Abstract

Democratization of water resources management through the involvement of stakeholders has been widely advocated over the past two decades. In light of mediocre results of such processes and severe criticism of the claimed benefits of stakeholder involvement, there is continued need for improving these processes and for supportive tools through which stakeholders can collaborate in decision making. In response to new European legal requirements, an innovative planning process was initiated to facilitate a productive dialog among stakeholders to develop a shared river basin management plan. This paper presents and discusses the results of action research on this participatory planning process in a semiarid river basin in Spain. We discuss: (1) to what extent participatory processes and tools address the needs of stakeholders and planners, (2) what enables or disables implementation in a complex socioeconomic reality, (3) to what extent the participatory approach leads to alignment with policy embodying a new water management paradigm, and (4) how tools can be flexible and their use adapted to changing contextual dynamics. Research results confirm the potential for increased participation assisted by web and GIS tools, however, such processes are highly sensitive to changing contexts as well as the mandate and continuity in support from management authorities. Fragmentation of responsibilities in the water arena and the weak interpretation of the coordinating role of the water administration undermine the democratic ruling sought for by public participation. Improved methodologies to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of participation are required, and tools need to be flexible in design and used in a facilitated participatory process, adaptable to changing contextual dynamics.

Highlights

  • THE CALL FOR DEMOCRATIZATION OF DECISION SUPPORT IN WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT Natural resources management and planning, and the planning of water resources in particular, are increasingly framed in a participatory setting, as prescribed by international policies such as Local Agenda 21 (United Nations 1993), the Aarhus convention (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) 1998), and the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) (European Commission (EC) 2000)

  • Public participation as a fundamental component of integrated water resources management (IWRM) is motivated by the assumption that public participation would facilitate more informed and creative decisions; increase the level of transparency and democratization; improve the acceptance and effective implementation of politics; and create a broader knowledge base and contribute to social learning (Barnes et al 2007, Mostert et al 2007, Muro and Jeffrey 2008, Reed 2008, Huitema et al 2009). These claimed benefits have received severe criticism and, as highlighted in the review by von Korff et al (2012), the extended scientific discussion of the past decade has not been able to satisfactorily answer the two fundamental questions on the design and implementation of participatory water management planning raised by Webler and Tuler (2001): “(1) what are the benefits of using participatory approaches and (2) how exactly should these approaches be implemented in complex socialecological settings to realize these benefits?” The persistent problem for planners and activists involved in river basin planning is how to construct a process that meets the needs and goals of planners, affected stakeholders, and the general public while producing implementable and effective policy outcomes in a costefficient manner

  • RESULTS results are presented in four parts: (1) the outputs of the workshops, such as cocreated knowledge on problems and management options, as well as indicators used in the web-tool; (2) analysis of workshop narratives vs. measures recorded in official planning documents; (3) participation and user satisfaction in and between workshops; and (4) results of indepth interviews and observations during the participatory planning process

Read more

Summary

Introduction

THE CALL FOR DEMOCRATIZATION OF DECISION SUPPORT IN WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT Natural resources management and planning, and the planning of water resources in particular, are increasingly framed in a participatory setting, as prescribed by international policies such as Local Agenda 21 (United Nations 1993), the Aarhus convention (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) 1998), and the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) (European Commission (EC) 2000). Public participation as a fundamental component of integrated water resources management (IWRM) is motivated by the assumption that public participation would facilitate more informed and creative decisions; increase the level of transparency and democratization; improve the acceptance and effective implementation of politics; and create a broader knowledge base and contribute to social learning (Barnes et al 2007, Mostert et al 2007, Muro and Jeffrey 2008, Reed 2008, Huitema et al 2009) These claimed benefits have received severe criticism and, as highlighted in the review by von Korff et al (2012), the extended scientific discussion of the past decade has not been able to satisfactorily answer the two fundamental questions on the design and implementation of participatory water management planning raised by Webler and Tuler (2001): “(1) what are the benefits of using participatory approaches and (2) how exactly should these approaches be implemented in complex socialecological settings to realize these benefits?” The persistent problem for planners and activists involved in river basin planning is how to construct a process that meets the needs and goals of planners, affected stakeholders, and the general public while producing implementable and effective policy outcomes in a costefficient manner. Examples show that stakeholders considered themselves as not very relevant (Jonsson 2005), as being entangled in power conflicts (Warner 2006), or as having no real power at all (Page and Bakker 2005)

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.