How public participation in river management improvements is affected by scale

Abstract

The importance of extending physically based approaches to catchment management to include social considerations has recently been highlighted alongside increasing legislative pressure to utilise public participation in river management processes. Nine water managers, operating at varying geographical scales, from the UK and north‐west Europe were interviewed to determine their approach to, opinion of, and success in utilising public participation for decisionmaking. The results indicate that despite variations in approaches to, and perceptions of, participation, one dominant factor constrained the use of higher level participation: scale. The results demonstrate that the degree of participation and influence for ‘non‐certified’ experts was inversely proportional to the scale of the project. This was attributed to issues of practicality in communicating between a large number of individuals, but also to underlying factors such as availability of financial support and governing regulations that differ between organisations of different sizes. The findings were used to consider the role of Callon's public education, public debate and co‐production of knowledge models of scientific knowledge production (Callon 1990). It is suggested that, for practical application, traditional models be developed into more reflexive approaches that account for the complexity of real‐world situations.

Going with the flow? Using participatory action research in physical geography

“…Consequently, genuine co-production of this nature tends to currently exist only at small and local scales (Landström et al, 2011;Maynard 2013); the scale at which policy-making is currently structured, even while policy bodies call for greater public participation, is a barrier to wider take-up. Tackling these barriers is important if the co-production of issues and solutions outlined through PAR is to scale up and be able 35 to inform scientific practice more widely.…”

“…Here the EA has been involved in trialing innovative approaches to their management through novel forms of engagement with people and organisations at a catchment level to improve the health of water (http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/148309.aspx). However, despite numerous catchment-related projects, concerns have continued to be voiced that participation in such projects has not achieved the ideals of co-production resulting in the issues of power and ownership identified above being left unchallenged (Maynard 2013;Petts 2007;Pahl-Wostl et al, 2011). Most participatory initiatives in catchment management are still organized or at least heavily influenced by those considered to be experts such as scientists (both natural and social), non-government agencies (NGOs), statutory bodies or government, rather than those who live and work in the affected areas (Cook et al, 2013).…”

Transdisciplinary Research in Higher Education: Towards a Paradigm for Sustainable Development

“…Algebraically TDR is defined as interdisciplinary research + interested groups (stakeholder, problem owners) who are involved in all phases of the research process (Habermann et al, 2013). It is a research that links abstract knowledge (from academics) and case specific knowledge (from social actors) in order to develop new knowledge and practices that promote common good in society (Pohl & Hardon, 2008;Maynard, 2013). According to Pohl and Hardon (2008), TDR is used under the following circumstances: i) when knowledge about the problem is uncertain, ii) when the exact nature of the problem is disputed, and iii) when there is a great deal at stake for those concerned by the problem and involved in dealing with it.…”

“…Among some of the strengths of TDR are the following (Cronin, 2008;Jahn et al, 2012;Maynard, 2013): i) it allows for the creation of new knowledge by crossing disciplinary boundaries, i.e., it accepts that spaces between disciplines are rich in knowledge, ii) it supports the analysis of complex problems from different perspectives resulting in a detailed understanding of issues at hand, iii) it enables the participants to deal with complexity, uncertainty, change and imperfection effectively and efficiently by sharing knowledge and integrating intelligences during research, iv) it encourages system (holistic) thinking and guides the participants to look at the whole issue (through a bigger picture perspective) and its relationship to its parts, v) it involves the researchers and the public (social actors) in the whole research process thus enabling the integration of multiple knowledges and overcoming epistemological barriers between academia and non-academia, vi) it enlarges the view and perspective of participants to incorporate issues outside disciplinary boundaries (contextual issues), vii) it enables participants to jointly learn about (and understand) the complex problems and to facilitate knowledge exchange, and viii) it targets social issues or needs and expectations hence bridges the gap between research and practices.…”

Accessing the environment: Delivering ecological and societal benefits through knowledge integration – The case of water management

“…While it is widely stipulated that higher level participation is the optimum process for effective knowledge production and decision-making in river management, and that the knowledge produced should possess the characteristics outlined in Mode 2 (or similar categories within a range of knowledge production models), such involved processes, and such proficient knowledge are rarely evident. Indeed, for river management, there is still apparent difficulty in delivering knowledge production which considers both social and ecological criteria as one output, or in utilising the wealth of context-specific and experiential knowledge which exists about rivers around which so many of us base our lives (see Maynard, 2013). The author suggests that one of the main reasons for this is the difficulty of, and lack of guidance on, how to integrate diverse knowledges, perspectives and needs.…”