Participatory Approaches and the Role of Facilitative Leadership

  • Mattijs van Maasakkers
  • Michael Duijn
  • Britta Kastens
Chapter
Part of the The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry book series (HEC, volume 29)

Abstract

Involving a broad range of stakeholders in the management of river basins is one of the three key principles of risk-informed river basin management. This chapter describes the role of the facilitative leader in involving stakeholders. He or she guides and assists actors in designing the participatory process and thus helps to improve the process of decision-making, as opposed to other actors, who are primarily focused on influencing the content of the decision. Three examples from practice are described of the work of the facilitative leader in water management related cases. The first case addresses the collaborative development of a groundwater model in the four Northern provinces of the Netherlands, i.e., Groningen, Friesland, Overijssel, and Drenthe. Prerequisite in that development was that the model had to be usable by a variety of governmental actors. The second case addresses the development of a set of policy recommendations for the accommodation of water in the spatial planning of the town of Arnemuiden and its immediate surroundings (province Zeeland in the southwest of the Netherlands). The third case addresses a duo facilitative leadership in the river Dhünn, i.e., a small river in the valley of the German river Wupper that is a tributary of the river Rhine. In this case, stakeholder participation aimed to facilitate the connection between science and regional policy making and to facilitate participation in water management. All three examples demonstrated the important and central role the facilitative leader plays in (1) designing and implementing the collaborative process, (2) assisting the stakeholders in choosing the participatory methodology, (3) translating between professional and other kinds of jargon, and (4) forming a stable element in contentious and complex water management related decision-making processes.

Keywords

Collaborative water management Leadership Participatory approaches Process management River basin Stakeholders 

References

  1. 1.
    Brils J, Barceló D, Blum W, Brack W, Harris B, Müller-Grabherr D, Négrel P, Ragnarsdottir V, Salomons W, Slob A, Track T, Vegter J, Vermaat JE (2014) Introduction: the need for Risk-Informed River Basin Management. In: Brils J, Brack W, Müller-Grabherr D, Négrel P, Vermaat JE (eds) Risk-informed management of European river basins. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Müller-Grabherr D, Valentin Florin M, Harris B, Crilly D, Gugic G, Vegter J, Slob A, Borowski I, Brils J (2014) Integrated river basin management and risk governance. In: Brils J, Brack W, Müller-Grabherr D, Négrel P, Vermaat JE (eds) Risk-informed management of European river basins. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schwarz RM (1994) Group facilitation and the role of the facilitator, what makes work groups effective, the skilled facilitator: Practical Wisdom for Developing Effective Groups. Jossey Bass, San Francisco, pp 3–41Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Straus D (1999) Managing meetings to build consensus. In: Susskind L, McKearnan S, Thomas-Larmer J (eds) The consensus building handbook: a comprehensive guide to reaching agreement. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 287–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Susskind L, Cruikshank R (1987) Breaking the impasse: consensual approaches to resolving public disputes. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kingdon J (2003) Agendas, alternatives and public policies, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers Inc., Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sabatier PA (1993) Policy change over a decade or more. In: Sabatier PA, Jenkins-Smith HC (eds) Policy change and learning: an advocacy coalition approach. Westview, Boulder, CO, pp 13–39Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jasanoff S (1995) The dilemma of environmental democracy. Issues Sci Technol 13(1):63–70, Retrieved from: http://www.issues.org/13.1/jasano Last Accessed on 28/05/2010Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    von der Ohe PC, de Zwart D, Semenzin E, Apitz SE, Gottardo S, Harris B, Hein M, Marcomini A, Posthuma L, Schäfer RB, Segner H, Brack W (2014) Monitoring Programs, Multiple Stress Analysis and Decision Support for River Basin Management. In: Brils J, Brack W, Müller-Grabherr D, Négrel P, Vermaat JE (eds) Risk-informed management of European River Basins. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Susskind L, Thomas-Larmer J (1999) Conducting a conflict assessment. In: Susskind L, McKearnan S, Thomas-Larmer J (eds) The consensus building handbook: a comprehensive guide to reaching agreement. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 99–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Reed MS, Graves A, Dandy N, Posthumus H, Hubacek K, Morris J, Prell J, Quinn CH, Stringer LC (2009) Who’s in and Why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J Environ Manage 90(5):1933–1949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schattschneider EE (1960) The Semisovereign people. Holt, Reinhart and Winston, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brauman KA, van der Meulen S, Brils J (2014) Ecosystem services and river basin management. In: Brils J, Brack W, Müller-Grabherr D, Négrel P, Vermaat JE (eds) Risk-informed management of European river basins. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fung A, Wright EO (2003) Deepening democracy: institutional innovation in empowered participatory governance. Verso Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lin N (2001) Social capital. A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fung A (2006) Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Admin Rev 36:65–74Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brewer GD (1986) Methods for synthesis: policy exercises. In: Clark WC, Munn RE (eds) Sustainable development of the biosphere. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 455–473Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Geurts J (1993) Omkijken naar de Toekomst, lange termijn verkennningen in beleidsexercities. Samson Tjeenk WillinkGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Edelenbos J, Klok P, Van Tatenhove J (2009) The institutional embedding of interactive policy making: insights from a comparative research based on eight interactive projects in the Netherlands. Am Rev Public Admin 39(2):125–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Van Schie N, Duijn M, Edelenbos J (2011) Co-valuation: exploring methods for expert and stakeholder valuation. J Environ Assess Policy Manage (JEAPM) 13(04):619–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pahl-Wostl C, Tàbara D, Bouwen R, Craps M, Dewulf A, Moster E, Ridder D, Taillieu T (2008) The importance of social learning and culture for sustainable water management. Ecol Econ 64:484–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pahl-Wostl C, Hare M (2004) Processes of social learning in integrated resources management. J Commun Appl Soc Psychol 14(3):193–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dewulf A, Craps M, Bouwen R, Tailleu T, Pahl-Wostl C (2005) Integrated management of natural resources: dealing with ambiguous issues, multiple actors and diverging frames. Water Sci Technol 52(6):115–124Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Seecon Deutschland, Institute of Environmental Systems Research/University of Osnabrück, Wupperverband (2008) Participative planning of measures in water management. Results of the Workshop “Untere Dhünn” (in German). Online available at http://www.wupperverband.de (08.01.2009).
  25. 25.
    Speil K, Rotter S, Interwies E, Möllenkamp S (2008) Systematic design of a participation process—goals, methods, and challenges in the “Workshops Untere Dhünn” Case Study. UVP-REPORT 22 (1 and 2), in GermanGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vennix JAM (1996) Group model building: facilitating team learning using system dynamics. J Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ehrman JR, Stimson BL (1999) Joint-fact finding and the use of technical experts. In: Susskind L, McKearnan S, Thomas-Larmer J (eds) The consensus building handbook: a comprehensive guide to reaching agreement. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 375–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Slob A, Duijn M (2014) Improving the connection between science and policy for river basin management. In: Brils J, Brack W, Müller-Grabherr D, Négrel P, Vermaat JE (eds) Risk-informed management of European river basins. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gunderson L, Carpenter S, Folke C, Olsson P, Peterson G (2006) Water RATs (resilience, adaptability, and transformability) in Lake and Wetland Social-Ecological Systems. Ecol Soc 11(1):16Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Olsson P, Gunderson L, Carpenter S, Ryan P, Lebel L, Folke C, Holling C (2006) Shooting the rapids: navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 11(1):1–18Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Möllenkamp S, Lamers M, Ebenhöh E (2008) Institutional elements for adaptive water management regimes. Comparing two regional water management regimes in the Rhine basin. In: Pahl-Wostl C, Kabat P, Möltgen J (eds) Adaptive and integrated water management. Coping with complexity and uncertainty. Springer, Berlin, pp 147–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mattijs van Maasakkers
    • 1
  • Michael Duijn
    • 2
  • Britta Kastens
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Urban Studies and PlanningMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.TNO, Strategy and PolicyDelftThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Institute of Environmental Systems ResearchUniversity of OsnabrueckOsnabrueckGermany

Personalised recommendations