Designing participation processes for water management and beyond

This article addresses the question of how to design participation processes in water management and other fields. Despite a lot of work on participation, and especially its evaluation, this question has received little attention in the research literature. However, it is important, because previous research has made it clear that participation may yield important benefits for humans and the environment but that these benefits do not occur automatically. One precondition is sound design. The design of participation processes has been addressed in detail in the so-called "craft" literature but more rarely in the scientific literature. This article helps close this gap by systematically analyzing and comparing five design guides to determine whether it is possible to combine them into a more robust guide. The article confirms that possibility and presents a preliminary outline for such a guide. Principles for participatory process orientation are presented, as well as numerous partially iterative steps. The adaptive process is laid out in a way intended to help designers determine the objectives of the participation process and the initial design context, and make preplanning choices that eventually lead to the selection of suitable participation mechanisms. There are also design tools that facilitate this work. We discuss how our findings are largely compatible with previous research on participation, notably the work on criteria for "good" or "effective" participation processes. We also argue that our article advances research on an important remaining question in the scientific literature on participation: What process should be chosen in which context

Aiding multi-level decision-making processes for climate change mitigation and adaptation

Progress towards climate change aware regional sustainable development is affected by actions at multiple spatial scales and governance levels and equally impacts actions at these scales. Many authors and policy practitioners consider therefore that decisions over policy, mitigation strategies and capacity for adaptation to climate change require construction and coordination over multiple levels of governance to arrive at acceptable local, regional and global management strategies. However, how such processes of coordination and decision-aiding can occur and be maintained and improved over time is a major challenge in need of investigation. We take on this challenge by proposing research-supported methods of aiding multi-level decision-making processes in this context. Four example regionally focussed multi-level case studies from diverse socio-political contexts are outlined-estuarine management in Australia's Lower Hawkesbury, flood and drought management in Bulgaria's Upper Iskar Basin, climate policy integration in Spain's Comunidad Valenciana and food security in Bangladesh's Faridpur District-from which insights are drawn. Our discussion focuses on exploring these insights including: (1) the possible advantages of informal research-supported processes and specifically those that provide individual arenas of participation for different levels of stakeholders; (2) the complexity of organisation processes required for aiding multi-level decision-making processes; and (3) to what extent progress towards integrated regional policies for climate change aware sustainable development can be achieved through research-supported processes. We finish with a speculative section that provides ideas and directions for future research

Sustainability assessment of housing developments : a new methodology

Afin de combattre la dégradation rapide des écosystèmes mondiaux ainsi que l'épuisement des ressources naturelles, les gouvernements et les autorités de planification recherchent des formes de développement plus durables. La nécessité d'évaluer la «soutenabilité» des propositions de développement est ainsi de grande importance pour la politique et les décideurs. Cependant, des méthodes efficaces pour évaluer la durabilité globale des développements de logement (proposés ou existants) ne sont pas encore établies. Les objectifs de ces recherches adressent ce problème en présentant une nouvelle méthodologie conçue pour évaluer la durabilité des systèmes complexes de développement de logement. Une méthode pour évaluer des indicateurs de durabilité sur une «échelle de soutenabilité», basée sur des centiles d'une population avec l'utilisation de ressource audessus d'un seuil soutenable, a été développée. Cette méthode a été couplée à une technique pour modéliser les systèmes de développement complexes de logement en utilisant la simulation multi-agent. La méthodologie a été mise en pratique dans un cas d'étude du groupe de logements, Christie Walk, situé au centre-ville d'Adélaïde en Australie. Les résultats de cette évaluation ont demontré que Christie Walk est plus soutenable que la plupart de la zone métropolitaine d'Adélaïde. Les resultats des analyses de scénario montrent aussi l'importance d'une bonne infrastructure et conception des développements pour réduire les impacts du comportement humain sur la durabilité des logements. On envisage que cette nouvelle méthodologie, qui couple l'évaluation de la durabilité avec une technique de modélisation integrée, fournira une base fondementale pour résoudre plusieurs des défis auxquels font actuellement face les chercheurs en développement durable, les décideurs et les autorités de planification des environnements urbains en Australie et dans le reste du monde. / In order to combat the rapid degradation of the world's ecosystems and depletion of natural resources, governments and planning authorities are searching for more sustainable forms of development. The need to assess the sustainability of development proposals is thus of great importance to policy and decision makers. However, effective methods of assessing the overall sustainability of housing developments (proposed or existing) have yet to be established. This research aims to address this problem by presenting a new methodology to assess the sustainability of housing development systems. The methodology uses indicators with a common Sustainability Scale which is derived from percentiles of a population with resource use above a predetermined sustainable level, and has been coupled with a technique for modelling complex housing development systems using multiagent based simulation. The methodology was shown to be operational in the case study application of the Christie Walk housing development in inner-city Adelaide, Australia. The results of the assessment showed that the development compared favourably to the rest of the Adelaide metropolitan area. The case study also highlighted, through behavioural scenario analyses, the importance of good infrastructure and design in reducing the impacts of human behaviour on housing development sustainability. It is envisaged that this new methodology of combining sustainability assessment with an integrated modelling technique will provide the basis for a solution to many of the challenges currently facing sustainability researchers, policy makers and planning authorities of urban environments both in Australia and world wide

Impacts anthropogéniques, complexité, variabilité et non-homogénéité: quatres dilemmes pour le modélisateur de la ressource en eau

Water modellers are commonly faced with a range of dilemmas due to the complex, uncertain and conflicting nature of problems currently studied. The limitations of present techniques to deal with the variability and non-homogeneity of future data sets in complex water systems are examined. The main limitations are in part due to changing human behaviour and linked anthropogenic land and water use impacts, as well as uncertainty of climatic variability. Suggestions and questions for future practice are raised, as are technical based methods which are more likely to provide successful outcomes for integrated river basin management

Impacts anthropogéniques, complexité, variabilité et non-homogénéité: quatres dilemmes pour le modélisateur de la ressource en eau

Water modellers are commonly faced with a range of dilemmas due to the complex, uncertain and conflicting nature of problems currently studied. The limitations of present techniques to deal with the variability and non-homogeneity of future data sets in complex water systems are examined. The main limitations are in part due to changing human behaviour and linked anthropogenic land and water use impacts, as well as uncertainty of climatic variability. Suggestions and questions for future practice are raised, as are technical based methods which are more likely to provide successful outcomes for integrated river basin management

Co-ingénierie des processus de modélisation participative pour la planification et la gestion de l'eau

Broad-scale multi-stakeholder decision-aiding processes for complex water planning and management issues are typically organised or "co-engineered" by several agencies or actors. These participatory processes are therefore co-initiated, co-designed and co-implemented by a number of people. It is postulated here that this co-engineering can critically impact on both the participatory processes and their outcomes. Co-engineering has received scant attention in studies of participatory decision-making and remains an important gap in current knowledge. The method of intervention research was used to investigate the co-engineering of two participatory modelling processes: the creation of the "Lower Hawkesbury Estuary Management Plan", a regional risk management planning project on the northern edge of Sydney in Australia; and the "Living with Floods and Droughts" capacity building project for co-managing flood and drought risks in the Sofia region of Bulgaria. From these research interventions and their comparative evaluations, a number of important innovations and insights have been identified, including that multiple and divergent objectives within co-engineering project teams can lead to conflicts which can have major impacts on the implemented participatory modelling processes. Support was found for the hypothesis that co-engineering can critically impact on both participatory processes and their water management outcomes. This research shows that there are therefore two processes to organise to aid multi-stakeholder decision-making for water planning and management: the co-engineering process and the participatory modelling process.Les processus multi-acteurs d'aide à la décision pour la gestion de l'eau à grande échelle sont généralement co-organisés par de nombreux organismes et intervenants. Ceci signifie que les processus participatifs sont co-initiés, co-conçus et co-mis en ½uvre par de multiples intervenants. Il est postulé ici que cette « co-ingénierie » peut avoir un impact critique sur les processus de modélisation participative et sur leurs résultats. La co-ingénierie a reçu peu d'attention dans les études sur l'aide à la décision participative et reste mal couverte par les connaissances actuelles. Une approche de recherche intervention est utilisée pour étudier l'impact de la co-ingénierie sur deux processus de modélisation participative : d'une part l'élaboration du « plan de gestion de l'estuaire du Lower Hawkesbury », un projet régional de gestion de risques en Australie, et d'autre part un projet de gestion des risques d'inondation et de sécheresse dans la région de Sofia en Bulgarie. Des innovations significatives et des connaissances pratiques sont extraites de ces projets et de leur comparaison. Des objectifs multiples et souvent divergents au sein de l'équipe de co-ingénierie peuvent conduire à des conflits dont l'incidence sur la mise en ½uvre du processus de modélisation participative est majeure. Les résultats appuient la thèse selon laquelle la co-ingénierie a un impact critique sur les processus participatifs et sur leurs portées. La recherche démontre qu'il y a deux processus distincts à organiser pour mener efficacement une intervention d'aide à la décision pour la gestion multi-acteurs de l'eau : le processus de co-ingénierie et le processus de modélisation participative

Atelier de communauté 1 pour le plan de l'estuaire du Lower Hawkesbury, Australie

This document presents the methodology designed for the stakeholder engagement process in the production of the new Lower Hawkesbury River Estuary Management Plan (LHEMP). A process description and findings from the first community stakeholder workshop that was held at the Hornsby Shire Council Chambers on Friday the 3rd of November are also outlined. The workshop was attended by a diverse range of representatives from State Government Departments, Local Governments and community (including industry and residential) groups. The 30 participants worked through a variety of individual and group activities to develop a set of common values for the estuary and issues that are currently affecting its management. Goals and estuary management vision statements related to preserving these values were also elicited. The wealth of stakeholder knowledge and opinions presented in this report show that workshop process was very productive. Participant evaluations of the workshop were also predominately positive and showed that the process had been effective in learning outcomes, helping the participants to get to know each other better and to share their views and opinions with others. The information provided in this report, when combined with the document review of relevant existing reports, studies and legislation, will form a solid base for the following project stages and stakeholder workshops of the LHEMP creation

Ateliers des parties prenantes 2 et 3 pour le plan de l'estuaire Lower Hawkesbury, Australie

This document presents a process description and findings from the second two stakeholder workshops for the creation of the Lower Hawkesbury Estuary Management Plan (LHEMP) that were held at the Hornsby Shire Council Chambers on the 15th of February and the 1st of March 2007. It follows on from the Summary Report: Community Workshop 1 for the Lower Hawkesbury Estuary Management Plan (Daniell, 2007) found in Appendix A of the Lower Hawkesbury Estuary Synthesis Report (WBM Pty Ltd, 2007). For the ease of an autonomous reading of this report, the methodology designed for the stakeholder engagement process in the production of the LHEMP and several key outcomes from the first community workshop have been repeated from the previous summary report. The second stakeholder workshop for the creation of the LHEMP was attended by a diverse range of representatives from State Government Departments, Local Governments, industry, and governing agencies and associations. The 19 participants worked through a risk assessment process based on the Australian Standard for Risk Management (AS/NZS 4360:2004), where the assets (values) and risks (issues) defined by stakeholders in the first workshop became the basis for assessment. For each risk, the consequences and likelihoods of risk impacts on the nine previously defined estuarine assets were outlined by participants, as well as an associated risk level, the uncertainties related to these classifications, and the level of current management effectiveness of the risk related to each asset. From this information, the priority of the risks (acceptable, tolerable, or intolerable) was computed and the results discussed. From this assessment, all risks were classified as requiring treatment (tolerable or intolerable). The third stakeholder workshop was then used to develop strategies and actions for the treatment of these risks, as well as to identify monitoring needs, stakeholder responsibilities and stakeholder preferences related to the proposed strategies and actions. Individual brainstorming of strategies and actions preceded the collective strategy mapping for each risk. This third workshop was attended by 18 representatives from State and Local government, industry, agencies, associations and local residents. As the plan is still in the analysis and writing stage, only evaluation results related to the use of the approach from a methodological viewpoint will be presented, rather than an evaluation of physical results and external impacts of the approach. From preliminary analyses, it can be seen that the approach produced relatively positive relational and learning outcomes. However, the effectiveness of the approach in improving the estuarine management and preservation of assets will have to wait until the plan is enacted to be properly assessed. Based on these preliminary evaluations, this report presents discussion on the participatory approach used in the LHEMP process, as well as a number of recommendations for future practice and research areas which warrant further study. It is hoped that the lessons learnt during this process may aid the later phases of the LHEMP implementation and allow others to undertake similar processes to improve estuarine management and regional sustainability

Water governance across competing scales: coupling land and water management

International audienceWater governance is a complex process to manage and improve due to the large numbers of competing scales and levels inherent within it. Effectively supporting any water governance process does not just rely on hydrological knowledge of a water system, but much broader trans‐disciplinary understanding of a whole socialhydrological system. In this paper we show how there are commonly up to eight or more competing scales—spatial, temporal, administrative, institutional, management, network, knowledge/information and stakes/issues—present in any water governance situation. Processes in one scale can then create flows or externalities that produce multi‐level, cross‐scale or rescaling effects. A typology of six types of externalities orflows is provided—physical or material flows (e.g. water and solute movement), information and knowledge, political and social control, financial flows, human flows, and an irreversibility effect (e.g. flows, such as that of time passing, which lead to cumulative effects that are difficult or impossible to reverse)—and used to study the examples provided in the 15 papers of this special issue. From these insights, conclusions are drawn on how conflicts across competing scales are currently being managed, the mechanisms involved in bridging scales, and to what extent currently privileged scales and/or governance structures are appropriate for effectively managing water and land. The two general trends observed for multi‐level and cross‐scale management remain the need for collaborative governance processes and facilitators of these interactions, as well as the development of savvy coalitions for water governance change who understand and can effectively navigate these complex multi‐level and multi‐scalar systems. There is also a need to recognise that water basins or watersheds are social constructions and not always the most effective arenas for water governance. Problemsheds based on conceptssuch as the French “territoire” (territory), may in fact prove more pertinent in many cases (e.g. highly engineered systems) due to the unequivocal social nature of their construction and ability to delineate a range of agreed upon social‐hydrological systems for management