Abstract
The topic is introduced by a short but critical discussion of criteria and needs of Participatory Integrated Assessment (PIA) and participatory local planning. This paper depicts differences of participation in Integrated Assessment and in local level planning but provides also conditions and ideas how PIA can be used for local planning including implementation. A small review of PIA and participation in planning illustrates the relevance of PIA in a knowledge economy trying to adopt principles of good governance. A better incorporation of participatory research into local level planning seems to be crucial. The applicability of PIA in practices leading to participatory monitoring and evaluations are discussed. The outcomes of the paper show that possibilities exist for integrating PIA and participatory monitoring and evaluation into the implementation of the European Water Framework Directive (WFD). PIA adds local information to water management planning and supports individual learning processes. The setting up of such a monitoring and evaluation system may contribute towards a transparent implementation of the WFD, it enhances commitment of citizens towards local government planning and eventually it increases self-determination of citizens, a major objective of good governance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The terms knowledge economy, knowledge society and information society vary little in their definitions. They all refer to information and/or knowledge increase and an increase of networking and connectivity (especially by modern information and communication technology) of individuals and organisations. The authors of this paper use the term ‘knowledge economy’ based on the argumentation of Stiglitz (2002).
The authors of this paper interpret policy from a planning perspective as a coherent set of decisions with a common long-term objective (or objectives). That means policies are understood as planning frameworks and not plans. They are commonly defined on national or regional level but not further below.
One example where such a tool is applied can be found in the Community-Based Environmental Management Information System (CEMIS), a community planning method developed to improve the urban environment (see Dzikus et al. 2001)
References
Blackburn J, Chambers R, Gaventa J (2000) Mainstreaming participation in development. OED Working Paper Series No.10 The World Bank, Washington
Creighton J, Priscoli JD, Dunning CM (1998) Integrating planning and assessment through public involvement. In: Public Involvement Techniques. A Reader of 10 Years Experience at the Institute for Water Resources. IWR Research Report 82-R-1, Alexandria, pp 455–461
Dzikus A, Jenssen B, Piesch R, Ridder D (2001) The guide for community-based environmental management information systems (CEMIS). SPRING Research Series No.26, Dortmund
EU Drafting group (2002a) Guidance on public participation in relation to the water framework directive: Active involvement, consultation, and public access to information, p19
EU Drafting group (2002b) Guidance on public participation in relation to the water framework directive: active involvement, consultation, and public access to information. Annex 1, p 4
European Environmental Agency (EEA) (2001) Participatory Integrated Assessment methods: an assessment of their usefulness for the European Environmental Agency. Technical Report 64, Copenhagen
Gaventa J, Guijt I (1998) Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation: learning from Change. IDS Policy Briefing, Issue No 12
Gore C, Morgan B, Savan B (2003) Volunteer environmental monitoring and the role of universities: the case of Citizens’ environment watch. In: Environmental management, vol 31, No 5, pp 561–568
Ministerium f. Städtebau und Wohnen, Kultur und Sport des Landes (MSWKS) NRW, Hrsg. (2000) Landesweite Erhebung der kommunalen Indikatorenentwicklung in Nordrhein Westfalen
Morgan MG, Dowlatabadi H (1996) Learning from Integrated Assessment of Climate Change. Climatic Change 34:337–368
Moss S, Pahl-Wostl C, Downing T (2001) Agent based integrated assesment modelling. Integrated Assessment 2:1–17
Pahl-Wostl C (2002) Participative and stakeholder-based policy design, evaluation and modelling processes. In: Integrated Assessment, vol 3, No.1, pp 3–14
Rotmans J (1999) Integrated Assessment models. Uncertainty, Quality and Use. ICIS Working paper I99-E005, Maastricht
Rotmans J, van Asselt MBA (2002) Integrated Assessment: current practises and challenges for the future. In: Abaza H, Baranzini A (eds) Implementing sustainable development. Cheltenham, pp 78–116
Schlumpf C, Behringer J, Dürrenberger G, Pahl-Wostl C (1999) The personal CO2 calculator: a modeling tool for Participatory Integrated Assessment methods. Environ Modell Assess 4:1–12
Schlumpf C, Pahl-Wostl C, Schönborn A, Jaeger CJ, Imboden D (2001) IMPACTS-An Information Tool for Citizens to Assess Impacts of Climate Change from a Regional Perspective. Climate Change 51:199–241
Shah P (2002) Participatory and community based monitoring and evaluation. WorldBank Participation and Civic Engagement Group. See also: http://www.worldbank.org/participation/s&pa/ AccountabilityAug2002.pdf
Stiglitz JE (2002) Participation and development: perspectives from the comprehensive development paradigm. In: Review of development economics 6(2):163–182
UNCHS (1997) The Istanbul Declaration and the Habitat Agenda. Nairobi, p105
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ridder, D., Pahl-Wostl, C. Participatory Integrated Assessment in local level planning. Reg Environ Change 5, 188–196 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-004-0089-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-004-0089-4