Water Resources Management

, Volume 23, Issue 12, pp 2539–2554

Harmonised Principles for Public Participation in Quality Assurance of Integrated Water Resources Modelling

  • Hans Jørgen Henriksen
  • Jens Christian Refsgaard
  • Anker Lajer Højberg
  • Nils Ferrand
  • Peter Gijsbers
  • Huub Scholten
Article

Abstract

The main purpose of public participation in integrated water resources modelling is to improve decision-making by ensuring that decisions are soundly based on shared knowledge, experience and scientific evidence. The present paper describes stakeholder involvement in the modelling process. The point of departure is the guidelines for quality assurance for ‘scientific‘ water resources modelling developed under the EU research project HarmoniQuA, which has developed a computer based Modelling Support Tool (MoST) to provide a user-friendly guidance and a quality assurance framework that aim for enhancing the credibility of river basin modelling. MoST prescribes interaction, which is a form of participation above consultation but below engagement of stakeholders and the public in the early phases of the modelling cycle and under review tasks throughout the process. MoST is a flexible tool which supports different types of users and facilitates interaction between modeller, manager and stakeholders. The perspective of using MoST for engagement of stakeholders e.g. higher level participation throughout the modelling process as part of integrated water resource management is evaluated.

Keywords

Public participation Water resource modelling Quality assurance Interaction Engagement MoST HarmoniQuA 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Almendinger P (2001) Planning in postmodern times. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnstein SR (1969) Ladder of citizens participation. J Am Inst Plann 35:216–224. doi:10.1080/01944366908977225 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aslin HJ, Brown VA (2004) Towards whole of community engagement: a practical toolkit. Australian Government, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Bureau of Rural Science, Murray-Darling Basin Commission, 146 ppGoogle Scholar
  4. Beck U (1992) Risk society. Towards a new modernity. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Beck MB (2005) Vulnerability of water quality in intensively developing urban watersheds. Environ Model Softw 20(4):381–400. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2004.02.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brugnach M, Tagg A, Keil F, Lange WD (2007) Uncertainty matters: computer models at the science–policy interface. Water Resour Manage 21:1075–1090. doi:10.1007/s11269-006-9099-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. EC (2003a) Water framework directive, common implementation strategy for the water framework directive (2000/60/EC). Guidance Document No 11 Planning Processes. Produced by Working Group 2.9—Planning processes. http://forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/env/wfd/library
  8. EC (2003b) Water framework directive, common implementation strategy for the water framework directive (2000/60/EC). Guidance Document No 8. Public Participation in Relation to the Water Framework Directive. Produced by Working Group 2.9—Public Participation. http://forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/env/wfd/library
  9. Enserink B, Monnikhof RAH (2003) Information management for public participation in co-designing processes: evaluation of a Dutch example. J Environ Plan Manag 46(3):315–344. doi:10.1080/0964056032000096910 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Firth LJ (1998) Role of values in public decision-making: where is the fit? Impact Assess Proj Apprais 16(4):325–329Google Scholar
  11. Forrester J (1989) Planning in the face of power. University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  12. Foucault M (1961) Histoire de la folie à l’âge classique—Folie et déraison. Plon, ParisGoogle Scholar
  13. Foucault M (1971) L’ordre du discours. Gallimard, ParisGoogle Scholar
  14. Giddens A (1990) The consequences of modernity. Polity, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  15. Giddens A (1999) Runaway world: how globalisation is shaping our lives. Profile Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. GWP (2000) Integrated water resources management. Global water partnership. TAC background papers no. 4. http://www.gwpforum.org
  17. Habermas J (1981) Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, vols 1–2. Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt (published in English as Theory of Communicative Action)Google Scholar
  18. Healey P (1997) Collaborative planning: shaping places in fragmented societies. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Healey P (2004) The treatment of space and place in the new strategic spatial planning in Europe. Int J Urban Reg Res 28:45–67. doi:10.1111/j.0309-1317.2004.00502.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Henriksen HJ, Højby A (2008) Model peer reviews and modeller-manager dialogues as an avenue to improved model credibility. In: Refsgaard JC, Kovar K, Haarder E, Nygaard E (eds) ModelCARE 2007. Calibration and reliability in groundwater modelling, vol 320. IAHS Publ, pp 101–107Google Scholar
  21. Hillier J (2007) Stretching beyond the horizon. A multiplanar theory of spatial planning and governance. Ashgate, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Horkheimer M, Adorno TW (1976) Dialectic of enlightenment. Continuum, New York (J. Cummings, trans)Google Scholar
  23. Huffington C, Armstrong D, Halton W, Hoyle L, Pooley J (2004) Working below the surface. The emotional life of contemporary organizations. Tavistock clinic series.Google Scholar
  24. Innes JE (2004) Consensus building: clarifications for the critics. Planning Theory 3(1):5–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Innes JE, Booher DE (1999a) Consensus building and complex adaptive systems. A framework for evaluating collaborative planning. APA J 65(4):412–423Google Scholar
  26. Innes JE, Booher DE (1999b) Consensus building as role playing and bricolage. Towards a theory of collaborative planning. J Am Plan Assoc 65(4):412–423. doi:10.1080/01944369908976071 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. March J, Simon H (1958) Organizations. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Marcuse H (1964) One-dimensional man. Beacon, BostonGoogle Scholar
  29. Martínez-Santos P, Ramón Llamas M, Martínez-Alfaro PE (2008) Vulnerability assessment of groundwater resources: a modelling-based approach to the Mancha Occidental aquifer, Spain. Environ Model Softw 23:1145–1162. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2007.12.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Maurel P, Craps M, Cemesson F et al (2007) Concepts and methods’ for analysing the role of information and communication tools (IC-tools) in social learning processes for river basin management. Environ Model Softw 22(5):630–639. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2005.12.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mostert E (2003) The challenge of public participation. Water Policy 5(2):179–197Google Scholar
  32. Pahl-Wostl C, Hare M (2004) Processes of social learning in integrated resources management. J Community Appl Soc Psychol 14(3):193–206. doi:10.1002/casp.774 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pahl-Wostl C, Möltgen J, Ebenhoeh E, Holtz G (2007) The NeWater management and transition framework—state and developmental process. In: Pahl-Wostl C, Kabat P, Möltgen J (eds) Adaptive and integrated water management. Coping with complexity and uncertainty. Springer, Berlin, pp 75–96Google Scholar
  34. Pascual P, Steiber N, Sunderland E (2003) Draft guidance on development, evaluation and application of regulatory environmental models. The council for regulatory environmental modelling. Office of Science Policy. Office of Research and Development, Washington DC 20460. November 2003, 60 ppGoogle Scholar
  35. Pelletier D, Kraak V, McCullum C, Uusitalo U, Rich R (1999) The shaping of collective values through deliberative democracy: an empirical study from New York’s North Country. Policy Sci 32:103–131. doi:10.1023/A:1004641300366 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Refsgaard JC, Henriksen HJ (2004) Modelling guidelines-—terminology and guiding principles. Adv Water Resour 27(1):71–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Refsgaard JC, Henriksen HJ, Harrar WG, Scholten H, Ayalew K (2005) Quality assurance in model based water management—review of existing practice and outline of new approaches. Environ Model Softw 20(10):1201–1215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Refsgaard JC, van der Sluijs JP, Højberg AL, Vanrollegem PA (2007) Uncertainty in the environmental modelling process—a framework and guidance. Environ Model Softw 22:1543–1556. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2007.02.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ridder D, Moster E, Wolters HA, Cernesson F et al (2005) Learning together to manage together—improving participation in water management. Output from the project ‘Harmonising Collaborative Planning’ (HarmoniCOP), Osnabrück, Germany. Druckhaus BergmannGoogle Scholar
  40. Scholten H, Kassahun A, Refsgaard JC, Kargas T, Gavardinas C, Beulens AJM (2007) A methodology to support multidisciplinary model-based water management. Environ Model Softw 22:743–759. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2005.12.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tippett J, Searle B, Pahl-Wostl C, Rees Y (2005) Social learning in public participation in river basin management—early findings from HarmoniCOP European case studies. Environ Sci Policy 8(3):287–299. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2005.03.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. van der Keur P, Henriksen HJ, Refsgaard JC, Brugnach M, Pahl-Wostl C, Dewulf A, Buiteveld H (2008) Identification of major sources of uncertainty in current IWRM practice. Illustrated for the Rhine basin. Water Resour Manage 22:1677–1708. doi:10.1007/s11269-008-9248-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hans Jørgen Henriksen
    • 1
  • Jens Christian Refsgaard
    • 1
  • Anker Lajer Højberg
    • 1
  • Nils Ferrand
    • 2
  • Peter Gijsbers
    • 3
  • Huub Scholten
    • 4
  1. 1.Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS)CopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Cemagref, MontpellierMontpellier Cedex 5France
  3. 3.Delft HydraulicsDelftThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Wageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations