Katherine A. Daniell

Evaluating participatory modeling: Developing a framework for cross-case analysis

Participatory modeling is increasingly recognized as an effective way to assist collective decision-making processes in the domain of natural resource management. This article introduces a framework for evaluating projects that have adopted a participatory modeling approach. This evaluation framework—known as the “Protocol of Canberra”—was developed through a collaboration between French and Australian researchers engaged in participatory modeling and evaluation research. The framework seeks to assess the extent to which different participatory modeling initiatives not only modify perceptions among and interactions between participants, but also contribute to collective decision-making. The article discusses the development of the framework and it’s application to three case-studies, two from Australia and one from the Pacific Island of the Republic of Kiribati. The article concludes with some comments for future use of the framework in a range of participatory modeling contexts.

Co-engineering Participatory Water Management Processes: Theory and Insights from Australian and Bulgarian Interventions

Broad-scale, multi-governance level, participatory water management processes intended to aid collective decision making and learning are rarely initiated, designed, implemented, and managed by one person. These processes mostly emerge from some form of collective planning and organization activities because of the stakes, time, and budgets involved in their implementation. Despite the potential importance of these collective processes for managing complex water-related social-ecological systems, little research focusing on the project teams that design and organize participatory water management processes has ever been undertaken. We have begun to fill this gap by introducing and outlining the concept of a co-engineering process and examining how it impacts the processes and outcomes of participatory water management. We used a hybrid form of intervention research in two broad-scale, multi-governance level, participatory water management processes in Australia and Bulgaria to build insights into these co- engineering processes. We examined how divergent objectives and conflict in the project teams were negotiated, and the impacts of this co-engineering on the participatory water management processes. These investigations showed: (1) that language barriers may aid, rather than hinder, the process of stakeholder appropriation, collective learning and skills transferal related to the design and implementation of participatory water management processes; and (2) that diversity in co-engineering groups, if managed positively through collaborative work and integrative negotiations, can present opportunities and not just challenges for achieving a range of desired outcomes for participatory water management processes. A number of areas for future research on co-engineering participatory water management processes are also highlighted.

Policy analysis and policy analytics

Working from a description of what policy analysis entails, we review the emergence of the recent field of analytics and how it may impact public policy making. In particular, we seek to expose current applications of, and future possibilities for, new analytic methods that can be used to support public policy problem-solving and decision processes, which we term policy analytics. We then review key contributions to this special volume, which seek to support policy making or delivery in the areas of energy planning, urban transportation planning, medical emergency planning, healthcare, social services, national security, defence, government finance allocation, understanding public opinion, and fire and police services. An identified challenge, which is specific to policy analytics, is to recognize that public sector applications must balance the need for robust and convincing analysis with the need for satisfying legitimate public expectations about transparency and opportunities for participation. This opens up a range of forms of analysis relevant to public policy distinct from those most common in business, including those that can support democratization and mediation of value conflicts within policy processes. We conclude by identifying some potential research and development issues for the emerging field of policy analytics.

Co-engineering and participatory water management: organisational challenges of water governance

Effective participatory water management requires effective co-engineering – the collective process whereby organisational decisions are made on how to bring stakeholders together. This trans-disciplinary book highlights the challenges involved in the collective initiation, design, implementation and evaluation of water planning and management processes. It demonstrates how successful management requires the effective handling of two participatory processes: the stakeholder water management process and the co-engineering process required to organise this. The book provides practical methods for supporting improved participatory processes, including the application of theory and models to aid decision-making. International case studies of these applications from Australia, Europe and all over the world, including Africa, are used to examine negotiations and leadership approaches, and their effects on the participatory stakeholder processes. This international review of participatory water governance forms an important resource for academic researchers in hydrology, environmental management and water policy, and also practitioners and policy-makers working in water management.

Research-supported participatory planning for water stress mitigation

With multi-stakeholder issues such as climate change or population growth providing significant challenges for water managers, participatory approaches to planning and management are becoming increasingly popular. To aid water stress mitigation in Bulgarias Iskar region, a participatory process with a broad range of stakeholders was designed and tested. Options adapted for the region such as risk management and industrial and domestic water conservation were studied. The results suggest that strong research support is needed to adapt participatory management theories into operational planning processes. Definition of appropriate working groups with clear roles and responsibilities are also needed to ensure effective implementation.

Real-World Decision Aiding: A Case in Participatory Water Management

In this chapter, we present a proposal for decision aiding in a participatory situation in the real world may constitute, in particular for water management. We first outline the context in which these decision-aiding processes take place: messy inter-organizational settings. We then present some of the available decision-aiding theories and models that could be used and adapt one of these, a decision-aiding process model based on Tsoukias (Annals of Operations Research 154:3–27, 2007), for this inter-organizational context. We next highlight how the model was used in a research intervention for the creation of the Lower Hawkesbury Estuary Management Plan in Australia. We demonstrate how this model significantly aided the structuring of the decision-aiding process and promoted insights on its usefulness and validity. We also provide an ex-post operational validation of the Mazri (Apport methodologique pour la structuration de processus de decision publique en contexte participatif. Le cas des risques industriels majeurs en France, 2007) decision-aiding model for participatory structure design. From the real-world intervention case, we also justify our claims that (1) we need decision-aiding methodologies to improve inter-organizational decision making for water management, as well as theoretical models and problem-structuring methods that can form useful parts of these methodologies; and (2) we need negotiation skills, amongst others, for putting the methodologies in place in the real world.

The MEPPP Framework: A Framework for Monitoring and Evaluating Participatory Planning Processes

Evaluating participatory processes, participatory planning processes especially, can be challenging. Due to their complexity, these processes require a specific approach to evaluation. This paper proposes a framework for evaluating projects that have adopted a participatory planning approach: the monitoring and evaluation of participatory planning processes (MEPPP) framework. The MEPPP framework is applied to one case study, a participatory planning process in the Rwenzori region in Uganda. We suggest that this example can serve as a guideline for researchers and practitioners to set up the monitoring and evaluation of their participatory planning process of interest by following six main phases: (1) description of the case, (2) clarification of the M&E viewpoint(s) and definition of the M&E objective(s), (3) identification of the context, process and outputs/outcomes analytical variables, (4) development of the M&E methods and data collection, (5) data analysis, and (6) sharing of the M&E results. Results of the application of the MEPPP framework in Uganda demonstrate the ability of the framework to tackle the complexity of participatory planning processes. Strengths and limitations of the MEPPP framework are also discussed.

Understanding and Managing Urban Water in Transition

Understanding and managing water in the urban context is of vital global importance. Over half the world’s population now lives in urban environments (United Nations 2013) and the percentage is set to increase over coming decades. Quality urban living, like life anywhere, requires adequate quantities and qualities of water to support a range of social well-being, economic development, and environmental health. Managing water in cities, along with their linked energy, food, materials, environmental systems, and socio-economic systems is, therefore, an integral component of global sustainability challenges (Sheehan 2007; see also Kenway and Lant 2015, Chap. 28, this volume).

Practical responses to water and climate policy implementation challenges

Abstract Water and climate are two of the most important public policy challenges facing Australia. They have pervasive impacts on how and where people can live and what they are likely to be able to do in the future. Policy implementation in these areas suffers from a range of challenges, including how to improve horizon scanning and preparedness, learn from past policy experiences, deal with policy interdependencies, and develop forms of more citizen-centric policy. When these challenges are responded to effectively, it can lead to enhanced foresight and planning, better understanding and communication of policy complexity, and communication of uncertainty and ambiguity, that are key to effective policy implementation. In this context, this paper presents and analyses a number of practical responses to water and climate policy implementation challenges, including the development of “low regret” policy and infrastructure options that encourage flexibility in responding to possible futures. It also highlights the important role that collaboratively acting now across sectors, issues, governance levels and groups of stakeholders to plan for a range of future scenarios can have on enhancing the capacity of all involved and building pathways to more sustainable and resilient futures.

Australian water governance in the global context: understanding the benefits of localism

ABSTRACT Effective water governance is essential for sustainable global futures. However, conflicting water values increases tension in water governance, highlighting the need for governance systems able to cope with competing objectives. In this paper, we explore the potential for ‘localism’ to improve water governance through increased social learning and institutional integration. We argue that localism can provide a bridge between policy-makers and policy-implementers, as long as there is sufficient capacity to effectively engage. Following the work of Orsini [2013. “Multi-Forum Non-State Actors: Navigating the Regime Complexes for Forestry and Genetic Resources.” Global Environmental Politics 13 (3): 34–55], we consider that this capacity is influenced by the availability of ‘power resources’; namely material, ideational and organizational power. Using a conceptual framework combining power resources and localism strategies, two examples of localism in the implementation of the Murray–Darling Basin Plan are explored. We find that localism can provide the necessary resources for effective water governance, although consideration of the challenges of localism highlights the need for a mix of localism strategies due to variable resource availability.