Benefits and Barriers of Participation: Experiences of Applied Research Projects in Integrated Water Resources Management

Sabrina Kirschke; Lena Horlemann; Marian Brenda; Jutta Deffner; Alexander Jokisch; Shahrooz Mohajeri; Janina Onigkeit

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-25071-7_13

Integrated Water Resources Management: Concept, Research and Implementation pp 303-331 | Cite as

Benefits and Barriers of Participation: Experiences of Applied Research Projects in Integrated Water Resources Management

Authors
Authors and affiliations

Sabrina KirschkeEmail author
Lena Horlemann
Marian Brenda
Jutta Deffner
Alexander Jokisch
Shahrooz Mohajeri
Janina Onigkeit

Chapter

First Online: 20 April 2016

Abstract

The role and design of participation for the successful implementation of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) has been intensely discussed. However, in the specific context of applied IWRM research, benefits of participation and specific conditions to realize these benefits are often neglected. Such disregard is problematic when scientific driven IWRM concepts are increasingly interwoven with actual IWRM implementation. In order to discover specific benefits and challenges of conducting participation in applied research, both quantitative and qualitative interviews were carried out amongst 15 German IWRM research projects in emerging and developing countries and contrasted with hypotheses in the literature. Results show that researchers tend to agree with hypotheses in the literature, e.g. in terms of the positive role of participatory processes, its different functions and specific design principles in term of skills of researchers and frame conditions. However, researchers of the IWRM funding initiative especially highlighted challenges with regards to several prerequisites like skills of researchers to conduct participatory processes or structural conditions. For instance, hard skills are often missing, e.g. the knowledge on how to design participation processes in view of the respective research goal. Moreover, unlike practitioners, researchers are rarely trained in soft skills like intercultural competences for adjusting participatory approaches to different cultural contexts. In terms of structural conditions, the German BMBF research context shows temporal and financial restrictions. Furthermore, conditions within the target country such as political and social aspects are important and not easy to overlook if the project is based in Germany like it is the case in most of the research projects investigated.

Keywords

Participatory research Participatory processes Stakeholder involvement Applied research IWRM

This is a preview of subscription content, to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank all those that contributed to this study, especially PD Heike Walk for her important comments in our working group “Participation in IWRM”, Sven Wurbs for his support related to the qualitative analyses, the participants of the surveys for their willingness to share their insights as well as the BMBF for funding the initiative. We also thank two anonynous reviewers for their constructive comments on earlier drafts of this chapter.

Appendix: Project-Specific Survey on Participation in IWRM

Open image in new window

This survey aims at generating lessons learnt on participation in IWRM. Lessons learnt comprise four aspects, amongst (1) the definition of participation in IWRM, (2) the relevance of participation to achieve an IWRM, (3) the relevance of participatory research, and (4) the design of participatory processes.

The questionnaire was prepared by an inter-project working group. The results will be part of a key issue paper which is meant to provide guidance for research projects, project executing organizations and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

This survey will last approximately 20 min. Please mark with a cross the relevant response fields and add relevant information where applicable. After having analysed the results of the survey, we will send you a draft of the key issue paper and you will have the opportunity to comment the results.

The information that is gathered by the survey will be treated confidentially as long as you do not agree expressly the inverse case. Please mark with a cross the relevant response field:

□ I would like that the information is treated confidentially, meaning that the project name is not matched with the answers in the further process.
□ I agree that the project name is matched with the answers in the further process.

We thank you for participating in this survey. In case of any questions, please do not hesitate to contact:

Contact

Sabrina Kirschke

IWRM networking project

Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research—UFZ

Department Aquatic Ecosystem Analysis and Management

Brückstr. 31/39114 Magdeburg

Phone: 0391 810 9940/Email: sabrina.kirschke@ufz.de

Your Contact details

Name of the project:
Name of the sub-project:
Contact person:
- Name:
- Institution:
- Phone:
- Email:

(A) What does participation mean in the context of IWRM?

Please mark with a cross and add relevant information where applicable.

1. What do you understand by IWRM?

□ “a process which promotes the co-ordinated development and management of water, land and related resources, in order to maximize the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems”. (GWP 2000: Integrated Water Resources Management. Stockholm: Global Water Partnership, p. 22)
□ Other definition:

2. What do you understand by the notion of participation?

□ Involvement of veto-players (persons that can circumvent or hinder decion-making or the implementation of decisions)
□ Involvement of directly affected people
□ Involvement of the wider public
□ Other:

3. Which actors should be involved in participatory processes in your project?

4. Is there further relevant information on the definition of participation in IWRM that you would like to share?

□ Yes, namely:
□ No

(B) Which role has participation in your project to achieve an IWRM?

Please mark with a cross and add relevant information where applicable.

5. Which role has participation in your project to achieve an IWRM?

□ High relevance
□ Middle relevance
□ Low relevance
□ No relevance

6. Which concrete functions does participation fulfill in your project in view of achieving an IWRM?

□ Further education of the wider public, e.g. in terms of how to handle technologies
□ Further education/information exchange between stakeholders
□ Integration and balancing of interests
□ Acceptance of decisions
□ Generating ownership
□ Other:

7. At which levels does participation foster a sustainable water resource management in your project?

□ Meta level: Comprehensive, inter-sectoral solution of problems, e.g. in the context of decision support systems
□ Micro-level: Specific technological solution
□ Other:

8. Which role has participation in view of implementing IWRM related project results?

□ High relevance (active involvement of all relevant groups in the implementation process)
□ Middle relevance (active involvement of several relevant groups in the implementation process)
□ Low relevance (observation of the implementation process by “participants”)
□ No relevance

9. Is there any further information on the role of participation in IWRM that you would like to share?

□ Yes, namely:
□ No

(C) How relevant is participatory research to achieve an IWRM?

Please mark with a cross and add relevant information where applicable.

10. Is participation an independent research topic in your project?

□ Participation is from the beginning an independent research topic in the project.
□ Participation is an independent research topic in the project. However, this was not initially planned.
□ Participation is not an independent research topic in the project.

11. Which specific research questions does the project address related to the topic of participation in IWRM?

□ Specific research questions are
□ The project does not address specific research questions related to participation.

12. What are vital lacks of research related to participation in your project?

□ Specific lacks of research are
□ There are no specific lacks of research related to participation in the project.

13. Is there any further information on the role of participatory research in the project that you would like to share?

□ Yes, namely:
□ No

(D) How should participatory processes be designed to achieve an IWRM?

Please mark with a cross and add relevant information where applicable.

14. Which degree of participation is generally necessary to achieve an IWRM?

□ Low degree (e.g. information sharing with those that are affected by a decision)
□ Middle degree (e.g. involvement in discussions and recommendations for decision-makers)
□ High degree (e.g. common decisions with decision-makers)

15. Which degree of participation is necessary in the research project to achieve an IWRM?

□ Low degree (e.g. public-oriented events/information on project results)
□ Middle degree (e.g. stakeholder as users of tools/methods)
□ Hight degree (e.g. co-design of research proposals by stakeholders/ stakeholder as equal project partner)

16. What are criteria for a successfull participatory process in your project?

□ All relevant actors/institutions are involved.
□ There is a constant involvement of actors/institutions over the whole participatory process.
□ The IWRM concept which was developed by participants is implemented in the long run.
□ Comprehensive societal discussions are initiated at the relevant scale (local, national, regional or international).
□ Other:

17. Is it necessary to set incentives for participants to enable participatory processes?

□ No, because
□ Yes, because

Incentives can be:

18. Which requirements have to be fulfilled for participation?

□ High educational level of participants
□ Transparency of informatiom
□ Enough time
□ Clarifying the funding of measures which regard the participatory process
□ Long-term involvement of actors in the project
□ Involvement of seniors/experts
□ Other:

19. Please specify the timeframe for participation for specific groups!

□ Veto-player:
□ Directly affected people:
□ Wider public:
□ Other:

20. Which processual conditions foster output-oriented participatory workshops?

□ Skilled facilitators
□ Specific facilitation techniques such as
□ Other:

21. Which actors initiate or accompany participatory processes?

22. Are there any problems if researchers initiate or accompany participatory processes?

□ Yes, namely
□ No

23. Which kind of practical impediments and problems come up when implementing participatory processes?

□ Language barriers, namely
□ Cultural problems, namely
□ Too little knowledge of how to design participatory processes on the part of the researcher
□ Other:

24. Do you have further lessons learnt with regard to the design of participatory processes which you would like to share?

Thank you very much!

References

Anson R, Bostrom R, Wynne B (1995) An experiment assessing group support system and facilitator effects on meeting outcomes. Manage Sci 41(2):189–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnstein S (1969) A ladder of participation. J Am Inst Plann 35(4):216–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barreteau O, Bots PWG, Daniell KA (2010) A framework for clarifying “participation” in participatory research to prevent its rejection for the wrong reasons. Ecol Soc 15(2):1Google Scholar
Beierle TC (2002) The quality of stakeholder-based decisions. Risk Anal 22(4):739–749CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Beveridge R, Monsees J, Moss T, with assistance from J Bischoff and J Meuel (2012) The IRS handbook. Analysing institutional and political contexts of water resources management projects. Leibnitz-Institut für Regionalentwicklung und Strukturplanung, ErknerGoogle Scholar
Biggs SD (1989) Resource-poor farmer participation in research: a synthesis of experiences from national agricultural research systems. OFCOR, comparative study No. 3. International Service for National Agricultural Research, The Hague, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
BMBF (2013) Programme aims http://www.bmbf.wasserressourcen-management.de/en/99.php. Accessed 31 Oct 2013
Bryson JM, Quick KS, Slotterback SC et al (2013) Designing public participation processes. Theory to practice. Public Adm Rev 73(1):23–34Google Scholar
BMZ (1999) Partizipative Entwicklungszusammenarbeit, Übersektorales Konzept. BMZ Konzepte, 102, Bonn/BerlinGoogle Scholar
Cleaver F (2001) Institutions, agency and the limitations of participatory approaches to development. In: Cooke B, Kothari U (eds) Participation. The new tyranny? Zed Books, London/New YorkGoogle Scholar
Cooke B, Kothari U (eds) (2001) Participation. The new tyranny? Zed Books, London/New YorkGoogle Scholar
Cornwall A, Jewkes R (1995) What is participatory research? Soc Sci Med 41(12):1167–1176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creighton JL (2005) The public participation handbook: making better decisions through citizen involvement. John Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
Daniell KA, White I, Ferrand N et al (2010) Co-engineering participatory water management processes: theory and insights from Australian and Bulgarian interventions. Ecol Soc 15(4):11Google Scholar
Enserink B, Patel M, Kranz N et al (2007) Cultural factors as co-determinants of participation in river basin management. Ecol Soc 12(2)Google Scholar
European Community (EC) (2000) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of the 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policyGoogle Scholar
Fung A (2006) Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Adm Rev 66(s1):66–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaddis EJB, Falk HH, Ginger C et al (2010) Effectiveness of a participatory modelling effort to identify and advance community water resource goals in St. Albans, Vermont. Environ Model Softw 25:1428–1438Google Scholar
GWP (2000) Integrated water resources management. Global Water Partnership, StockholmGoogle Scholar
Hage M, Leroy P, Petersen AC (2010) Stakeholder participation in environmental knowledge production. Futures 42:254–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison A, Schmidt G, Avis C et al (2001) WWF’s preliminary comments on public participation in the context of the water framework directive and integrated river basin management. WWF, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
Hailey J (2001) Beyond the formulaic: process and practice in South Asian NGOs. In: Cooke B, Kothari U (eds): Participation, The New Tyranny? Zed Books, London/New YorkGoogle Scholar
Hirsch D, Abrami G, Giordano R et al (2010) Participatory research for adaptive water management in a transition country—a case study from Uzbekistan. Ecol Soc 15(3):23Google Scholar
Hofstede G, Hofstede GJ, Minkov M (2010) Cultures and organizations: software of the mind: intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. Mc Graw Hill (3rd edn)Google Scholar
Ibisch R, Kirschke S, Stärz C et al (eds) (2013) Integrated water resources management (IWRM): from research to implementation. 4th rev. edn. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research—UFZ, Leipzig, Magdeburg. http://www.bmbf.wasserressourcen-management.de/_media/130624_IWRM_Broschuere_ENG_Doppelseiten_web.pdf. Accessed 31 Oct 2013
Ibisch R, Niemann S, Leidel M et al Developing capacity for integrated water resources management (IWRM): lessons learned from the BMBF research funding initiative IWRM. In: Borchardt D, Bogardi J, Ibisch R (eds) Integrated Water Resources Management: Concepts, Research and Implementation. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
Karthe D, Heldt S, Houdret A et al (2014) IWRM in a country under rapid transition: lessons learnt from the Kharaa River Basin. Environmental Earth Sciences, Mongolia. doi: 10.1007/s12665-014-3435-y Google Scholar
Krueger T, Page T, Hubacek K et al (2012) The role of expert opinion in environmental modelling. Environ Model Softw 36:4–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liehr S, Brenda M, Cornel P et al From concept to the tap—Integrated Water Resources Management in Northern Namibia. In: Borchardt D, Bogardi J, Ibisch R (eds) Integrated Water Resources Management: Concepts, Research and Implementation. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
Luyet V, Schlaepfer R, Parlange M et al (2012) A framework to implement stakeholder participation in environmental projects. J Environ Manage 111:213–219CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Mohajeri S, Horlemann L, Sklorz S et al Integrated water resource management in Isfahan: The Zayandeh Rud Catchment. In: Borchardt D, Bogardi J, Ibisch R (eds) Integrated Water Resources Management: Concepts, Research and Implementation. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
Mostert E (2003) The challenge of public participation. Water Policy 5:179–197Google Scholar
Newig J, Pahl-Wostl C, Sigel K (2005) The role of public participation in managing uncertainty in the implementation of the water framework directive. European Environment 15:333–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newig J, Fritsch O (2009) Environmental governance: participatory, multi-level—and effective? Environ Policy Gov 19(3):197–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newig J, Kvarda E (2012) Participation in environmental governance: legitimate and effective? In: Hogl K, Kvarda E, Nordbeck R et al (eds) environmental governance. The challenge of legitimacy and effectiveness, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, MA, pp 29–45Google Scholar
Onigkeit J, Simon KH, Alcamo J, Tielbörger K Strategic participative scenario development as a method to integrate science and IWRM—Lessons learnt from a case study in the Jordan River region. In: Borchardt D, Bogardi J, Ibisch R (eds) Integrated Water Resources Management: Concepts, Research and Implementation. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
Özerol G, Newig J (2008) Evaluating the success of public participation in water resources management: five key constituents. Water Policy 10:639–655Google Scholar
Pahl-Wostl C (2007) The implications of complexity for integrated resources management. Environ Model Softw 22:561–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pahl-Wostl C, Craps M, Dewulf A et al (2007) Social learning and water resources management. Ecol Soc 12(5)Google Scholar
Reed MS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol Conserv 141:2417–2431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renn O (2006) Participatory processes for designing environmental policies. Land Use Policy 23:34–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Röhrig J, Liehr S (2011) How to provide and transmit project outcomes to support decision makers in the long run? approach and instruments of the CuveWaters project. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Integrated Water Resources Management, Dresden, 12–13 (October 2011)Google Scholar
Roux DJ, Rogers KH, Biggs HC et al (2006) Bridging the science–management divide: moving from unidirectional knowledge transfer to knowledge interfacing and sharing. Ecol Soc 11(1):4Google Scholar
Rowe G, Frewer LJ (2000) Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Sci Technol Hum Values 25:3–29Google Scholar
Rowe G, Frewer LJ (2005) A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci Technol Hum Values 30:251–290Google Scholar
Sigel K, Altantuul K, Basandorj J (2012) Household needs and demand for improved water supply and sanitation in peri-urban ger areas: the case of Darkhan, Mongolia. Environ Earth Sci 65:1561–1566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigel K, Stäudel J, Londong J (2014a) Experiences with stakeholder involvement in strategic sanitation planning: a case study of the city of Darkhan, Mongolia. Water Sci Technol: Water Supply 14(3):504–512Google Scholar
Sigel K, Hagemann N, Leidel M et al (2014b) Insights regarding transdisciplinarity and knowledge transfer gained from two case studies on integrated water resources management in Ukraine and Mongolia. Interdisc Sci Rev 39(4):343–361Google Scholar
The World Bank (2006) Integrated river basin management—from concepts to good practice. Briefing note No. 12: stakeholder partnerships, participation, and funding, Washington D.CGoogle Scholar
Von Korff Y, d’Aquino P, Daniell KA et al (2010) Designing participation processes for water management and beyond. Ecol Soc 15(3):1Google Scholar
Von Korff Y, Daniell KA, Moellenkamp S et al (2012) Implementing participatory water management: recent advances in theory, practice, and evaluation. Ecol Soc 17(1):30Google Scholar
Voinov A, Bousquet F (2010) Modelling with stakeholders. Environ Model Softw 25:1268–1281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walk H, Mohajeri S, Wurbs S et al (2013) Partizipation im “Integrierten Wasserressourcen-Management” (IWRM). Inter 3 Institut für Ressourcenmanagement. http://www.inter3.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Downloads/Veroeffentlichungen/Endbericht_IWRM-Partizipation.pdf. Accessed 22 Oct 2014
Webler T, Tuler S, Krueger R (2001) What is a good public participation process? Five perspectives from the public. Environ Manage 27(3):435–450Google Scholar
Zimmermann M, Jokisch A, Deffner J et al (2012) Stakeholder participation and capacity development during the implementation of rainwater harvesting pilot plants in central northern Namibia. Water Sci Technol: Water Supply 12(4):540–548Google Scholar

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

Sabrina Kirschke
- 1
Email author
Lena Horlemann
- 2
Marian Brenda
- 4
Jutta Deffner
- 3
Alexander Jokisch
- 4
Shahrooz Mohajeri
- 2
Janina Onigkeit
- 5

1.Helmholtz Centre for Environmental ResearchMagdeburgGermany
2.inter3 Institute for Resource ManagementIsfahanIran
3.Institute for Social-Ecological ResearchFrankfurtGermany
4.Technische Universität DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany
5.University of KasselKasselGermany

Benefits and Barriers of Participation: Experiences of Applied Research Projects in Integrated Water Resources Management

Abstract

Keywords

Notes

Acknowledgements

References

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter