Scenario workshops: A useful method for participatory water resources planning?

Abstract

[1] This article reports on a scenario workshop (SW) for water resources management at the island of Naxos, Greece. The workshop was part of a European research project studying the advantages and limitations of different participatory methods in the context of the Water Framework Directive. It involved policy makers, scientists, business representatives, and citizens from different parts of the island. On the first day, participants worked to envision a sustainable development future for the island and its water resources. Discussion was inspired by four alternative water development scenarios prepared by the organizers. Participants' vision statements emphasized a diversified development path and balanced water solutions. On the second day, participants worked to plan the actions needed to realize their common vision. The SW turned out to be a good method to initiate a multipartner dialogue, to include new stakeholders in the water policy debate, and to a certain extent, to promote learning between participants. On the other hand, it did not appear well suited to resolve conflicts and aid decisions in the face of scientific complexity and uncertainty. SW seems to be a good method for the ''upstream,'' preparatory, capacity-building tasks of a planning process but not for the production of substantive decision outputs such as consensual agreements or action plans. The Naxos experiment also raised the centrality of framing, participant selection, and facilitation in participatory processes.

Evaluating participation in water resource management: A review

“…Several authors describe how participation processes in water management programs lead to stronger interactions and networks between participants [Collins et al, 2007;Genskow, 2009;Hoverman et al, 2011;Lejano and Ingram, 2009]. Hatzilacou et al [2007] note that valuable stakeholder alliances and working groups formed through their stakeholder workshops in Greece even though no final plans or agreements were achieved (Table S2).…”

“…Capacity to manage knowledge and information to undertake collective action is enhanced. Participants gain knowledge and understanding of the issue being addressed [Hatzilacou et al, 2007] The process generates information that would not have been available otherwise.…”

Systematic evaluation of scenario assessments supporting sustainable integrated natural resources management: evidence from four case studies in Africa

“…In OZW, the detailed and long process of developing participatory scenarios (see also Kok et al 2007 andHatzilacou et al 2007) might have compromised the transparency of the results so that it was hard for end-users to grasp the complexity of scenarios. Rounsevell and Metzger (2010) discuss the difficulty of validating complex qualitative scenarios and this might have contributed to the lack of plausibility and consistency perceived by the OZW scientists (see also Hatzilacou et al 2007). Model coupling in UTH was a long and IT-driven process and was also not easy to follow for the people who were not involved in this particular process or from this research discipline.…”

Combined Assessment of Climate Change and Socio-Economic Development as Drivers of Freshwater Availability in the South of Portugal

“…In this specific case we focused on agriculture and its impact on water use. The methodological approach was inspired by the emerging literature on scenario planning and participatory foresight for water resources management ( Van der Helm, 2003;Hatzilacou et al, 2007). Construction of the SED scenarios, aiming at 2030, was based on a diversity of sources of information: (i) pre-existing scenarios defined at national and European levels, (ii) statistical information describing recent trends in local agriculture, (iii) an identification of factors of change made through a specific workshop with experts and (iv) individual visions of the future expressed by farmers during interviews or in a preliminary workshop.…”