MPE 2013+ Workshop on Sustainable Human Environments Participatory modelling for water planning and risk management at the urban fringe Dr Katherine Daniell 23 rd April 2014 Fellow Rutgers University Centre for Policy Innovation & katherine.daniell@anu.edu.au HC Coombs Policy Forum
Presentation Plan § Introduction: water planning and risk management + participatory modelling theory § Method: intervention research § Australian and Bulgarian case study examples § Participatory modelling process outcomes and key insights § Lessons: discussion, conclusions and perspectives 2
Presentation Plan § Introduction: water planning and risk management + participatory modelling theory § Method: intervention research § Australian and Bulgarian case study examples § Participatory modelling process outcomes and key insights § Lessons: discussion, conclusions and perspectives 3
Water planning and risk management at the urban fringe 4
Why seek to involve stakeholders in water planning and risk management? § High levels of conflict, uncertainty, complexity § Legitimacy of expert models and risk assessments questioned § Ecological degradation vs. other social and economic interests § Power and resources for decision-making and action increasingly dispersed Water policies, Government Officials Businesses risk management NGOs Local Stakeholder & Consultants plans & their Community Groups implementation? Researchers Developers Land Managers à Challenging negotiations over risks and management responses based on differing stakeholder values, beliefs, relations & practices 5
Understanding participatory modelling Shared representations, “models”, policies or plans Analysts / coordinators Stakeholders / institutional representatives DECISIONS & SIGN-OFFS 6
Who to engage in participatory modelling processes? A story from one of my first research projects... § Need for ‘multi-level’ participatory modelling processes for sustainable water management + early and in-depth engagement with decision-makers
Who to engage in participatory modelling processes Who specifically will Who will champion Politics & Management make the decisions? the implementation? Construction of socially Efficient decision making acceptable decisions based on sound scientific knowledge – possible lack of scientific bases & other – possibility for public associated problems backlash Research Stakeholders Who has & experts & Public the Who has co-sharing of knowledge and construction analytical the of scientifically valid and socially acceptable solutions skills? required knowledge? – possible lack of power required for implementation Adapted from Thomas (2004) 8
Presentation Plan § Introduction: water planning and risk management + participatory modelling theory § Method: intervention research § Australian and Bulgarian case study examples § Participatory modelling process outcomes and key insights § Lessons: discussion, conclusions and perspectives 9
Method: development of participatory modelling approaches to water planning § Development & analysis of approaches through intervention research and case study comparison (cf. Hatchuel, David, Midgley) – Using a decision-aiding process model and evaluation protocol (cf.Tsoukiàs, 2005; Daniell and Ferrand, 2006) – Pilot development and testing in Montpellier, France 10
Method: development of participatory modelling approaches to water planning § Development & analysis of approaches through intervention research and case study comparison (cf. Hatchuel, David, Midgley) – Using a decision-aiding process model and evaluation protocol (cf.Tsoukiàs, 2005; Daniell and Ferrand, 2006) – Pilot development and testing in Montpellier, France – Australian and Bulgarian regional examples § Focus on multi-level processes used for planning – Politicians and government officials to local residents International NGOs, businesses, Nation state scientific experts act State at many levels Regional Community Different “shapes” of Individuals participation are possible 11
Presentation Plan § Introduction: water planning and risk management + participatory modelling theory § Method: intervention research § Australian and Bulgarian case study examples § Participatory modelling process outcomes and key insights § Lessons: discussion, conclusions and perspectives 12
Participatory modelling approaches to regional peri-urban water planning § Management-driven process – AUSTRALIA: Lower Hawkesbury § Research-driven process – BULGARIA: Sofia Region § Multiple issues – Perception of climate change impacts – High population growth / urbanisation – Water conflicts: quality and quantity – Economic / environmental viability of industries 13
Example 1: Australian management- driven process Lower Hawkesbury River National State Regional AUSTRALIA Community Individuals Creation of a “risk response” plan for Use of Risk Management Standard estuary management AS/NZS 4360:2004 14
Australian Process Outline (AS/NZS 4360:2004) Lower Hawkesbury Estuary Management Plan (LHEMP) Process • Workshop 1 • Document Review – Estuarine Processes – Management / Legislation • Estuary Report • Workshop 2 (agency only) • Workshop 3 • Written Plan • Implementation 15
LHEMP Workshop 1: Establishing the context Individual values and issues cards Issues/values matrix Collective discussion on estuary Card classification Spatial mapping visions & values 16
LHEMP Workshops 2 & 3: Risk Assessment and Treatment Risk assessment Definition of risks, consequences, Strategy mapping likelihoods, uncertainties, management Risk prioritisation Strategy prioritisation 17
Example 2: Bulgarian research-driven process “Living with floods and droughts to the Danube in the Upper Iskar Basin” Iskar river Sofia Elin Pelin Ognianovo dam Iskar Transnational dam National Key risk: Regional Samokov Flood Community Drought Individuals 18
Bulgarian Process Outline (1 year program) PHASE 1 § Individual - Stating Expectations interviews STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION & - Modelling system and actors § Workshops 1,2 & 3 - Eliciting visions and preferences § Individual and PHASE 2 EVALUATION - Developing options and strategies group interviews - Framing scenarios § Workshops 4a - Assessing strategies § Workshops 4b & 5 PHASE 3 - Testing strategies - Process evaluation - Planning for the future (Ferrand, Hare and Rougier 2006) 19
Iskar phase 1 & 2 (individual groups): Situation models, visions and strategy creation Expectations Strategy creation Visions and and options preferences evaluation Causal mapping 20
Iskar Phase 3: vertical integration, fusion & analysis of strategies, action planning Robustness analysis of new strategies Project Strategy fusion construction Evaluation jury Vertical Action plan Google Earth integration Spatialising of projects Voting on projects 21
Process evaluation framework § Aimed to understand three aspects of the decision-aiding process – Organisational decision-making processes – Participatory stakeholder processes for planning/policy-making – Overall intervention outcomes Phase Objects of interest Context • Objectives, feasibility, existing situation (Bellamy et al., Mazri, Ostenello and Tsoukiàs) ex ante • Roles and relations (Creighton, Katzenbach and Smith) Process • Changes (i.e. “ENCORE” - Ferrand) monitoring • Planned vs. implemented process (Argyris and Schön) Results • Final impacts: effectiveness, efficacy, efficiency (Marsh et al., Checkland) ex post • Innovation (Hatchuel) 22
Bulgarian process: participant evaluation • Systematic: ex-ante, after each workshop, ex-post • Example Results: Perceived depth of learning disagree do not entirely agree agree entirely agree 100% 90% Average % of responses 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% WS1 WS2 WS3 WS4a WS4b WS5 WS1 WS2 WS3 WS4a WS4b WS5 WS1 WS2 WS3 WS4a WS4b WS5 I have learnt more about I have learnt more about I have learnt more about the floods and droughts other stakeholders' points of impacts of certain flood and view and relations drought management options 23
Presentation Plan § Introduction: water planning and risk management + participatory modelling theory § Method: intervention research § Australian and Bulgarian case study examples § Participatory modelling process outcomes and key insights § Lessons: discussion, conclusions and perspectives 24
Common process outcomes § Action plan creation (with the aid of computer processing) § Evaluation results very similar in both processes – Increased open sharing of visions and opinions – Individual and collective learning (greater depth in Bulgaria) – Capacity to successfully manage conflicts – Some impacts of the processes on governance and water system sustainability starting to be observed (greater depth in Australia) 25
Recommend
More recommend
