a case study in participatory decision support system development. Climatic Change, 87(3-4), 385-403. doi:10.1007/s10584-007-9323-7Bunch, M. J., & Dudycha, D. J. (2004). Linking conceptual and simulation models of the Cooum River: collaborative development of a GIS-based DSS for environmental management. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 28(3), 247-264. doi:10.1016/s0198-9715(03)00021-8Byrne, E., & Sahay, S. (2007). Participatory design for social development: A South African case study on community-based health information systems. Information Technology for Development, 13(1), 71-94. doi:10.1002/itdj.20052Cain, J. ., Jinapala, K., Makin, I. ., Somaratna, P. ., Ariyaratna, B. ., & Perera, L. . (2003). Participatory decision support for agricultural management. A case study from Sri Lanka. Agricultural Systems, 76(2), 457-482. doi:10.1016/s0308-521x(02)00006-9Chakraborty, A. (2011). Enhancing the role of participatory scenario planning processes: Lessons from Reality Check exercises. Futures, 43(4), 387-399. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2011.01.004Cinderby, S., Bruin, A. de, Mbilinyi, B., Kongo, V., & Barron, J. (2011). Participatory geographic information systems for agricultural water management scenario development: A Tanzanian case study. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 36(14-15), 1093-1102. doi:10.1016/j.pce.2011.07.039Drew, C. H., Nyerges, T. L., & Leschine, T. M. (2004). Promoting Transparency of Long‐Term Environmental Decisions: The Hanford Decision Mapping System Pilot Project. Risk Analysis, 24(6), 1641-1664. doi:10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00556.xDriedger, S. M., Kothari, A., Morrison, J., Sawada, M., Crighton, E. J., & Graham, I. D. (2007). Using participatory design to develop (public) health decision support systems through GIS. International Journal of Health Geographics, 6(1), 53. doi:10.1186/1476-072x-6-53Evers, M. (2008). An analysis of the requirements for DSS on integrated river basin management. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 19(1), 37-53. doi:10.1108/14777830810840354Iivari, N. (2011). Participatory design in OSS development: interpretive case studies in company and community OSS development contexts. Behaviour & Information Technology, 30(3), 309-323. doi:10.1080/0144929x.2010.503351Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (1999). Consensus Building and Complex Adaptive Systems. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(4), 412-423. doi:10.1080/01944369908976071Jakku, E., & Thorburn, P. J. (2010). A conceptual framework for guiding the participatory development of agricultural decision support systems. Agricultural Systems, 103(9), 675-682. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2010.08.007Jessel, B., & Jacobs, J. (2005). Land use scenario development and stakeholder involvement as tools for watershed management within the Havel River Basin. Limnologica, 35(3), 220-233. doi:10.1016/j.limno.2005.06.006Kautz, K. (2011). Investigating the design process: participatory design in agile software development. Information Technology & People, 24(3), 217-235. doi:10.1108/09593841111158356Kowalski, K., Stagl, S., Madlener, R., & Omann, I. (2009). Sustainable energy futures: Methodological challenges in combining scenarios and participatory multi-criteria analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 197(3), 1063-1074. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2007.12.049Lawrence, A. (2006). ‘No Personal Motive?’ Volunteers, Biodiversity, and the False Dichotomies of Participation. Ethics, Place & Environment, 9(3), 279-298. doi:10.1080/13668790600893319Mao, J., & Song, W. (2008). Empirical study of distinct features and challenges of joint development of information systems: The case of ABC bank. Tsinghua Science and Technology, 13(3), 414-419. doi:10.1016/s1007-0214(08)70066-xMenzel, S., Nordström, E.-M., Buchecker, M., Marques, A., Saarikoski, H., & Kangas, A. (2012). Decision support systems in forest management: requirements from a participatory planning perspective. European Journal of Forest Research, 131(5), 1367-1379. doi:10.1007/s10342-012-0604-yMoote, M. A., Mcclaran, M. P., & Chickering, D. K. (1997). RESEARCH: Theory in Practice: Applying Participatory Democracy Theory to Public Land Planning. Environmental Management, 21(6), 877-889. doi:10.1007/s002679900074Peleg, M., Shachak, A., Wang, D., & Karnieli, E. (2009). Using multi-perspective methodologies to study users’ interactions with the prototype front end of a guideline-based decision support system for diabetic foot care. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 78(7), 482-493. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2009.02.008Pretty, J. N. (1995). Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Development, 23(8), 1247-1263. doi:10.1016/0305-750x(95)00046-fReed MS. 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds.Reed, M. S., & Dougill, A. J. (2010). Linking degradation assessment to sustainable land management: A decision support system for Kalahari pastoralists. Journal of Arid Environments, 74(1), 149-155. doi:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2009.06.016Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 25(1), 3-29. doi:10.1177/016224390002500101Schielen, R. M. J., & Gijsbers, P. J. A. (2003). DSS-large rivers: developing a DSS under changing societal requirements. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 28(14-15), 635-645. doi:10.1016/s1474-7065(03)00109-8Sheppard, S. R. J., & Meitner, M. (2005). Using multi-criteria analysis and visualisation for sustainable forest management planning with stakeholder groups. Forest Ecology and Management, 207(1-2), 171-187. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2004.10.032Thursky, K. A., & Mahemoff, M. (2007). User-centered design techniques for a computerised antibiotic decision support system in an intensive care unit. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 76(10), 760-768. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2006.07.011Webler, S. T., Thomas. (1999). Voices from the Forest: What Participants Expect of a Public Participation Process. Society & Natural Resources, 12(5), 437-453. doi:10.1080/089419299279524Van Meensel, J., Lauwers, L., Kempen, I., Dessein, J., & Van Huylenbroeck, G. (2012). Effect of a participatory approach on the successful development of agricultural decision support systems: The case of Pigs2win. Decision Support Systems, 54(1), 164-172. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2012.05.002Von Geibler, J., Kristof, K., & Bienge, K. (2010). Sustainability assessment of entire forest value chains: Integrating stakeholder perspectives and indicators in decision support tools. Ecological Modelling, 221(18), 2206-2214. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2010.03.02

Percepción social de los SUDS: Lecciones aprendidas y recomendaciones para involucrar a todos los actores implicados

[ES] En los últimos años se ha puesto de manifiesto la necesidad de promover una gestión sostenible y eficiente del agua de lluvia en las ciudades, con el objetivo de mejorar la gestión de las escorrentías, así como potenciar la implementación de soluciones que sirvan de soporte a la adaptación y mitigación frente al cambio climático. Los Sistemas Urbanos de Drenaje Sostenible (SUDS) han demostrado ser soluciones innovadoras y eficaces para alcanzar dicho objetivo. Sin embargo, su adecuado diseño, construcción y mantenimiento requiere de la participación de todos los agentes implicados en la gestión del ciclo urbano del agua. El presente artículo pone de manifiesto dicha necesidad y plantea recomendaciones al respecto a partir de las lecciones aprendidas de cuatro casos de estudio llevados a cabo a escalas nacional, regional, municipal y distrito[EN] In recent years, the need to promote sustainable and efficient stormwater management in cities has arisen with the aim of improving runoff management, as well as boosting the implementation of solutions to support climate change adaptation and mitigation. Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) have proven to be innovative and effective solutions to achieve this goal. However, its proper design, construction and maintenance require the participation of all actors involved in the urban water cycle management. This article highlights this need and provides recommendations based on lessons learned from four case studies carried out at national, regional, municipal and district levels.Los autores agradecen la participación y colaboración de los múltiples actores que han formado parte de las distintas acciones descritas en el presente artículo, con especial mención a los proyectos E2 STORMED (Programa MED, 2013-2015), CoSUDS (Climate-KIC, 2016), ViaSuDS (Generalitat Valenciana, AEST/2016/027) y LIFE CERSUDS (Programa LIFE 2014-2020 de Medio Ambiente y Acción por el Clima de la Unión Europea, LIFE15 CCA/ ES/000091)Calcerrada, E.; Valls Donderis, P.; Castillo-Rodríguez, J.; Andrés Doménech, I. (2019). Percepción social de los SUDS: Lecciones aprendidas y recomendaciones para involucrar a todos los actores implicados. Revista de Obras Públicas. (3607):74-81. http://hdl.handle.net/10251/128114S7481360

Participatory development of decision support systems: which features of the process lead to improved uptake and better outcomes?

<div><p>Decision support systems (DSSs) are important in decision-making environments with conflicting interests. Many DSSs developed have not been used in practice. Experts argue that these tools do not respond to real user needs and that the inclusion of stakeholders in the development process is the solution. However, it is not clear which features of participatory development of DSSs result in improved uptake and better outcomes. A review of papers, reporting on case studies where DSSs and other decision tools (information systems, software and scenario tools) were developed with elements of participation, was carried out. The cases were analysed according to a framework created as part of this research; it includes criteria to evaluate the development process and the outcomes. Relevant aspects to consider in the participatory development processes include establishing clear objectives, timing and location of the process; keeping discussions on track; favouring participation and interaction of individuals and groups; and challenging creative thinking of the tool and future scenarios. The case studies that address these issues show better outcomes; however, there is a large degree of uncertainty concerning them because developers have typically neither asked participants about their perceptions of the processes and resultant tools nor have they monitored the use and legacy of the tools over the long term.</p></div