Suchergebnisse

Many current water planning and management problems are riddled with high levels of complexity, uncertainty, and conflict, so-called "messes" or "wicked problems." The realization that there is a need to consider a wide variety of values, knowledge, and perspectives in a collaborative decision making process has led to a multitude of new methods and processes being proposed to aid water planning and management, which include participatory forms of modeling, planning, and decision aiding processes. However, despite extensive scientific discussions, scholars have largely been unable to provide satisfactory responses to two pivotal questions: (1) What are the benefits of using participatory approaches?; (2) How exactly should these approaches be implemented in complex social-ecological settings to realize these potential benefits? In the study of developing social-ecological system sustainability, the first two questions lead to a third one that extends beyond the one-time application of participatory approaches for water management: (3) How can participatory approaches be most appropriately used to encourage transition to more sustainable ecological, social, and political regimes in different cultural and spatial contexts? The answer to this question is equally open. This special feature on participatory water management attempts to propose responses to these three questions by outlining recent advances in theory, practice, and evaluation related to the implementation of participatory water management. The feature is largely based on an extensive range of case studies that have been implemented and analyzed by cross-disciplinary research teams in collaboration with practitioners, and in a number of cases in close cooperation with policy makers and other interested parties such as farmers, fishermen, environmentalists, and the wider public.

Many current water planning and management problems are riddled with high levels of complexity, uncertainty, and conflict, so-called "messes" or "wicked problems." The realization that there is a need to consider a wide variety of values, knowledge, and perspectives in a collaborative decision making process has led to a multitude of new methods and processes being proposed to aid water planning and management, which include participatory forms of modeling, planning, and decision aiding processes. However, despite extensive scientific discussions, scholars have largely been unable to provide satisfactory responses to two pivotal questions: (1) What are the benefits of using participatory approaches?; (2) How exactly should these approaches be implemented in complex social-ecological settings to realize these potential benefits? In the study of developing social-ecological system sustainability, the first two questions lead to a third one that extends beyond the one-time application of participatory approaches for water management: (3) How can participatory approaches be most appropriately used to encourage transition to more sustainable ecological, social, and political regimes in different cultural and spatial contexts? The answer to this question is equally open. This special feature on participatory water management attempts to propose responses to these three questions by outlining recent advances in theory, practice, and evaluation related to the implementation of participatory water management. The feature is largely based on an extensive range of case studies that have been implemented and analyzed by cross-disciplinary research teams in collaboration with practitioners, and in a number of cases in close cooperation with policy makers and other interested parties such as farmers, fishermen, environmentalists, and the wider public.

Many current water planning and management problems are riddled with high levels of complexity, uncertainty, and conflict, so-called "messes" or "wicked problems." The realization that there is a need to consider a wide variety of values, knowledge, and perspectives in a collaborative decision making process has led to a multitude of new methods and processes being proposed to aid water planning and management, which include participatory forms of modeling, planning, and decision aiding processes. However, despite extensive scientific discussions, scholars have largely been unable to provide satisfactory responses to two pivotal questions: (1) What are the benefits of using participatory approaches?; (2) How exactly should these approaches be implemented in complex social-ecological settings to realize these potential benefits? In the study of developing social-ecological system sustainability, the first two questions lead to a third one that extends beyond the one-time application of participatory approaches for water management: (3) How can participatory approaches be most appropriately used to encourage transition to more sustainable ecological, social, and political regimes in different cultural and spatial contexts? The answer to this question is equally open. This special feature on participatory water management attempts to propose responses to these three questions by outlining recent advances in theory, practice, and evaluation related to the implementation of participatory water management. The feature is largely based on an extensive range of case studies that have been implemented and analyzed by cross-disciplinary research teams in collaboration with practitioners, and in a number of cases in close cooperation with policy makers and other interested parties such as farmers, fishermen, environmentalists, and the wider public.

When hydrological models are used in support of water management decisions, stakeholders often contest these models because they perceive certain aspects to be inadequately addressed. A strongly contested model may be abandoned completely, even when stakeholders could potentially agree on the validity of part of the information it can produce. The development of a new model is costly, and the results may be contested again. We consider how existing hydrological models can be used in a policy process so as to benefit from both hydrological knowledge and the perspectives and local knowledge of stakeholders. We define a code of conduct as a set of "rules of the game" that we base on a case study of developing a water management plan for a Natura 2000 site in the Netherlands. We propose general rules for agenda management and information sharing, and more specific rules for model use and option development. These rules structure the interactions among actors, help them to explicitly acknowledge uncertainties, and prevent expertise from being neglected or overlooked. We designed the rules to favor openness, protection of core stakeholder values, the use of relevant substantive knowledge, and the momentum of the process. We expect that these rules, although developed on the basis of a water-management issue, can also be applied to support the use of existing computer models in other policy domains. As rules will shape actions only when they are constantly affirmed by actors, we expect that the rules will become less useful in an "unruly" social environment where stakeholders constantly challenge the proceedings.

When hydrological models are used in support of water management decisions, stakeholders often contest these models because they perceive certain aspects to be inadequately addressed. A strongly contested model may be abandoned completely, even when stakeholders could potentially agree on the validity of part of the information it can produce. The development of a new model is costly, and the results may be contested again. We consider how existing hydrological models can be used in a policy process so as to benefit from both hydrological knowledge and the perspectives and local knowledge of stakeholders. We define a code of conduct as a set of "rules of the game" that we base on a case study of developing a water management plan for a Natura 2000 site in the Netherlands. We propose general rules for agenda management and information sharing, and more specific rules for model use and option development. These rules structure the interactions among actors, help them to explicitly acknowledge uncertainties, and prevent expertise from being neglected or overlooked. We designed the rules to favor openness, protection of core stakeholder values, the use of relevant substantive knowledge, and the momentum of the process. We expect that these rules, although developed on the basis of a water-management issue, can also be applied to support the use of existing computer models in other policy domains. As rules will shape actions only when they are constantly affirmed by actors, we expect that the rules will become less useful in an "unruly" social environment where stakeholders constantly challenge the proceedings.

When hydrological models are used in support of water management decisions, stakeholders often contest these models because they perceive certain aspects to be inadequately addressed. A strongly contested model may be abandoned completely, even when stakeholders could potentially agree on the validity of part of the information it can produce. The development of a new model is costly, and the results may be contested again. We consider how existing hydrological models can be used in a policy process so as to benefit from both hydrological knowledge and the perspectives and local knowledge of stakeholders. We define a code of conduct as a set of "rules of the game" that we base on a case study of developing a water management plan for a Natura 2000 site in the Netherlands. We propose general rules for agenda management and information sharing, and more specific rules for model use and option development. These rules structure the interactions among actors, help them to explicitly acknowledge uncertainties, and prevent expertise from being neglected or overlooked. We designed the rules to favor openness, protection of core stakeholder values, the use of relevant substantive knowledge, and the momentum of the process. We expect that these rules, although developed on the basis of a water-management issue, can also be applied to support the use of existing computer models in other policy domains. As rules will shape actions only when they are constantly affirmed by actors, we expect that the rules will become less useful in an "unruly" social environment where stakeholders constantly challenge the proceedings.

Social conflicts around large carnivores are increasing in Europe, often associated to the species expansion into human-modified and agricultural landscapes. Large carnivores can be seen as an added value by some but as a source of difficulties by others, depending on different val-ues, attitudes, livelihoods, and everyday activities. Therefore, the effective involvement of the different interest groups is important to identify and shape tailored solutions that can potentially be implemented, complementing top-down approaches that might, on their own, result in lack of implementation and buy-in. To improve dialogue in conflictual situations, as part of a European project promoted by the European Parliament, we assessed the practical implementation of participatory processes in three sample areas in Europe where wolves and bears have recently been increasingly impacting human activities. Our results demonstrate that collaboration among different and generally contrasting groups is possible. Even in situations where large-carnivore impacts were seen as unsatisfactorily managed for many years, people were still willing and eager to be involved in alternative discussion processes hoping this would lead to concrete solutions. An important and common highlight among the three study areas was that all the management interventions agreed upon shared the general scope of improving the conditions of the groups most impacted by large carnivores. The process showed the importance of building trust and supporting dialogue for knowledge co-production and mitigation of conflicts between stakeholders and that controversial environmental issues have the potential to trigger a meaningful dialogue about broader societal issues. The direct involvement and support of competent authorities, as well as the upscaling of this process at larger administrative and social scales, remain important challenges.

The European Union (EU) Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires EU member states to produce and implement river basin management plans, which are to be designed and updated via participatory processes that inform, consult with, and actively involve all interested stakeholders. The assumption of the European Commission is that stakeholder participation, and institutional adaptation and procedural innovation to facilitate it, are essential to the effectiveness of river basin planning and, ultimately, the environmental impact of the Directive. We analyzed official documents and the WFD literature to compare implementation of the Directive in EU member states in the initial WFD planning phase (2000-2009). Examining the development of participatory approaches to river basin management planning, we consider the extent of transformation in EU water governance over the period. Employing a mixed quantitative and qualitative approach, we map the implementation "trajectories" of 13 member states, and then provide a detailed examination of shifts in river basin planning and participation in four member states (Germany, Sweden, Poland and France) to illustrate the diversity of institutional approaches observed. We identify a general tendency towards increased, yet circumscribed, stakeholder participation in river basin management in the member states examined, alongside clear continuities in terms of their respective pre-WFD institutional and procedural arrangements. Overall, the WFD has driven a highly uneven shift to river basin-level planning among the member states, and instigated a range of efforts to institutionalize stakeholder involvement-often through the establishment of advisory groups to bring organized stakeholders into the planning process.