Advertisement

Water Resources Management

, Volume 21, Issue 7, pp 1091–1102 | Cite as

The Role of Model Interfaces for Participation in Water Management

  • Thomas Horlitz
Article

Abstract

Despite the increasing complexity in water management decision processes the actual use of models in those processes is not very common. Particularly in participatory water management the potential participants do not seem to find access to models used or usable for decision-making. The article discusses up to which degree computer- and Internet-based tools and complementary instruments can help to
  • present information to the public,

  • allow interactive access to data and creating own results,

  • allow the public to exchange views and raise objections and ideas.

A focus lies on the role of (‘human’ and technical) interfaces in this context. Among the introduced solutions are Internet participation platforms or interfaces adapted to the needs of participants with simplified versions of models. The increasing use of the Internet and free software products as well as the implementation of new conventions and EU directives will lead to a better access to data by the general public. But it also becomes clear that more than better technical solutions are needed. For the potential participants the importance of participation as well as the limits of their impact on the final decision has to be made clear. Facilitators (‘human interfaces’) to help people make use of tools and models would be a great advantage.

Key words

water framework directive participation models decision support system Internet platform 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baumann F, Detlefsen M, Iversen S, Vogelsang L (2004) Neue Tendenzen bei der Bürgerbeteiligung in Deutschland – Veränderte Rahmenbedingungen, Praktiken und deren Auswirkungen. Büro BLAU and Agenda–Agentur Berlin, by order of Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung, Berlin, 71 pp. (http://www.bueroblau.de/pdf/TendenzBuerger.pdf)
  2. d’Aquino P, Le Page C, Bousquet F, Bah A (2002) A novel mediating participatory modelling: the ‘self-design’ process to accompany collective decision making. IJARGE 2:59–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Engelen G (2000) The development of the WadBOS decision support system – a bridge between knowledge and policy in the Wadden Sea. Technical paper prepared for National Institute for Coastal and Marine Management/RIKZ, Directorate-General of Public Works and Water Management; Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water ManagementGoogle Scholar
  4. Engelen G (2002) Developing a successful decision support system: a process involving collaboration. Veranstaltungen 4/2002. In: Bundesanstalt für Gewässerkunde (ed) Einsatz ökologischer Modellsysteme zur Unterstützung von Entscheidungen bei Eingriffen in Fließgewässern, Koblenz, pp 23–30Google Scholar
  5. EU (2000) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal of the European Communities 22.12.2000, L 327/1Google Scholar
  6. EU (2001) Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. PE-CONS 3619/3/01 REV 3Google Scholar
  7. EU (2003a) Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003, providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC. Official Journal of the European Union 25.6.2003, L 156/17Google Scholar
  8. EU (2003b) Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC. Official Journal of the European Union, 14.2.2003, L41/26–32Google Scholar
  9. EU Water Directors (eds) (2002) Guidance on public participation in relation to the water framework directive – active involvement, consultation, and public access to information, DecemberGoogle Scholar
  10. Hahn B, Engelen G (2000) Concepts of DSS systems. Veranstaltungen 4/2000. In: Bundesanstalt für Gewässerkunde (ed) Decision Support Systems (DSS) for river basin management, KoblenzGoogle Scholar
  11. Haaren Cv, Warren-Kretzschmar B (2006) The interactive landscape plan – use and benefits of new technologies in landscape planning, including initial results of the interactive landscape plan Koeningslutter am Elm, Germany. Landsc Res 31(1):83–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hare M (2005) The use of models to support the participatory elements of the water framework directive: creating a dialogue between policy makers and model makers. Report on the elicitation strategies of the project 4–6th October 2004, Osnabrueck. Harmoni-CA Document: HCA-WP5-2004-Re04/Final Version. Seecon Report Seecon07/2004Google Scholar
  13. Hester U, Schnepf D, Mesicek R (2003) eGovernment best practices: lessons learned and corresponding recommendations for the eCommunity project (SERI). August 2003, Task ID 4162 + 4201Google Scholar
  14. Horlitz T, Chen H (2005) Structure of the planned Euro-limpacs-DSS. Working paper in the framework of the European FP6-research project “European project to evaluate impacts of global change on freshwater ecosystems” (Euro-limpacs). (In the Internet: http://www.eurolimpacs.ucl.ac.uk)
  15. Horlitz T, Ahrens H, Harth M, Hillert D, Sander A (2003) Nutzwertanalytische Betrachtung der Szenarien. In: Wycisk P, Weber M (eds) Integration von Schutz und Nutzung im Biosphärenreservat Mittlere Elbe – Westlicher Teil. Weißensee–Verlag, Berlin, pp 175–187Google Scholar
  16. Jonsson A, Alkan-Olsson J (2005) Participatory modelling – (how) can computer generated information affect the “room of action” of local stakeholders? Paper presented at ACSIS nationella forskarkonferens för kulturstudier, Norrköping 13–15 juni 2005. (In the Internet: http://www.ep.liu.se/ecp/015/041/ecp015041.pdf)
  17. Kingston R (2002) The role of e-government and public participation in the planning process. XVI AESOP Congress, Volos, Greece July 10th–14th 2002. http://www.ccg.leeds.ac.uk/groups/democracy/presentations/AESOP_kingston.pdf
  18. Krek A (2005) Rational ignorance of the citizens in public participation planning. In: Schrenk M (ed) Proceedings CORP 2005 & Geomultimedia05, pp 165–169Google Scholar
  19. Matthies M, Berlekamp J, Lautenbach S, Graf N, Reimer S (2003) Decision support system for the Elbe River water quality management. Modelling and simulation society of Australia and New Zealand Inc. International congress on modelling and simulation (MODSIM), vol. 1. Canberra, Australia ISBN 174052098 X, pp 284–289Google Scholar
  20. Ryser J (2004) Can planning mediate between sustainable communities and digital divide? In: Schrenk M (ed) Proceedings CORP 2004 & Geomultimedia04, pp 31–37Google Scholar
  21. Steinmann R, Krek A, Blaschke T (2004) Analysis of online public participatory GIS applications with respect to the differences between the US and Europe. UDMS 2004, 24th urban data management symposium. Chioggia, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  22. Strasser S, Schnepf D (2005) eParticipation in Narva, Estonia, towards sustainable urban development. In: Schrenk M (ed) Proceedings CORP 2005 & Geomultimedia05, pp 297–301Google Scholar
  23. Yearley S, Cinderby S, Forrester J, Bailey P, Rosen P (2003) Participatory modelling and the local governance of the politics of UK air pollution: a three-city case study. Environ Values 12(2003):247–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Entera Consultancy for Planning and ITHannoverGermany

Personalised recommendations