K A Daniell

K A Daniell Co

Co-engineering participatory

). = % /00E+ . % % @ )/00E+ . = )/00E+ ( . L 'I .# ! ! '

> -%2# 1 ! ! ! ! % 0 P D+663E " 2+ $* ! $ ! $ )1 # % ! $ ) # - A % ) % " & 6% A 0 % % % " & + - 0 > % % " 3+ -! ! " # " & &% ! # % & $ ! $ )1 # % A 0 % ) ) % % - 7 % 8 - - A 7 % 8 " !# #F! " " & ! " ' " & ! #F! + % A > % % + % % 0 A A ) % " 4+ # % ! $ # % . + ) " G % % " * " * 0 A A ) % % " 5+ % # ! % $ & # %" # % % " A % 0 ( + % % % % " 6+ $ & % # && # & & + - % - % ) 6% - % % + ) - G % B ! % ) "
N % # $/ !" $/(( $$Z < & ( $ ! )# * ) : +Z < & ( $ ! )# * ) +Z < (!# ! $ ) + Z < (!# ! $ ) + Z ( & < ) 6 ' ! # +Z < ) 6 ' ! # +Z < & $ % 7 Z < & $ % 7 Z < . $ ) 2 6 +Z < . $ ) 2 +Z ( !2 < %/ ) + ); : +Z < %/ ) + ); : +Z < + $$ $ ) = +Z % Z < % % + $$ $ ) = +Z % Z # ( ! Z I Z # ( ! Z Z ' ' ( 3
; B C )> % -7E1+ N N 4 -< Z -< Z -< Z - Z -< Z -< Z -& Z
-< Z % P P P P% % 4

P P P P i 〈 A A A A , O O O O , R R R R 〉 < 4
CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

.6H

# > 4 )/00-+ .+H # )

-A A A A B C 4 % 9 -O O O O B ; C% % % 9 -R R R R B C% ; 2 ) $ , 5+ % A A A A% 4 - B C% C C C C% B C C C C C ⊆ A A A A 9 - B C % K K K K% % % K K K K ⊆ A A A A 9 - B ; C% T T T T% B C % % N 2 . B C B C T T T T ⊆ A A A A % A A A A i C C C C ∪ K K K K % 2 % % % 2 ; : % : ; 2 % B C ) @ % /00E+ + L 'I +# ! ' 'I % ; % B C% Γ Γ Γ Γ% 4 Γ i 〈 Π, A, V V V V 〉 < 4 -Π B C N CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ! 5# .65 2 % % B C -A B C 9 -V V V V B C % % < % 2 B C B C ) @ % /00E+ % : % : $ B C% 2 -L 'I -# 4! ! % B C > ; % % M M M M % 4 M M M M i 〈 A*, j D D D D, E E E E k, H, U, F 〉 < 4 -A* N -D D D D % 9 -E E E E D D
N B C ! ! 4 - ! J Z - D ! E J Z - ! J Z -0 ! J 2 Z - D E J ; Z -0 & J Z - & J Z - ' J Z - D ' E J Z ( B C

4+-+0+

( 1 --% ; % 4+0+ '

( B C > ! ( , , 1 ( 1 -
; -/ ( " % ( ! )(! +% 3 " & ) & + 3 ! )3! + I : F & /005 /0-1 $ 3 F ! >. <>. )/00?+ # % % % 3 " % ( " F & . $ % % ! CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref .H6 # ) . & 3 " !2 3 F > & ! .
)F(&% /00/+ > ! .

)F(&6<>.% /005+

F % 3 F ! )D % /001+ % 6+*+-+ ! ' # F ( & % )F(&+ 3 F ! . )3F!. + )!. + "& ' ! ! ! )D % /001+ % B C B' * " & ' " * " ! ' * ' ' ! 4 C )D % /001+ & % 3 F # % !. (< ! . " ) (< " % -77/+ 3 F ! . $ E / CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ! 3# ) * .H. > 3%+# ) ' 4 ! D * +66J E 3 F # 2 % F ( & )F(&+ % % 4 -& 2 F ( & : " & & : % % 9 - ) :% : :+ CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref .H+ # ) N 9 -( : B C ) + 2 & % 3F!. 4 - 9 -> 9 - ; 9 - 3 F # 9 -" 9 -" 9 -& ; 6+*+0+ ! ' ; ; N F ; Z % % % 2 N 3F!. % N , 5 -& % Z - 2 ; T T ; Z -& Z -< 2 Z CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ! 3
F )F> /0,4/005+% & B !! " ! 'I C )( % /0089 /005+ % ( 4
-M & ! 7 " O - & ' 7 & O - & ! ! %N ( % N 4 M & * ! " ! !! " N )( % /0089 /005+ $ % ! # . % 2 % 3F!. ; )( % /005+4 -M & * * & ! O - ' O - !! * " ! .HJ # ) - " * * * ' * ! ' O -0 ! 4 4 " ' & * " ! ' " 4
6+0+ ( $ / 3F!. $ & )/00E+ >. <>. )/00?+ 6+0+*+ 5 # # ' & % % E - ( 5 8
( 5 1

0 ' 3%.# 1 ! ! : %! ! ' @ ! '! ' & <! "" ( ! $! !-A ( ' $ 7 $ $ : %! ! #!& !/ (!# & ! $ ( ( $ ($ ! 4 & ; J # : B` N C ; % 2 N F B C # & ! 4 # F % % % %
)<(+% $ E 1 $ 2 > 3%5# ! ) ! & ,0 ( 3 " B 2 C : ) +% ) + ) $ E 1+% N 4 9 CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref .5H # ) 9 9 9 6 9 N 9 % ; % % % % ) <(/+ E / ! <(- ) n E /+ 0 ' 3%+# ) ) ) " "& ' D & E ( ( N $ ) + & # 3 & ! n B# & N C% 2 % 2 B3 C% B# 3 C ) & N 3 )< # F % /005++% BD C B. ! C % 2 B# C% <(- ( # )>. <>.% /00E+% ; % -7 % 4 B C ) % + ) +9 2 9 B C N % $ CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ! 3# ) * .55 E 1 $ % E ,% # I ) n E ,+ 0 ' 3%-# ) & ) ) " "& ' & D ! & 4 "E < N N & # % !2 # I 2 : 2 2 % N !. N !. ; N n # & N 3 % # 3 % D % . ! $ % 4 9 9 % $ % N ) + % % 2 % & )/00E+ >. <>. )/00?+ -E -5 % % B C 2 ) ! : I . N ) ! % /
# ? # 4 % !2 g % $ E 5% 2 !2 ) + % 2 > 3%J# 4 ! ! ! ! 2 % B C ) +
)& % /00E9 >. <>.% /00?+ 3F!.

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ! 3# ) * .J. B C " ! C9 B0 ! " & ! ! C9 B " ! C CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref .J+ # ) B C B C F % % ; : ( % % <(- % % B C I 2 % % B 4 * ! ' ! C )< % /00E4 + % : 2 % B" & ! " " " 8 ! " " 8 " ) C F 4 B & ! * * ! U V M" N " 4 P B " & !! " & " U V * & " ' ! C < % ; 2 % 2 ; B 2 % C% % 4 B ' 4! " & C )<(/4 ( " # +9 B U " & !V ! ! " & C )<(,4 & # +9 BF !! " ! "C )<(,4 . # + I % . # <(, 4 B 4 ! X 4! X & " CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ! 3# ) * .J- " " ' C F % 2 % 2 % 2 N )& % /00E4 + $ % 2 B % C% N 2 N % <(-% <(/ <(, $ E ? > 3%2# ! ! " & ! $ $ E ?% B C < /% % 2 N 4 B " ' ! !! ' ! ! : ' C )<(,4 3 " # +9 B U !! V X' X " !C )<(,4 & # +9 CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref .JH # ) B ! ! ! C )<(,4 & # + $ E 7 > 3%K# ! ! ! " & ! $ $ E 7% N 4 9 9 ) + F % B & ! C )<(/4 ! # + B0 * * ! * D E " C )<(/4 ( " # + $ E 7% : : < ,% 4 B0 " & % ' C % CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ! 3# ) * .J5 B C % $ E 7 % 2 ) + % ; N N B % C F % B C 6+3+0+ ,' ' % 2 % B C % % : N $ E -0 > 3%.6# ! ! ! ! ) " "& ' CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref .JJ # ) $ E -0 % % 3 F ! & % % 4 B !! ! ! ! " ! ! L ' C )<(-4 & # + B> ! ! 'I C )<(-4 ( " # +% ; B C % 9 M ' 'I " ' & U ! 8V ! ! C9 M 'I U V " ' * " ! N ) % % 2 + 3F!. ! % $ 2 % % ; % % % % 2 2 B ; C 2 < % ! N 4 B & " ' " C% ; % % B ! " & ' ! ! C )<(-4 & # + 3F!. B ' ! I ' U V & ' * ! & C )<(/4 ( " +9 F % < , 4 B$ ! " ' ' ! : ' C9 % CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ! 3# ) * .J3 I B C ! 2 ; & $ % ; B ! ! ! !! " ! ' I & C ; % ; B C B C 2 B C % % B ; C ( E , 2 F ( & : 2 ; 2
% ; B ! ! ! ! ! ! 4 * * * C ! 4 N 9 2 9 % 9 ; 9 % ; ! ( E 1 /% N % % ( $ 2 ! .J2 # ) $ % ; B " " 4 * ! & ' * ! * * & * ! ' ! C 2 > B C 2 . % N m m ; % % . & ' 2 9 B ; C % B ; C % B ; C % % % % % 2 2 % % ( G ! +666* % 3 & % % # 2 3F!. % < % 3F!. -? % > ! . ) 3F!. + (< ! . ) (< " % -77/+ 1 ! ( ! .
)& % /00E4 + %

J ) % % % + J % N " % F % ) 2 2 + B C % 3F!. 2 B C N % N 2 B C 2 % 2 % % N 4 -F 2 ) B C% +Z - 2 Z J $ 2 % CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ! 3# ) * .3- ) + ) % N + -< ) +Z -< 2 2 ) +Z 6+4+-+ & : ## ! % % 2 2 % % & / 3F!. % % 2 % 4 2 9 9 % . F % % % 2 % : % B C 2 ; 2 3F!. % B C 2 < % 4 9 2 % 2 2 F % % % 2 % 2 CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref .3H # ) % ) + B C % % ; 2 ; % N 2 6+4+0+ ) ; $ % N ; % % N % 4 ) +9 9 B C B C 2 % B C % 3 2 % 2 2 N 2 % 3F!. $ 3F
CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref .3J # ) ( 1 -, B ( ! 2 ' / $)-$ & $* # % # ! ( C # % + "! #$ !" (! ( ' ( ! # % & ; % B ) $ / ! !A ( # % # #C B#/ ) $ / ! ' $ * ! & +! * % +! *C . % ) % + % % (< # % 0 ( ! ) ( ! ) $!/ ( $ # . !! 1 + $ ( & % 2 : F % N $ % $ !( $$ & $ % " ( 2 #! "" ( # )+ $ ! #! $ & & (! $/ ) & ' !( $$ $ !N % ) + B C % 4 - % 9 2 % ) + -. % ; 9 CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ! 3# ) * .33 -F % > 2 & 2 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ & B3 $ C > > % ! % % % -1 2 2 " = N 4 2 % % N 9 % 9 % ; & % % CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ! 2# > 1 & & O $ .3K C+*+ : ! ' / # 2 7 " > > % 2 : = > % B3 C ; N & C+*+*+ ( " : 3 ! ! % > ( & % > 4 ; " 9 /00 -770 9 ,0b -777 ) & +9 = )( ; % /00/+ 4 % 2 & ) % /00-++9 ) % /00E+% = )! % /00E+ N )D % /001+9 % % 2 & ) % /00-+9 ) % -771+9 % % % "I % ) % /00-+9 ) % -771+ $ 4 % % )( % -777+9 ) % /00-+9 )G % /005+9 ) % /00-+9 )G % /005+9 )H % /0009 G % /005+9 )D % /001+9 )3 % /008+ % 2 % CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref .26 # ) % )& % -775+ !2 % % > )F % /008+ > % % ( B& ( C I & ( & -770% ; 2 > ). ( % /008+ % ! )! +% ) % /00/9 ! % /00E+ > C+*+-+ ' : # > > : ( ! > $ ? - > 2%.# ) /!! & $ * $ !2 2 > > ( -778 /001 CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ! 2# > 1 & & O $ .2. B C N )D % /0089 D = = ( % /008+ < 2 % ; 2 = % : & # -7?7 % )F % /005+ ( < ! )! +% > % % % ! % < $ )<$ + # > # > % $ ( .KKK% <$ ) % /00,+ C+*+0+ ! ' # = ' # > ! 2 7 " > % > % # > % ! ; % B N ( C ) N + )# % /005+ ; 3 ( $ )3 ($+% > N ( ; ; : ' < % ! $ B . < . C ) $ % /005+ ; & , 2 ; % $ " % ; $ ? / CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref .2+ # ) > 2%+# G'I ! ! ! & /!! & $ D * +66JE > $ ? , > 2%-# /!! & $ & % ! D+663E ; ; %. % % " # %% &% • % ) ) - ) • ! ) % ) - - ) % • ! ) % ) - " < - - > . - % - - - E . - ) ) E . - " E # -"- ) % E • - % • ! ) % ) ) - • /) 0 - % ) 0 % ) ) - • * " • # " • / - • 3 - %% - - ) - ) " CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ! 2# > 1 & & O $ .2- C+*+1+ ! ' & ; % N > 2 % > % 2 % N % 2 % N % 4 - 2 Z - 2
C+-+-+ 2 # $ )/005+ B( ( )( % % ( + . C )$ % /00E+ % 4 % % "I % % 2 % = % 4 -+ ( 2 % % J CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ! 2# > 1 & & O $ .25 N 9 /+ % J 9 ,+ % J % N )$ % /0059 F % /005+ $ ? 8 > 2%H# ! & ! & % $ > %D+66JE D+66JE $ ? 8% )<(+ F % # % % 2 -/0 % % = % 5 % $ ? 1 9 ( : ( ;
% $ ( < 4 " # % $ && %*% $ # % & # & % $ % % < 2 - & " " % $ % % %# % %% %% % % < 3 % % % # %% & & ! ! $ $ & ,% .% "% 402 = 3 $ $ & $ " ,%
.% "% 5

.% "% 5) = 6

$ % 2 <(1 -0 N % $ > > N % % % % ; 2 ; 4 > 9 > ) +9 $ $ . $ 3 ($ N ( % N 2 % % ; ) ' . % /001+ > > $ G )/00?+ > N > ! % > N ! ) $ ! c+% ! N N > % > % N % 2 ; N % % : ; % CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ! 2# > 1 & & O $ .2K C+0+ % % 2 " % $ F )/00E+ # )/00E+ : <(,% ; % % % % 2 ; : <(8 C+0+*+ 5 # # ' & ? / % 2 2 % = : 2 )$ % /00? J + % ( 5 1
CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref .K6 # ) 0 ' 2%+# 1 ! & ! : %! ! ' @ ! '! ' & <! "" ( ! $! !-A ( ' $ 7 $ $ : %! ! #!& !/ (!# & ! $ ( ( $ ($ ! # = : J > 2 ! $ ! # % B C ) % ; +% ; 4 ! # % 2 % "I % % % % % % % ; # > % % % N !2 ( > % ) 3 ($ + N ; > % > I # % = : 2 ! : ( & ! ! ! 4 ; % ; % > ; $ 2 $ ! # % % ; : % ( $ ; > # % ; % ; ( % $ : > 4 $ ; # 2 ; > N % ; ) > + % % ) + < ) > $ + % > N $ ; ) % % + # $ > CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ! 2# > 1 & & O $ .K. I ; ; ! ! ! 4 ; J > : $ $ ! # % ; # ; % ; B C ; % > # ; ; F % % % 2 & # % 2 N & 6 % % N & ( ; 2 ; = ; % # ; " ; I 2 > $ ? 5 CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref .K+ # ) > 2%J# 0 ! ! & ( ? 5 / & 7 CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ! 2# > 1 & & O $ .K- C+1+ $ % % $ 2 "
C+1+*+

0 ' 2%-# F ! & & ! ! " !! ! F ! 1 ! ! ' 0 ' ! I ) & ! < +9 G . . 9 # > ) +9 F . # < % . F % . ! ( % . ! ! % . $ 9 "I & > # & -0 . . 4 3 9 I ; 9 # 9 " # = 8 & G . ! 9 3 ! ! 9 2 , !2 ( > ( % & ! " = ( 8 F < ! J BD = C - & = # ! -00 ? , ) J >+ )G 2% -775+ ; 2 ; ( " --% = 9 % = I 2 : ) >+ $ ? ? CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ! 2# > 1 & & O $ .K3 > 2%2# 0 ! ! ' ! & 8 ! $ DI ! E# ' 4* M N* ! D * +663E F )/00E+ : ; $ ? 7 > 2%K# I ! ! & 8 " & ! ( ; $ ? 7 ) = : + ) % >% % % 2 % + = : . ; > > ) 2 = : + % % ? 8 CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref .K2 # ) ) ? 8+ % ) ? 8+ 0 ' 2%H# > 4 ! 8 ! $ ? 8 B C BF C 2 % 2 % 2 . % = > . & !2 & = 5 F ) % % + 5 / G - 3 8 > / < / , " 6 / 6 , , 3 , $
/ 3 % / & - F - 8 & 8 CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ! 2# > 1 & & O $ .KK % = 2 % ? 1 : % 0 ' 2%5# > ! ! 8 ! > & . !2 & = < E ! 5 1 F 1 1 3 1 & 8 8 , , F , " / < / - - $ ? 1% % 2 2 3 % % . % = % % 2 % % ; < , % $ % B C ) % % + > )( % ( ! + 4 B ! ; -0 ,0 % ; C )# % /00E+ 2 : $ ? -0 > 2%.6# ! 4 & ! D * +663E $ % % !N % ! % ( I % ! % CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ! 2# > 1 & & O $ +6. % $ % -0 % $ 2 2 > ? ? 5 0 ' 2%J# & ! 8 D ! E B C )! + ( B C )! + ! ! ( 2 ; $ ( 7 -
; $ N N % % N !2 4 B0 ! ! O * ' * & * %C9 B " " ! ! C9 B " ! , C < ; > % % ; % N % ; I ; 2 % B0 " " & C B0 4! ! ! ! C 3 % 4 B ' ! ' C% B0 , O " & " ! ' C% B ! ! > , 1 ! I " ! "* ! CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ! 2# > 1 & & O $ +6K % 0 I & " ' ! ' C N $ ? -,% % )B C+ I B C % $ ? -8 : > 2%.H# ! ! " & ! $ $ ? -8% % 2 <(,% 2 N > % F % <(- <(, % ) <(-+ CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref +.6 # ) 2 % ) ; J 3 ($+ 4 B * " !! ' ! $ ! I % > * ! ! ' ' ! 4! * & " 4! ! % & !! ! I " & " &C % % % ! &I#! ) ( 1 1+ N F % 2 % N 2 % 2 N 2 2 % N <(8 <(1 % = % % $ 2 % <(8 % = ! : % N 2 & > 4 N C+3+0+ ,' ' % 2 % CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ! 2# > 1 & & O $ +.. % : $ ? -1 > 2%.5# ! ! ! ! ! & ! $ ? -1 < N N % $ 2 % 4 B0 " O ! I " ! YC9 B 4 P O I " &C9 B0 ! " " P % ! " ! ! C9 B 8 ! ! -U & ! V % 8 ! ' P " " ! C 2 CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref +.+ # ) % $ 2 % 3 ($ ) ; + 4 B " ! I " ! ' ! !! % 0 ! I ' ! O " * " % " * ' D ! E 8 " ' C % 2 % 2 % ! 2 ; & $ % ; ! ! ! M N ! ! & ! ! " & 2
+.H # ) $ % ; & ' " " " $ 4 * ! & ' * ! * * & * ! ' & 2 > B C ; > 2 > % > % > % > % % = % > % % % % ! 9 > 2 > % > ) + ; % > % > 2 I ; % $ ; : % % $ ? -5 CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ! 2# > 1 & & O $ +.5 > 2%.J# ! ! ! ! & ! $ $ ? -5% % ) i?+ > N % ; )F % /00E+ B C B 2 ; C <( 8
% ) i/,+ B( 2
-B0 ' " ' U) >V ! 4 " & " $ % > ' " ! " % ! ' * & ! ! I 8 ! " " ! & " % & ! I * " ! ' ! ! * " % ! ! ' " ! ! " " & " ! % 0 " " ! C $ CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref +.2 # ) N N G )/00?+ !2 ( I % % > 4
- ) +9 -I ) % % +9 - ) +9 -! ) +9 -3 ) +9 -& ) +9 - ) +9 - ) N +9 - ) N + ( ; % 2
( ? 5 / 2 & C+4+ # ' 2 % & > % 2 4 N 9 2 9 % ; 2 > 2 & C+4+*+ ' ' # ' > % $ ? E% N % % % % % 2 ; N % CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ! 2# > 1 & & O $ +.K $ 9 % N % % B C 2 N % % N N N ) 2 + ) 2 % % % ; + N $ % N B 2 C% N N N % % ; % N N N N N ; 6 % N N % % % 2 )# % /00E J + % N B C % B C ) % % % % + : J % 2 % : CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref % N % ( , , 8% 2 2 2 2 .
% % N N % 3F!. ) ( E 8+% N & N % 9 % 2 % B C 3 % N 2 3F!. ( 7 -/ 2 & C+4+-+ & : ## $ ; % 2 2 ; % 3 ($ J % % % 2 2 2 2 F % ; 2 > CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ! 2# > 1 & & O $ ++. % % B C )H % -778+ 3 : ; % 2 % ; . % $ % ) > % ! $ + % . % % % % > % )# % /00?4 + % % 2 % > % 2 $ 2 % % % N 2 ! > > % 2 H 2 2 2 # CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref +++ # ) 2 ( % 2 ( % F % % ) > : +% ; $ % % Z I % % % ) > + ) > + ; 2 ) % /00? J + & % 4 B C B C : 9 % ; : N N % % % ; ; 2 % % % N F % ) % /0009 D % /00/+ N ( % > : ( % ! ! ) -77,+ = ) D ( + & ) -7?7+% = )3 % /008+ % % ! ! % > CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ! 2# > 1 & & O $ ++- % 2 > % ) < % /
; % N % 2 2 & ; % 2 % % B C % N N 2 % 2 & CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ! 2# > 1 & & O $ ++5 C+6+ & & % B3 C > > % & 5 E ; 4 ! " 4 ! ! ! ! ( & % 2 : > : # % + "! #$ !" (! ( ' ( ! # % & ; % B#/ ) $ / ! & #/ )(/ / (!) % % +! *C > B#/ ) $ / ! ' $ * ! & +! * % +! *C N & . % ) 2 9 % % = + % % > $ % $ !( $$ & !' + # % 2 $/(( $$"/ " !# -! $ * ! & & !A ( # $ ( ' $ CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ++J # ) & $ - % # # & (!/ 2 + " + $ -$ & $* $ & . ( $/( #/ ) ' ! ( $ # N % 2 % % ; % 4 -!2 % 4 N 9 2 9 N 2 9 -$ 2 % ; 2 ; 9 - % % 2 & 2 2 & -0 CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref % % % % > % & E ?% 2 & )( -8+ 4
2 9 9 ; 9 9 G N % % % % E+*+ & ' ' $ & 5 ?% 5 -% 3F!. 4 - ; ! % % 3F!. % % > ; ! % CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ++2 # ) ; % 2 - > 2 % -> > % > % 2 % ; > - > ; ; - > % ; % N % % % % - ; % > ; - % > > % $ ! ; E+*+*+ & > % % 2 -1 : ,0 > 2 7 - CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ! K# ! 1 ++K 0 ' K%.# ! ' ! /$ ?/ % !) % % !( $$ ! ' ! ! , 1 $ 6 . ) = 6 + 1 )0+ 7 )-+ 6 ) + 7 )0+ -/ )5+ ; ) + 6 5 ),?+ E )p50+ % , 5
; ) + -)/+ -),+ ; -1 ,0 Z # ! ' ' & ' & 4
% B C ) @ % /00E+ % % $ 2 % B C B C B C 7 / ( 7 / - 0 ' K%+# ! " D ! E ) L ! ) ' L $ ! ( B C )! + ( ( N $ ) + & ! & B C )! + 3 ( ! ! # I > B C B C B C % 6 % N % )>. <>.% /00E+ # : % ; )<(/+ B# C B C B C CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ! K# ! 1 +-- B C > 2 B C $ % 2 F % N N % 7 ,% % % % 2 2 % % 2 0 ' K%-# ! 7 7 ! $ / $* # % # !( $$ /$ B C !!& & & !/% $* # % # !( $$ ?/ % < ) n+ Z M0 N )<(,+ M0 ' ! ! ' * " %N M0 : " " [[ ! " @N )<(,+ M ' " % * & ' ! " ! ' %N M0 " & % ' %N )<(,+ M0 ! 8 " + ! " 7 ! %N M " D ' E% ! ! " ! %N )<(,+ M ! ! > 1 ! I " ! "* ! % 0 I & " ' ! ' %N M 4 N D( -E M0 ' ! ' & ' ! ' ! !! ! ' & %N F ) : n+ ) n+ Z M " & ! " ! " ! * ! % F & " ! ! N )<(,+ M ! " % ! ! !! & " ' ! ' ' ' ! " ! ! % 0 " & ' ! ' " 7 ' " ' %N M ! ! N )<(,+ M$ N MF ' ! ' & " " %N )<(/+ M ! ' " " " " " ! ' %N MF ! * %N )<(/+ M N )<(-+ M0 I " & ! ! ! ! % 0 " ! " * " %N CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref F ) n+ Z ) % + M0 ! ! * ' ! ! ! N D( -E M( ' ! ! ! " % ! ' * ' !! ! ' ' & %N M( ! : ! : " ! N )<(,+ M " " & * ! * ' * " ' %N MF ! D \ E & ! " &N )<(,+ M0 ! I ! 4 !! ! & ' * ! ! * 4! %N 2 N

E+-+ :

; 4 -+ 2 J 9 /+ B C E+-+*+ ( # : / ' # ## ' % 2 \ ( # . % % B! # . C )( % /0089 /005+ ! % N % 3 % ( % ( 2 % B C B C % 2 F % CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ! K# ! 1 +-5 : % & N 3F!. % # . ( % % ; % B C % 3F!. )& % /00E4 + % % % % B C % $ % > ( : & % % N % % % ; > )3 % /008+% % % 2 ! N ( ; ! > > : )F % /005+ : 2 B C ! > % B C % : ; B C = F % % B C -, ; 2 % > 2 % CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref % & % > 2 % $ % 7 / % % % F % B C% B C B C > > % > % N % N ). % -78,9 > & % -775+ B C B C 2 ; % N % 7 , % 2 % % 2 % E+-+-+ = > N )& % /00E9 ( % /00E+% 2 > ; N % % ; CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ! K# ! 1 +-3 ( B C % 2 B ; C > # % % ( N > ; % ; % > 9 ! ; " ; ; N ( % % % % % ( % N % % % % % 2 2 & N > 2 % > % N % N > % N % % ! & ) +c > % % CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref +-2 # ) ; N N $ ; 2 E+0+ # ! > % & E ? $%
% ; : N 2 2 B C )> % -778+% % 2 3 % > $ 2 % % B C ; B C )D = ( % /00/+ F % % ; )> % -778+ ; CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ! K# ! 1 +H- N ; % % N F % N = )> % -778+% : ! 2 N ! !! ! ! !! ! E+0+1+ 7 # % & , . % % % ` : % % 2 3F!. ; % ; ; 3 " I % % 3 " % ! % % : % ; CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref +HH # ) ! % % % ; > % % % % % F % ; % % 2 ; 2 > : % ! ; % % ! ! " ' " I * !! ! ! * ! E+1+ ' $ % ) @ % /00E+ . = :
)/00E+ , 2006). However, the water in such aquifers has residence times of hundreds to thousands of years, with large proportions of the total volumes being largely non renewable from year to year. It is estimated that the actual quantity of renewable fresh water accessible for human use and consumption is only about 9000 14000 cubic kilometres per year (Clarke, 1993); supplies that are very unequally distributed spatially throughout the world.

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ! K# ! 1 +H3 $ % B ; C% B C ! 3F!. % & : ! . % ; B C )B C . = : + < ! % 3 % 2 $ ; ! % E - % 2 N ) ; % 2 % + % ! : & ) N N + ( 4 % N ) 2 % ( 3 +% 'I ' 'I ! ! ! % ( $ -- $ - ; % 3 $ & N & ; ) % " % 2 % + B C ) + N ; % ) + N % % % ; ! % CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref $ -% ; % 2 ) + N % ; ! % 3 . = % % ; ; 2 ! & 3F!. . = % ! -(* ! 3 % ; : & ; )3 + ; 2 )3 + > E -% )3 + ! )3 + ; ; % 3 'I ' ! ! % % B C $ 7 - 3F!. ; ; -% $ 7 - % CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ! K# ! 1 +HK 3 > K%.# ! ! ! % % E -% ; ; 2 ; % $ 7 - % . = 4 ; 4> % & %0 %% % $ " # % 5> % % $ ! " # % 2> % " # %% % $ % ! , . % $* " # % % > 7 G 8 9> -! % * "& " # % - % 3> %. $ ! $ %% %% " # " # % % < 6> * %% %% 0 " % $ %" % ) & * $ ! ! %. " - " % CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref +56 # ) 9 9 % $ 8 " - ( E 1 - ? 1 -% ; ( ! ) ( ! ) $!/ ( $ # . !! 3F!. ) ( E 8 /+ N ; 1% % (!/ & -/$ & $ 2$ $ !! -2 & ( $ ! ) # * 8$9 & $ ( ! "! # 3 $ ! N ; % )3 + % 3 3 . = % 3F!. $ % % . = 3F!.
E+3+ " # $ % & % & ,% B C % ). = % /00E+ B C )& % /001+ ) @ % /00E+ ; % % $ 7 / CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref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
*F+0+*+ & # " ! ' " ! ! # ! ! & ! O ! ! . N 1 / 2 ( % 2 % % % % % I % % 2 % Z % ( 7 , 8% 2 2 <
% % 2 3F!. F % I % > > % > 2 % < ' " ! ! ! * & * ' ! !! ! ! ' & ! % ; CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref +JJ # ) N 4 ; B C Z B C B C % N $ % !! ' ! I ' ' & " ! ! ! I % ; ; % % < 2 Z I " $ % % *F+0+-+ < Z . % % . . % 2 % ; N % % CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ! .6# ! +J3 I ! ! !! ! 7 * " ! ! ! * ! 4 " ! % ) 2 + % 2 I N 2 )N N + 2 9 I % 3F!. % I % % 2 N % N # N 4 2 % Z ) +% 2 % 3F!. F % 2 N 2 2 % N $ 2 % 3F!. B C 4 2 9 N 9 N % N % ; N N N CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ; $ % 2 N *F+0+0+ & /% > % % 2 % ! ! & !! * ' ! ! 7 " ' " & 4 " & & !* ! ! * !! !! ! 8 " $ N # 2 % 4 -$ % 4 " 4 " 4 ' * ! ! ' ' " ! ! $ % 3F!. % 2 % % 2 < N 2 -( % 4 " 4 ! ! & !! ' ! 4 " & * * ! ' P * & " * ! ! > 3F!. ; 2 & % 3F!. % % % -$ % " 4 ! ' ! ! & ! ' " ! ! CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ! .6# ! +JK & ! ' ! & ! 2 3F!. % B C B C % % 2 : % D : )-77/+ $ % 2 % N 2 *F+0+1+ # % " & " * & * ! ! " * & ! * ! ! ! ! ' ! % 2 B ; % % 3F!. % % % N 2 )( E 8 /+ 3F!. N CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref +36 # ) % ! ' ! 7 4 ' ! ! ! ' & 7 ! ! ! ' ' " " & ! ! $ 2 % % $ 2 % 2 D ; % 2 % % % . )D % /00-+ $ 2 % * ! * !! ! ! ! % % " % 2 % % % 2 @ )/00E+ 2 I . = )/00E+ B ( 7 1
CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ! .6# ! +3. *F+0+3+ ! % % % N . N % B C ; N % % 2 % % ; % ; % N N 2 % N % % % % 2 N % % % B C % % )$ % /00,9 . % /00E+ % 2 % % % ). % /00E+ < % % N % % # N N CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref +3+ # ) 4 9 B N C ). % /000+ N 9 2 )# . % /00-+ N 3 % ) + N ) > % /0009 > ( % /00/ + % % B ; C % 2 & . 2 B C # N % ( *F+1+ ; / # # ' 2 : B C % / 5 N )" % /0059 % /005+ 3 % ) + F % % % & Z & CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ! .6# ! +3- 2 % Z . Z & -00 2 Z . % I % . & 2 Z % % % N 2 % % % % : CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref )-700+ " G % D < % ( - 00
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` ! % $ ! % & )/00-+ G1 !! 4 ' # ' . ) + ! ' " # ! ' ! 4 * * ' < ( % & % D% 8, 50 % # 3 )-7E8+ 0 % 3 # * E)5+4 / /0 % # 3 )-7E7+ 0 ! ! % ' I # ( * ,04 7, -08 % # 3 )-777+ & : $ % ( * ' < ( % H % ,15 % ' )-7?,+ ) !* > % 3 % D% //? % & % . )-770+ ) * < F 3 % D % < . % > % % % ' G % > )/00,+ 0 # / ( * ,0/4 -7-1 -7-5 % < % F % % $ % & % & % ( # # h % ' )/001+ 1 % ( * ,074 -0,5 % F )/00-+ # !! " & ! % ( # * -E),+4 -E7 -7, % F G 2% ' . )-77E+ 8 ! ! ' # 4! % ( # * -,)-+4 , ,- % F < % )-7?-+ G P * " & # & ! 4 & < F ( ) + ' & * I2 % I2 % D% ,?1 80? 2 % ! # )-77,+ P # 0 % ' 3 * E)8+4 ,/? ,8, % & )/00E+ ! ! ' 1 $ : " & ! ' @ 4 & < % D ' .h ) + ! " # ! " ! 4 * ( G % > % 5-E, % & % > % % " )/00E+ 0 ' &* K % & % (<% % /5? % $ # % " )-77E+ ! ! ' % ( # * -,)/+4 -0EJ-/7 % $ % # % " G 2% ' . )-77E+ F ! ' # % ( # * -,)/+4 -?E /0- % & ( h % )-775+ G P ) # 0 * * < % # % . % ,01 % ( # )-757+ P ! ! % ' * ,14 /-5 //8 % )-7E?+ G" "* I > % 3 % D " )/00?+ ( > # F : ( " ! % < % F % & % % / LI M4 !# """% % % " ! ' ! ' " %! % . ' % % 3 ( % . )-777+ C " # 0 % * -1)/+4 11 E0 2 % # )-7E5+ 0 # 0 ! ! * % % ' CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref +3J # !! > % " )/001+ ! # ' " ! P % ! ( * -0)/+4 5 LI M4 !# """% % .6 + J > % # % ' H )/00E+ # ' 8; ! % # : & * -LI M4 !# """% % .5% > %
A % % $ % 80E > % I )/00, + 0 R / F # P % ' ( ( ( * 5)/+ LI M4 !# I % % % & J + -% > % I )/00, + G ! !! % ' ( ( ( * 5)/+ LI M4 !# I % % % & J + .% > % > . % > ' ) + )-778+ ! G P 0 ) ! ( % % I % & % /8? > % & & % ' )-777+ !! ' " & " % < . * 80)-+4 1-1E > % & $ % ( )/00?+ 1 ! & 1 % " * )I $ + > % > )/00/+ $ !! ( " W & 0 D) D EE% -- > % . )/00,+ ): < * 3 P % % $ % -7E > % ! & % & & )-775+ ! 1 # * ! 4! " * > % I2 % D > % )-77/+ & # " " * 0 F ' * %* ( % 3 % /50 > % ( )-7?8+ 0 ' # * 1 ! * % ' I # ( * ,1)-+4 E /1 > % & & % ' )/00/+ 1 # ' ! 1 * # $ % < % &% -87 > % ' % < % F % . % " ( % " ' )/00-+ !! % ' ! . * 5,4 80E 8/, > % G ( % ' )/00/+ ! 1 # !! * D % % . % ,E/ > % ' D )-7E1+ 0 P " & % ( O * /0)/+4 //7 /87 CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref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cc < < @ * d ; X% $ % $ LI M4 !# % % ! ! %! CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref +32 # !! > % # % )/008+ ! ' ) ! # 1 ! C " ' % ' & K ( * -84 -,EJ-1, > % % . % % % . % % % @ % G % )/000+ 1 # ! * D % % . % ( > = % ) + )/008+ ) ! ! < = 7 * 3TF % % $ % /80 > % ' G % )-7?1+ ! & # G 0 ! & % . ( * ,-)5+4 58E 515 > % ' % G % . % > )-7?5+ " & I # 0 % ! ' I # * /84 //? /,? > % ' F % . # )-777+ ) ! ! # ! ' % ( . ' * /04 ??7 7-, > % < " % )/005+ G # ! $ % * /5)1+4 ,E, ,?/ > % ' . )/00/+ ! ! ! ! # ! ! " &% ! * /1),+4 /-1 /,- > % # % # % ' 3 % )/001+ 0 1 " % # * 14 -58 -E5 > % # G = % \ )/000+ & # "% F * -1),+4 /,7 /85 > % # % > % % > % # % % # ! % $ % ( % " % # % D % ! ' % D =% ' % . % ' % I % # % % # " % # F )-777+ / " 1 % ' * 51),+4 /8E /1? & % & % ( % $ % # )/00E+ ! # * * % &.!4 ! ' & " * 5),+4 ,08 ,-? & % . % 3 % > % H )/00-+ # ; 7 * ( % % $ % ,1? & % ! @ % )/00,+ 1 ! ! % > ! #I < " .& * ,)?+ LI M4 !# """% %! e " G! ! % & % ( % ( = % . % % ! > % < % D . % ' $ )-775+ ! ' ! ! 1G : G G ) KJ65* ! ! ! /% % 1 ! * 3 . ! # " & % I # 3 % I # % % E8 & % I % ( % < % > % D & % . )-775+ P ( ! % ! F * -08),+4 /88 /8? CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref &! )/00?+ ' ! F & ! % & " LI M4 !# """% % % 6.+ 6.K 4f % &!& )/00E+ 0 " ' ( ! / # > ! ( > " & 1 +666 J6 D+663E -J+* G D+663E .+2 * & ! & % > % E7 & % G )/001+ ! " # * ! * ! * + * ' < ( % F % ' & % & ' )/005+ > " & ( < & % & % ,1 LI M4 !# """% " % % ( f f %! & % > )-7E?+ 0 & % ' * 14 77 --0 & % > )-7?-+ 0 & * * ' < % & % D & % > )-7?1+ > ! P # ! & .KK6 % ' I # ( * ,54 E1E E5E & % > F % ( ! )-77?+ # % ( * --)-+4 7 /- & % & < )-75?+ 0 !! * & % H & % & < )-7E7+ 0 !! * > > % H % //- & % % F % % % D % " % D # % G )/00E+ & ( ) " "& ' ! * " ( % -5 (< & & % E 7 % H % (<% LI M4 !# """% % +663 ! ! +663 ^+6 % & % % < % < % 3 % # % % > & ' % ' )/005+ ' * (% ,0 F < # ( % 8 E /005% 3 % & " )/000+ G # ( S & " % -/ LI M4 !# """% ! "7% % ! ' ! ! ' %! & " )/008+ ( # $ " " F " ( * * S * * ! 0 0 & " % ,7 LI M4 !# """% " % % " f f" f %! & ! )/00?+ ! 266 ! H3 ' LI M4 !# """% % 0 ' f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emOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref +2. : N % )/00?+ > ! ; ! ! LI M4 !# """% % ! ' ^+6 ^+6 ^+6! ^+6 ^+6 ^+6 ^ K ^+6! ! ^+6 ^5 ^+3 7 %! % ( )/00,+ / ; ' : = ; 4 ; # ) ; ! ' 7 ! /%>% G * P A % % $ % ,0E % " & % < % # $ % % . < % )/00E+ 1 # * K $ 3 % D% 8-5 % D $ % )/005+ ! ( ! 1-%2%+* N % ! $ 5% ! % 1? % D % < % % $ % % @ % % > % ( =% )/005+ 0 " " ! # ! ! ! % ,0 F K < # ( % 8 E /005% 3 % % . )-77-+ " & % !! " % & ! * ,% //)7-+4 E7E ?0/ % )/000+ ) * ; ; ! @ 4 % F # 3 ) + ) * G % $ !"!% % -7, /-, % F % )/00E+
( . % " )/000+ ' ! !! " # ! ( 0 * % ! ! * ,8)/+4 /5E /?/ % " $ % ! ) + )/00/+ !; ! * I ! % % $ % ,,/ % < ! )-7?5+ G . & ! ( % & % . % & ' )-7-?+ $ &' & $ ) % !<F )/00E+ ( S ! % < % F % " LI M4 !# """% % % " 7 "7 4% % ' )-777+ F * F * # 0 > * < < K & % H CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref +2+ # !! % 3 & @ % )/00,+ G !! % 4 & F % ' $ ' & q ) + 15 ! #I .& % && #&% & % I /008% -,J/? =% % I % ! ( % & )/00,+ 0 F % ( * ,0/4 -70E -7-/ % )-777+ ' ) # ! ' G P " % # * -)/+4 81 1E LI M4 !# ! % % I G)R 1 %! % I % & ; % ( % % > % )/00,+ " $ L ! D E ! ; $ % ( % > % -E LI M4 !# """% % ! ' " " f %! % )/00/+ * $ /: ! 7 % < ! * /1)8+4 -E--70 % # > % & )/005+ 0 ++ ' 1 ! % ' ! ! % (&!* -,/)/+4 -87 -11 % ( # )-771+ * ' ! % ' ! . * /),+4 -8/ -15 % ( # )/00/+ ! ' # ! ! ! ! % " 4 /- Z% & & % ---/ . /00/% -, )/005+ ( G ' 7 > ! $ % (< % .& )/00E+ ( . & % " % & LI M4 !# """% % % " ! ' !" ! % % ,060-6/00? % % =% % 3 % & % : N % < % )/001+ ! !! # F 4! 0 " D ! ' C ' E% 4 \ # . ) + .I ( . /001 & . ( % /001% . % LI M4 !# """% P% % 65 ! ! %! ! )/008+ 1 : ( # % > & LI M4 !# """% ' % % .+HKJ6H% !& >& )/008+ ) & " ! & > & LI M4 !# """% &% " %! ! ! % ' )-777+ 1 ! ' & % . # * -)8+4 157 1E5 ! % & )-7?7+ / !! ! ! 4 ' # ) + ! ' " # ! ' ! 4 * * ' < ( % & % D +2- ! % & % $ )-77?+ & # 0 R * ( % 3 % D ! % & % $ )/00-+ G1 0 ! 4 ' # ' . ) + ! ' " # ! ' ! 4 * * ' < ( % & % D% /-8- ! % D . % D ; % ' 3 > % 3 ' )-77E+ " % F > # * E1)8+4 EE ?1 ! % ' % F % ( % 3 % & ' ( % )/001+ ! 0 & % ! 8 * D > $ $ ( ) < +% -77 LI M4 !# """% " %' -62K6f0 & F %! ! % > )/00E+ ' ! # & $ % ( * ,7)/+4 //-/,/ ! % . " % ' )-77?+ ( @ ! # " 1 ( & ! % 36* ( % > % D% E0 ! )/000+ 1 +666 J6 ! * +- G ' +666# ' " & " ! * ) -+3* ++%.+%+666* % I ' ! & -E/ ! )/00/+ F ' ! ( > " & 1 # * * ' > ( 1 8 1 ' +66+* ! % 55 ! #I )/00?+ ( G! @ ! I ( % H LI M4 !# """% % ! %! !@! _" f ! #I )/00?+ 0 ! / LI M4 !# ! % ' 4f % ! % )/001+ /!! ( S & < % 3 > & % " ( % % % 8- $ % )/00E+ ! ( ( * & * > * ' +66J > ' +663# & ( !! > " ! J63+5 D> E# ) ( !! I * # > % . /00E% -/- $ I )/000+ " 1 ( # ( * +. F) +5 +666* 3 < % $ I = % # % ?/ $ % )/005+ 0 ' " # ' & ! % # $ * ,04 /-7 //7 $ % )-77E+ < ! 8 = ; ; ; 0 < 7 8/ ; R ! > * '$% " % $ $ % )/008 + X G X / < : 4 . 3 > ) + X S X ! ' ! * & % . % $ % /1 ,- CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref +2H # !! $ % )/008 + ! 0 (>1# ( : @ 7 G S/ % F & % -5% /008% & % % /0 $ % % D )/005+ ; ' ; ! ! ; !! ' @ m(P P m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emOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref $ % ' )-77,+ 0 * ' * # 0 " * ( H % % H% /-8 $ % ' )-777+ 0 ' ! # ! ! ! ! * . % & % . $ % D F % )/008+ # (<% LI M4 !# """% % "% % f f ' f " $ % ' < )-75-+ 1 * % & % . $ % ' < )-75?+ ! * . % & % . $ % ' < )-77/+ * & * G * 1 HH-H . 4 ( ! ) + ! # F ) 1 % -8 LI M4 !# % 4 % ! ! 3 1 HH65 .%! $ % . )-7EE+ 1 ! # 0 $ * % 3 % D $ % . )-7?0+ " C " # " G ( ' > * .K3+ .K33%* F % > % D $ % . )-7?/+ 0 'I " % & N * ?)8+4 EEE E71 $ % # ! )-7?8+ # & !! * % > % . $ % ' )-77,+ !! ! ! P % ' I # ( * 88)5+4 1?1 17? $ % ' )/00-+ 0 !! 4 ' # ' . ) + ! ' " # ! ' ! 4 * * ' < ( % & % D% --1 -87 $ % ' F % )-7?E+ ! # !! * % I2 % D $ % & )/008+ C " G P % ' D . * 1 LI M4 !# """% % J.% " % 3 % $ )/00-+ ; ! # ! 8 4 # D ) + !; 0 * 3TF % % $ % -87 -58 " % ( )-7?,+ 1 # * * % I # * ,-)8+4 50, 5,- " % ' % . % . % $ % # < % " % < ! % & = % . % ! % F % % $ % ( < )/00/+ 0 ; ;# C " $ 1 ! LI M4 !# % % " ' ! +66+ 6KH-%! "F )/00E+ / " & # 4 < & " ) + ( G ! +* "F % & % ?0 # !! " % )/00?+ ) ! 7 8 !; 8 ; !!; ! ) R : % -560-6/00?% -04/1 " % )/000 + 0 ( * ) & 0" ( 1 ! % < * /1)-+4 -/E -,? " % F )-77?+ 0 " : " .KK2 .KKK# ' ! " * % < & " % F )/000 + 0 " : " +666 +66.# ' ! " * % < % & " % F )/005+ # " +66J +663 4 F " % F & % D =% ! 3 % ' . % . % ( " F < ) + 0 " : " +66J +663# ' ! " * % < & % -?7 /-? " % F % & % 3 % F =% % F ' % & % F % & % D % . % . % . % % . % ( % G < % " F ) + )/008+ 0 " : " +66H +665# ' ! " * % < % & " % F % & % F % D =% % 3 % ! % . % ' % % . % ( % < % " F )/005+ 0 " : " +66J +663# ' ! " * % < & " % F 3 % ' )/001+ ) " # !! % < * ,0),+4 8-0 8-8 " < )/000+ ( 0 $ & ! % H* 0 * " < % ( % ( " % % F % # % 3 )-7?/+ 'I 1 " $ !! * ' < K ( % H % 1-7 " % ! )-7?7+ F * G! P ) * < > % . % 8-/ " % 3 ! % ' )/00E+ 2 " ' ' % F > # * ?1)--+4 -00 -07 " % > )-7?7+ ' # ! ! ' * ' > % ( $ % & " % )/005+ 0 ' LI M4 !# """% % +66J 6H 65 " %! ! " % < ' )-775+ 1 # " 0 & % ( * 7)5+4 501 5/1 " % # < % D )-77E+ & # " ! ! * 4 * 4! !! % ( * 11)/+4 -E, -7, "#. )/005+ 0 F I ) ' % . ; .! % /0 /- /005% ! LI M4 !# """% % F ^+61 ' ^+6 ! %! CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref " % ! " 3 % H ( )-7?7+ > F * ( % % & " % 3 F F % & ( ) + )/00/+ # * % < & F % ' )-7E/+ C " * > % H % ,15 F % ' )-7?8+ 0 0 # - * % I2 % D F % ' )-775+ $ " * % & % D F % ' < % ( % % F ' )-77-+ 0 4 " 4 ' < F % F ' ( ) + ( # " * & # ! ( % % & % % , -7 F % & % )-77?+ # ) 4 ' P 1 % I = ( * 7)/+4 /-E /,0 F % . )/005+ ! 4 ! & $ 0 " 7 ! I * ! ` 6K +66J ( " F% I d % " % /0 F % . )/00E+ & : " ! . & : ( & ! - & $ 0 " 7 I ! ` 6. +663* ( " F% I d % " % /E F % . % 3 % # ' % ' )/00,+ ! # ! > % * 8)/+4 5/ E/ F % D ' ( % . F ) + )/001+ 0 # $ G!! * F +. * ! % 3 % 1/E F &I )/001 + ) # ! ! ! " mF & m ; % ! % --1 LI M4 !# """% !% G ' &%! F &I )/001 + ' $ ! ! * F &I < 5% ! LI M4 !# """% !% f f " ( J^+6 ^+6 ! > )%! F % )-778+ ) : ; ! % ! * E4 17 E1 F % )/000+ S P ! @ ; : 4 % F # 3 ) + ) * G 6$ !"!% % $ % E 8, F % )/008+
F % " )/00E+ ! ! > # " * ! ! : * ( % & F % D % ( ) + )/00E+ ( # * &( #I % & % F % & % 3 )-777+ * & % & % D F 2 % & ) + )-775+ ' * ( % 3 % D% /00 &<! )-77/+ 0 1 ' ( ' 1 ! ( % % CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref +2K ! )/000+ * ! % % ? LI M4 !# """% % % 4 !! " % @ f _>6JH35K5 3> 33+6 .3 36 +36J+ 6$, _ % # 3 % ( % % # % % F % > ' % ' ) + )/008+ 0 ) D ' " E > ! * ! & % $ 1% ! % ?7 LI M4 !# % ! % % & 'I G ) ^+6> ^+6 ! %! % . )/00E+ 7 F ! % ! ! O * 8
! ! # 1 ! " & 1 D 1E% G ( & ! ' +662 ..% R +662% 88 LI M4 !# """% % ! 7 %! D % ' % D % > % # )/00,+ : ! # G! $ # G G * ! % & # " % % 3 LI M4 !# """% ! % % ' !f ' % D % )-E?-+ 7 * . . % 4 ( % D LI M4 !# % &% % & ! C ! D = % ' # ( % D )/00/+ 0 1 ! 0 # ' & ( &' & 1 F ! * ' < ( % H % /15 CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref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emOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref D % . ' % D % . G % )/001+ !! " & " % & ! * ,04 ,-E ,,/ D % D ( )/00-+ 0 ! ( % ! . * /E)/+4 -5--E5 D % % % # " % " )/001+ 0 $ D+665E $ F LI M4 !# """% % ! % @! _H3, _-5K, _+665 D = % " % ! )-77?+ ! ! # ! % ' F * /--)-8+4 57 ?1 D % ( )-75/+ 0 * & % & % D % D < )-778+ 0 ) !# 1 ! ! ! 4 > . > > ' ) + ! G 0 ) !* ( % % I % & % -0 /1 D = =% \ < ( % F ' )/008+ > 0 ! ! % F = * ,-)-+4 ----/? D = =% \ < % D )-777+ > ! # 7 @ % F ( ' *
! % ! ' I # * -8),+4 /0E //0 3 = )500>& 1,->&+ ) 0P S LI M4 !# & 4 % 7 ' f f" f f" f f f" " -H6+.-% 3e = f% ! )/005+ 0 ! # " * > 3 % 3 % D 3 = % ! )-77?+ ; 4 4 * $ % % $ % -/? 3 % " < % ' )/00,+ ' ! * * ! # 0 !! 4 % ! /00, $ % /5 /? /00,% F % LI M4 !# """% % % ! +66- 62- " " &I% 3 % D )-777+ !! ! % & ! * ,)/+4 , LI M4 !# """% % - + - 3 % & )/000+ ! P ! ' 1 ! # 0 " !! % & * ,-)1+4
( 3 )/008+ 1 # ' > G ! * # ( % # & % ( 3 % ' F )/000+ 0 # & * I2 % H % /5/ 3 $ )/00/+ G " ' & 3 $ % > % % /8 3 % < > % % 3 % < % % > % & % & % # % . % > < % . )-7E7+ > ( I < # % < % & 3
3 % % D % ' $ % D )-7?1+ ( / # G "% < # # * /-)/+4 71 -0/ 3 # % 3 $ % . = . % ' % % % & % . % % $ # % " )/005+ ! ' # ' %% ( # * //)8+4 /7-,/0 3< )/005+ ( ! ! # & " ! # G 4! " & ! ! 7 !! ! ( 3 < % " % & % /8 LI M4 !# """% " % % " ! ' f! C6J...2%! 3 % % ' % < % ( % < % D % ! % D )/00E+ " ! & " * ! & % ! ( * -/)-
" ! ! 1 ( / G* !(&I F % -/E % % F )-771+ 0 C " ! # " R ! ! 1 * I2 % H % ( % ' & o % ' )/005+ 0 0 / ! ! " 0 0 ! !0 +66J 6.* $ F . & LI M4 !# !% % ' ! 0 ! 0 / ! ! % (< " )-77/+ (< " % (<% <& )/00E+ ( +665# ' " ( < & % " LI M4 !# """%" % % ' ( +665f) f+f ! f 63%! IT ' % 3 ' )-7?5+ ! # > % ' * 5)/+4 -?-/-0 I& ! )/00-+ 1 ! # :G 1 : * ! ! = ! 7 ! ' 7 D # G 1 ' & P # * ! & E I & P P ] N % % $ % -// LI M4 !# " '.2%" ' &% 1 4 % JJ$ 1 1 ! ! ' ! ^ +^26^KKG 1 [> ) ! %! I % % $ % & > % $ )/008+ ! ' % ! . * ,84 E1 70 I % % 3 F " % ( # & % # % 3 3 % & $ % & ( F )/005+ ! # ! % ! ( * --)-+4 -? LI M4 !# """% % .. . . 2
I % @ % )-77,+ 4! T! ' 8 P % ! ' I # * E04 5E ?/ I % ! )-770+ F # 0 * & % H % /?0 CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref +KJ # !! I % ! )-775+ F 1 # ! * * 1 ! % < * /8)5+4 -0E, -0?E < % & )/00E+ 0 " ! " ' % < # . * /-4 87 5/ < % & F % . )/008+ ) % ' & ( * -8),+4 -7, /05 < % & % D % .h % ' ) + )/00?+ ! " # ! " ! 4 * ( G % > % # % D % . $ % ( )-77,+ ! " & " ! % 4 D F ) + < `70 4 % (&! & % -1 . -77,% ( % < % 81- 818 % & )-7E0+ ! % & % D % $ )/008+ C ! ! # G ( F ' * % < & % > % )/000+ ( 1 : ) ( : ! # " ( : 1 ( 1 ' * < # % H % ! )-771+ ! G" ! 0 # 0 $ % ! ( *
( # 0 % < # * /0)8+4 151 1E1 # =% # )-777+ & 4 > ) + # ' * # & 6 < > % I % & % -0--/5 # =% ' # )-7E-+ & " ! ' * I2 % I2 % D # % ( )/00E+ 0 & ! % ! F = * E)/+4 -51 -E/ # % I % < % < % ) + )-771+ > ! P ! ! % 1 * D % # % % % % > = % % $ % % # % ' ! % F % . % % % # % % D % G 3 % 3 G % )/005+ 7 & # ! R(0 F +K R * +66J% > % > # % % % % ' % % % D % % % G 3 % 3 ( % . % % $ % % D )/00? + !! ! ! ! !! " % < * ) + # % % % % % D % $ % F %
; % $ # )/005+ ( # > @% < . * ?0)-,+4 1 // # % ' " % )/00,+ ! " ' 5H 4 1* +6 1 ! % . % $ # % F < % . )-7E,+ 1 ! % ( * 84 -11 -57 # % ' . )/00E+ C G " K .. +662 * R .K* +663 LI M4 !# """% % +2J-22 ! f f f f& % # % > )-775+ ) ! # ' " ! " F & % & % -00 # !! # % ' . % ' )/00-+ " # *
F & ) + )-77,+ ) # !! * < % > % &I ( % . 2% > )/008+ G ! C ! I # : "! ! ! I LI M4 !# """%! I % " % !@ " _3H3- (&!F )/000+ # ! 7 & % F # % ( & ! F % & % /-0 ( % ! F )-777+ # $ ! !* < 3 % % # % . % /
! 0 G P 1 ! # 0 % ( * 5)-+4 1, E0 @ % )/00E+ G ! ! # ! ! ! % I # * -18),+4 , /E % < )-7?,+ # " !! ! ! ! * F % > % ( = % < )-77-+ 4 # 3 $ . & ' ) + 0 & # 1 * ' < ( % & % D% -0, - -1 )
% . ) + )/008+ # 1 !! $ * % < % & # % ' & % ' % ' % ' % ! % F % ( F > % & . )-77?+ ! !! " % < ( * ,E),+4 /0-/0? G % > < )/00E+ Q 5 ! % # . . = * 18)8+4 ,5 80 G % # " )/008+ F ' " # ! ' ( & 4 m" < " K 4 < # 3 % % ( K $ Zm% % ( G % ( )/00E+ 0 ! D & * $ E N % $ 5% ! G % ( )/00?+ > ! ! ! ! & $ N ( % $ 5% ! % -/, G % # )/005+ $ : ! ! % ! ! O * 80)-+4 E-?E G 2% ' . )-775+ F ! ' # * ' < % & % D G ( )-771+ / 8 F G ( % > % . % ( G % )-77-+ 0 " % < < * ?,)-
< % # 3 )-75E+ 0 P > > % ( O * -/),+4 ,75 8-7 < % ' )/000+ 0 # $ ! $ ) F % # * 50)1+4 81E 85, < % ( # > % . )-7?E+ 1 # 0 ! 1 * & % & % D% ,/0 < % 3 . % # 3 )-771+ ! !! 1 # ! ! % ( * 8E)-+4 -0E -,- < % )-771+ X X P ! ! # & 4 I # % < < ) + > ! P ! ! # * D % % ,1 ?5 < % % D =% F " # % I )-771+ ' ! ! ! # ! ! % ! # * -1)1+4 88, 85, < % % % ( D % # )/00-+ ( ! ' ! ! ! @ > ! ! ! ' % ! . * /E),+4 8,1 810 < % ! )-77?+ ! # * * * & % & % D% ,,5 < ' % ! D % ' )-7EE+ " & 4 ' F ) + 0 * 3 2 > % 3 2 % . < % < )/000+ 0 > % 4 # F F . " ) + (&! /000 ' & < # ! < # . % ( 8/% & 8% ' ,0 /% /000% . % . % ( < % < ' < ' % < )-778+ " # " * ( ! KH 1 2 ( & ! % < # ( & % < # LI M4 !# """% " % % % ! ! ' " ! KH 2%! < % ' )/00E+ > # 0 1 ! C % ( * /7)/+4 /,7 /8E < < % )/00/+ 0 % ' # # ! F * -)/+4 /7 ,8 LI M4 !# """%I % % I ! 6." %! < % 3 % # )-77?+ 4! G 0 % ( * --)/+4 -1, -5? CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref <FI )/000+ 0 " ! ! $ < F I LI M4 !# """%" % " f f "7 + ! % < % . % & % . % " % & # % & % # % F % & % D =% F " % % < % # % $ % F ' )/000+ & ! # 0 & LI M4 !# """% P I % ' ' f' f 4f % < % . $ % ( )-77,+ ' ! ! " & # % ' = * ,,
!# """% % % " +662 ! ' !+6626H+K%! < % F $ ! % . 3 )/000+ ( ' ! ' % < # A < < & % -/J-5 . /000% . << )/00E+ *.K3+ .KKJ# > & 4 ( ( # ! * ! ' LI M4 !# """% % " "" ! H % $ ' )-778+ ) !# 0 ) ! 1 4 > . > > ' ) + ! G P 0 ) ! ( % I % & % /5 8E H % # D )/00,+ # 1 * 0 * ( % I % & % -?- H % % " % > % G % " % > % > ( % )/000+ # / ' 0 # $ $ % 10-1-? LI M4 !# """% % @ _ % 1> H % ' ! )/008+ ! ! P % ' I ( & * -)/ ,+4 ----8- H % ( )/000+ ! C & # ) ( % ! ' F " ) F ' $ * & # % < % % < \ % )/00/+ ! P F ! $ # " ) 4! 0 $ " ! G % & ( (
Approximately 6 8% of all currently available water resources (renewable and non renewable) are being withdrawn each year, or around 4000 cubic kilometres (Gleick et al., 2006). It is noted that water "withdrawn" is not necessarily "consumed" (i.e. leaving the freshwater stocks for another part of the hydrological cycle through evapo transpiration, evaporation or being discharged into the ocean) but that in some cases water may be used and then returned to the freshwater stocks in a similar or slightly modified form (i.e. water from wastewater treatment plants or industrial cooling water can be returned to rivers). "scarcity" due to a combination of factors to be discussed in the next section).

In order to better understand how water is used around the world, the aforementioned information on water "withdrawals" only provides one small piece of the puzzle. This water is principally used for a number of physical or economic production reasons such as: domestic use (i.e. drinking, cooking, sanitation, irrigating parks and gardens); agriculture and food production (in the form of irrigation and processing);

and industry (including energy production, manufacturing and commerce).

Approximately 70% of total world water withdrawals can be attributed to the agricultural sector, 22% to the industrial sector and the remaining 8% to domestic uses (UNESCO WWAP, 2003). These statistics vary substantially between country income levels and world regions, with the group of highest income countries using a much higher proportion of their total water use for industrial (42%) and domestic (16%) purposes (World Bank, 2007). Africa, the Middle East and South Asia, on the other hand, use about 90% of their water withdrawals for agriculture (World Bank, 2007).

On top of these water withdrawals, water has many other uses (or purposes and values) which are more rarely considered in typical accounting methods of water use.

As well as supporting human needs for life, water also supports all ecosystem life and the services they provide to society. These "ecosystem services" include: Another alternative accounting method is the concept of "embodied" or "virtual" water.

"
Although not specifically designed to determine water for ecosystem purposes, the embodied water concept is particularly useful for better understanding the impacts of human consumption and behaviour on the environment. An "embodied water" Any region may suffer from any or all of these three types of scarcities at once, depending on the local drivers for perceived water shortages. By understanding the drivers of the water scarcity, appropriate styles of management to mitigate the water scarcity issues can be chosen, along with a range of potential solutions or policy options. The final "social / political" scarcity category is increasingly encountered around the world and is the most challenging to manage due to its complex, conflict producing and uncertain nature. As noted in the most recent Human Development Report (UNDP, 2006): @* " " + ' "

footprint
+ 7 + + " ' +A
The purpose of the following section is to highlight how we arrived at this situation of socially constructed and physical water scarcities. This will be performed by outlining a number of salient cultural and technical evolutions in the water sector, as well as the water planning and management practices that supported them. It is the intention that these brief reviews will demonstrate a number of points including: water scarcities are enhanced through human choices or management decisions; evolution in the water sector has not been a linear process poor knowledge and seemingly sustainable solutions to specific problems have at certain stages of history been forgotten and resurfaced much later when the same problem has reappeared; and some ancient cultures implicitly incorporated many of the principles being touted in today's best practice management paradigms into their understanding of the world.

#$ % $ @* L ' ! ' " " ! " + ' " " E +L " " " ' L " % + '+ + * < %= A D . *E <9 11(= & $ ' "
Water means different things to different people. At the beginning of human life, as for all other forms of life, it formed a necessary means of subsistence. Use and perceptions of water have evolved over time and through a number of phases of human development and knowledge acquisition. In the hunter gatherer and nomad societies that have inhabited the earth for many thousands of years, water played a central role in their organisation, daily rituals and in some cases spirituality. It was an element to be respected, and sometimes feared, due its capacity to bring life and take it away (i.e. through flood or drought). For most early societies, and some more modern ones, it was also seen to be so important that it took the form of a god, a spirit or other types of deities. To the current day, festivals are held for the coming of the rains in many parts of the world, such as the Indian monsoon parties held for the Hindu water gods (Pearce, 2004) and the Australian Aboriginal songs and dances to celebrate "country". (Rose, 1996).

In traditional Australian Aboriginal cultures, water is thought to embody a life force or be "living" (Jackson et al., 2005). The expression, "living water" (% % from the Kimberley region cultures), describes both the cultural significance of water sources (typically groundwater) and their physical properties (Yu, 2000). Australian Aboriginal cultures also do not differentiate water and land as being two separate entities; they are both parts of the living "country" for which they are responsible and must be equally cared for and nurtured (Lingiari Foundation, 2002). Interestingly, some other cultures have similar perceptions, with, for example, Bulgarian folklore and the Bulgarian magical perspective of the world treating water from springs as "alive", considering it to be the "pearled blood of the earth" and having social powers (Fotev, 2004). However, unlike the Australian Aboriginal perspective, the earth is perceived as and manufacturing processes were the next major developments, along with an increased realisation of the economic worth of water. The creation of major cities and the industrial revolution spurred on unprecedented rates of population growth that were coupled with an increased use of water and the need for supply. Much more elaborate supply, evacuation and water treatment facilities became a necessity to cope with these populations and to maintain their health, as well as more advanced farming and irrigation techniques to supply them with sustenance.

By the beginning of the 20th century, society had started to create so many dams, canals, levees, dykes and pipelines, that many rivers and water sources had become almost entirely artificial. As society, and especially the engineers and planning authorities behind some of these water management schemes, attempted to control nature and improve human standards of living with this infrastructure, the elevated risks for human and financial loss and the severity of major natural events, such as floods, became more evident; for example, large loss of life has been caused by the breaching of levees and dykes in the Netherlands and United States of America, as well as by dam failures throughout the world.

%

Throughout the 20 th Century, and especially since the 1970s, some of the impacts of these human interventions and population growth, such as serious environmental degradation and declining resource depletion (witnessed for water as supply shortages, quality problems through pollution, and aquatic and land based ecosystem destruction), spurred new considerations for the environment to be taken into account (Hutton and Connors, 1999). Laws on water were rewritten and water engineers, Supply networks were able to be easier optimised using computer modelling techniques to provide cost savings and greater efficiency. Dams and other infrastructure could also be designed, modelled and built for bigger capacities than ever before, and communication networks allowed the global transfers of information, knowledge and new technologies to occur at an unprecedented rate. However, with the computational gains from computers and the increase in connectivity between people and information databases provided by communication networks (i.e. mobile phones, the internet), the complexity of decision making has increased (Fischer, 2000).

Connectivity has led to a general increase in awareness of the amount of information and diversity of interests that can be quickly accessed and thus can be taken into account when making decisions. Modelling and simulation methods (for example, based on advanced theories such as artificial intelligence, self organisation and thermodynamics) are also developing and becoming more complex at a similar speed to computational advances.

* " + "

In recent years, socially based disputes have resulted over values, power struggles, interests (economically driven or otherwise), and differences in viewpoints. Subjects such as whether water is of a sufficient quality or if is equitably distributed between people and geographical areas can spark highly value charged debates. Protests and social activism over water issues such as dam construction have also become more widespread (Hutton and Connors, 1999). Furthermore, the recent creation of the internet and the realisation that all human activities can have global impacts through economic factors such as trade, societal movement (both physically, culturally and internally (e.g. through changing beliefs, values, views, relations and practices), and environmentally) has made planning and management for water more complex. This is not just because just the technical, economic and environmental factors have to be considered, but the social ones as well. Information transfer now allows local issues to become the international focus of protests, for example the human rights issues of the displacement of the estimated 1. water management is becoming, and hence some of the new challenges that future water managers are likely to face this century.

Although international treaties have been drawn up for thousands of years between two or more parties, recent international laws and treaties have attempted to prohibit the aforementioned uses and abuses on water courses and infrastructure, as well as improve the sharing of water resources between States (Gleick, 1998). These include the:

-1966 Helsinki Rules governing international waters;

-1977 Environmental Modification Convention;

-1977 Bern Geneva Convention;

-1982 World Charter for Nature; and

-1997 Convention on the Non Navigational Uses of International Watercourses.

) " % " +

A few important lessons can be drawn from this review, only three of which will be highlighted here. Firstly, although it may be self evident, we should be aware that humans, and especially their leaders, make choices that will affect their societies, their futures and the futures of others (such as decisions to centralise governance systems, irrigate or adopt new technologies). Considering the increasing complexity and interconnectedness of modern forms of society and the issues they face, making informed decisions has never been so challenging. This means that there is a need, more than ever before, for improved forms of decision aiding to help our leaders and societies to make informed choices, in order to aid our current transition to more sustainable forms of development. Secondly, as part of this challenge, there is a need to scan our past for potential effective solutions to our current problems or invent entirely new ones if past solutions have consistently poorly performed. This will hopefully help us to avoid repeating the same mistakes that were made in the past.

Some of these are presented in Chapter 2. Finally, linked to the last point, there is a need to re examine and work with people from a number of key cultures, whose cumulative and intricate knowledge of the workings of the environment may help us to redefine a more sustainable path of choices for the future. A number of minority indigenous cultures (e.g. Australian Aboriginal) and the ancient eastern (e.g. Chinese, Japanese) philosophies for research may provide the most interesting insights as a first step due to some apparent successes in the longevities of the cultures.

#$ "

Alongside these cultural and technological evolutions in the water sector, planning and management theory and practice have substantially evolved through the phases

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref 3 of human development.
can be considered as a process of formulating objectives and then actions necessary to achieve them. Such a process may be carried out unconsciously or consciously, although it is the formalised conscious process which is most commonly referred to in the literature. 3 is closely related to planning, and can be thought of a process of continuous decision making (consciously or unconsciously) to plan, guide actions, lead, coordinate, control or organise.

However, many variants on definitions of planning and management exist and are actively debated in the literature, some aspects of which are well explained in Ansoff, (1984), Mintzberg (1989) and Mintzberg (1994). This section will give a brief overview of a number of general evolutions in formalised planning and management theory, followed by a number of specific forms of planning and management that have been used in the water sector.

-8 " /

The Chinese philosophy of "Feng Shui", literally "wind water", which focuses on the art of placement related to energies and their influence on a landscape, is thought to be one of the oldest formalised "planning" type methodologies (dated to around 4000 B.C) which dictates how buildings, towns, gardens and other parts of a landscape should be orientated and organised to maximise the beneficial "feng shui forces", related to both the physical environment and other abstract or mystical influences (Kerr, 2004).

The first forms of organised planning that related to time rather than space are believed to have stemmed from the study of astrological phenomena at a similar time, with the harvest calendars of the Neolithic period representing a good example (Avery, 2005). About the same time, the use of project planning and management principles were evident in the large structures and systems created in a number of civilizations.

The pyramids of Ancient Egypt and large dams and water distribution systems found from those times onwards were projects that must have required formal planning to have been conceived and successfully constructed.

In the domain of military strategy, one of the first formalised theories of planning and management was outlined in approximately 500 B.C. in Sun Tzu's "The Art of War", a text that is still studied today by strategists, planners and managers all over the world (Tordjman, 1996). Different types of planning and management tools have also been A number of other models of planning and management have also emerged in recent years, including participatory planning and communicative action theory, risk management and adaptive complex ecosystem management, and models of "leadership" as opposed to "management". Increased conflict over management and planning values and objectives, lack of resource control by management authorities, as well as democratic motives in western countries, have been partially responsible for driving a range of participatory, interactive and collaborative planning processes (Forester, 1989;van Rooy et al., 1998;Forester, 1999). The theory of communicative action depends on the use of language oriented to obtain mutual understanding and decision making through deliberative discourse and interaction (Habermas, 1996). On the other hand, increasing awareness about a range of uncertainties as "risks" and an incapacity to adapt to their impacts has driven the development of risk management processes (Slovic, 2000;Jaeger et al., 2001), chaos theories of management (Cohen et al., 1972;Gleick, 1987) and adaptive complex system and transition management processes (Levin, 1998;Cortner and Moote, 1999;Gunderson and Holling, 2002;Brugge et al., 2005). The growth in "leadership" has come from the realisation that management is predominately not about managing objects, but rather about managing people (Adair, 1983), leading transformational change (Senge, 1990) and learning (De Geus, 1988; Brews and Hunt, 1999). Management and planning in these cases are considered to be "process orientated" rather than linear and "goal orientated" and place a large emphasis on the creation of knowledge, innovation, creativity and social or organisational learning (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995).

-" "

As well as the individual internal reflection processes and individual or collective conscious decision processes on actions required to achieve certain water related Traditional " is typically an economically orientated process which focusses on the evaluation of a range of both demand and supply alternatives for water management which generally includes the pricing of externalities such as environmental benefits and other non utility goals such as recreational water uses.

These alternatives are then evaluated, and the minimum cost options selected that are the most robust over a wide range of potential economic futures, in order to best cope with the uncertainty of economic environments.

These two planning styles can also be classified as "rational" approaches (Bouleau et al., 2005), referring to the Cartesian version of rationality based on Descartes' principles (Descartes, 1637). This type of rationality is also specifically known as "economic rationality" due to the ideal economic behaviour which is assumed in these normative planning approaches (March, 1978). These approaches are typically promoted and used by engineers who have been trained to think analytically and to resource planning is also supposed to help identify and manage all perceived risks and uncertainties and provide coordination between all stakeholders and any regulatory requirements at the scale of management. The objective of integrated resource planning is thus to find sufficing solutions within all system constraints.

Over the last couple of decades, the importance of improving and integrating planning processes along with management procedures has increased, leading to these "integrated" systems becoming the new "best practice" method to manage water and its related resources. However, this need for such an integrated approach to planning and management has not always been recognised. Despite large bodies of academic and policy writing on the subject, it is only recently, in some countries such as the Australia, France and the Netherlands, that planning has increasingly become the basis for water management (Handmer et al., 1991;Bouleau, 2003a;Brugge et al., 2005). Before this time, planning was commonly considered a "back office" support role, a process to be completed before the water management process and plan implementation started. Especially at local levels of water management, this vision of planning still remains a barrier in certain organisations to the achievement of long term sustainable management of water (Brown et al., 2001). Long term sustainable

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref 3 1 management of water and its associated resources requires future thinking, which is closely linked to planning (Torrieri et al., 2002). Determining and shaping what kind of future is desired for water resources should be a shared responsibility, especially in democratic societies. Therefore, rather than leaving this responsibility to a back office, or even one organisation, there is a push to open planning processes up to the participation of all associated stakeholders from the phase of problem formulation and onwards through the full water planning and management cycles. This movement can be considered to represent yet another view on rationality -that of Habermas' "communicative rationality" (Habermas, 1984). Habermas suggests that a process of "rationalisation" and co construction that involves the confrontation of different stakeholders' rationalities through deliberative discourse and interaction can be used to come to commonly legitimised decisions (Habermas, 1996). This underlying change in perspectives for planning is also evident from an examination of engineering textbooks. For example, the need for participation and working with other stakeholders is outlined here, even though "expert" needs to be interpreted loosely to include local experts as well as other disciplinary experts:

@! 0 " + " % " ! " + + % " " / " % A D $ + < =
It is also stressed that stakeholder participation should be explicitly included in planning and management processes from their outset in many international water directives, including the second of the Dublin Statement's (ICWE, 1992) four principles and the Global Water Partnership (2000), where the concept of participation is explicated to mean more than just a process of consultation (Arnstein, 1969).

Just one recent example of work that uses one of the "best practice" planning cycle theories in a participative setting is SKM's "MERF approach" to plan for the design and operation of information and monitoring systems for sustainable development (shown in Figure A.5), also involving the water sector. The approach has been successfully applied with participating stakeholders in many regions across Australia, including with irrigation communities and industries throughout the Murray Darling Basin (Fleming, 2005). The planning phase of the approach is based on the "reverse engineering" of the adaptive management approach or "learning by doing". ). This cycle is to be "reverse engineered" in the planning phase in order to ensure that the tools for monitoring progress have been correctly designed to provide the essential information for adaptively managing the sustainability of the system under study. Such a process is designed to help define exactly what is to be observed after implementation of management options; a situation which typically helps to avoid two problems: (i)

having no useful information about the effects of management options being obtained, perpetuating a lack of relevant knowledge production; or (ii) having too much costly data being collected that can not be adapted into useful indicators and information products for managers (IEA, 1993).

Many other new approaches to planning and management in the water sector are also being theorised and applied, a good summary of which can be found in (Pahl Wostl et al., 2008). Apart from these dominant and newer styles of water planning, a number of other more theoretical and less often applied types of planning and management have been proposed for use in the water sector, many of which match the recent theories of planning and management outlined earlier in this section.

-"

It is increasingly considered that water planning and subsequent management processes should occur on the geographically cohesive scales for water resources collection areas i.e. catchments (river reach), watersheds or regions (river), and basins (river system) (Fleming, 2005). The European Framework Water Directive (EU, 2000) also dictates that water resource planning should occur at this largest "basin level"

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref 3 scale. However, in some countries, international cases or in local areas where water management authorities and other governance structures and regulatory frameworks

have not yet been realigned to these scales, the "problem shed" scale suggested by Loucks (1998), which implies the scale at which all stakeholders concerned with a particular water related issue are involved, may prove a more appropriate scale for the planning and management of water related issues, in order to help work through just some of the possible institutional conflicts related to boundary issues within these geographical regions. Even though the word "problem" is used here, it is noted that there has been a push in certain academic communities to change it to something with less negative connotations such as an "issue" or "dilemma" (Flood, 1998). This choice has been made in order to provide consistency with principle methodological sources from the operational research community which are outlined in other Chapters of this thesis.

! ' ((

From the previous two sections on the evolution of cultural values and technological development and the accompanying planning and management processes, a general picture of evolutions in the water sector can be drawn out and expanded upon, as

shown in Table A.2.
Table A.2 can be used to help to understand cultural differences due to dominant values (Beck and Cowan, 1996), as well as the perceived needs (in terms of water planning, management and technologies) of those value systems. The preferred or usual decision making loci are also outlined. It should be noted that all these value systems and associated needs for water management are still present in today's world.

In each problem situation encountered (whether at a local, national or global scale), all or some of these values systems may be present and may require concerted attention, understanding, and adapted management programmes. This Appendix supplements Chapter 3 by extending the brief introduction into the intervention research approach. Background information on models of the decision process on which many decision aiding processes are based are also presented along with further information on problem formulation and evaluation models used in these processes, or used to aid them. Finally an overview of currently used methods for decision aiding in complex, uncertain and conflict ridden problem situations is outlined.

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref - !!!8 ! * ' 8 ) " " " + "% ) < 11,= " " - # $ " # % " -" + Unstructured /
) * $ +

Adapted forms of research practice are required that are able to produce useful knowledge to inform the types of collective decisions and actions that must be taken in the inter organisational fields of water planning and management in today's interconnected information societies. Of the many available research methods available (with different underlying epistemologies), one is required that allows the investigation of our question presented at the end of Chapter 2: 5 / " " # " ' " " " + "

# " + " " M From a review and analysis of possible research positions, it is postulated that adopting an "intervention research" position may lead to the most adapted insights. This is largely due to the need to embrace the complexity of messy problem situations and pursue collective action to manage them into the future. Hubert (2002) describes and comments on the utility of three types of research "laboratory", "field" and "intervention research", analysing them in terms of their orientation to the construction of knowledge (from an objective of constructive stance) and their

4 8 2 " ' ' " " / + + 5 ' < = < 11 = ! < =
Considering its apparent match to our research context, "intervention research" will be further investigated here.

The " approach is commonly used in the management sciences (Berry, 1995) and is aimed at critically co constructing collective action in the field (David, 2002) through which new knowledge and insights can be created (Avenier et al., 1999). The "field" in this case can be interpreted as the interaction space outlined in Figure 3.6.

Hatchuel and Molet (1986) consider "intervention" as: @ " " '+

" " " + "" # ' " " ! " " " + " A
Related to this definition, Hatchuel and Molet (1986) identify five typical phases in an intervention research process in an organisational setting which starts with identifying "feelings of discomfort" and "building rational myths" before the "interventions and

1 1 *# # & & ' $ , 1 # 1 ' $ 1 # 1 + 1 # 1 # # $ 1 # + & & ' 0 ' 1 # # ! " 1 # # 1 $ 1 + 4# *5 6# + & , 1 & # !"#$" ! % #"&"'# ( ")* #"&"'# )'+%#'!%# #"&"'# # CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref / 8 : $ " # (
interactions" in the field are put in place, which are followed by the elicitations of the participating actors' "sets of logics" and the final outcomes of "knowledge vs.

implementation". Each of these phases will be briefly outlined here:

1. @* " A8 on primary interactions with the potential clients and organisations, a certain number of current issues and dysfunctions where improvements are needed become apparent to the researcher.

2. @ + A: the researcher formulates and theorises about the problem situation observed or otherwise "sensed" in (1), developing a number of theoretical models or tools to understand or describe the organisational structure linked to the problems (and potentially how they could be rectified).

@! "

A: the experimental stage where stimuli are inserted into the organisational processes with feedback being obtained from actors in the form of "reinforcement" (support of/interest in) or "resistance" to the "rational myth"; the aim is to create a learning process.

4. @-+ " A: the inductive phase where actors give their theories and thoughts on the processes which they are involved in and have an opportunity to enhance or antagonise the "rational myth"; in the process bringing forward a new vision (a "set of logics") on the advancing problem situations and organisational structures.

5. @K A: the learning process induced by the introduction of the rational myth into the organisation can bring about a variety of outcomes including each actor having developed new theories related to the functioning of the operational systems and new understandings of the "feelings of discomfort" about the problem situation first acknowledged at the beginning of the process. The research may end with a "stabilisation of existing logics" or "a change of structures and tools" that has been observed relating to the construction of new logics, rather that an actual "implementation" of the tools of the researcher.

This approach has specifically been designed for organisational settings. How it might work in inter organisational settings is not specified. Later outlines of the intervention research approach have been less descriptive in the specific steps that need to be undertaken, rather prescribing a set of principles that should be adhered to in creating and undertaking intervention research (i.e. Avenier et al., 1999;David, 2000).

Such principles could apply to either organisational or inter organisational settings.

Avenier et al. (1999) notes in particular the need to:

1. Negotiate individual goals of both the practitioners and researchers, as well as a collective project from which they will both benefit; it is in this phase where the researcher must compromise between his or her own research goals (i.e.

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref , -!!!8 ! knowledge creation) and the onsite needs and problems (i.e. action) and decide whether an intervention can prove fruitful for both parties (Arnaud, 1996).

2. Negotiate and decide on the modes of interaction permissible in the organisational structure (for example co designing or operating projects) and the structure of the research project (for the researcher and in relation to an outside research team or possible steering group where ideas and emerging theories can be discussed during the intervention (Berry, 1995)); it is important in this phase to begin to construct a legitimate position (both operational and analytical) in between a number of actors and needs which are likely to be diverse and potentially conflicting (Mayer, 1986). believes that the "intervention research" approach can be considered as a broader general approach that can include and add to all the other research approaches taken in the management sciences. A comparison of the four typical approaches taken in the management sciences is given in From Table B.1, it can be seen that the intervention research approach consists of continual theoretical reappraisal during the project that re orientates the action in the organisational context. This is in comparison to the traditional "action research" projects that concentrate on obtaining organisational action, and then may theorise how and why the action occurred that way at a later point; and to the creation of models for organisational change or decision support that have been theorised (and will hopefully be later applied. Observation on the other hand plays a more external role but could induce theoretical and contextual changes at a later date. It is noted that David's comparison is based on stereotypes of the management approaches and that in reality there may be a number of hybrid type approaches, as for example a number of descriptions of "action research" processes and the theory behind them are very similar to the "intervention research" as described in the French management sciences (i.e. as described in the later sections of Flood (1998)).

In any case, it is considered that well intentioned and theoretically sound intervention research projects (whatever their appellation) can offer many possibilities to extend current and theoretical and practical knowledge bodies, and that their application could be beneficial to the water sector.

Within an intervention research project, as reflection is based around constructing collective action, it is advantageous to analyse theoretically how decisions on taking action are typically taken and what methods could be used to aid them.

) , + -

Many models of human decision making have been postulated including those based on theory from philosophy, psychology, mathematics, neuroscience, the management sciences and operational research. The most common similarity is that decision making is considered as a process rather than just a moment of choice (Roy, 1993).

The large majority of models presume a number of sequential "phases" that exist in a decision process between the emergence of an idea and its transformation into some It must be noted that some of these authors underline the possibility of feedback through and between stages, rather than being carried out sequentially in time. This especially so for Witte (1972), who analysed all of the phases denoted as emerging continuously through the decision making cases that were studied. Some other authors also question the validity of these processes as to whether they occur in such sequential orders and if they produce "successful" decision outcomes (Lipshitz and Bar Ilan, 1996). From these phase type models there are typically at least two different phases that occur before the "choice" and "implementation" stages that could be aided. These two phases, the initial awareness and formulation of the problem, as well as the evaluation phase will be briefly reviewed next.

$ " # 1 * ' 8 / @ A " # % ' # " <$ + 1 = <-+ 1( = < 1, > 1 N= < 1, = <9 1 = <3 E' 1 ,= <; 1& =
)

@* ' A D '
In its basic form, problem formulation (or framing) is a process that occurs on a habitual basis in everyday life between reflection and action in a decision process, or Exactly what constitutes the phase of problem formulation is not the same in each domain, and can often vary substantially between authors from the same domain.

Looking at optimisation theory, problem formulation is generally considered as the selection of variables, objective functions, constraints and models to use in order to perform the optimisation (Dandy and Warner, 1989). This type of problem formulation forms the base of many closed engineering and water resources management problems such as irrigation or drinking water pipe network optimisation and reservoir design.

One of the common ways to formulate problems in the field of management is to consider the responses to the questions: "who?", "what?", "why?", "when?", "where?"

and "how?". This set of questions originally stemmed from a poem of Rudyard Kipling "The Elephant Child" and has since been adopted into the management literature as the first step in planning and problem solving (Adair, 1986). Such a process describing a problem situation and potential ensuing actions is not always referred to as "problem formulation", but under a myriad of other appellations including: "problem structuring", "problem posing", "problem specification" , "problem framing/decision framing", "problem outlining", "problem definition", "problem identification and classification" and even "planning". The fuzziness of such a concept thus may lead to difficulties for researchers and practitioners to effectively communicate exactly which processes they are referring to when such terms are employed. In order to overcome potential confusion and misunderstandings, more attention has been recently employed in certain organisations or research groups to clearly identify the meaning of "problem formulation" or any of its variants. For example, Woolley and Pidd (1981) classify four "streams" of problem structuring (checklist, definition, science research and people) based on their underlying assumptions to help to clarify the implicit processes expected and understood by certain stakeholders or decision analysts.

In a less explicit manner, the RAND Corporation, defines problem formulation as the process of not only "joining the dots" but also "collecting the dots", referring to the need to determine carefully where, and from whose points of view, a problem definition has stemmed (through various forms of social and data analyses, where both tacit and explicit knowledge are examined (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995)), rather than simply constructing a seemingly given problem (joining the dots) in terms of components required to then formulate potential solutions. The process of "collecting the dots" is considered to be commonly forgotten or not adequately examined in many problem formulation and solving exercises, which has led to many failures to solve or examine the "real" underlying problems (Libicki and Pfleeger, 2004).

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref / 8 :

$ " # Following a similar vein, but in the domain of operational research, Tsoukiàs (2007) clarifies that in a decision aiding process, the first phase of constructing a description of the "problem situation" is an essential activity which can be considered separately from the description of the "problem formulation", and an "evaluation model" which is then used to construct a "final recommendation". In this abstract and more formalised process (in terms of required content in each of the stages), once the situation of the problem has be defined in terms of the actors, participants or stakeholders concerned, as well as their concerns or stakes and the resources or commitment to the process they are likely to contribute, the second phase of "problem formulation" can then be represented. This is performed in terms of a set of potential actions that could occur within the problem situation, a set of points of view from which these actions could be analysed, and a problem statement that explains what operation could be performed by these potential actions. A consensus on the problem formulation must then be achieved with all the actors or stakeholders, before the evaluation model is constructed and a final recommendation decided upon. This model has been expanded to the inter organisational context in Section 5.1.3.

When consensus building is difficult or problems appear to be of the messy type described in Figure 3.1, the case in which independent problems are unidentifiable, and instead a dynamic situation of complex systems of interacting changing problems at a variety of scales exists, it is suggested that "problem structuring methods" may be more appropriate (Rosenhead and Mingers, 2001). In these cases, these unstructured problems may be collectively "structured" and "managed" rather than "formulated"

and "solved". For such problems or situations, including many of those confronted in today's water management and policy making activities, it is now almost unanimously agreed upon that the participation of all stakeholders in these situations is required in the problem structuring and later planning and management phases, if adequate management of these situations is to occur (Viessman Jr., 1998). In group situations It is also noted that in certain quickly evolving situations, information used for problem structuring may only remain valid for limited period of time (Bouyssou et al., 2000) and so reformulation of problems and the applications of subsequent stages in a decision aiding, management or planning process should also be adjusted and implemented accordingly.

Taking the problem formulation further, it has also been suggested that many messes will most likely require "reframing" (Wittgenstein, 1953) or reformulation rather than just framing of their internal problem areas. Yet this is not linked to validity of information of information but rather the need for extensive change to manage certain messy situations and intractable problems. Second order change that pulls the issues out of their current frame, rather than first order change that treats problem causes or effects in their current frame is considered to be necessary for the successful Reframing may be sufficient to dissolve or change the "problem". However, if this can not be achieved or it does not lead to action (Brocklesby and Mingers, 1999), once a problem is structured or restructured there is typically a need to evaluate alternative courses of action in order to inform choice to manage it. Evaluation will therefore be briefly discussed in the next section. four principle reasons that evaluations may be carried out: for curiosity (i.e. to find something out), monitoring (i.e. to check progress towards goals), fine tuning (i.e. to inform adjustments relative to planned actions) and to inform choice (i.e. decide on actions). In this section on decision aiding models, it is the "inform choice" reason for evaluation that is of particular interest, even if it the other elements are typically required to complement this element. In this situation, evaluation can be considered as the phase of the decision process that is undertaken once a problem has been formulated. However, some recent literature on "evaluation processes" considers the problem formulation phase as an important part of the evaluation. In fact, such "evaluation" appears to encompass an entire decision process. Related to these forms of evaluation, Guba and Lincoln (1989) identify four large "generations" of definitions and bases for evaluation: measurement, description, judgement and responsiveness, the outlines of which are noted in Table B number of these evaluation methods will be further discussed in the next section, along with methods used for other phases of the decision aiding process.

% , -. / 0 & # & 0 7 0# 0 & # # & ' ' 8 2 & & ' &1 0 $ '9 #$% % % % "% % % &' ! 6 ' 0 4 & # & & 4 & $ & & ' 08 : & #$ $ -- 8 2 $ 9 ;( % % " ) * "% % + &' ! $ #$7 # 0 9 ; , ( "% - " % * ( . % / % " % '8 ; " < & 7 ;+ " ( % ) <8 % # ' ' 7 & 0 9 ;"% / % ) ( . % / % % " % % ! % * " % / % % " " + + < CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref
The next section will aim to outline and classify these "problem situations" in more detail, so as to better define the need for future research in the domain of water planning and management. Many methods have been developed over the years to aid different stages of the decision making process for these problem situations. Most have been in response to the challenges affecting the problem situation, underlying societal values and consequent decision process, including aspects of uncertainty, complexity and conflict. Relative to these three principle facets of messy situations, a number of different approaches to managing with these aspects will be outlined in this section, along with some of the methods that have been developed for these specific conditions. It is noted that there is much overlap between the facets and the when "the whole is in the part which is in the whole". These interrelations could include the operational / behavioural, kinematic and numerical dimensions of the context.

A problem situation can also be considered as a cognitive artefact (a representation or construction) of the decision aiding process. This specific meaning is attributed to it in the Tsoukiàs (2007) decision aiding model presented in Figure 3.5.

However, in order to decide what type of decision aiding or water planning and management approach may be required in a certain situation, a number of other parameters of a context may first be analysed, such as the general uncertainties, complexities and degree of conflict related to all of the contextual dimensions listed here.

) ! & "

The concept of complexity is most commonly defined in relation to the study of those inherent in the composition of the system, including the number and characteristics of its components and the interrelations between them; and

those linked to uncertainties, randomness, ambiguity and seemingly chaotic properties of their own internal composition and external environment.

As a part of complexity, " + can be defined as something that is not entirely Considering these two principal aspects of complexity (the number of interrelations and uncertainties), water "systems" and their associated planning and management systems can be observed through history to have become more complex over time, as outlined in Chapter 2 and Appendix A. Current day complexity in the water sector related to interrelations and uncertainties will be further outlined here, along with some of their consequences for the future. Sections on "conflict" will then follow separately, even though it is also an intimately intertwined part of complexity.

! " " " / +

Water planning and management are becoming increasingly complex due to the interrelations between the water sector and almost every other sector in the rapidly globalising world. The "information" revolution, including the growth of the internet as an extra example, the issue of water and energy interrelations will be discussed here, as it is a more recent example of a strong human created interdependence outside of the traditional natural water energy cycles.

In modern societies, water use and management is intimately entwined with energy production. Water is used to create and use energy, and energy is required for the sourcing, treatment and transport of water in many areas. A fifth of the world's total energy is produced through hydropower (Pearce, 2004) and cooling of other types of power stations, such as nuclear and coal, requires large amounts of water. As a consequence, it is thought that these important relations, if not effectively considered and managed, will lead to increased conflicts as both water and energy become more valuable and less easily obtainable resources. For example, in countries with Mediterranean or temperate climates, it can already be observed that summer peak energy periods often occur in drought years when temperatures are at their most extreme and in times when there is increased water scarcity, high evaporation and strong competition for the resource. At such a time, dam releases for hydropower, nuclear and coal power station cooling, and energy for desalination to produce more water, are all likely to create additional strains on limited water resources, causing conflicts with other water users. The new issue of desalination also brings the interdependence between water and energy ever closer, along with a wide range of other interrelations, including: land use, as competition for coastal land is becoming increasingly intense because of population growth and urbanisation; and ecological systems, as discharges of the salty brine in sensitive coastal regions are likely to cause environmental degradation which includes biodiversity loss.

! " " " / + "

Predicting the impacts of planned water management actions over a variety of scales and interrelated sectors, or the impacts of outside phenomena such as climate change on a local region's water and environment, is also becoming an increasingly complex task. In the past such tasks were left to scientists and engineers who formulated their predictions based on traditional water resource models or tacit expert advice.

However, with the increasing list of contextual uncertainties and new system interrelations (highlighted in this section), such traditional decision aiding techniques and modelling for planning and management of water related actions have fallen under heavy criticism (KNAW, 2003). Although some impacts of actions may still have predicable outcomes, others are likely to produce non linear or chaotic outcomes and others still will result from unforeseen or surprise events (Gleick, 1998 internationally. When a conflict has been expressed in the public domain it can be considered as "manifest" and if it remains hidden it can be defined as "latent" (Rinaudo and Garin, 2003).

In the case of water and its management, "conflict" has been further defined as " Problem situations, which have a low number of interrelations, are not ridden with uncertainties, and exhibit low levels of conflict, can be considered as "relatively simple", and as such, may be able to be "solved" using traditional scientific investigations or by engineering problem solving. Problem situations that exhibit higher levels of conflict but still low numbers of uncertainties and interrelations, may lend themselves to be managed using typical conflict resolution or political methods.

" " " + "" " " (
However, those with high levels of conflict, uncertainties and interrelations can be thought of as good quality messes that will require inspiration at the least to manage uncertainties of an epistemological nature) are high, "post normal" science implies a need to "democratise" scientific practice, as the "normal" scientific methods (Kuhn, 1962) are no longer considered relevant or practicable in such situations (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1993). It is suggested that planning and management for the messiest situations should be predominantly "politics with science advisors" (Burchfield, 1998) where: public participation becomes an intrinsic part of the planning process (i.e.

!0 * & & 1 = 2 2 CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref / 8 : $ " # ,
"Interactive planning"); and the role of science and its relationships to policy will be explored (Lachapelle et al., 2003). The other categories of "professional consultancy"

and "applied science" could be matched to the types of professional judgements made by engineers and the use of typical scientific methods in Figure B.4, corroborating a general typology of strategies for managing messy and simpler problem situations.

Although there have always been issues of uncertainty, complexity and conflict in past societies, civilisations and their water systems, it has never been to the same degree as in today's world. In the past, some seemingly sustainable solutions to certain problems appeared to have been found, yet whether they will meet the needs and desires of today's communities is another matter. Although some problem situations in the water sector are still relatively simple (e.g. determining the amount of treatment chemicals to be applied to stored water to bring it within drinking water regulations;

or designing a pressurised water network within a number of flow and budgetary constraints) and can be performed using a range of advanced engineering techniques, there are many more which are much more messy. Whenever larger scale issues are investigated, or more people are interested in the water issues, the problems are likely to be significantly messier. A number of potential methods for working in messy situations have already been highlighted in Chapter 3, so only the issue of inspiration noted in Figure B.4 will be looked at in the final section of this Appendix.

) ! 1 " - + 2 * Q + ' 0 + Q 9 % 8 @9 " + % ' MA 5 " % ' M * " " @ A " " ' " + # 9 I " < =
Even though there have been recent changes in the underlying principles of water management practices in recent times, many of the on the ground approaches and practices in today's world (especially in the West) are still largely impregnated with rational Cartesian thinking. This is not surprising, considering the current educational programs through school and universities, which have a tendency to 8 to encourage a holistic understanding of the world from the material to the spiritual.

: the evolution of consciousness and that all individuals are part of wholes in organised holarchies ?

8 May provide a useful basis for common understanding between epistemologies -that there are many complementary ways of viewing the one world.

)

: A number of the integral approaches exhibit inconsistencies in the presentations of their theories; understanding the bases of these theories is likely to involve intensive background reading, thought and interpretation 8 systems theory, ecology, human development and evolution -considers the evolutionary and self organising nature of complex adaptive systems that are nested one within the other and interrelated across space and time scales.

8 to provide a theoretical basis for understanding transformations in human and natural systems.

: four main stages in an "panarchy" adaptive cycle -exploitation, conservation, release and reorganisationand interscale interconnectedness dynamics; other CAS assume different process mechanics for social learning and self organisation, emergence, and transition behaviours ? 8 relatively simple frameworks and concepts for describing and understanding complex phenomena; comprehensive body of background theory to complex adaptive systems and techniques that can be used to model them; already gaining wide spread support in the water sector as an alternative management paradigm.

)

: the panarchy model of CAS still remains controversial and requires more empirical studies to provide supporting evidence; the approach remains a largely objectivist vision of the world with less focus on the integration of subjective viewpoints and the place of the researcher in the world : rich variety of complementary knowledge systems (holistic, synergenistic, communal, ancestral, logic "webs" of CAS (biomimicry), circular logic, pluralism (between language and cultures) and deep narrative; connections and integration of "country", "the dreaming" and their places in the universe where everything is alive and intelligent

?

: presents a cohesive understanding of the world that has allowed the sustainable management of life in the Australian environment for thousands of years.

)

: extreme differences from the western way of life and the representation of their place in the world and the universe, which may limit comprehension capacity for many and increase the likelihood of misunderstandings Apart from the approaches presented here, there are of course many others that have been unfortunately neglected, some of which are already proving to provide interesting insights into the water sector, including: the Chinese ecological philosophies (i.e.

Wang and Li, 2008); and network theories (for example, social network theory and small world networks) (Buchanan, 2002).

From Table B.4 it can be seen that there are a number of common themes emerging in these alternative approaches which include: self organisation; learning and evolution; integrating existing dualisms (living with paradoxes); intuition; creativity; that nothing can be considered as fixed or stationary (systems, time, space); and that everything depends on perspective.

& "

Some basic definitions of "participation" and "modelling" will first be presented to outline the differences between "traditional" modelling and "participatory modelling"

and their potential domains of use. Following this brief review of concepts, the subject of how participatory modelling can, as well as why it should, be used for water resources management and planning will be treated, and potential participants will be identified.

& '

@ "+ " "+ "

" ' * " " + " " " A D $ < 1,(=
( = # = # # 2 # 2 # # 4 ) 8 - " " " ' " " " 8 - < 1 =
Fung (2006) has gone further to describe various "approaches" to participation through his "democracy cube", which is based on axes of: authority and power; type of This thesis will tend to refer to participation in the case where more than just "consultation" is occurring; where there are quality two way interactions and knowledge transfers occurring. The question of "pseudo participation", which could also be matched to certain forms of non participation or tokenism on Arnstein's scale, will be further discussed later in this thesis when looking at ethics in participatory research (Section 9.2.2). Examination and definitions of "modelling" in its general and participatory forms will now be addressed.

& 0

Modelling can be defined as the process of developing and providing an abstraction, representation, "meta object" or model of reality. Costanza and Ruth (1998) claim the building of models is an essential prerequisite for human understanding and for making a choice between a number of options or alternative actions. For an individual, these models often constitute "mental models" that are formed through extracting the relevant elements of previous observations and experience, as well as their interrelations (Johnson Laird, 1983). A mental model relating to a particular question or problem can then be analysed through these relations to elicit an answer or to choose a relevant solution or course of action (Chown, 1999). The majority of mental modelling occurs qualitatively, with relationships and causalities between variables, space and time being simplified so that rapid analysis of alternative options is possible CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref / )8 :

-" + 3

(Zwaan and Radvansky, 1998). In situations where quantitative values become important to decision making and system understanding, or the relationships between elements become more complex and variance over spatial and temporal scales needs to be analysed, mental models maybe insufficient to underpin adequate analysis or decisions (Forrester, 1992). To provide useful abstractions of these more complex realities, other types of modelling are used. Varieties of modelling methods may range from making explicit these mental or "cognitive" maps into words, diagrams, concrete structures or mathematical equations that can be used to communicate ideas with other people, to create reusable theories or to aid understanding and more complex decision making. If basic understanding, scientific theories and mental models of certain system subsystems are insufficient to create more explicit models in other forms, then techniques such as statistical modelling using series of observed data may be able to reveal some of the missing links. Some modelling methods have already For example, a lack of attention in determining the "real" or "right" problems to study, right from the beginning of the problem identification stage of a modelling process for decision aiding, may also have been the concern hidden beneath the question: "Why are so many models built and so few used?" (Lilien, 1975). By "use" here, it is the issue of who is using the model that is important to make explicit, as usually at least the model's designer will use it for something. Behind this question lies another reason why many modellers, both in water management and planning applications and in other domains, are currently looking at the possibilities of participatory

3%*")& ' . / : 0 $ ' ' / : 0 ' ' 7 # + #08 : 0 ' + : & $ # 1 / ' # & & & # #07 ' 0 #0 ## '' & . ' # & 6 # # * 7 # ' ' 7 # , ## '' CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref / )8 : - " + 3
modelling as a way to increase the explicit and meaningful use of their models by others. However, several words of warning have been issued over the need to just involve people so that a model can be improved or created; "a model for model's sake", rather than focussing on the entire process of problem solving and decision aiding In its purest form, the participatory modelling process could be considered as a continuous spiral of collective decision cycles, related to every section of the modelling.

Each aspect of the problem to be analysed is agreed upon collectively, along with the objectives of process, and each model hypothesis is agreed upon, as well as how the model is to be used to aid final collective decisions related to the objectives. If at any stage individual decisions occur, which are not discussed and accepted collectively and which have an impact on changing the process or model form, then the participatory nature of the process in its purest form will not have been maintained. In reality, the purest form of participatory modelling remains almost impossible to achieve due to a large number of factors including undiscussed facilitator interventions and time constraints. For example, any analyst, facilitator or modeller involved in a participatory modelling process possesses their own values and perceptions of what is occurring, and therefore can not be considered as neutral.

Unless his or her objectives, decisions and proposed processes are discussed and accepted by the participants, some individual decisions are highly likely to impact the process. In terms of time constraints, participatory modelling is notorious for the large amount of time required to discuss all details of problems or hypotheses of the model, as many conflicts may occur or the number of model variables may become excessive.

Total convergence on all such details is rare within a set time frame, unless a model is particularly small and simple. It is usual then to only wait until acceptance is achieved on a set number of major issues, with other minor issues often decided at the discretion of certain participants, such as the analyst, the facilitator or the modeller.

In some cases, this may have some negative impacts on the process, such as reduced participant comprehension and acceptance of the model. In others cases it may have benefits, such as decreasing the repetitiveness and length of sessions to encourage sustained participant interest and attention levels. It is noted that an excessively time consuming process or ineffective participatory process is likely to involve less and less motivated participants. On the other hand, if participation is effective then the process can be considered to be really participatory.

& ! " " "

2 @* " + "+ + 7 " + " E ' " " 7 A D ! " < 111=
Unlike traditional modelling carried out by one person or institution, which may or may not include information from other stakeholders and which is used for decision aiding, "participatory modelling" allows a number of different points of view to be explicitly represented and collectively reflected upon by a group of stakeholders before a collective decision is made (Ferrand, 1997). Such an approach to modelling is thought to be suited to dealing with the increasingly messy situations facing the water sector, which have proven difficult to manage with traditional technical scientific methods, in large part due to the fact that stakeholders' knowledge, perceptions, preferences and values become too important not to be taken into account. Under the One of the reasons why the "success" of participatory modelling for water resources management and planning applications is so difficult to gauge is that behind the use of participatory modelling there commonly lies a multiplicity of assumptions and objectives. For any particular situation, these objectives could include but are in no way limited to:

gaining a common understanding of problems;

solving the "right" problems;

developing a platform or tool to aid communication, negotiation or consensus building;

explicating tacit knowledge, preferences and values;

improving the legitimacy of a model;

reducing conflict;

education;

enhancing both individual and social learning;

promoting creativity and innovation;

building social capacity;

investigating the effects of group behaviours or scenarios on a "micro world" system without having to use the real world;

informing decisions; and

instigating action or improving the adoption of chosen problem solutions or management options.

Although these are stated as objectives of participatory modelling, the degree to which participatory modelling may help to achieve such objectives, especially when compared with other modelling and non modelling methods for water resources management and planning, remains to be systematically evaluated. The form of the process and participation is also likely to vary markedly, as will be discussed briefly in Section C.2.

& ' "

Despite steadily increasing volumes of literature on participatory modelling, few people have attempted to explicitly define the concept in terms of who is participating and in which phases of the water planning, management and modelling process the participation occurs. A large quantity of work exists on what "participation" means in decision making terms, as was discussed in Section C.1.1. In most examples, the importance is on who has the balance of power for final decision making (i.e. the "choice" phase of a decision process (Simon, 1977)) but other issues of process are not specifically mentioned. These participation classifications, although useful in a very general sense for the question of "participatory modelling", do not explicitly treat the issue of the place of a modeller (i.e. scientist, engineer or analyst) or expert knowledge.

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref / )8 :

- " + 3
Other disciplines, such as operational research, have had much more effort spent focussing on the place of models and expert knowledge in decision making processes, although less effort has been placed on analysing "participatory modelling" as a concept, especially in the inter organisational, multi stakeholder group context that is commonly encountered in water resources and planning.

& ,

In the policy and sociology domains, the place of technical knowledge, management and the public or "citizens" has been well analysed (i.e. Dewey (1927), Fischer (1990) and Mermet (1992)), especially with respect to who is involved in a decision making process (as distinct from a decision "aiding" process). For example, in public policy and management decision making processes related to complex water management and planning problems, it is suggested that there are three main groups of participants who could be represented: scientists, external experts or researchers;

governments, policy makers and managers; and community stakeholders and the general public (Thomas, 2004). Similarly, (Dietz et al., 2003) consider "scientists", "officials" and "interested parties". The category of "officials" or "policy makers and managers" is most problematic as it could be easily divided into three further groups on the basis of their legitimisation: elected officials with power over final decision making; employed managers with high decision making power (public and private);

and government employed bureaucrats or policy advisors who may have significant political influence but little real decision making power. In some cases these bureaucrats could also be shifted to the "scientists" category, depending on their expertise. Other much more complex categorisations, including important actors such as the media, could also be envisaged (Althaus et al., 2007), and classifications on choice of participants will likely need to form part of the discussions on participatory process design (Mazri, 2007). An extremely simple and idealized scheme in terms of "politics", "science" and the "public", visualisation of the potential interactions of some of these parties that could occur at any stage in these processes is given in unsuccessful, the lack of decision making power will prove a downfall. For collaborations between only the public and politics, policy is likely to be acceptable to the public but lacking in scientific bases, which could result in negative impacts such as environmental degradation and poor or technically infeasible solutions.

Combinations of all three parties at some stage throughout the water management and decision making process are likely to produce the best, although potentially more time consuming, outcomes, especially for complex and uncertain water problems. As a general rule, no well trialled procedures exist for finding the "right" set of participants for a participatory modelling exercise, especially for the case where such a process is being used as a collective decision aiding process. However, it is thought that a diverse

& , +

From the literature briefly reviewed in the previous sections, a four stage classification of increasing "participation" of actors in a decision making process is presented here.

The classification is based on a five stage process (similar to the typical "phase" decision processes outlined in Table B.2): world and problem vision (i.e. Simon's (1960) "intelligence"); model design; solution design; choice; and action, with three main groups of actors who could be involved in a participatory modelling exercise: policy makers and managers; technical experts; and stakeholder communities. Figure C.6 provides a more complete list of the types of actors that each of these generalised categories could include. These are not the only possible classifications that could be imagined as: some actors may fall into more than one category; the process could be divided into more or fewer stages; there could be feedback loops between the process stages; and as a result more in between levels of classification could exist. These four levels of classification have been specifically chosen as they match some of the more commonly observed modelling processes in water management and planning.

.

D* /

The first level of the modelling process classification (shown in ' 5

! + + 0 6 1 & '8 . $ # '' # ; '< & + # + 8 # / . 5
CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref / )8 :

-" + 3 & support systems: options are proposed and choice is at stake. The model itself is not given or manipulated directly by the decision makers, who in this case include the stakeholder communities.

4 ) &8 . # * / % " +
The main criticisms of such methods follow many of those from the first level, which include the fact that sound options exist outside the initial set of those proposed, as well as the relative difficulty of weighting options and finding a fair and acceptable social choice when the design may not cope with localities' specifications and idiosyncrasies. It is, however, the usual choice for public decision making, as "public consultation" is often a legislated obligation, and scientific and technical experts' knowledge can be efficiently drawn upon. ' 5

! + + 0 6 1 & '8 . $ # '' # $ # & 8 # / . 5 > # CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref 4 ) 18 . # ! / " " " #
The advantage of this type of modelling process is that the scope of actions and the solution design can be more controlled and appropriated by decision makers.

However, it still assumes an agreement on the model and its accuracy for the local situation, which leads to the question of whether the "right" problems were addressed from the affected public's point of view and whether the model is sufficiently transparent to be understood and regarded as "legitimate" by them and the policy makers and managers.

! + ? > # !# ! 5 ! 0 ' ' & & ' * 0 0 & ' 0 $ # , + 0 6 # + 7 ' & # # 8 . ' & #$ # ## 8 # / . 5 > # ! + ?
CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref / )8 :

- " + 3 & 4 ) 8 . D - " + " " " # "
Unlike the other previous classification levels in "participatory modelling", the stakeholder communities and the policy makers and managers are involved in the collective "world and problem vision", "model design" and "alternative design" phases before making their final collective "choices". It is hypothesised that participatory Another aspect to consider is that, even though participatory modelling can potentially be used to avoid many pitfalls of expert centric modelling processes, a balance between both participant discourse and scientific rigour should be encouraged. As models built in participatory modelling processes are attempting to incorporate previously lacking stakeholders' perspectives on the world and problems to be modelled, they tend to have a risk of over focussing on these aspects in order to obtain the stamp of approval or legitimacy on the model from the participants, often to the

# & "4 # '00 . # ' ( % ? ! + ? > # !# A 1 & ' 6 8 : + 7 ' & 7 ' 7 & # # + # + 0 # # & # # + # #0# 8 D #$ $

& ! ' "

In order to expand upon the previous theoretically orientated descriptions and discussions of participatory modelling methods, a more practical look at two of the most commonly used processes for participatory modelling in water resources management and planning applications will be briefly outlined and discussed: those

from
+ ' $ '0 " " $ " ' 7 > % % M 4 7 ( + " , ! E 0 " / " 0 " < = CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref &, - !!!8 !
In this planning process, the shared vision model provides the base for formulating alternatives, measuring their potential effects and providing information to help evaluate alternatives. Throughout the process, in which the stakeholders are expected to participate from the team building and identifying problems stage, "collaborative negotiation" and a "deliberative decision process" takes place between the various stakeholder groups (Stephenson, 2003). The process is usually carried out over a number of workshops, with modellers and their colleagues working behind the scenes to finish the data collection for quantification of model parameters and linking functions, as time restrictions often prevent the model from being completed in workshop time. The common format of tools or modelling methods used is a communally built causal loop diagram (a particular form of cognitive mapping designed to elicit "if then" dynamic statements between variables) which is then translated into a quantitative "stock and flow" type dynamic model using platforms such as STELLA (High Performance Systems, 1992) and VENSIM (Ventana Systems, 1995), which allow simulations to be carried out with the results visualised on the computer. Human behavioural effects or decision patterns tend not to be explicitly considered in this kind of modelling except when they can be statistically modelled in terms of water use or other easily quantifiable variables.

An offshoot process of this original systems dynamics inspired participatory process is "mediated modeling" (van den Belt, 2004) which formalises these two steps of qualitative and quantitative model building, as well as the idea of "working behind the scenes" in the process steps of model building:

@ $ 7 % 3 ' % % $ 7 S M " A .
The author also goes on to state what she believes such a method can achieve in terms of improving the degree of understanding the system dynamics of the problems being studied and in increasing the degree of consensus among stakeholders, as shown in Figure C.12.

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref / )8 :

- " + 3 & 4 ) 8 -" " 8 < =
Although seemingly presenting the potential advantages of mediated modelling over other techniques in Figure C.12, the common pitfalls of the approach are not made so evident. One element of the systems dynamics approaches that sometimes comes under criticism is the fact that it is often still a modeller, usually a technical expert, who is required to help guide participants through the modelling to a consensus.

Apart from potential issues of bringing a group to a range of consensus decisions, the fact that more often than not the modeller is required to perform a large amount of work behind the scenes has in many case studies rendered the final model not as transparent or unbiased as originally intended. Moreover, the assertion that many of these processes lead to "implementable policies" remains highly contentious (Scholl, 2004). There is currently very little knowledge on what these modellers (and facilitators) do behind the scenes and little theory on how their contributions may be organised or supervised both in participatory workshops and outside of them.

& ! 0 + " & 0
Multi agent systems, despite having many similarities with certain aspects of system dynamics, are based on the body of "complexity" theory, relating to "chaos" theory and self organising systems (Ison et al., 1997), which evolved quite separately from the system dynamics body of theory. While system dynamics attempts to characterise the behaviour of whole systems through their feedback structures (a 'top down' approach), multi agent systems focus on individual agents (representations of people or objects)

with in built rules. These agents interact with other agents, permitting visualisation of an emergent macro system behaviour (a "bottom up" approach) (Scholl, 2001). Multi agent modelling thus allows the explicit inclusion of behavioural modelling or

6 1 > ' 4 # 7 && # + ' ' # / % E 6 FG F : %C?F= AB 1 ! # -' # '' + ' ' # 0 #$ $ %F? !:F? ? .> .. CA 1 > ' # + + ' .:!: . / C 1 > & ' + ' E % CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref && - !!!8 !
qualitative information, two aspects that are commonly considered as shortfalls of system dynamics modelling processes.

Although the theory of multi agent systems has been under development for at least 30 years, it was not until the end of the 1990s that it started to be used in participatory settings for water resources management applications. One of the most well known approaches from these first experiments is now known as the "companion modelling approach", given its name as it can be used as an instrument in mediation processes which can co evolve with the temporal and adaptive dimensions of social processes (Barreteau, 2003b As presented by Barreteau (2003b), and shown in Figure C.13, the companion modelling process is cyclic, and comprised the following main stages which can be repeated as many times as required:

1. Field studies and bibliography, which supply information and hypotheses for modelling and raise questions to be resolved using the model; 2. Modelling, i.e. converting current knowledge into a formal tool to be used as a simulator; and 3. Simulations which, conducted according to an experimental protocol (computer model or role playing game), include participants, challenge former understanding of the system, raise new questions for a new batch of field studies, and generate participation behaviour in modelled outcomes.

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref / )8 :

- " + 3 &1 4 ) 8 * ) 3 " " 8 < '=
The social interactions and behaviours of the participants are of particular interest in this approach. These are observed through the role playing games, serve the purpose of helping to scientifically validate the multi agent models from the researchers' point of view, and may also aid the participants to determine the legitimacy of the model.

Current multi agent systems applications to water resources management and planning remain largely initiated by researchers on problems of smaller spatial scales.

Such applications are typically carried out with small groups of participants (often the general public rather than policy makers), unlike the systems dynamics approaches

* " ) " "

The Strategic Choice Approach (Friend and Hickling, 1987) is one of the problem structuring methods most commonly used in the inter organisational context. Its developers consider it has a number of distinguishing features including that it " " 8 @ " " " A @ " / A> @ " " A @ / + A> " +A @ ' A> @ A @ " A> @ " " A @ / " " AA (Friend, 2001) One of its principle goals is to elicit information about and understand different types of uncertainty including:

- 2) Analyse the options from different "decision areas" using pair wise comparison and combine them if it is feasible to do so: "Analysis of Interconnected Decision Areas (AIDA)" (Luckman, 1967)

3) Determine whether the alternative options are as "mutually exclusive" and "representative" possible of the range of potential choices for each "decision area", and adjust the option list if required 4) Examine the "compatibility" of the options between decision areas using an "option graph" and/or "compatibility grids" (matrices of pair wise option combinations with the possibilities of compatible, doubtful, and incompatible) or "option tree" (available in the STRAND software)

Comparing

Analysis of implications and effects of alternative courses of action 1) Define a number of "comparison areas" which could be specific "criteria" or more general domains where "intuitive" judgements can be used 2) Work using a "cyclic approach" to comparison (comparing pairs and excluding options from the "short list") by oscillating through: increasing and decreasing the "range of choice" (option list to compare); restricting and widening the range of "comparison areas"; bringing "uncertainty areas" to the "foreground" or keeping them in the "background"

3) Comparisons can be noted using simple scoring measures or by using a "comparison grid" to look at pair wise "comparative advantage" of options

Choosing

Making decisions and finding agreements on current commitments and future management processes 1) Reassess analyses created in the other three modes, paying particular attention to the potential effects of uncertainties where an "uncertainty graph" (Hickling, 2001) could be used, and to levels of urgency to make decisions for each of the decision areas

2) Develop a "process package" (or "commitment package") outlining the key elements examined during the decision aiding process in a structured form and chose alternatives (i.e. outlining current "decision areas" with the actions to be taken and the required explorations of uncertainty areas, as well as those still to be examined and decided upon in the future, including who is responsible for implementation, and when and how it should occur

Example applications of the use of the approach in the inter organisational water

" ? $ +

The problem structuring method, "Strategic Options Development and Analysis" or "SODA" (Eden, 1989), and its enveloping methodology entitled "JOURNEY Making" (JOintly Understanding, Reflecting, and NEgotiating strategY) (Eden and Ackermann, 1998), is another well known approach which stems from a very different theoretical background to the Strategic Choice Approach. SODA uses the technique of "cognitive mapping", the formal basis of which has been derived from Kelly's (1955) personal construct theory. In adopting this theoretical position, "individuals" are considered as the primary generators of meaning and they cognitively construct their own realities principally based on activities perceived to be related to making decisions for action

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref (Midgley, 2000). By taking this subjectivist ontological stance, it is implied that there is not one "objective reality", and that valid practice revolves around exploring individually and subjectively perceived alternative options for action, and not on the generation and testing of hypotheses (Midgley, 2000). However, it must be noted that this type of cognitive mapping is not the only type that is referred to in the literature.

Other variants and their underlying theoretical and philosophical bases are outlined in

4

) ,8 @* G?:2; H + % +A " 8 < "% 11&=

.16 shows that the process of creating strategy is cyclic and has been specifically designed to pass through a number of stages in a particular order, unlike the Strategic Choice Approach, in order to achieve the above stated aims. This constraining of direction to help turn strategy making into " " " " +" has been designed in a deliberate manner to allow members of an organisation to understand and reflect on current organisational strategies before moving on to negotiating and redesigning new strategic directions and the possible implications of these directions for stakeholders, the environment and managing change (Eden and Ackermann, 1998).

A number of methods have been specifically developed and are typically used in a process such as SODA and its internal elements of cognitive mapping and computer Despite its increasing levels of adoption, one of the potential challenges of using this problem structuring method in water applications is in its capacity to be adapted for use in the inter organisational domain. This challenge may soon be overcome, as recently there have been increasing numbers of articles treating such issues (Franco, 2008). For example, the possible expansion of SODA and the JOURNEY Making methodology into the public policy domain was proposed with an example practical application in 2004 by its originators (Eden and Ackermann, 2004). About the same time, other experiments of using SODA in a couple of different inter organisational settings appeared, including its application in participatory forestry management (Hjortsø, 2004). Finally, there have also been some very recent attempts to apply Following the definition of the research framework in Chapter 6, this Appendix will further present the pilot intervention case: a trial in Montpellier of a pre designed conceptual methodology for the participatory modelling of water resources problems and of the evaluation protocol presented in Section 5.5. The Appendix commences by outlining the context of the intervention. This is followed by some descriptive elements of the co engineering process, including the original design of the process' participatory modelling methodology and evaluation protocol, as well as a brief outline of the participatory modelling implementation process. Results obtained through the evaluation procedures will then be highlighted, followed by a discussion of these results and of the differences between the pre designed methodology and the methodology applied in practice. The discussion will focus on: a number of preliminary insights gained from the intervention; a critique of the methods used; suggestions for improvement for future applications; and questions remaining to be examined.

6 ' # I 0 7 & # 7 A 0 -IC AFJ # & ' * , 0 ' # 0 # # # 0 ' $ # 0 ' + ' # ' - / )8 : - " + 3

, 3 4 $

As explained in Section 6.2.1, the Montpellier intervention was chosen because of a number of constraints. The intervention context did not meet the ideals of a "real world" messy problem situation or of a participatory modelling group with representation from policy, science / expert and affected publics (refer to Section C.2).

It is still of value, as it allowed experimental validation of a theoretically developed participatory modelling methodology and the evaluation protocol. Moreover, it provided a relatively risk free environment of "learning by doing", in which practical experience in designing and mixing methods, organising, facilitating, modelling and simultaneous evaluation of participatory processes was obtained. Implementing and learning from such an intervention was therefore still useful, and in retrospect was a necessary step

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref 1& - !!!8 !
for intervening in future real word, more politically risky cases. This section will outline the local context and general objectives of the intervention in more detail.

, ) -0 "

The background context of this intervention is largely linked to the challenges of Based on these regional challenges and characteristics, where water management is characterised by high complexity, uncertainty and conflict, a preliminary proposal to work with interested members of the public on developing water management scenarios which could help to meet the 2015 objectives was developed. The proposal, which was based on participatory modelling used in a "reverse engineering" scenario planning process (Fleming, 2005), was sent for internal institutional approval in early September 2005. However, because of the level of conflict over water management in the region, the intervention research project was thought to be too politically and institutionally risky. Suggestions were then made on how these risks could be reduced, which included only inviting students to work on an "abstracted version" of the region's water issues.

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref - !!!8 ! , * $ 5 4 $
The research questions to which responses could be sought through the intervention were therefore changed from their original form and adapted to the constraints of the situation. These principal questions of interest included:

-To what extent can participatory modelling aid learning and changes in waterrelated perceptions and practices of a selected subset of the general public?

-How and to what extent can methods be combined through the various stages of a participatory modelling process to incite collective learning, creativity and change?

-What are some of the potential unforeseen advantages and constraints that can be uncovered through the intervention research process?

The objectives of the Montpellier methodology trial were therefore to:

1) Test the relevant hypotheses of the impacts of participatory modelling in this abstract case (outlined in Section C.2.2) though extensive evaluation procedures which include the "ENCORE" model components;

2) "Learn by doing" about method selection, evaluation procedures and other process constraints and opportunities in a relatively risk free research environment; and

3) Gain a greater understanding of the "general public" perspective on water issues.

The next two sections will outline how these questions were investigated and introduce how a diversity of objectives and roles of members of the project team impacted the intervention design and implementation processes.

, + $

Due to the institutional context of the two principal researchers who drove the development, design and implementation of this intervention (the researcher and her PhD supervisor at Cemagref), it is rather difficult to delimit when the intervention was "initiated", considering the historical evolution of the PhD research questions, case selection and case constraining process. The point of initiation will be taken as the moment that the "abstract" nature of the Montpellier case was defined, in order to delineate one external boundary of the research object of interest: "the co engineering process". This choice does disadvantage analysis of the "real" water issues of the Montpellier region that were mentioned previously, although it also has the advantage of presenting a coherent case intervention which is based on the adapted research questions and objectives in Section D.1.2. Therefore, the next section will start description and evaluation of the co engineering process from this point.

, *

As alluded to in the previous sections, the intervention was initiated by three principal actors: the researcher; her PhD supervisor; and their institutional research chief, who's role was to develop the intervention in a manner which would ensure: a low institutional risk; the completion of a research initiative that would be of benefit to the institution; and that budgetary costs would remain reasonable. Apart from preliminary scoping of the intervention, which included the caveat of the avoidance of regional water politics, this actor was only active in an advisory and budget operator role throughout the process.

The PhD supervisor had originally proposed the researcher's thesis topic, and so he maintained an active interest in her completing the research investigation along the guidelines proposed. This included the use of the ENCORE model outlined in Section 5.5 for evaluating the impacts of a participatory modelling process implemented through the intervention, and that the intervention would be completed in the required time constraints. Therefore, from the PhD supervisor's point of view, it was the researcher's role in the process to act as an evaluator. The PhD supervisor considered that it was the institution's and his role to provide the protocol for the participatory modelling process: " " " " " " " -$ 4 " 0 " " " (PhD topic definition document, 2004). This meant that the initial intervention proposition also required other researchers in the institution to be found who were willing to aid with the design and implementation of the participatory modelling process, including someone willing to undertake the modelling work for a calculable computer model and to facilitate the process.

The researcher had the objective of completing her research work to the best of her capabilities, which would involve, from her point of view, carrying out the evaluator's role of designing and implementing the evaluation procedures for hypothesis testing, as well as to aid with the participatory modelling process design. This was predominately due to her general interest in participatory modelling processes and the theoretical and literature review work on the subject that she had completed prior to the intervention. Although such an objective seemed to be in opposition to the PhD supervisor's idea of the roles, it was not really a large issue as the participatory modelling process for the intervention had in fact not already been designed nor was any modelling protocol capable of being adopted without first adapting it to the context. However, any mixing of roles may have an impact on the "objectivity" of the evaluator, which was not thought to be the most crucial element of the process, CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref considering the "intervention research" posture adopted by the researcher the principle framework for developing research insights. The researcher also wanted to make the intervention as "real" as possible for those involved, and especially to try to ensure that they could understand their stakes in, and impacts on, the water management process. This was thought to be of importance so that the evaluation results may help to create some useful insights for other water management and participatory modelling interventions, which would still be relevant to the central questions of this thesis.

There was a reasonable level of uncertainty and potential complexity in the roles to be undertaken, as well as the process to be designed and implemented. The stakes for each of the actors were also quite high, especially for the researcher and her supervisor who would have to attempt to maximise the research benefits from carrying out this "abstract" water management exercise. In terms of who was to be chosen to be involved in the methodology design phase of the intervention, only the researcher and her supervisor were confirmed participants in the design team at this stage of the process.

, ,

For the design process, these two actors also possessed their own objectives, stakes and resources. The PhD supervisor had a great deal of experience in simulation modelling, in multi criteria analysis and in working in a participative manner to create models of various kinds such as cognitive maps or those that could be used as a basis for role playing games. He also wanted to compare a process based on "participatory modelling" with one on "integrated expert modelling", where two "test" groups would need to be chosen. One group would then complete a full modelling process from situating the problem to using the model to form recommendations, and the other would be provided with a model and could use it to analyse options or scenarios in order to formulate their recommendations with the aid of a multi criteria analysis. In other words, the supervisor had an underlying objective of creating a simulation model through the first participatory process of the "abstract" water related system which could then be used by the second group.

The researcher also had some experience with simulation modelling, although not much in creating such models in a participatory fashion with a group of non specialists. She also had a much stronger interest in planning and procedural concerns for group work which had been developed through her literature review, as well as through previous management studies and group project work in Australia.

She therefore had the objective of attempting to leave as much of the modelling work as possible to someone else and to concentrate her efforts on procedural design, (see Table B.4).

During the design process, an administrative and logistical assistant was also found from the institution to help with the participant selection process, budgetary procedures and other institutional administrative issues for the project.

The objectives and resources of each of these actors appeared at this point to be complementary for carrying out the intervention, rather than in conflict.

, !

In the two weeks prior to the commencement of the test, publicity flyers were distributed throughout the university campuses of Montpellier by the Researcher, the administrative assistant and another friend. The flyers gave very little detail on the content of the exercise, except that it would include "discussions, games and interactive activities on the theme of water". Interested students were invited to contact Cemagref by either phone or email. It was also noted that the participants would receive a small amount of money to cover their expenses, almost half of which would be paid at the end of the exercise to ensure that the participants would continue to participate at all of the planned sessions between the 19 th of October and the 23 rd of November.

Response to the flyers was reasonably rapid with nine participants being selected a week before the start of the exercise. Despite working only with students, the aim of the researcher and her supervisor was to find a group of nine students exhibiting a high level of diversity. Nine students were chosen so that the group could be broken up into threes for some exercises. For choosing the participants, a series of answers to "pre selection" questions (contact details, age, studies, number of years living in Montpellier, place of birth and two questions relating to their knowledge of the main

, . ' "

In order to implicate the group of participants in the process to the maximum level possible, some basic choices regarding the problem scales and boundary of the study to be explicitly treated were taken before designing the rest of the methodology. Based on the assumption that students have a stake and responsibility over the management of their own lives and local surroundings including the way they use and alter their available water resources, three nested scales of analysis relative to the situations of these participants were outlined by the PhD supervisor and scholar:

-Life / home; -Neighbourhood / village; and -River basin / region.

The rationale behind the choice of these scales was to allow the students to examine the possible impacts of their actions at a larger scale, and the impacts that regional or local decision makers or exogenous factors could have on their lives. The nested scales mimicked the Panarchy concept that the researcher was interested in exploring. Final decisions in the process could therefore be concrete at an individual level, or suggestions for management at the higher spatial levels. This scale choice had a universal character of being able to be applied to many water systems around the world, but the disadvantage of not explicitly allowing the impacts of national or international policy or other drivers to be examined. However, due to the objective of building a simulation model during the process, spatial limits around a water basin were thought to be an important constraint.

, / ' "

The process methodology was co designed by the researcher and her supervisor,

$ 8 ) " + " + "

More detail on the internal elements of the designed methodology is presented in Appendix E. At this stage of methodology design, a number of methods had been considered for use, such as: cognitive mapping for the problem situation models and the Oval Mapping Technique for the problem formulation phase which would be supported by the Decision Explorer Software; UML modelling to conceptualise the simulation model; and a multi criteria analysis matrix for the decision or choice of planning options phase. Modelling platforms and the form of the game to carry out the scenario analysis through role analysis were still under debate, as a modeller had not been yet been found. More general methods such as individual brainstorming on cards, work in small groups and collective group discussions were planned.

The second part of the planned trial to compare the "integrated expert modelling" level of participation was to involve a second group of students in the "introduction", "scenario exploration through role analysis" and "decision or choice of planning options". Dates and participants had not been set at this stage. The "participatory modelling process" from the evaluation protocol given in Table 5.2 was used by the researcher as the basis for developing the evaluation methods that were to be employed during the methodology implementation. The procedure planned for use included ex ante and ex post questionnaires with closed and open questions during each session, some group oral debriefing at the end of each session, as well as external process observation with the aid of audio and video recordings. Ex post interviews with the participants would be carried out if time permitted and participants were willing to be contacted. Thirteen questionnaires were planned in total, as an extra ex ante questionnaire was to be administered during the first session after the presentation of the methodology. The majority of the questions to be asked were to be in closed response form on a five point Likert Scale. The five point scale was thought to be more appropriate to this study rather than the four point "forced choice response" format which has no neutral or 'neither agree nor disagree' category. The fine point scale was preferred to remove bias from the answers.

# ' ' & ' % # # % H # # & & 0 .# 6
Questions were developed to take the context, objectives, process, content and outcomes of the participatory modelling intervention into account.

Most of the questions to be posed in the methodology had been defined in the months leading up to the planned intervention by further specifying questions under the seven hypotheses for testing (Section C.2.2). Between 7 and 25 potential questions were outlined for each hypothesis, as well as for the categories of "interactive, procedural and distributive justice" (Marks, 2004). These were largely formed from reflection using the ENCORE model and previous questions collaboratively developed with a colleague at The "preliminary questionnaire" had the aim of eliciting information on participants' value systems and work related preferences; the ex ante questionnaire of the first session was to elicit a representation of the participants' cognitive state, preferences and practices relative to water issues, as well as some socio economic information on personal and family history. The following ex ante questionnaires, at the beginning of each session, were to gain participants' impressions of the previous session. The ex post questionnaires of each workshop were to assess changes, relationships between the participants and their impressions on the methods used and process undertaken.

The final ex post questionnaire at the end of the whole participatory modelling process was to elicit a second representation of the participants' cognitive state, preferences and practices relative to water issues for comparison, as well as information on the participants' perception of the overall process.

, 6 3

The set of six three hour long workshops was planned for the 19 th , 24 th and 26 th of October and the 16 th , 21 st and 23 rd of November 2005. A space of one month was purposely left between Workshops 3 and 4 in order to provide some time to process the information from the first sessions and to create the computer model from the participants' conceptual modelling, before being able to discuss and test it in the following session.

In order to allow participants adequate space to carry out the participatory modelling activities in a convivial atmosphere, a wine bar with a large out door area was booked for the sessions. Food and drink were also provided to participants during the sessions. Participants were also to be paid a small amount of money to cover their costs and to ensure their continuous participation. Ten euros per participant per workshop was paid by the administrative assistant at the end of the exercise, plus a portion of 500 euros which was set aside for the role playing game pay off.

, ! ' "

The participatory modelling process was implemented in the form of seven consecutive The next sections will present some aspects of the coordination of the project team members involved in the implementation process and the differences between the proposed and implemented methodologies. This will be followed by a brief content analysis of the process using the Tsoukiàs (2007) decision aiding model and a number of other evaluation results from the process.

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

, ! *

A number of actors were involved in aiding the implementation of the participatory modelling process. The researcher and her supervisor took the principle management roles. A facilitator was found from the institution to help facilitate the workshops, although he was only present for the first workshop, as will be explained later in this section. A newly arrived modeller in the institution was seconded to working on the project from the 13 20 th of November and attended WS4 to present the preliminary stages of the computer model to the participants. In addition, a friend who had previously supported a participatory process at the institution volunteered to assist the implementation by video recording the sessions and provide additional technical and logistical assistance when required. Finally, one external observer from the institution was also present for WS5 and WS7.

% "

At the beginning of the process, the researcher and her supervisor reached the understanding that the very short time limit for the process and between the workshops meant that they would have to be adaptive in the roles they would play through the process, as they could not necessarily rely on a lot of outside help. Their common objective appeared to be to implement the planned process as effectively as possible in the time available.

The process for designing each workshop was that the researcher prepared the evaluation forms and a preliminary presentation for the meeting incorporating any needed information or feedback of results from the previous sessions. She would then meet with her supervisor on the day of the workshop to check through and make modifications to the evaluation forms, as well as to work collaboratively on the design and agenda of the workshop. This included carefully designing the methods to be used and documenting them on a Power Point presentation. This presentation would then be saved, backed up and printed for the evening workshop session along with the required questionnaires and any other necessary supports. The design process continued through the implementation process and was carried out in an adaptive manner which dealt with ongoing needs, constraints and arising issues.

The logistics of implementation for each session then involved at least a couple of the project team members arriving at the venue in the institution's van at least half an hour before the session to set up the space with chairs, tables, pinboards, visual supports, computer, projector, video and audio recorder and the paper and pens to be used by the participants. The friend who volunteered to help with these logistics worked effectively with the other team members to carry out this set up process and to ensure that the equipment was kept in effective working order throughout the sessions.

"

In terms of the roles and objectives of the other project team members, the facilitator was an internationally professionally accredited facilitator whose objective was to carry out his role according to suggested best practice rules. The rules that he subscribed to and suggested that the project team respect were that the facilitator should remain neutral to the content provided and not provide his own opinions on the topic. His role was to moderate the discussions, ask for clarification of ideas and provide general principles of interaction and other ground rules for the session such as that workshop start and end times should be respected and that mobiles should be switched off.

During the first workshop, the introductory presentations and facilitation of discussions were shared between the PhD supervisor, the facilitator and the researcher. Regarding the purpose of facilitation in this process, the PhD supervisor differed with the facilitator, considering that facilitator neutrality was not an important requirement in this participatory modelling and research exercise; and that knowledge and content of the research objectives would be needed to effectively adapt the facilitation needs. There also appeared to be a confusion of roles that each actor would play in the process. For example, would the facilitator explain the exercise and rules to the students, or would the PhD supervisor who had a much better understanding of the methods and their objectives explain and moderate the activity? These differences of opinion and non respecting of each other's perceived rules and roles created a conflict at the conclusion of the session, which led to the facilitator not participating in any further sessions. This meant that the role of principal facilitator was taken on by the PhD supervisor and the researcher acted as a secondary facilitator when required. specification, or relationships between the model's objects, dynamics, or quantification, to make it ready for the simulations required in the role playing game.

These aspects were worked on in WS4 and WS5 by the students and in meetings in the institution between the workshops with the researcher, her supervisor and the modeller. Following these meetings, the researcher ended up creating the role playing game cards and writing the necessary equations and data to populate the "abstract", yet realistic, hydrological part of the model and the PhD supervisor wrote the population dynamic equations in Excel, as the modeller was not an expert in these fields. However, transferral of these modelling principals during the weekend before the workshop proved a major challenge. It was also the first time that the researcher had worked collaboratively with a modeller who was not an expert in the field that the model was created for, which presented a range of conceptual and understanding transferral issues.

After discussions between the researcher, her supervisor and the modeller the morning of the day that the role playing game and model were supposed to be ready, it was decided that they would have more chance of having a workable model and game if they forgot about the CORMAS model and transferred everything to Excel. In terms of model performance, there would be few disadvantages except for the spatial layout interface, as the CORMAS model did not include any behavioural rules. This decision meant that for the last few days of the participatory process, the modeller would no longer be involved and the modelling role would revert entirely to the researcher and her supervisor. The consequences of this decision have been outlined in Section 6.7

and Appendix E, and will be further discussed later in Section D.5. The PhD supervisor was responsible for running the model with the participants in the workshop, and the researcher responsible for distributing and organising the rounds of the role playing game in the final session.

-" 0 "

At the beginning of the participatory modelling process, it was presented to the students and reiterated by the PhD supervisor that this process was one of "participatory research": @ + + A. Although the project team maintained its organisational roles throughout the process, a certain amount of liberty was accorded to the participants to decide whether they wanted to spend more time on certain exercises and discussions, or were happy to move on. This included giving them the option of what start times would suit them for each workshop, whether and when to hold extra workshops or work after the planned finish times. The process was also adjusted to include aspects that they suggested. From this point of view, the students occasionally played a part in directing the project. However, the "participatory" nature of the two way exchanges still CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref generally appeared to be "working for each other" rather than working "collaboratively with each other". 9 % " D + 0

One of the largest differences between the planned and implemented methodology was the length of time needed to complete the planned activities. The programme was to consist of six workshops of three hours duration on the evenings of the 19 th , 24 th and 26 th of October and the 16 th , 21 st and 23 rd of November. However, it was established during the first three sessions that the programme had been designed with not quite enough time to complete the required work at a comfortable rate, even though participants worked for 3.5 hours in the first and second workshops. This meant that the participants were asked if a seventh workshop could be added, which they agreed to hold on the 14 th of November. Despite the addition of this workshop, which permitted the third stage of the methodology to be completed as required, the length of time between the last few workshops was too short to be able to successfully complete the required modelling and game creation activities, as mentioned in the Section above. This led to the process programme being at least one session too short to complete the designed collective decision supported by multi criteria analysis.

Unfortunately, due to the unavailability of the participants and the organisers at a later date, a supplementary workshop was not able to be added, so the planned methodological stages were never entirely completed.

It is also noted that in Workshops 2 and 3, one student was unable to attend (a different one for each session), reducing the number of group members to eight. Workshop 4 was also attended by one of the children of a group member, due to difficulties in finding alternative arrangements. The child caused no disturbance.

, ! & +

The students involved in the participatory modelling process produced a very large quantity of elements and insights related to water and its management. Hundreds of map and modelling elements were produced, as well as the hours of rich discussion and group interactions. From this work, just a few of the more surprising results and aspects of the process content will be outlined here, as they stimulated the researcher's learning to a greater extent than some of the other findings. Although most people understand that water is vital for life, it is rarely considered at a public level scale that happiness is a result of, or can be linked to, good water management, especially in developed countries. Effective water management tends to be linked rather to other surrogate indicators of development, such as economic growth as measured by the "Gross Domestic Product", economic costs caused by water related risks such as floods, droughts, the number of water supply interruptions or environmental indicators such as chemical concentrations or biota counts for assessing the state of water quality. The students debated at the end of the problem formulation map exercise that they had never really thought about just how important water was for them to live happy lives. That being the case, they wondered why "happiness" of people in society could not be taken as an objective for effective water management. In order to make this a more concrete proposition, they had then classified the sub objectives of happiness at an individual level that were linked in some way to water. These included: security (life and house); comfort; the environment; money; social life; professional life; and health, as shown in Figure D.3.

One student stated simply in the discussion: " ".

Other links were made to show that to have "security" it was necessary to choose a house that was not in a flood zone, or to create an evacuation plan to help protect this security aspect which was linked to water issues and thus happiness. The other links to this central concept are found (in French) in Appendix E. Considering this idea, could more effective water management campaigns be targeted at individuals if the central message is to encourage wide spread happiness? It is likely to be an interesting topic for further research. The next insight of interest from the exercise was that during the whole first workshop, even when the participants' conceptual ideas on the water cycle were being drawn onto the "problem situation" maps, there was no mention of groundwater in any of the small group's work, or in the collective discussions. The closest reference was to a " " (spa resort) which could potentially be considered as being supplemented by groundwater (from hot springs) or " " (pumping) for agriculture, which was once again not specified if it was referring to ground or river water pumping. After this major omission when thinking about water management was noticed, a question was placed in the questionnaire at the beginning of the next workshop. Discussion on this point then referred once to obtaining mineral water from "springs" and to pollution seeping into groundwater aquifers. One indicator, "groundwater level", linked to avoiding water scarcity for agriculture, then appeared in one group's map in WS3.

Following the presentation of the group problem formulation in WS3, a "scientific vision" of water issues was presented to the participants along with a number of questions for them, as outlined in Appendix E. One of the questions related to what percentage of fresh liquid water on the planet was found as groundwater. The participants' estimates for this quantity ranged from 1% to 30% for eight out of nine participants and 60% for the student studying water engineering. They were then told the real estimate is about around 98% (Bouwer, 2003). This surprised most of the students very much as it was not a water source to which most of them paid much attention. Similarly, when the ideas about "virtual water" and the amount of water used for different types of food production compared to other in house uses was presented, there was surprise and amazement that such information is not more readily distributed and taught through the education system.

M

After just an hour and a half of work, the students had filled three boards with an image of objectives of water management plus a large range of strategies and actions for treating them. These boards corresponded to the three interlinked scales for water management shown in Figure D.4.

4 $ 8 ) " ' " " 8 " < => ' " < => ' < =
One of the participants commented after completing the exercise that it was quite complex to understand how all the elements on the different scales interacted. However, on closer examination with Decision Explorer, using a "hierarchical cluster analysis" to look at groups of linked concepts, it appeared that much was quite coherent. Throughout the following stages of the modelling process and during the role playing game, many of the ideas in these sectors were re elicited, with the exception of the energy system. The Oval Mapping Technique appeared to provide a useful and efficient method of eliciting and synthesising information in a manner which allowed its reuse and further investigation. Moreover, the mapping exercise using the three scales helped to make the problem areas more "real" to the students as they could see the possible impacts of many actions on their own lives (and happiness). Many of the problem areas that the students had chosen to focus on, such as development of well being, capacity building, water use reduction and preserving the environment, were

shown to be areas where the students could influence water management as a whole.

This exercise helped to demonstrate to the students "real stakes" in the water management issues of the world around them.

" D + / + M

By the end of the workshop series, more diversity was evident in the opinions and stated positions of the participants, as can be seen from the individual action plans and suggested collective actions presented in Table D " "

Review agricultural policy: producing more does still not provide enough to live we can reduce irrigation (abusive in certain areas) This will maybe allow replenishing of the groundwater stocks Finance "deviation" projects from high rainfall to low rainfall zones instead of financing useless roads

Stop giving construction permits in floodable zones

Pay attention and try to avoid wars which are maybe and even certainly very likely in the years to come, as therein lies the obligation to sensitise others and try to change our habits…

Awareness campaigns and information

Use the media Water management programs in schools "The Good Reflexes"

Restrictions and enforcement

Take water out of rental charges

Fines for pollution

During the final debriefing of the process, one of the participants whose action plan is shown in the first box of Table D.1, mentioned that she was disappointed in the people and society around her. In particular she noted that it was incredible that these bright young students in the room did not appear to have any real courage or interest in the future. However, despite this disappointment manifested by one participant, the others did not seem to share this opinion. From participant observation and the evaluation questionnaires, it appeared that value systems of the participants became more polarised over the last two workshops. Conflict had been growing between a few of the participants over the direction that individuals should take in helping to improve water management. Some believed that individual action and sensitising close networks were all that were required, whereas others believed that more major political involvement was needed. Taking another direction entirely, one student preferred centralised management by technical government or elected officials working in the public interest. Finally, another participant even suggested to " % / ", after some other comments which were more in line with generally Some of these issues on changes through the workshops and responses from the questionnaires will now be presented and discussed.

, . #$

This section will concentrate on the evaluation results related to some of the hypotheses and dimensions of ENCORE. The principal quantitative and qualitative results concerning learning, changes in awareness and acceptance and comprehension of model hypotheses and uncertainty will be presented here, along with a number of overall process outcomes.

, .

$

The first sets of results shown in this section have all been created in a similar fashion. For each of the closed questions in the questionnaires on the five point Likert type Scales, the responses were coded from 1 to 5 (i.e. strongly disagree = 1, mostly disagree = 2, neither agree nor disagree = 3, mostly agree = 4, strongly agree = 5) and then the average of the participants' responses taken (n=9 for WS1, WS4, WS5, WS6, WS7; n=8 for WS2, WS3). The visualisation of this average for a repeatedly asked question from each workshop is then plotted with a line joining each response for quicker visual comprehension of evolution trends throughout the participatory modelling process. It order to interpret the following graphs with more background information, the reader is referred to Figure 6.2 for a summary of the methods used in each workshop. It is also noted that the y axis scales of each graph have not been kept constant over the set in order to maintain visual clarity of some of the data sets. The Likert scale label tags available on each graph are given to support result interpretations.

Only a small set of results are displayed and discussed here. A range of other results linked to different hypotheses and parts of the evaluation protocol are displayed in Appendix E.

$ 8 ) " # '

From both of these figures, what appears to be most startling is not the apparent increase in understanding and awareness related to the water and politics aspects, which could be expected, considering the topic of the workshops, but rather the no change or small regressions in most of the other domains. There may be a number of reasons for these results. The first hypothesis is that the cognitive learning that occurred through the workshops was about learning to doubt their existing knowledge. Another potential hypothesis for these no change or slight regressions was that the participants had learnt to fill the questionnaires out differently through the workshops. One participant had mentioned during the sessions that he doubted the coherence of his own responses from workshop to workshop. This may mean that the evaluation methods should be reassessed. These results are quite encouraging in that they confirm the main findings of the ex post workshop questionnaires on learning experiences. The impression of learning or retention of knowledge appears to remain relatively constant over time, even over the two week break between WS3 and WS4. This finding is important as it infers that if less time is available for evaluation procedures, this question could potentially be omitted from the ex ante questionnaires, without fear of losing too much information.

The next results, shown in Figure D.10, concentrate more on the process' impact on participants' thoughts and practices, once again in a retrospective manner using the ex ante questionnaires. Although creating mean values from crosses in boxes is a useful exercise for helping to gain an understanding of general trends that were present in the participatory modelling process, it is difficult to create sufficient choice in questions to gain a contextual understanding of "why" some boxes were crossed rather than others. Also, the more emotional rather than logical reactions to the process may be more difficult to assess from closed response questionnaires, as filling out the form in itself required some form of directed and logical effort. For these reasons, qualitative forms of evaluation were also undertaken in this study to build a richer picture of the intervention, including participant group debriefings, participant observation and analysis of audio and video recordings of the sessions and process artefacts.

At the first debriefing session, this point was confirmed by one participant when she was asked about her opinion of the questionnaire:

@! + " " # +' ' " '+ U + 7 A
However, there are advantages to the questionnaires, such as aiding reflection, as another participant noted:

@* " 7 U ' "
' "% A

A number of insights drawn from the qualitative analyses of the process have already been discussed in other sections of this chapter including at the end of Sections D.3.2 and D.4.1, so this section will just provide some insights on some additional participants feelings and thoughts at different moments through the process. In particular, the participants' first impressions on the process and a number of comments on the model will be highlighted here

Considering the participants' first impressions of the process, a number of comments given in the first debriefing session are outlined in Table D

-+" + ) " 9 - + @5 ! M ! % U ! % + % U4 + " " " 7 "% +U! " ! ' "% ' ! % A @- " " ' " # " " ! % " / + " " * " ' " " " ! + " ! " " + A @! + % " " U + % " +' " V " ' "% W / " -! A @! " * ' " + D -! ' ! 0 + + 4 + # ! % ! " ! % " U! % ! ' ! A
These comments helped to gauge the participants' general feelings about the exercise and what they thought they had learnt. As can be seen from Table D.2, it appears that a number of the participants learnt more about the other group members, their views and methods of working together, rather than anything specifically water related. The participant with the psychology background was interested in logically analysing how the group had formed, the participant from an arts (communications) degree had a more emotional response explaining her feelings and senses about the workshop, one of the participants with a technical background logically noted the differences in techniques of analysing and treating problems from what she was used to, and finally the participant who was found to be the "deepest thinker" (an older unemployed part time student with an interest in philosophy) had a rather mixed emotional and logical response, showing that saturation levels of information processing appeared to have been reached! Throughout the process, the types of responses given by the different participants remained fairly constant and true to their disciplinary backgrounds or personality traits originally shown. For example, the "deepest thinker" summed up his experiences at the end of the last workshop as:

@! ' + A
A number of other comments from the end of the process are outlined in Section D.4.3.

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref , - !!!8 !
Perhaps the only general exception to this trend was the psychology student who by the end of the workshop was no longer "impatient" to see the results or interested in being part of the group, but rather "disappointed" in her fellow human beings and wanting to exclude herself from others, as previously outlined in Section D.3.2. In other words, there appear to be relatively few major normative shifts in the participants through the process or adopting of new value systems, the "normative" dimension of ENCORE.

When asked about the model and its usefulness, such underlying personality traits and preferences for processing information were also evident. For example the communications student stated that:

@! V W + " " ! + ! + ! ' A
She also equally noted that she thought that it was too difficult to meaningfully quantify elements such as "success", "employment" and "health" in a model. However, from the more technically minded individuals, this type of quantification and model received less resistance, with one participant stating that:

@! V W " % " % A
The question of what type of model, if any, is required to aid groups to make collective decisions, and who and how it should be constructed, still remains unresolved. More discussion on this point will be entered into in Section 6.7.1.

, . ! 8$ $

A number of more general results concerning the effectiveness, efficacy and efficiency of the participatory modelling process implementation will now be examined, followed by a number of innovations which occurred through the process.

"

Was taking a participatory modelling approach to helping the students' collective decision aiding on water management problems the right thing to be doing? This question requires thinking about the legitimisation of the approach from both the students' points of view and validation from external perspectives.

From the students' perspectives, one of the signs of legitimisation was that all the students actually attended almost all workshops in the series and were even willing to attend an originally unplanned one! In other words, the process appeared useful or interesting to them from their points of view. From the final qualitative responses in the questionnaires on whether the students had any other general comments on the process, there were a number of replies that appeared to legitimise the process. As an example on the process being of interest, one of the students wrote that the workshops were:

@I + " ' ' " " " A
Another student mentioned how the process was personally "encouraging" for her:

@! " " ! " " " " + ' + A
In terms of "why" the process seemed to be encouraging, one student explained in the last workshops that:

@ ' + ! + ! % ' % ' U " + " ' ' " + ' ' ' U " % ' ! + " ' " % " ' " % U + " '
" " A There were also responses that legitimised the approach by suggesting to the organisers that they would like to participate in a similar exercise again. For example, one of the students wrote:

@* % + + V W +' + $ " " / " A
This idea of being willing to repeat a similar experience was shared by most students, with only one being sure of not wanting to participate in such a process again. These From an outside perspective, it appears that creating an abstract setting for the students was also a reasonable way of not giving the students false hopes of governance actions on their lives, but rather worked on building the idea of taking responsible actions at their own level to impact the larger system. This idea of "responsibility" was also noted by the student in one of the previous quotes. used in this intervention allowed the objectives of the process to be met? As outlined at the beginning of this chapter, there were three collectively stated objectives for this process, the progress towards which will be outlined separately here.

Firstly, the objective to "* + " " + ' " " < " ( = / " " " @ ;)?2 A " " was only partially achieved due to the difficulty of trying to test hypotheses related to real world situations with high stakes in a "low risk and abstract" environment. However, using elements of the ENCORE model and the hypotheses as the basis of questions in the evaluation procedures did provide a number of interesting preliminary results. These included that:

the participants were slightly in agreement that they were aware of and accepted the hypotheses and uncertainties in the model (including that these had been explicated and discussed), yet there appeared to be a potential partial refutation of the "trust" building part of the hypothesis in this intervention: " " + " " % + ' / " + " ", as outlined in Section D.4.1;

the problem situation and formulation sessions and those with longer group debates induced the greatest creativity and learning for the participants (about water, others in the group and themselves), which provides partial support to the hypotheses that " = " + " + = " ";

there appeared to be a slight process impact on participant thoughts and actions, as after most of the workshops the participants had been thinking about the water problems, especially when they had been using water, and occasionally talking about them with others; and

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref / $8 3 - * 1
changes occurred in the cognitive frame of participants between the start and end of the workshops, with the average understanding of problems and the knowledge about the impacts of their practices and actions regressing in most sectors except for those directly related to the quality and quantity of water, leading to another hypothesis that increased knowledge has led to the realisation of having much more still to learn about many things.

Next, the objective to @. '+ A ' " " " " + %# "

" was mostly achieved, apart from not being able to trial a multi criteria evaluation method due to time constraints in the workshop programming, as outlined in Section 6.7.

Finally, the objective to " P ' "P " " could only be assumed to be partially achieved due to the subset of the "general public" population who were involved in the test. The group did exhibit a good range of diversity of views despite all being students and they appeared very open in outlining their vision of water and its management. One interesting result was that the group believed the ultimate goal for water management on a personal level should be "happiness" -whether such an idea is more broadly shared in the general public will require further research. However, other insights which seem more likely to occur in the general public included the participant's lack of knowledge about how much fresh water on the planet occurs as groundwater, and a general lack of consciousness about the water "embodied" in food and manufactured products.

" "+

Determining the efficiency of the process is related to whether a minimum of resources were used for the achieved outputs. It is difficult to comparatively estimate to what extent it was efficient. However, a few indices were obtained from other sources. Firstly the participants' opinions on whether they thought the process was "cost effective" or whether they thought " ' " ' ' " # " " elicited three "mostly agree" responses to two "mostly disagree" responses (plus four "neither agree nor disagree"), as shown in Appendix E, which indicates little, apart from the fact that they do not have strong opinions on the question. From the organisers' perspective, the process seemed very efficient from a time resource perspective considering the quantity of raw information produced for research analysis in the space of just over a month and the rapid learning they experienced. From a monetary perspective, the efficiency was perhaps not optimal as participants were paid for their participation which would perhaps be unnecessary in a "real" situation.

Determining the innovations of this intervention implies investigating to what extent

new forms of collective action and knowledge emerged through the process.

From a perspective external to the group involved in the intervention, a certain amount of knowledge constructed through and after the process has been made explicit on the full trial of a participatory modelling methodology with a diverse group of university students. Furthermore, the participatory process involved a previously untried combination of adapted problem structuring methods, conceptual modelling for computer simulation models, role playing game design and payoff construction for a multi scale, multi role analysis activity of water management scenarios on the individual and collective level.

Considering to what extent a new form of collective action was created through the process, a number of propositions can be made. By examining the process from an operational perspective, a number of aspects of knowledge creation from the participants' and organisers' perspectives have already been investigated in previous sections, demonstrating that the form of collective action which took place during the participatory modelling process did encourage some knowledge creation on an individual cognitive level and a group relational level. In other words, a "collective multi disciplinary student researcher learning group" was created through this process. In this form of collective action each individual was able to reflectively construct his or her own knowledge as a result of method supported interactions; both with the "tools" or "artefacts" used and created through the process, and interpersonally within the interaction space.

From this insight, it could be imagined that such a form of collective action could be recreated as an advantageous method of providing university level education linked to water management and participatory processes. Running a participatory modelling process as a type of "non traditional" education program could be envisaged, especially for research oriented universities or international masters programs. In such a program, it could be considered that there are no real "teachers" but rather only "mutual learners" with different existing bodies of knowledge to be investigated, exchanged and constructed. Many improvements and adaptations for this purpose could be imagined including that the students could design part of their own pay off (marks for the program) and play a larger role in evaluating the process, perhaps through a journal of observations and final process analysis. Depending on the range of students and their background disciplinary skills, it could be envisaged that a couple of students in the group take the role of building a computer model if it is required.

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref / $8 3 -*

, / 9 -+

From this intervention, it appears that the "engineering" of the participatory modelling process by a cohesive team becomes "co engineering" when the "team" members have divergent objectives. Divergent objectives may be manifested as cognitive, normative, relational or operational conflicts, or remain latent. In the latter case, there is a distinct possibility that one party will "drop" an objective if he or she is not interested in entering into a negotiation or situation of conflict in order to attempt to achieve it.

Another possibility is that one actor could try to silently work towards an objective that he or she is aware is not shared, in the hope that the actors with divergent objectives will forgo their own. Manifest conflicts, depending on their importance and impacts on the activities which the project team is to perform, will tend to require some form of management to allow the project work towards central objectives to continue.

From the co engineering process of this intervention, just a few examples to demonstrate these theoretical insights on conflicts that create the "co engineering process" will be provided below.

One manifested cognitive conflict in the co engineering process which had an impact on the design and implementation of the participatory modelling process related to the underlying epistemological beliefs of the researcher and her supervisor. The researcher was sceptical about taking a positivist approach to hypothesis testing in a small scale social situation, for which no sufficiently comparable "control" could be found. She instead believed that taking a pluralist epistemological approach suited to what was to be encountered in the intervention, drawing upon constructivist, action or positivist epistemological positions, would be more beneficial to her research objectives. It is partially for this reason that the systematic testing of the hypotheses was not entirely completed, as the PhD student did not highly value the comparative testing of the hypotheses in an "integrated expert modelling" case. Rather, the time not consecrated to hypothesis testing was spent analysing and theorising the type of collective action in which she had been involved and in determining what knowledge had been constructed through this action, and later in initiating her involvement in other interventions rather than completing the unfinished simulation model for the second planned section of the trial. Such a cognitive conflict is loosely linked to the question of whether the research is to be carried out , ' or others (Heron, 1996), which then links it to normative and ethical considerations. Whether this cognitive conflict has yet to be resolved, or even would be of value to resolve, is still under debate. From the PhD student's perspective, this cognitive difference has been a useful source of creative tension and a vital driver for self reflection and epistemological analysis throughout the intervention research process.

One example of a more normative conflict in the co engineering process, which has already been highlighted in Section D.3.1, occurred between the original facilitator and PhD supervisor. The non respect of each others "rules" or value systems related to how the facilitation should be carried out ended in a conflict which was resulted in the facilitator leaving.

In terms of operational conflicts related to project team practices, one of the manifested conflicts occurred between the original modeller, the researcher and her supervisor, as previously outlined in Section D.3.1. Each actor exhibited different competencies and had different previous practical experience in the domain of modelling. The objectives of how they were each to work with the others also appeared to be divergent and unable to be converged in the short period of time required.

These last two conflicts also appeared to exhibit relational aspects. It could be considered that perhaps due to a lack of prior work on relationship building before working together in the resource stressed intervention environment, levels of trust between the actors involved were potentially not at sufficient levels to work through the normative and operational conflicts in more constructive ways, which resulted in the consequences of a project team member leaving the process.

As a result of analysing such conflicts from this process, it could be suggested that team building exercises between the members of the project team who have never worked together before could potentially be a beneficial use of time to avoid extreme conflict management solutions. If such time is not available it is suggested that co engineering a model with design team participants who have never previously worked or modelled together before is not advisable for time limited projects. Likewise, designer facilitated processes are suggested when there is not sufficient time allocated for transferring understanding and skills to the facilitator, so that he or she is able to effectively facilitate the required activities.

Discussion on a number other issues is available in Appendix E including about: how time management can be improved; finding optimum levels of procedural and model complexity; and determining an adequate balance between participant world views and information submitted for group analysis by outside "experts".

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

This Appendix supplements Chapter 6 and Appendix D by extending the brief methodology design and implementation descriptions previously provided.

# 0 "

This section presents the conceptual design of the participatory modelling process as it was proposed and presented before the intervention.

# *

The first phase of the conceptual methodology for the participatory modelling and decision aiding process is the "introduction and problem situation", as represented in An introduction of the work to be carried out is also relevant at this time.

Once the introductory activities and formalities have been completed, and confirmation of understanding of the process objectives has been received, the process of "situating the problem" can be commenced. The theory behind this stage is to elicit the individual viewpoints or "world views" of each of the participants, in order to determine the nature of the situation where the problem is found, what elements are important to the problem, and how the participants believe these elements to be related to one another. These elements should include the physical objects, actors or stakeholders, processes, stakes and resources. Once individual viewpoints of the problem situation have been established (potentially through a variety of means:

written, oral, diagrammatic activities), the participants should be in a position to be able to share their viewpoints with one another and create a collective vision of the situation and mechanisms of the problem being treated.

For the water problem scale framed in Section D.2.4, the planned conceptual methods for this stage of the process are shown below.

# '

Following the situating of the problem, the specific problems to be studied or treated can subsequently be formulated in a more formal manner, the "problem formulation" phase as outlined in the methodology of Figure D.2. Determining the objectives to be achieved or situations to be avoided (problems and risks) is an important first step in this process. Once objectives related to this problem situation have been elucidated, each of the participants' and the collective points of view can be re examined to determine potential processes, strategies or plans that could be used to achieve the objectives (or avoid the problems), followed by the actions that would be required to bring these plans to fruition.

.

• # ' • ; # " $ < # + 0 • " & & $ '' • + ) ' & 0 # # &9 & K K + • > # + # # + ' & ' & ' ' + + • CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref / 8 + ! 3 - * 4 " (
Following this phase of problem structuring, a decision should be taken as to how the process should continue, and which particular elements of the problem are to be further analysed in the process (a formal statement of the problem to be addressed).

For the water related problem, the form of this stage could take a similar form to that shown below.

# ! 0

After the problem has been sufficiently formulated (which in practice may take several iterations), a model can be designed as a tool to further analyse the effects potential actions may have on the defined problem situation or system; stage three of the methodology presented in formulation are likely to be achieved under various system configurations. For this to occur, additional characterisation of the actors and environment to be considered in the system is likely to be necessary. Depending on the type of model to be chosen (qualitative or quantitative), gathering data and determining the form of relationships and processes in the system should also form part of this stage of the process.

Definition of indicators to allow the distance from the objectives to be measured is also indispensable, with the variables to observe for each indicator being clearly outlined.

For the water problem analysis, this phase could take a form similar to that which follows.

. 0

• D ' & ' ' L # + $ ' & # 1 = & 7 7 + • ' $ & ' $ L # + • F & # 7 L # + # + • , - !!!8 ! # . 0 "
The fourth stage of the methodology presented in The second part of the phase or "construction of rules for role analysis" is related to determining how the participants are going to use and interact with the model to later investigate the potential effects of actors' behaviours and decisions in relation to the "micro world" representation of their real world problem. If in order to do this a "Role Playing Game" or RPG is to be designed, the rules for how the participants will interact with the model, including which actions will be allowed during the game, need to take place in this phase. This part of the phase could then be likened to "game construction".

The scenarios to be analysed using the model should also be defined and the initial state of the model system for the start of the game or investigation decided upon. This would generally require further data collection and analysis of plausible eventualities resulting from a particular set of initial conditions.

To aid in the rapid investigation of the model related to a range of participant actors during the game playing, a simplified user interface to the model, or a set of paper cards or other game supports may be required to be designed at this stage as well.

Pre testing of the game before use is also highly recommended.

If the game based on the model is to involve participants playing the roles of other participants in the group, or roles not represented by members of the group, a "pay off" agreement, or aid for keeping to representative actions of roles in line with personal objectives may be required. Such an agreement would most likely require the 3

• > # & # + ' 1 1 # 1 • ? & # L # + ' ' * + + , CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref / 8 + ! 3 - * 4 "
collective analysis and agreement on the personal objectives (and weighting thereof) of each role before the game is played. The "pay off" could either be in monetary form or based on some other motivation factor, depending on the institutional setting and wishes of the participants.

It is noted that "game playing" in some institutional settings is unlikely to be acceptable and so "micro world exploration", with each participating actor defining a set of their potential actions or decisions to test in the model, is likely to provide a much better setting for debate and basis for option selection in the later stages of the methodology.

The basic steps for such a process relating to the water example are given below.

# / "

Following on from the model testing and construction of rules for role analysis, the next phase in the conceptual methodology, as shown in Figure D.2, is that of "scenario exploration through role analysis". It is noted that if following on from a phase without specific "game" construction owing to its inapplicability, potentially stemming from institutional reasons, this phase would take the form of "scenario exploration of the micro world" following various individual and collective decisions and actions of each of the group participants.

For the case where a game has been constructed, this phase is constituted of "game playing". According to the rules collectively decided upon in the previous phase, the roles of each participant in the game will need to be chosen before the game commences. The game could then be carried out as a series of rounds where each player must decide upon his or her individual actions or work together to determine other collective decisions that will be entered into the model before simulation. The simulation runs can then take place and provide appropriate output from the model in order to allow players to investigate the effects of their actions on the system or how

3 / 0 0 • D ' + ' 1 # 1 1 + • ? & ' & + 0 ' 7 # 0 • ? & 0 ' # 01 && ' & )
well they are playing in terms of payoff, if one is to be used. After one round or more, depending on the game rule definitions, roles for each of the players could potentially be changed before repeating the process to allow participants to gain an understanding of how players in a variety of different roles may see the problem. To commence an evaluation of what actions has occurred in the role analysis and their effects on the system, a debriefing would be highly recommended.

A version of the role analysis or game playing for the water example could include the following steps.

# 1 ,

The final stage of the methodology presented in Figure D.2. is the "decision or choice of planning options". Following on from the scenario exploration through role analysis, this phase is aimed at synthesising a set of preferred actions from the scenarios that can be subsequently assessed and chosen from for a final decision or for the selection of planning measures (depending on the application of the decision process).

In order to aid the decision making process, a form of multi criteria analysis could be used to help structure preferences of the group members for each of the options or actions chosen. As part of such a method, indicators or criteria (which may already be available in some cases from the model output) need to be outlined and decided upon by the participants. A score or value of each option for each criterion can then be determined. Weighting of the criteria may also be required in line with the value systems of the participants.

From the results of the decision structuring process or multi criteria analysis, it is expected that the participants will be able to decide on both their individual and collective actions necessary to best address the problem. This decision may take the form of plans of action over an extended period of time, depending on the context of the problem treated.

& 4 / • B ' 0 ' # 1 + 0 1 ? & & 1 > # # + # # # 1 % ' 1 + ; < 1 # & ) & # 1 D • ? & CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref / 8 + ! 3 - * 4 " 1
Following the conclusion of the decision process, to terminate discussions it would be recommended to have an extended debriefing session to re discuss what has been achieved throughout the whole process and to evaluate its effectiveness and the general feelings of the participants. It is hoped that, after the end of this process, the decisions taken will then be implemented as planned.

For the water related example, the possible steps in this last phase of methodology are outlined as follows. The exercises to aid the construction of the problem situation were commenced after the introductory exercises in the first workshop and completed at the beginning of the second session.

$ '0 "

To outline their objectives, each of the participants was given several cards and asked to reflect upon and write down their objectives for the workshops. These objectives were then

* 0 / • .0 & & # # # & + • % 1# 0 • D # # # '' 1 D + ' ' 1 D # '' # ' ' • C+ & CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

&8 * ' '

In the third workshop, once all the groups had finished the problem formulation and management options for their scale, they were asked to determine which actors would be involved or required to carry out the actions and who held the objectives. The participants were asked to place these actors on blue cards and link them to the appropriate points in the diagram. They were also asked to determine indicators which could be used to measure if the objectives were being achieved (in lemon or pink). All During the session on the participants' objectives, later throughout the other workshop exercises and in feedback through the evaluation questions, it had been made evident that the group wanted to learn more about an "expert" or "scientific" vision of water related problems. Although not originally planned in the process, it was thought that in this stage of the process, some exterior thoughts could be voiced without bias to the original problem visions of the participants. Introduction of a scientific vision (constructed by the PhD supervisor and scholar) was achieved through the following means:

a set of questions regarding quantities of fresh and accessible water on the planet was posed to the participants, with responses and discussion following the individual responses of the group members;

an introduction to the concept of "embodied" or "virtual" water, with a handout of some figures of how much water is required to grow or manufacture certain products, as well as a breakdown of average "embodied" water use in a Sydney This information appeared to be welcomed by the participants, with most being particularly surprised about the percentage of the quantity of fresh water that is found as groundwater rather than as surface water. Participants also seemed particularly interested in the quantities of water used in production, although it was interesting to note that throughout the remainder of the workshops the concept was not directly re discussed by the participants (except as a reason to eat organic food and no meat).

However, opinions varied on the utility of the "scientific" problem situation map, like the ones they had created. Most students thought that it was too complex to be of use, yet the water engineering student believed it presented a more "correct" or "realistic" vision of the "real problems" than their own.

# ! 0

Model construction in the conceptual form to be used later to create a computer model was commenced in the third workshop by using the problem formulation and problem situation diagrams as a base for UML (Unified Modelling Language) diagrams. The first phase consisted of delineating the actors of the model system with their potential actions and other general attributes, as well as the objects of the system with their processes and other general attributes. The second phase, which was carried out in the fourth session, consisted of outlining the dynamic relations between each of the actors and objects. The spatial layout of the model was also briefly discussed with the participants; however, due to time constraints, much of the data and many numerical approximations for processes (in a virtual river basin, vaguely modelled on the Montpellier situation) were created exterior to the workshops. Despite this, some of the numerical relationships of the model were re discussed with the participants in the model testing phase to either be accepted or changed in real time.

" '0 "

To start the model construction process, the process of describing actors and objects

and their relations to one another was first presented using an example unrelated to the problems of water. This was kept in the context of how to use the problem formulation diagram to extract the actors and their actions (the blue and green concepts). The participants were asked to divide into different groups of three to complete this task, and did not seem to have too many difficulties with how to go about it. The start of this process and some of the outcomes are shown in

$+ "

During the fourth workshop, the first elements of the CORMAS model, as had been described from their work, were presented to the group. It was pointed out, however, that there were still many elements that needed to be more finely described, especially the relations between the actions and objects. In order to do this, a discussion first took place on which elements were most required in the model from what they had described in the previous session and to determine if there were any important elements that were still missing.

One of the participants came to help rearrange the cards and to start the debate on what was missing. Elements not already described were added to the board in green, as shown in Figure E.12. Once all the cards had been debated, the participants were asked to choose nine (one each) which they considered to be the most important to the functioning of the model so that they could be better defined in terms of their attributes and processes (these cards had been taken from the board shown at the right of Figure E.12).

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref / 8

+ ! 3 - * 4 " 1 4 8 $ '
To help with the further definition of the chosen elements (farmer, industrialist, household, public manager, ecosystem, tourist, network, tap and the media), it was proposed that a small game on interactive exchanges be used, where each participant had to first choose one card and re describe the attributes and processes of his or her element (actor or object). The idea was then to match up with another group member The participants seemed to enjoy this activity just for its dynamism, although some cited a little frustration about always seemingly re performing the same kinds of tasks.

This particular activity could perhaps benefit from some rethinking for future repeats of the methodology.

During the period between this workshop and the next one, some of these new elements were added to the CORMAS model.

# . 0 "

Due to the composition of the group and the lack of a representative set of stakeholders in the problem being analysed, it was decided that a role playing game would be a more feasible method of further analysing the problem with the students, as they could start to try to see the issues from a variety of different angles. However, in order to give the role playing some amount of realism, the objectives of each actor in the game were to be designed by the participants. These objectives, or levels of satisfaction linked to the individual gains, were constructed as part of a pay off agreement for the game and were subsequently to be programmed into the model.

Scenarios that the participants were interested in examining in the game were also discussed collectively.

$ + +

In the fifth workshop session the concept of the payoff that was to be used for the game was presented. The payoff was designed to have three components: an external part based on the environmental state, which was considered to be un negotiable (explained to participants as there are often external constraints in a system that can not be directly controlled); an individual gain for each of the roles in the game which was to be designed and decided on by the participants; and a collective (equivalent to a societal) gain which was also to be designed and decided upon by the participants.

The group at the beginning of the presentation and explanation on the payoff is shown For any future application of this methodology, it is suggested that the construction of this individual gain be rethought; both in its theoretical bases and in how it can be better linked to the previous methodological stages.

Following the construction of the individual gain, debate commenced over the construction of the communal gain, and what the participants considered to be "social justice". Several common schemes of calculation for social justice or equity were presented and participants were allowed to consider what these calculations translated to in reality. Schemes presented included taking an average of wealth, taking the median, subtracting the maximum and the minimum values then taking an average, the "maximin" method (Schilizzi, 2003) and weighted systems of measurement. The group toyed with the mini max scheme for a while, although the idea of always trying to improve the situation of the most disadvantaged in the society did not seem to appeal to all the group members. The conversation escaped a few of

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ( - !!!8 !
the participants, but most preferred the idea of weighting the importance of certain roles. This being the case, the participants were asked to give their preferred weightings for each of the roles in the game. These were then averaged after an agreement with the participants. The final weightings were interesting in that much weight had been given to the satisfaction of the environmental association (25%). The other roles that the participants had finally decided upon as the most important for societal representation in the game were a: farmer (11%); industrialist (9%); rich family household (8%); poor family household (10%); student household (10%); tourism professional (9%); regional manager (9%); and city mayor (9%). These results and some Following the construction of the individual and collective gains, the group was asked to discuss, firstly, the scenarios that they would be interested in analysing during the game session, and secondly, the layout of game rounds and rules. The game layout and how the process of running the game (shown in Figure E.16) was also discussed, with a plan being proposed to the group by the session organisers that was then discussed and could be changed at the request of the participants.

,8 -"

The game process presented on the right hand side of Figure E.16 included the major actions through time with the steps of model calculation and output feedback, as well as the basic actions of the two role type groups (user or manager). The basic layout did not elicit much reaction from the participants, as they all seemed to agree with the process and were happy to accept it. This activity seemed to be enjoyed by the majority of participants, although some extreme positions started to appear. One participant mentioned that farmers should be locked up because of their impact on the environment, which sparked off debates in other directions. Another participant questioned whether and how the project could be "given" as a good project to support, when little evidence to support this decision had been provided. Such a mention of the lack of participatory problem formulation was considered as positive in terms of the critical analysis the participants performed during the debate.

# / "

The role playing game based on the computerised Excel model of the theoretical problem situation was run in the final workshop. Unfortunately, due to time constraints (the workshop being held only two days after the previous workshop) the model was only in a partially operable state and remained untested. The participants were made well aware of this information and it was stated at the beginning of the workshop that due to the untested state of the model, the money that was originally allocated to the game pay off would be equally divided among the participants. Each of the participants was then asked to sign an agreement with Cemagref that reiterated these new payment conditions.

The game commenced with each of the participants choosing a role at random (from the environmental association, farmer, industrialist, rich family household, poor family household, student household, tourism professional, regional manager and city mayor), followed by the distribution of information specific to the selected roles which included their initial individual satisfaction levels, water requirement information and costs (in the form of a "initial state" game card), information related to possible actions and their costs (in the form of a "possible actions" game card) and an "action card" which was to be filled in during the game round by the participants. The information Although the participants had already been introduced to the layout of the game cards and helped to adjust a couple of parts of their contents in the previous workshop, it took them a while to read and understand all the information regarding their roles.

Various questions of comprehension were posed in the first 10 to 20 minutes of the round, some of which highlighted the potential need to simplify the information presented into a format that is more quickly assimilated by the participants (for example, apart from the economists of the group, some of the participants found the economic figures on the cards disconcerting). The participants then took extra time to fill in their action cards, during which some discussion (still centred predominately on comprehension issues) took place between participants. These responses were then entered where possible into the model (which ended up being more time consuming than expected, about 15 minutes), before the simulation was re run and the results were distributed.

During this data entry time, the participants were asked to reply to several questions, including: what they consider to be good behaviour for the role and why; what they could do in that role later to improve their situation and overall gain; what they believe the managers (mayor and regional) and the associations should do; and any other comments on the situation. As expected from the untested state of the model at the beginning of the game, some difficulties in operability were experienced. Before further use of such a game or the model, some improvements need to be made, including adjusting the game to reduce data entry time and fixing some computational bugs.

After the distribution of the first round of results, participants were asked to either decide if they wanted to keep their role or rotate to another. In the second case all For the third round, the group was aware that they had just suffered a major flood in the region which had seriously affected many of their satisfaction levels. This time the participants took on their roles much more quickly and started debate about how the region was going to repair the damage and reduce future risks of damage to property in the event of further floods. Even with very incomplete information, coping strategies were formed by many of the participants and negations took place with the regional manager. Subsequently, the participants filled out their last action card and questions, which was followed by an open discussion debriefing of the game. The most important critique revolved around the difficulty in assimilating the economic figures of the role information cards, even though many of the participants realised that real life decisions are likely to take into account economic considerations similar to those represented in the game. The utility of the model to the game was also questioned to some extent, as even with very little information from the model, the participants were just as capable of formulating their future strategies based on the objectives of their roles, and, in some cases, even more capable. The division of participants in the group Due primarily to time constraints, but also partially to the unfinished state of the model, as well as the abstracted and non specifically localised problem that the group was treating, the type of choice description and decision support methods suggested in E.1.6 were unable to be tested. Instead, in the remaining 15 minutes of the workshop, each participant was asked to write down their own decisions and water related plans for the immediate, short term and long term future following on from the series of workshops. These plans, along with some collective plans, were written on cards and stuck to the pin boards, as shown in Figure E.21. This was followed by a brief discussion of their impressions of the overall process of the series of workshops.

One of the most interesting sections of the final debate concerned the crux the workshops' theme; trying to establish the advantages and disadvantages of participatory modelling and the involvement of stakeholders in the preliminary problem formulation stages, as opposed to information and an external model just being supplied to participants for use. The group was partially divided on the issue, with some expressing frustration of not having been given information from a scientific viewpoint at the start and about having to build and decide on the model framework.

Others felt that exactly the opposite was true, in that it was very valuable to have been allowed the time to construct their own points of view and arguments about the issues, rather than just having them given at the start of the process. One participant even mentioned that, had external information (such as the facilitators' opinions) been

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref / 8 + ! 3 - * 4 " ( 1
forced upon her at the beginning of the process, she would not have returned to the following workshops.

8 " "

In terms of final decisions, the individual responses varied quite markedly in nature between the group members. One participant stated that he had decided not to change his behaviour or habits at all, as he considered that he already tries his hardest to protect the environment and save water. He also noted that he would try to avoid becoming extremist in his behaviours and would still enjoy a good bath just on the odd occasion. At the other end of the scale a few participants engaged themselves in the short term to fix leaking pipes, join associations for the protection of the environment and water resources, pay attention to turning the tap off when shaving or brushing teeth, ask their landlords to detail their water usage and ask for a refund if they are being overcharged (water consumption is often included in the monthly rent in France), reduce the time spent in the shower, stop buying detergents and washing liquids with phosphates or other chemicals in them that pollute water, and start sensitising other people around them about water problems and strategies to solve them. In the longer term, the participants' plans included installing water efficient appliances and other water saving and improvement strategies such as dual flush toilets, rainwater tanks and a wastewater treatment pond system.

Collective responses focussed on the need to make water related issues and problems more apparent to the wider population; in one case to prevent conflicts that turn into wars. Collective solutions included sensitising the population through education, information and publicity about good water practices, especially in schools to promote "good reflexes" in later life, as well as lobbying to try to remove water bills from fixed, invisible housing charges.

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref , - !!!8 ! # ! , +
Analysing the intervention process in a more formal manner, Table E.1 presents the elements of the Tsoukiàs (2007) decision aiding process model and how members of these sets evolved through the process.

* ' 8 $ " # " "

3 "

A A A A - # A A A A = C C C C ∪ K K K K, T T T T ⊆ A A A A C C C C -'
" # " : nine members of the set defined during the "design process" Little evolution through workshops -one member less in WS2 and WS3 (see Section D.3.2)

K K K K -' " %
: elicited as a subset of "factors" and "management" in WS1 and "actors" in WS3 (as part of the problem formulation exercise and in the "scientific" problem situation map) Approximately:13 discernable actors or actor groups identified in the problem situation maps; 21 identified in the problem formulation map; 49 identified in the "scientific" problem situation map (not all of the previous were common to the list). The 7 "most important" actor types were then chosen for UML and dynamics modelling in WS4, then split into 9 actors in WS5 for the game roles. Many of the last 9 did not explicitly appear in the first problem situation maps but could be related to the "uses" outlined.

T T T T -'

0 " ' : found within institutional network Membership different for initiation, design and implementation process. Two implementation members only participated for one workshop each (see Section D.3.1)

O O O O -

# elicited as "stakes/objectives", "problems" and a subset of "factors" in WS1

The objects or stakes elicited in the problem situation map were carried by a group representative into the problem formulation mapping exercise, where many of them were manifested in a more ordered form as the "objectives". A number of the other system objects such as the elements of the hydrological and societal systems were further outlined and defined in the UML modelling and simulation model. When linked together with relations and processes, these objects formed the "working micro world". * * % :

P P P P = 〈 A A A A , O O O O , R R R R 〉 R R R R - %
# not explicitly elicited in WS1, but some "stakes/objectives" could be classed as resources; some more elicited through the "means" category in the problem formulation map Although a few resource elements were made explicit, such as "€ (money)", "expertise", "courage", "social links" and "wisdom", this category was treated implicitly through much of the process. During the role playing game, the "players" would have to use their own intrinsic resources (i.e. ingenuity, logic, communication skills) and those attributed to them in the game (i.e. a budget) to act. Some of these were evaluated through the questionnaires. The problem statements were linked to the objectives that were made explicit on the objectives map. These objectives were discussed as a group to determine the mode for important "problems" to be treated or "objectives" to achieve. From a hierarchical cluster analysis using Decision Explorer, the map could be broken down into 7 main problem areas (see Table D A -* # these were elicited as "actions" in the problem formulation map. Some other actions which could contribute to managing these problems were found in the "plans/strategies" category of the problem formulation map elements, as well as in a number of categories: "management"; "factors"; "uses"; and "stakes" of the problem situation maps

The potential actions that could be taken in the system were formulated generally within the problem situation maps. More were then specified relative to certain actors in the problem formulation map, UML and dynamic interactions modelling.

V V V V - * * !# a
number of these were defined as the indicators of the objectives or sub objectives in the problem formulation map Through the problem formulation mapping, a number of points of view were made explicit on what creates personal "happiness", the principle objective on the personal level. A number of these "sub objectives" and their corresponding indicators then further evolved through the modelling and role playing game creation to form the most important elements in the "set of dimensions" and the "set of preference criteria" in the "model exploration and options evaluation" meta object. Other indicators also formed potential points of view from which other actors such as the "government" could observe the action sets, such as the "unemployment rate" or "groundwater levels".

A* -# elicited in WS4 during the UML modelling as the "processes" on the "actor" cards; and in WS5 during the role playing game design The alternative action set or "options" for evaluation were first specifically defined principally in WS4 during the UML modelling as the "processes" on the "actor" cards; and in WS5 during the role playing game design, scenarios, role playing game cards, and other actions during the game and scenario analysis in WS6 D D D D -# elicited as "attributes" during the UML modelling in WS4 Some of the defined attributes in WS4 had stemmed from the "indicators" on the problem formulation maps. The final set of dimensions explicitly used in the model and role playing game were selected by the modellers, based on time and capacity constraints. Other dimensions held implicitly by participants were sometimes voiced or remained implicit in the discussions on "good" management in WS6.

E E E E -

*

# developed behind the scenes by the modellers, some hypotheses on trends checked with participants in WS6 Due to the "abstract" nature of the problem situation, data showing the trends seen in the Montpellier region were found or created by the modellers to the extent possible in the time constraints. For example, approximate patterns of rainfall for three regions within the basin were found for equivalent type Mediterranean basins to create the hydrological part of the integrated simulation model. Other assumptions where the modellers had less expertise were discussed with the participants (see Section D.3.2) H -* # developed as models of satisfaction in WS5 for each actor to be included in the role playing game Criteria or preferences on what is important for each actor were developed in WS5 with reference to the work that had already been completed in the UML modelling and indicator definitions on the problem formulation maps. Other implicit preference criteria were evident in the group discussions throughout the workshops. Some of the participants' preferences were also elicited through the evaluation questionnaires and examined from observation

( +* * % : M M M M = 〈 A*, { D D D D, E E E E }, H, U, F 〉 U - %
% % # the principal uncertainty structure in the model was linked to the rainfall distribution and was decided upon by the modellers The question of uncertainty and its structure was not treated in a systematic manner through the workshops. Some thought was given to it through the scenario analyses and discussions on system complexity. Uncertainty in the role playing game was principally driven by actor choices (outside of the model and set choices given on the game cards), including the scenario choices of the organisers.

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref , - !!!8 ! F - * #
a number of processes and relations were defined in the UML and dynamic interactions game. The remainder were developed by the modellers The explicit, numeric operators for linking the elements in the above sets were mostly defined by the modellers. However, especially due to the lack of simulation model use in much of the scenario exploration exercises, many implicit operators and arguments were used by the participants to decide on and defend their actions

& : Φ Φ -

# partially provided by participants in WS7

Due to lack of time to further analyse the preferred alternative sets of actions through a multi criteria analysis, the participants gave their personal "action plan" as their set of final recommendations for their own "real" lives. A number of suggestions for collective management, which they felt most important or appropriate, based on their own value systems and implicit analyses were also developed. The planned idea of having a time dependent action plan (now, 5, 10, 20 years) was not completed.

# . ' $

This section presents further quantitative participant evaluation responses to those already presented and discussed in Appendix D.

Firstly, a question related to whether the "right" problems are being treated by these participants in the participatory modelling process is presented in Figure E.22

/

.9 :

M M M M M M M M M M M & ' 7 '0 # # '0 ' 4 '0 4+ & '0 & '0 # 0 + # & # 0 # ' 4 8 : "+ + "
From these results, it can be seen that the majority of participants thought that water issues required urgent treatment now or sometime soon, even at their own scale. Looking at the relational aspects between the participants and organisers in Figure E.24, it appears that respect and trust were typically considered higher between the participants and the organisers than amongst the participants. It also appears that trust was quickly built up by the second session but then regressed throughout the process, as did the other trust and respect levels towards the very end of the process.

Next, some of the potential factors that could impact the quality of relationships are that they were all able to exchange their views in an equitable manner and that the decision making in the group was carried out in an equitable manner. However, they were rather less committed to suggesting whether all the possible points of view on the problem situation had been reasonably well represented. From these results it is particularly worth pointing out that more than half of the students did not think that sufficient resources had been provided to carry out the objectives, which is not surprising considering the unfinished state of the process.

# / '

From the Montpellier methodology trial process, several points worthy of further thought and discussion have emerged through a preliminary phase of reflection, which include: how time management can be improved; finding optimum levels of procedural and model complexity; and determining an adequate balance between participant world views and information submitted for group analysis by outside "experts". These sections supplement the primary intervention insights in Appendix D.

# /

The first and most important lesson that must be stressed about participatory processes, such as the one undertaken in this test, is that they take time. As the first phases of the proposed methodology are supposed to allow relationship building (in terms of trust, confidence and respect for one another), as well as creativity and innovation, to take place, they can not be easily rushed without negatively impacting these aspects. In the Montpellier case, the first test of the methodology, the idea of "adaptive participatory management", was adopted as the foundation of decision

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ,& - !!!8 !
making concerning the timing or flexible re programming of the sessions. This choice was made to give more power of decision to the participants on the running of the workshops and the progress of their own work, with the eventual aim of aiding their integration into the process and personal empowerment. Although the outcomes of these aims were not necessarily achieved or even assessable, the co decision making between the participants and facilitators of the workshops did appear to encourage participants to work at their natural work paces and allow them to more comprehensively complete the problem situation and problem formulation stages of the methodology than would have been possible under the original program schedule.

The adaptive management led to an extra workshop being proposed and accepted by the participants after the first two stages of the methodology, in order to attempt to increase the time available for the remaining stages. Due to participant and facilitator unavailability late in October, the extra workshop took place two days before the last three workshops planned for mid November. This led to time difficulties for the computer modelling and aspects of the game creation work which took place outside of the workshop (theoretically one week in total), building on from the participants' model and game definition work. This one week proved to be too short a time period to produce the complex model that the participants had outlined.

Possibilities for overcoming such time issues in the future could take a range of forms, including:

-Changing the workshop objectives -time management may be improved by more explicitly defining what the group expects as the final outcomes of the workshop, than by collectively redefining these objectives and the methods used to achieve them based on the amount of time remaining. This may help the group to focus more on the achievement of objectives within a time limit, as well as the effective usage of workshop time. However, such a goal based focus may lead to other process elements being neglected, such as relationship building, time for debate, consensual decision making, and individual reflection time;

-Pre defining a maximum model complexity to ensure a sufficiently simplified (but adequate) model can be constructed -a predefined idea on the complexity of a required model could allow easier calculation of time required for the modelling process. However, exactly how to determine the required complexity of a model that will be useful for the application to be defined by the group of stakeholders is far from an easy task, and just by itself could take a whole series of workshops unless it is only arbitrarily chosen by an outside expert (which is very likely to go against the philosophy of the participatory process and may not meet the requirements of the stakeholder group);

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref / 8 + ! 3 - * 4 " , 1
-Increasing the time between the model construction participant workshops, model testing and model exploration and role analysis (game) workshops -if time were to be increased between these three workshops, there is more chance that there will be sufficient time for the computer model to be built and then adequately tested before being discussed and approved by the participants. Even though the model may reach a more complete form due to extra internal time, it is not guaranteed that the model assumptions will be any better explicated than before, as the short workshop times do not permit extensive debate to occur easily. For this to occur, more "in workshop time" would be needed, with participants interacting more directly with the model; and

-Reducing workshop time dedicated to the filling in of questionnaires and administrative activities -to dedicate more time to the workshop activities in the methodology, it may be possible to significantly reduce the time required for the filling in of questionnaires and administrative activities by confining them to "home time". In other words, all the explanation of contract details and background information on the research could be distributed by mail to the participants before the commencement of the workshops, along with the first questionnaire, and later questionnaires for just after or before sessions could also be taken home, filled in and brought back at the next workshop. Although leading to significant "in workshop" time benefits (a potential 20% augmentation), this approach may lead to participants feeling bombarded with information and tasks, and would lead to participants spending more overall time on the process. There are also risks in the "control" of how and when the questionnaires are filled in which could significantly bias or entirely discredit results drawn from them.

This short range of possibilities demonstrates that there is no easy way to significantly improve time management, although increasing the time between workshops is likely to have the most immediate benefits on the worst of the problems encountered in the Montpellier test, especially for the workshop organisers.

# / & "

The question of how to deal with complexity was one of the reoccurring themes throughout the series of workshops, both complexity in terms of the real world water problems and their relation to society (and how they can be represented or collectively modelled), as well as methodological process complexity.

Firstly, in terms of real world water problems, it is difficult to deny the inherent complexity of these problems and their real world systems that is due to the relationships between societal actions, and exogenous factors such as climate and the world environment; especially when uncertainties from each of these spheres are also considered. In the past, water managers attempted to deal with only certain components of these complex systems, such as how to provide a certain quantity of reasonable quality water to a community, without explicitly taking into account environmental or societal considerations (except perhaps the economic costs of options). It has since been found that many of these management decisions led to unwanted or unexpected outcomes, such as environmental degradation, or were unable to be taken at all due to societal conflicts over the effects of management options. In order to overcome some of these problems, water managers are now more commonly moving towards "integrated management" where all the structural water considerations, environmental considerations and societal considerations are taken into account and analysed before decisions are made. In theory, the participatory methodology outlined in this report would also form part of the "integrated management" paradigm. However, trying to understand, represent and analyse whole water problem situations or systems from a variety of points of view has proven very difficult and time consuming, with traditional engineering techniques such as system optimisation impossible to apply.

The questions that now appear the most pertinent are, "What level of complexity is required?" and "How can this level be determined?" This includes not only which environmental, economic and societal phenomena and interactions should be taken into account, but also on which scale or range of scales (i.e. microscopic, individual human level, regional, global…) the problem should be analysed. Unlike the imposed set of scales for the Montpellier trial, it is proposed that these scale levels should be determined by the principal group of stakeholders involved in the process at the very beginning. For what complexity "needs to be" or "should be" represented, a practical approach based on time constraints, accessible information and process objectives is proposed. It may be more feasible to represent some subsystems, where reasonable data is available, in a completely quantitative manner and to leave other more difficult to quantify subsystems and their interactions to be only qualitatively analysed if they are required in problem solution option evaluation. For example, if a multi criteria analysis of options is undertaken in the last stage of the methodology (as was proposed for the Montpellier test, but did not occur due to time constraints), difficult to quantify measures that could include in house water quality, happiness or aesthetics could be comparatively assessed on a qualitative scale where "very negative"

to "very positive" effects could be expected when compared to the current situation (i.e.

--, -, 0 , + , ++ or a scale in words). This may reduce computer model complexity and therefore modelling time requirements. This sort of analysis may also prove more comprehensible for stakeholders who have difficulty assimilating the meaning of

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref / 8 + ! 3 - * 4 "
numbers, reducing the barriers between those who are more quantitatively or qualitatively oriented.

Although this analysis comes nowhere near to answering the questions of what an "adequate" level of complexity is or how it can be found for a certain problem, it is thought that by using socially acceptable decision making procedures for the context of the problem to determine a preferred solution to the problem for the current point in time (even if the decision is based on partial information), the effects of the decision can be monitored over time and the situation adaptively managed as new information, scientific research results, or "best practice" considerations come to light. A hypothesis of the participatory methodology outlined in this Appendix is that by involving stakeholders in a decision making process related to water resources management, social capacity will be built and learning will have occurred that will allow the stakeholder communities to similarly deal with future problems. It is the process of bringing people together to work on common issues and problems, and to come to collective decisions that can be successfully implemented, that is considered to be the most important, rather than just the production of a one off, solution.

# / ! 8 : ; $ -$ Throughout the Montpellier trial, an important question emerged regarding if, when and how much of the facilitators' own "expert" knowledge, or accessible information, should be included in the process. Having originally been designed to accommodate a range of stakeholder knowledge from different disciplines or interest groups, the proposed methodology did not explicitly treat the question of how information or knowledge "outside" of the group sphere could be included. It was initially proposed that each stakeholder individually create his or her own point of view on the problem situation before stakeholders collectively exchange points of view and further formulate the problem together. This process would allow each individual to question and portray his or her own understanding and perspective of the problem, before being influenced by other people's perspectives, which apart from being considered a useful starting point for collective problem analysis, can produce richer insights from a social research point of view (for example, in the test no one represented groundwater as being in any way linked to the water cycle and its associated problems before it was mentioned in one of the questionnaires). However, after the first two workshops, the facilitators were asked whether the problem situation diagrams were going to be "corrected", and when they were going to be given the facilitators' "view" of the problem. In the pre test discussions over what could be done in the case of a lack of information in the stakeholder group, it was suggested that an exterior "expert" view could be given, but only on the request of the participants (as could happen in a real case study when the group of stakeholders believes it does not have the necessary or

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref - !!!8 !
correct knowledge to treat a certain aspect of a problem, and so would usually set the task of asking one of the group members to find it, either by consulting external information or by asking an expert). For this reason, when the "facilitators' view" was asked for, it was provided in the same problem situation form as what the participants had constructed, with the addition of some generally accepted scientific facts related to world water quantities. What the group then did with this information was left to their discretion.

The main question which came right towards the end of the workshops was whether it would have been more efficient to have provided more general information about water and its related problems at the beginning of the workshops, or even to have just provided a model that the participants could have improved. In terms of efficiency, it may have proved advantageous. However, the participants had varying ideas on the issue, with one participant stating that she was frustrated not to have had more information provided at the start, whereas another student stated that:

@! " ' "% V % W + V W " " A
Therefore, no clear conclusions can currently be drawn on when or whether "expert" opinions or views should be included in a process of participatory problem structuring and modelling for decision support applications, but if "expert" views are asked for by all of the stakeholder group members, then it is most likely more reasonable to supply them at some stage before decisions must be made, rather than refuse to do so at all.

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

This Appendix supplements Chapter 7 by extending the brief methodology design and implementation descriptions previously provided.

< , $

This section presents the conceptual design of the participatory modelling process as it was proposed by the researcher and presented to the Hornsby Shire Council and its Estuary Manager before the intervention in the internal working document, "-

+ -0 " - D -" K ! ) % + 3 - " in May 2006.
As can be observed from the title, this proposition was based on the renewal of the Berowra Creek Estuary Management plan, rather than the LHEMP. Some names have been removed to maintain confidentiality and information omitted on the background literature on planning and participatory modelling which has already been outlined in Appendices A and C of this thesis. Cross references to this information have been re established as required.

< ' "

During the meeting with the researcher on the 7 th of April, the Hornsby Shire Council's Estuary Manager outlined his first thoughts on what kind of planning needs would be required to be written into the tender for the Berowra Creek Estuary Management Plan (BCEMP). He composed his plan and requirements of the process in four main stages, with a number of sub questions or actions, as shown in Even from this first range of needs highlighted in Table F.1, the researcher and the Estuary Manager thought that a number of these needs seemed to lend themselves to the application of a participatory modelling process (highlighted in blue), as part of an overall planning process. Questions related to how scientific tools such as the Bayesian network estuary model (highlighted in yellow in Table F.1) could best be constructed and used to support the estuary planning and management processes, could also be addressed by a wider group of the estuary's stakeholders through a participatory modelling and planning process.

<

Considering the needs of the Berowra Creek Estuary Management Plan revision process and the information on participatory modelling, planning processes and monitoring and evaluation outlined in the previous section, a new integrative process proposition will be outlined below. It should be noted that this is only a first proposal and that the final processes should be further designed in collaboration with the Hornsby Shire Council, consultants, the Berowra Creek Estuary Management Committee and any other necessary stakeholders and community members. The process will also need to be adapted according to resource constraints, some of which are outlined in the last parts of this section. showcasing the Hornsby Shire Council's proactive approach to supporting research projects and new "best practice" processes which aim to improve estuary management and set an example for other regions to follow or improve upon in the quest for developing more sustainable environments and communities around the world.

It is proposed that these opportunities could be brought to fruition by undertaking a process of participatory modelling in the form of a series of workshops with a group of stakeholders from the general spheres of politics and management, technical experts and stakeholder communities. Determining who should be involved will be one of the first steps in the process and could simply involve the members of the Berowra Creek Estuary Management Committee if this is deemed to be sufficient. Once a general form for this plan revision process has been decided upon, the tender for external consultants to aid in the process will need to be sent out. Further discussions and redefinition could then be undertaken with the consultants selected and other stakeholders to decide on the specificities of the process.

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref , - !!!8 !
It is believed that, as originally envisaged by the Estuary Manager, it would be useful for the consultants to first undertake an external review of how the implementation of the current Berowra Creek Estuary Management Plan has been carried out and what issues remain. Once this information is available, starting a series of participatory modelling workshops to establish the other stakeholders' viewpoints on these issues and to comment on the consultant's findings would provide a good basis to start collectively examining the range of issues related to the process opportunities outlined above. A potential four stage participatory modelling process design for this application is outlined in this section. It is envisaged that these stages will be carried out over a series of 4 to 5 half or whole day workshops spread over a number of months and integrated into a larger planning process, as highlighted in the timeline found in Table F.2.

< ! < "

This process design is based on an adaptation of a 6 stage participatory modelling framework previously designed in the researcher's work (outlined in Appendix D). The main reason for adapting the process is that it was originally designed to also allow the construction of a quantitative computer simulation model as a basis for further process examination and decision making. With such a model not being specifically required for this particular phase of plan revision, a model testing and calibration phase has been omitted. The process also mimics the structure in an adapted format of some "decision aiding processes" (i.e. Tsoukiàs, 2007). The four stages and their proposed content, all of which should take place in participatory workshops, are outlined below.

! " '

At the beginning of any participatory activity, especially for a group of people who are not well acquainted with each other, it is advisable to provide participants with sufficient time, space and activities that will allow them to start to build relations with one another. Creating an open group dynamic can be aided with the use of "ice breaking" activities, such as a small "getting to know you" session, and followed by the definition of session, process and personal objectives. These objectives should be clearly stated by each of the participants in the process, which will include the Hornsby Shire Council's representatives and the researcher (the research component of the revision process), and recorded to allow future monitoring of whether they have been adequately addressed throughout the process. The clarification of objectives for the planning process is of utmost importance as it will help to create a vision of what this Berowra Creek Estuary Plan revision process is supposed to achieve and how the process might be adapted to allow achievement of these objectives to occur.

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref / 48 + ! .5 3--"

Once the introductory activities and formalities have been completed, and confirmation of understanding of the process objectives has been received, the process of "situating the problem", or in this case the reasoning behind the management of the Berowra Creek Estuary, can be commenced (also the "situational analysis" in the planning process of The possible components of Stage 1 are highlighted below.

-'

Following the situating of the problem, the current context of management of the estuary and the specific problems to be studied or treated through this planning and management phase of the estuary can subsequently be formulated. Determining the

. 0 + "3 • # ' ; # " $ < # + 0 • D ' & # L # + ? # # & 0 ' ' ' & ) 9 • F 0 ' ' & ' & + 9 # + + 3 • # # ' '3 ? # & L # $ * 0 0 # 3, • # # + 3 • # # # 0 ' ' 3 ? # & # N # # 7 ' ' 7 # ' # 7 # # # * 0 + 0 ' $ 3, • > O + & + # 9
objectives to be achieved or situations to be avoided (problems and risks) is an integral part of the process. To know from whose points of view these objectives are important is also vital (since from a number of points of view objectives may conflict). Once objectives related to this problem situation have been elucidated, the potential strategies or plans that could be used to achieve the objectives (or avoid the problems) can be identified. For each of these strategies, the actions that would be required to bring these plans to fruition (related to the actors and objects identified in Stage 1) also need to be described. Similarly, the resources required to bring about these actions (human, physical or financial) should be specified. Cognitive mapping, causal loop or tree diagrams and matrix tables could be used to aid such a process.

This process should lead to a formal collective statement (potentially just a revision of a past statement) of the problem to be addressed in this planning process, similar to a mission statement, which will allow the participants and wider community to understand the scope and general objectives of the Berowra Creek Estuary Management Programme.

The possible components of Stage 2 are highlighted below.

3 " " +

Through the previous two stages a situational model of the estuary's management would have been constructed. This model is envisaged to be a collectively derived qualitative representation of what changes could occur in the estuary and its environs (which would include in large part the preliminary "models" of the system derived in Stage 1). For the model to be of further use in aiding planning decisions, it must then be used as an analysis tool, with impacts of the potential alternative actions evaluated . 0

• D ' & 0 ' ' L # + $ ' & # # * 8 8 # 7 07 # # ' ,9 ' *+ , ' * & #0# , L # + • L # + 0 * 0 + 0 # + ',3 • $ & ' $ L # + 9 * ' # E #0,3 • F & 0 ' ' L # + # + • C # ) # • ? # # # 0 * ' 7 0 # & # , # 0 # • F & # # + ' ' ' & " > $ F 0 % ' CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref / 48 + ! .5 3--" 1
against a number of criteria (to be defined by the participants). The alternatives to be evaluated should be carefully described in terms of the situation (objects, actors, scales) to which they apply.

Definition of indicators to allow the distance from the objectives to be measured is also an indispensable part of this process. Such indicators should be carefully devised to meet the requirements for useful information products, as outlined in Section 0, and the data sets and frequency of their monitoring required to populate the indicators defined. This means that who requires what type of information product should be discussed (so that management/behavioural change decisions can be more easily made). The indicators for this information to be produced and the specificities of the data required to populate the indicators also need to be outlined, with questions being asked about: whether this data already exists and is accessible; whether anyone else requires this data; and how new or existing data could be paid for and stored.

Further analysis of the existing estuary planning model could be carried out by looking at the effect of participants' different roles in its management (their potential actions) for a number of planning alternatives. For each of these scenarios, it could then be useful to predict the expected length of time for outcomes on indicators to be achieved, as well as the cost (and who incurs it) and acceptability (also relating to a difficulty of implementation). To aid with the final planning recommendations, it would be helpful for each participant to rank the importance or preference that they give to each option.

It may also be useful to ask in this model definition phase about the certainties of how these actions will affect progress towards the objectives. If there are knowledge gaps or high uncertainties, would further scientific knowledge (or any other form of knowledge) be useful or necessary? If so, it may be practical to define how this knowledge could be created, for example by carrying out a specific process study, survey of the community or creating a model that could be used to analyse the situation. If relevant, could these questions be studied using the proposed Bayesian Network model of the Berowra Creek Estuary? For this application, the needs and purpose of this model should be clearly defined and created as part of the planning strategy for the Estuary.

The possible components of Stage 3 are highlighted on the following page.

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

) "

Following on from the model construction and role analysis of planning alternatives, this stage is aimed at synthesising a set of preferred actions or planning measures for the estuary's management that can then be written into the new plan for implementation.

In order to aid the decision making process, a form of multi criteria analysis could be used to help structure preferences of the group members for each of the options or actions chosen. From the results of the decision structuring process or multi criteria analysis, it is expected that the participants will be able to decide on both the individual and collective actions necessary to best address the management of the Berowra Creek Estuary. At this stage the development of a short medium term action plan should be complete and will be able to include: final decisions on key long term vision and shorter term objectives; the desired actions (for each of the roles); the corresponding information, indicators and data required to monitor progress towards the objectives; and expected timeline and costs. It may also be useful to discuss the format of the management plan and how it will be disseminated, so as to maximise its likelihood of being implemented.

Following the conclusion of the decision process, to terminate discussions it would be recommended to have an extended debriefing session to rediscuss what has been achieved throughout the whole process and to evaluate its effectiveness and general feelings of the participants. It is hoped that after the end of this process, the decisions taken will then be implemented as planned, and monitored to allow adaptive management to occur (which should then lead back to the start of the process when it is time for the next revision of the plan).

3 0 + "3 • ' & + 3 1 2 ' ' # 0 && L # + 3 1 # # 0 9 8 8 0 $ 7 # ## 03 • & ' 7 # ) $ & ' 3 • 0 & & ' 7 # # # # # 3 • ' # & # # + + & ' # * # , 3
• 2 # & # 3 D ' 6 N7 # '' N ' N & + P 6 $ * # 7 # ' ' , # 03
• ? & & $ # ' & ) CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref
The possible components of Stage 4 are highlighted on the following page.

It is noted that some of these decisions may take place in earlier stages of the process and could just be re summarised in this phase, as the whole participatory modelling process is formed from a series of collective decision cycles. Throughout the process, it would also be envisaged to have a small set of internal evaluation questions or activities for a number of reasons: to monitor progress towards objectives; to drive collaborative improvements (either for this process or for future processes); to resolve any problems or conflicts more quickly; and to aid personal and collective learning.

Separate from this internal evaluation, an "external" evaluation could also prove advantageous.

/ "

There has already been great interest in the preliminary proposal stages of this project (on applying participatory modelling methods to aid knowledge integration for estuary planning) from researchers from around the world using similar methods to try to improve natural resources management. As the concept of "participatory modelling" is still relatively new in the context of aiding the sustainable development of natural resources, and the communities that rely upon them, an international evaluation project funded by the French National Research Agency under their "Agriculture and Sustainable Development" program has been created to comparatively examine applications of these methods in over 20 case studies in a number of countries. One of researcher's supervisors is managing part of the project entitled "Companion Modelling: A Research Approach Supporting Sustainable Development" (ADD COMMOD) and the Australian case studies. The supervisor is enthusiastic about this project proposition with the Hornsby Shire Council and he and his colleagues would like to evaluate the process that is undertaken and its later effects, to be able to compare and contrast it with other such participatory initiatives around the world. If the Hornsby Shire Council would like to participate in this comparative evaluation project, the costs of an external evaluator working on the project will be covered

* 0 / .0 & & # # # & + • D # # # '' 1 D + ' ' 1 D # '' # ' ' 1 F6 # 7 ' # • ? # N & ' ' 0 • C+ #
through a combined grant from the French National Research Agency and the Sustainable Ecosystems group of the CSIRO. The evaluation would follow a standard procedure which would require a number of elements including: a description of the project context, process observation and an ex post summary (all compiled from the point of view of the external evaluator); which will be based on interviews, questionnaires and document analysis. Some costs in the form of time to reply to questionnaires or interview questions may be incurred through the evaluation process for the participants in the participatory planning process, although it is thought that the overall opportunities and benefits of being a part of such an international project could outweigh these costs. As well as giving the participants of this evaluation a chance to individually reflect on the process and what it has achieved, a thorough ex post analysis of this "participatory knowledge integration planning" method will allow all participants and other outside individuals and organisations to discover how the process was implemented and access more general feedback on the process and its outcomes. Such an evaluation therefore allows the process to become more transparent and easier for other groups to repeat, improve or adapt to their own projects in the future, as good records will be available. Another potential benefit is the national and international exposure that the estuary and its management team and communities will receive (in the form of publications and presentations) to highlight its commitment to pursuing new initiatives to achieve sustainable development.

< . ' 5

During the meeting of April 7 th and in subsequent communications, the estuary manager stated that he would like the plan revision process to be finished by the end of 2006 or early 2007. The researcher also made clear that this timeframe would suit her, as she planned to return to France in March 2007 to continue work on other aspects of her PhD. She would also be in Europe for about a month from June 9, 2006. It is suggested that the exact timeline of the project stages be organised with the Hornsby Shire Council and then adapted to also meet the consultants' preferences. It is, however, noted that the time required to successfully complete projects with significant participatory processes is often difficult to judge for a number of reasons that include: not knowing how long it will take for participants in a group to establish good working relationships with one another; how many conflicting opinions or other types of conflict will be present in the group and how long it will take to work through these issues to acceptable outcomes; different rates and styles of thinking, communicating and learning of the participants; the potential for changes to the process or the program occurring from collective decisions (such processes are often highly adaptive and liable to change direction if not significantly constrained in their scope); and other unknown constraints of participants or project partners At some stage after the completion of this process, an ex post evaluation carried out by an external evaluator from the international evaluation project will also be required (although the time lapse between the end of the process and this evaluation phase has yet to be stipulated by the evaluation project managers).

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref & - !!!8 !
In Table F.2 the process steps to be undertaken by the external evaluator (which in most cases will require the participation of those involved in the planning process) have been outlined in purple, and the set of participatory workshops to be conducted in blue for easier differentiation from the other general tasks of the planning process.

The "research administrative procedures" refer to the necessity for any researcher from the Australian National University to adhere to their ethics standards related to human research, whereby any participants taking part in the research project will be asked to sign a formal agreement acknowledging that they agree to take part in the workshops and evaluation procedures (questionnaires, interviews and process observation). Such an agreement would also be required from the Hornsby Shire Council, where the ethics principles relating to confidentiality, storage of data related to the project and a number of other issues would be outlined.

"

To successfully conduct a participatory planning project, there are a number of resources (human, physical and financial) that are required.

Firstly, smooth running workshops require pre planning and thus adequate human resourcing. This pre planning includes determining and inviting participants, workshop program structure, and logistical organisation. During the workshop, facilitators and potentially an evaluator will also be required. Other stages of the planning process, such as analysis of the existing plan and communication strategies for distributing the plan for public comments, will also require human resources.

From the discussions with the Estuary Manager, it appears that the consultants that will be tendered for could take care of some of these responsibilities. The researcher will also make herself available at no cost to the Hornsby Shire Council to help with the organisation and facilitation of the planning process workshops. If the Hornsby Shire Council agrees to be a part of the international evaluation project cited above, the project manager will provide an externally funded evaluator.

For effective participatory workshops, there are often a number of support materials that can be useful for encouraging open participant interaction and creativity.

Suggested physical resources to be made available for the series of workshops would include:

A venue (with chairs, not too many tables and sufficient space for participants to interact without physical barriers)

Food and drink for participants Computer, projector and projector screen (plus the required cables and power boards) Information sources related to the planning process: maps; models of the estuary and catchment; previous plans; other related documents etc.

The costs related to who will provide these physical resources will need to be discussed in more detail with the Hornsby Shire Council before the project is commenced.

< / '

< -= +

The detailed co design phase for the participatory workshop process was commenced when the project manager and an environmental scientist from the engineering consulting firm, the researcher and the estuary manager met together in late October 2006 to design the contents of the first workshop. It appeared that the estuary manager had amicable, mutually respectful and good working relationships with both the project manager and the researcher. The environmental scientist was supportive of her boss and they appeared to have a good working relationship. This was only the second time that the project manager, and the first time that the environmental scientist, had met the researcher. It was also the first time that all four of them were required to work closely in a group, so the relationships were still in the process of being formed, with each participant trying to understand each others' personalities, objectives and skills they had to offer the project. Although the meeting was constructive and the work objectives for the meeting were achieved, clear cut roles for each participant in the process design and implementation were not formally established, as the project manager, researcher and estuary manager all had an interest in how the workshop process was run and did not yet know the capacities of the others to meet these objectives for them. These three project team members also Participant selection, although discussed by the project team, was principally decided upon by the estuary manager and the invitations were sent out by the project manager. A good cross section of the local stakeholders was maintained by involving the estuary management committee members from planning zones on both the northern and southern sides of the estuary. Many appropriate representatives from the State and regional agencies with responsibilities over sectors of estuary management or funding of estuary management programs had to be more specifically tracked down, as some of them were not commonly involved in local level estuary management. This selection meant that many of the local stakeholders already knew each other and had previously worked together on estuary management issues, but many of the agency staff did not know each other or the local stakeholders. Some of the consequences of this selection and how it was adapted through the workshops will be outlined in the following sections.

< -= +

For the first workshop held in November 2006, the researcher ended up designing the first sets of methods to be used (and their supports) for the morning session. The project manager facilitated the large group sessions and decided how the last discussion of the day would be run. Four engineering and planning consultants facilitated the small group work. One facilitator had a rather large group of participants with strong personalities that she was having a few challenges to run, especially as she was having a problem that day with her hearing. Considering these difficulties, the researcher asked if the estuary manager would be able to support this facilitator in her role, which he accepted to do. Working together they were able to guide the group to complete a good amount of work. The external evaluators were also critical of the project manager's "gate keeping" behaviour of only selectively writing down some of the participants' suggestions in the large group discussion he was facilitating at the end of the workshop. The slow speed of working in the large group also meant that the final exercise of the workshop was not completed as planned, which left the synthesis work to be carried out and justified by the researcher and consultants before the next workshop. Despite these small issues the workshop was generally perceived by the project team members and the participants to have been a

success and reasonable working relationships had been established. It was noted after the session that the estuary manager's boss thought that it would have been appropriate for the estuary manager to have played a larger role in presenting the project, rather than the consultant, so this was taken into consideration for the distribution of roles in the second workshop.

< ! -= +

The co design and co implementation of the second workshop was an illuminative example of how objectives of those in the project team and stakeholder group can affect process outcomes. At the second meeting between the estuary manager, project manager, environmental scientist and researcher for the design of the second and third workshops in mid January, the project manager was interested in renegotiating how the remaining work on the project would be run. He suggested that, given the comprehensive outputs after the first workshop and synthesis report considering the scientific and management review, further workshops as planned might not be required, especially the objectives prioritization which could be done in house. This suggestion was not greeted with much acceptance by the researcher and a slightly heated and formal negotiation was entered into, seemingly in an attempt to protect personal and a range of other interests. The researcher was worried that such an approach would compromise the planning process, disempower the stakeholders, potentially cause a rejection of the final plan and be detrimental to her PhD work. The consultants appeared more concerned about finishing the project within budget and the defined timeline. Considering these interests, the researcher had argued that in terms of time and budget, it would likely be just as costly, if not more so, for the consultant team to carry out the rest of the project work without the participatory workshops in fact the same argument that the project manager put forward at the beginning of the project in support of the participatory process. The project manager seemed to accept this argument and offered to keep the final workshop as planned but wanted to keep the risk assessment workshop to a small working group of experts or government agency staff, as he did not think a large group would manage this task very well. The researcher did not subscribe to this last part of the logic and suggested that it would not be too difficult to develop facilitation and support methods to perform the risk assessment process with a large group of participants. At this point, the estuary manager appeared to think that having an agency only workshop could have certain advantages, especially as some agency staff did not like to attend meetings with the community as they were too confrontational, and that he needed their support for funding the estuary management plan's actions, more than he needed the community stakeholders' agreement. More arguments for and against this proposition were given as outlined in Table F.3, and in the end, the project manager gave the estuary manager a final choice between the options for the second workshop of: Firstly, they sometimes feel obliged to represent only the "public image" of their role and the current political lines of their institutions, rather than their true feelings on management possibilities. Next, large workshops can often be rather confrontational, with agency representatives being "attacked" by some community representatives on gripes they have with the agency's policies which are often out of the control of the particular representatives and that they feel they have little control over. Finally, many agency representatives have large jurisdictions of management and limited time to participate in all the planning and management processes that take place in their territory, so they are required to prioritise their actions and often only participate in the most important or personally interesting processes; Not inviting the participants to the second or third workshops after telling them in the first session that they would be part of a participatory process and responsible for making many of the planning decisions (partly because of time and budgetary constraints!) would be seen as bad form and could produce a "backlash" against the process and the future success of the process.

It would be better to run the agency workshop if it is required as an extra one to keep the original program of three mixed stakeholder workshops if time and budget would allow for this eventuality.

Agency support and funding is required for the successful support and implementation of this plan. There is more chance of getting this support (especially from agencies that do not usually participate in our programs), if there is an "agency only" workshop. It may be seen as something unusual and thus worth attending, less confrontational and a good opportunity to discuss management issues from a purely management point of view. The "risk assessment" session may also be seen as an "appropriate" agency task that can tap their expertise.

Risk assessment, even if it attempts to explicit uncertainties, is an inherently subjective process, which is especially true in this broad estuarine context. Therefore, the interest in using it is to get stakeholders to better understand the nature of risks though developing a common values based assessment of them and to then use this method as a basis for "calculating" priorities for treatment. Performing an agency only risk assessment would lead to the need to "sell" the results to the other participants in the following workshop and so the risk prioritisation could be refused and the process compromised. Community involvement is very important to the success of this plan, but so are the agencies, as without them it will be near to impossible to fund and implement the plan. If the changes to the program are sufficiently well explained, the community representatives will understand why they took place, even if they are initially disappointed. They have already participated well in the first workshop to develop the lists of assets and risks that will be assessed, and will also have the opportunity to create strategies and actions for these risks, so in the overall process they will not have lost much of the directional power.

As risk assessment is subjective, all stakeholders have just as much potential to contribute to it (especially as some of the assets the risks were to be assessed against were not particularly technical, such as "scenic amenity"), and many of the "community" representatives have more in depth knowledge and/or scientific expertise on the estuarine system, industries and community values than some of the agency staff external to the estuary CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

The estuary manager chose option 3, a decision which was accepted by both the project manager and the researcher, due to their mutual respect for him and the reasonableness of his arguments for ensuring the successful funding of future projects. Moreover, the debate had provided a valuable learning experience, as the researcher was able to gain greater understanding of the constraints and issues with which local government was faced. At the end of this negotiation, everyone was aware of the potential risks and benefits of this choice, many of which occurred as outlined in the key arguments of Table F.3 during the rest of the process.

During this working meeting the estuary manager presented the researcher and consultants with a process diagram based on the Australian and New Zealand Risk Management Standard which he would like to see pursued in the remaining workshops. He also mentioned his preference for changing the vocabulary used in the process to fit the risk management framework and current managerial language, in particular to use the word "assets" for the "values" that had been elicited. The researcher had started to look at the standard a couple of days before the meeting and the consultants had not yet had a chance to do so. As none of the project team members had actually used the standard before, even if they had some background understanding of the approach, they were not able to finalise the design of methods and content of the next meetings due to a lack of information. No one had very strong preferences over vocabulary use as long as the change was outlined to participants with reasoning, so "asset" was to be adopted for the next workshops. Over the next month after the meeting, the consultants finalised the synthesis report and documented the list of risks to be assessed in the next workshop, the estuary manager decided on a list of participants and the researcher worked on developing the method to be used for the assessment, including developing a number of risk tables and a calculation model upon which the assessment could be based. All these roles were fairly much self defined and the completed work checked by the others. Working relationships through this time were limited to email correspondence and phone conversations, with a few more lively debates taking place between the researcher and the project manager. The short timing of the project and the consultants' workload meant that they were a little too snowed under to take the time to understand and critique the risk assessment approach that had been developed by the researcher, which led to them preferring that the researcher take on the facilitation of that part of the workshop.

< . -= +

For the second workshop held in mid February 2007, the roles were distributed differently from the first workshop, with the estuary manager presenting the project, the project manager giving updates on the workshop outcomes and the synthesis report results and facilitating the introductory sessions with stakeholders, the researcher presenting and facilitating the large group sessions related to the risk assessment, and four engineering and planning consultants facilitating the small group work. During the second workshop with the agency staff, a different aspect of co design or co implementation was demonstrated, as well as the advantages and disadvantages it produced. While discussing an example risk as a whole group before breaking into smaller groups to analyse the other risks, the participants requested a last minute change to the workshop program to run through the "water quality" risk as a whole group, as they thought it was one of the most in need of discussion, rather than completing it in the small groups as the cross validation risk. Although this change was discussed briefly between the project manager, facilitator and the rest of the group -the new co design group -it was accepted by the researcher who was facilitating, so as not to go against the participants' collective wishes. She put a proviso on this change saying that this should be all right as long as in their small groups they each completed the rest of the half finished risk which was being worked on for validation purposes. However, this decision did have a couple of ramifications on the risk assessment process, and particularly its validation. The little extra time spent collectively on the water quality risk, although productive, meant that there would be less time available for the small groups to work their way though the other required risks. In light of this problem, a solution was found by the researcher and project manager to break the large group down into much smaller groups than originally planned (i.e. pairs or threes rather than groups of four or five), so that all risks could be completed in the available workshop time. This solution did achieve its original objective to finish the risks, but time to complete the remaining half risk for validation purposes did not eventuate. This left the question of whether the results of the risk assessment could be scientifically validated, as different groups may have different tendencies of rating behaviour. However, legitimisation of the results could still take place if the participants believed sufficiently in the process or the capacities of the other participants to accept their judgements. Such an agreement to support the results, despite their potential weaknesses, is in some ways what occurred at the end of the workshop. The participants discussed a couple of surprising results and accepted without too many complaints that all of the risks had been prioritised as in need of treatment in the next phase of the process. It is likely that the rating of all risks as "requiring a response" helped the lack of opposition to the risk assessment process, both from the participants who took part in it, and those in the third workshop. In essence, this meant that the second workshop did not have as much of an impact on changing the content of the LHEMP process as could have been the case if the prioritisation had changed the scope of interest for strategy building. There was CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref thus less opposition and reaction to it and the majority of participant evaluations of the workshop were positive.

Through this workshop, positive relationship growth between the researcher and a number of the participants occurred, with these participants feeling able to constructively recommend adaptations to the process and suggestions for the next workshops which were taken positively on board by the researcher, further discussed privately with them in the next workshop and then passed on to the project manager and estuary manager. It appears that the all agency environment did provide a safe place for open discussion, as had been speculated by the estuary manager. A levelling of power between the project team and stakeholders present was also perceived, a situation which was not so evident in the mixed workshops where some of the agency representatives relied on the project team to use methods that would protect them from sustained community criticism and direct the work in a more constructive manner.

< / -!= +

Following the risk assessment workshop, both the researcher and the project manager went about trying to validate or invalidate the results of the risk assessment in their own ways, as there were some obvious limits to scientific validity of the results which might not be accepted by stakeholders external to the process. This resulted in the project manager asking the workshop attendees to give their overall priorities or feelings on the risk importance from their own points of view, as he thought the risk assessment had returned illogical results for which he would be ultimately responsible, and resulted in the researcher performing and documenting sensitivity analyses on the risk model to check the levels of uncertainties and potential effects of preference ratings (on asset importance) that had not had time to be obtained, in order to mitigate criticisms of the model. In the end, apart from effects on the process, the negotiations over the form and content and results gained from the second workshop did not appear to have particularly constructive effects on the relationship between the researcher and the project manager. The external evaluator noticed a certain amount of unsupportive body language displayed by the project manager in the second workshop towards the researcher and the researcher felt some tensions. However, in a review of the video recordings for the workshop to analyze this element, the lack of support did not appear too evident and their verbal exchanges remained pleasant as they attempted to work constructively together.

As there were only two weeks between the second and third workshops, no face to face meeting was held, in part due to the geographical distances between the project team members as they lived in three different Australian cities. Rather, CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref / 48 + ! .5 3--" 1 communication was confined to email and the occasional phone call. The researcher predominately designed the final workshop methods and wrote up the explanation of her proposal into a PowerPoint presentation and clarified a number of points with the project manager. She also wrote the first version of the agenda, which was slightly altered by the project manager following their last phone conversation before the workshop. The consultants also prepared the previous process results for presentation and an "info pack" for participants which included scientific and relevant planning information for each of the risks. Working relationships between the researcher and project manager appeared to improve in this last phase. The researcher also started to better understand some of the constraints the project manager was under from all his other projects.

< 1 -!= +

For the third workshop in early March 2007, the roles were distributed in a similar manner to those in the second workshop, with: the estuary manager opening the workshop; the project manager updating and discussing process results to date, presenting the day's agenda and leading the brainstorming session on individual strategy and action development related to the 16 risks; the researcher describing the strategy mapping method to be used during the day; the four engineering and planning consultants facilitating the small group sessions; and the evaluator managing both the questionnaire implementation and video recording. Relations appeared predominantly amicable in this workshop between the project team members, as well as between most of the project team members and the participants.

In this workshop, as in the first workshop, the methods developed by the researcher and implemented with the aid of the consultants did achieve their goal of considering conflicts in a constructive manner and not spending too much time on them to the detriment of other issues, as seen by the positive participant and external evaluation results. This management capacity of the project team helped to build trust with some of the key stakeholders. From this relationship building, the researcher now maintains a friendly and collaborative relationship with one of these stakeholders who she had not met prior to the process. However, the exclusion of a number of community members from the second workshop also led to at least one of them voicing her disappointment and how she had felt disempowered, even if the third workshop was constructive and she understood why the decision of the program choice had been made. More information on this issue and on a number of the other issues presented here is given in Appendix I.

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

< ! < "

Refer to the documents created during the research intervention which are given in full in Appendix I.

< . , +

Analysing the intervention process in a more formal manner, Table F.4 presents the elements of the Tsoukiàs (2007) decision aiding process model and how members of these sets evolved through the process.

* ' 4 8 $ " # " "

3 "

A A A A - # A A A A = C C C C ∪ K K K K, T T T T ⊆ A A A A C C C C -'
" # " : 38 members in the set over the whole process Many more participants were invited in the ongoing co design phase than who actually came to the workshops (over 60)invitations decided or to be negotiated with the project team. Evolution of core participants was: 30 in WS1; 17 in WS2 (agency participants only); and 19 in WS3.

K K K K -' " %
: elicited in project team meeting discussions; elicited in WS1 in the issues and values sheets and linked to management responsibilities, interests and resources; elicited in evaluations as "anyone else who should have participated in these workshops". Defined in WS3 in the "responsibilities" on the strategy maps Approximately 30 discernable actors or actor groups identified in the issues and value sheets and evaluations (i.e. State government departments, local governments, private businesses, research groups, community associations and user groups). Approximately 20 of these actor groups were invited or represented in the core participants -the actor networks linked to each of these representatives is thought to be large but was not specified entirely as part of the project. Main evolution included increasing awareness that more representatives from other local governments were required in the core participants. Groups re signalled in WS2 and WS3 were indigenous groups, the Federal government, upstream actor groups such as farmers, tourists and more scientific experts such as hydrologists.

T T T T -'

0 " ' : 15 discernable members from 5 institutionswater managers, scientists and planners from 2 local governments; engineering consultants; planning consultants; university researchers Membership different for development, design and implementation process. 13 present in some part of the development, 7 present in some part of the co design and 10 present in some part of the co implementation. 4 actors played the largest key roles through the whole process: the estuary manager (local government), the researcher (privately funded PhD scholar), the project manager (private engineering consultant) and the external evaluator (university researcher funded by an international project and the CSIRO) * * % :

P P P P = 〈 A A A A , O O O O , R R R R 〉 O O O O -
# elicited as issues, values, goals, visions and threats in WS1; as risks, along with their sources, causes and potential impacts in WS2; and these objects and their relations also elicited and presented in the synthesis report by the project team 148 individually elicited values reduced to 8 by the participants in WS1 (aided by the facilitators), and then became 9 in WS2 after one was added by the project team 60 individual goals and visions elicited in WS1 reduced to 3 by consultants and slightly adapted in collaboration with participants in WS2 172 individual issues and the threats on the issue sheets from WS1 were used in the construction of 15 risks and their descriptions given in the synthesis report. One more risk and the risks' potential causes and effects (over 100) given in WS2 evolved into 16 risks and 104 causes and effects by the end of WS3 (from the synthesis report, WS2 and a few WS3 additions).

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref / 48

+ ! .5 3--" 1( R R R R - %
# elicited in WS1 in the issue and value sheets as authority, information held and available data; some also elicited as "values" (e.g. water of good quality is seen to be a resource or asset); resources to be obtained were outlined in WS1 and WS3 in the responsibilities and some of the actions.

Approximately 35 different data resources outlined in WS1 on the issues and value sheets. Many other resources were treated implicitly through much of the process or just in oral discussion, such as the funding needs and what is available from various sources, as well as resources such as knowledge, trust, leadership and authority. Others were mixed into other categories, as some resources were closely associated with objects or actors (e.g. boating, community and tourist facilities, car parking). Evolution of resources made explicit predominantly occurred after the completion of WS3, where required resources and responsibilities for each proposed action in the plan were outlined. Resources that actors could potentially mobilise to carry out their priority actions were estimated by the researcher in the actor action resource matrix as an example use of the tool.

Π -

*

# 16 prioritised tolerable and intolerable risks requiring treatment which were developed from the object subset

The problem statements were considered to be the risks requiring treatment. This ended up being the 15 that the consultants had synthesised from the relevant objects and other information obtained through the document review, plus one more obtained from WS2.

A -* # these were elicited as "actions" in the strategy map. Some other actions which could contribute to managing these problems were found in the "strategies" category of the strategy map's elements, as well as in some of the issues and values cards Actions were brainstormed individually in WS3 although some had already been elicited in WS1 in some of the issue and value cards (i.e. potential actions given with issues such as "education needed", "need for tanks to be installed in gardens" or in any card that had a "lack of" something, where the something was often a potential action, such as "Lack of education programs for visitors" where the potential action that was added to the set could be considered as "provide education programs for visitors"). In total on the strategy maps there were around 620 potential actions or strategies and more had been signalled by participants as existing in other reports or plans.

& % * : Γ = 〈 Π A A A A, V V V V 〉 V V V V - * * !# a
number of these were defined as the indicators on the strategy maps linked directly to specific actions/strategies. A set of potential points of view were also taken as the values of each of the stakeholders elicited in WS1 and some were presented in the issue and value sheets linked to available or required data.

The values elicited in WS1 evolved as outlined in the "objects" set, to become a set of 9 points of view (asset categories) under which potential actions could be evaluated and compared. Other indicators also formed potential points of view from which other actors could analyse the effects of certain actions -approximately 70 on the strategy maps. These were checked and more were outlined by the consultants and estuary manager in the draft risk response plan.

A* -# derived from full set of potential actions by the project team Alternative actions to be evaluated were derived from the full set of potential actions described above, including those on the strategy maps and those from a literature review of existing plans and potential actions. The 620 actions were reduced to 317 by the researcher, and the consultants further reduced this to 149 strategies to be evaluated. Risk priorities given by 14 participants in the categories '"high", "medium" and "low". 16 preferences were distributed on the actions and strategies on the strategy maps. Other implicit preference criteria were evident in the group discussions throughout the workshops. Some of the participants' preferences were also elicited through the evaluation questionnaires and examined from observation. For example, ecosystem health was considered to take precedence over economic and social considerations for a number of participants. No weightings of assets were obtained from participants due to lack of workshop time and participant interest in giving them although some were tested in a sensitivity analysis of the risk prioritisation model.

U -

%

% % # uncertainty structure considered explicitly in the categories "likelihood" and "knowledge uncertainty". Model uncertainty explicated in part through sensitivity analyses Physical system uncertainty considered explicitly by the participants using the likelihood category (relative to consequences of a risk's impact on each asset). Uncertainties due to human perceptions and available knowledge relative to consequence and likelihood estimations also given for each asset. Model sensitivity analyses were carried out by the researcher after WS3 to demonstrate mathematical choice uncertainties (operators). Uncertainties or sensitivities in the tolerability bounds discussed in the project team.

F -

*

# operators for calculating the risk level in the prioritisation model were from (Wild River and Healy, 2006). All others developed ad hoc by the project team, or carried out intuitively by participants or project team members.

The explicit, numeric operators for linking the elements in the above sets were mostly defined by the researcher for the first prioritisation model, then by the consultant for the model to assess the potential risk reduction capacity of the set of alternative actions (labelled as strategies). Mostly very simple operators and visualisation. Few operators set by participants except in the case of implicit operators and arguments used by the participants to synthesise, present or defend their views.

&

: Φ Φ -# given as 32 short listed strategies in the draft action plan. Participants' final recommendations had been previously given by their distribution of 16 preferences on actions 32 short listed strategies were given in the draft action plan after the consultants' and estuary manager's secondary risk assessments. 132 actions or strategies had been prioritised by the participants in WS3. Most of the highest ranked actions by participants were present in a similar form in the final 32 strategies.

< /

3>#0' + $ " Conduct assessments to determine the carrying capacity of land areas (based on water, air, land capabilities) and limits for sustainable development within the entire catchment Develop a strategy for sustainable recreation across the Lower Hawkesbury, which states the sustainability of locations, facilities and access based on recreational survey and other data Collect information to inform amendments to planning controls based on the assessment of land capability, estuary carrying capacity (future population and development within the catchment), ecological assessments and HSC Housing Strategy. Ensure planning instruments incorporate best practice, including: sediment, erosion and stormwater controls (e.g. construction controls plans and WSUD); use of water reduction devices and maximum permeable surfaces, landscaped area calculations: protection of native vegetation; sewage management (e.g. low risk OSSMs); restriction of landscaping and gardens to endemic species; energy efficient design and ESD. Determine sustainable limits for recreational activities (types, numbers and locations) and the requirements for existing/new facilities and access to achieve sustainable limits on foreshores and waterways of the estuary (i.e., suitable locations, unsustainable locations requiring removal, locations requiring restoration, new sustainable locations) Employ a River Keeper for the Lower Hawkesbury estuary, to assist in compliance, education and on ground works (e.g. boat speeds and zones, seagrass protection, effluent discharges, littering, fishing, foreshore habitat protection, foreshore and waterway activities). Incorporate Climate Change Strategy to mitigate local climate change impacts into planning instruments/ management plans/ strategy activities (i.e. with tools such as vulnerability maps) Minimise clearing of vegetation on privately owned land, via new LEP template (e.g. Clause 34) and existing biodiversity strategy Submit the EMP to the appropriate Minister for gazettal by the NSW Government Develop an Estuary Processes and Issues Checklist (EPIC) and integrate the checklist into councils planning controls. (The checklist is required to be completed and submitted with DA documentation. The checklist will require applicants and council planners to assess the likely impacts of DAs upon the natural processes, estuary values and sustainability of the Lower Hawkesbury Estuary) Liaise with relevant state agencies to ensure integration of EMP actions into their relevant management plans/strategy activities (e.g. HNCMA's Catchment Action Plan, DPI Fisheries Sustainable Oyster Aquaculture Strategy etc.) Establish a Lower Hawkesbury estuary management committee to be facilitated by HNCMA which incorporates Pittwater, Gosford and Hornsby Councils for a coordinated approach to estuary management. Undertake remote and real time environmental monitoring for the Lower Hawkesbury (e.g. chlorophyll a probes, wind speed probes, salinity, flow meters, satellite data), and make data available to the public. During the review of plans of management for all parks and reserves (national and council), ensure estuary assets are preserved (including habitat values for native animals, animals listed under the TSC Act 1995, prescribed burning and bushfire suppression undertaken according to park/reserve fire management plan, etc) Provide an annual progress report that gives a review of monitoring data, progress in implementing EMP actions and outlines the status of estuarine health Undertake an independent review and update of the EMP every three years to continually improve performance in meeting the EMP objectives and protecting estuarine health HNCMA to appoint an Estuary Manager for the entire Lower Hawkesbury, to administer and update existing management plans and access State, Federal and private industry funding sources, and develop a Hawkesbury Estuary Management Plan. Improve the understanding of local impacts which may arise from climate change (e.g. produce vulnerability maps) and the management responses to such impacts (changes to infrastructure, planning provisions etc.) Ensure adequate waste disposal facilities for people aboard boats and recreational fishers on land. This includes installation/provision of approved bins on hire boats, commercial fishing boats, moored boats and boats with trailers, and supporting waste services on land.

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref 1& -!!!8 ! Establish a regular monitoring program to monitor the impacts of recreation at various locations and times of year (such as peak periods), to ensure ongoing sustainability of such locations Consider a "Resident's Pack" which outlines the estuary values, regional significance, ways to preserve such values, and includes existing brochures (from Councils, DPI Fisheries, NSW Maritime, NPWS etc) on stormwater, endemic plantings, bushcare, boating maps, seagrass maps, aquatic weeds, etc Undertake an audit of planning compliance to review the effectiveness of development conditions to protect estuary assets and achieve sustainability. (e.g. an audit of the types of development being approved for consistency with sustainable growth limits and estuary asset protection goals) Encourage vigilance in reporting non compliance with regulations and environmental conditions/degradation (e.g. sediment erosion controls, OSSMs, vegetation removal/destruction, stormwater control and maintenance, recreational activities etc) and pollution incidents (e.g. algal blooms, oils spills, chemical spills etc.) to appropriate authorities (e.g. "river hood watch program") Continue to lobby for reuse of water from STPs, to reduce freshwater demands in the catchment Develop a set of biological indicators (e.g., food chain or structural biota) which will assist in measuring climate change impacts Provide a forum for discussion about issues relating to the estuary and EMP progress Enhance weed management programs across catchment, particularly in estuarine vegetation Enhance existing pest eradication programs, particularly in estuarine habitats Define and map minimum buffer widths for riparian/foreshore vegetation in relevant planning documents (LEPs, DCPs etc) to protect estuary assets and account for landward migration of habitat due to sea level rise Ensure suitable controls are contained within planning instruments for the design of foreshore development including recreational facilities to maintain the estuary shoreline in as natural state as possible and minimises potential for bank erosion Riparian zones in agricultural areas fenced to prevent access of livestock to estuary. Protect and encourage rehabilitation of riparian vegetation Educate recreational users/general visitors about estuary values and the estuarine system, recreational impacts, and actions they may take to reduce impacts on priority areas (seagrass, harvest areas, recreational swimming) in the estuary (e.g. signage, boating stickers, brochures etc.) comm.). After this meeting, the interviews and participant selection were carried out by the facilitator, Bulgarian regional partner, a young student friend of the regional partner and a couple more university students who had participated in the Borowetz Summer School, with the interview structures being finalised in collaboration with the French researchers via email (Popova, 2008 -pers. comm.). The results of these interviews were then processed by a group of three French researchers, an activity that proved to be more challenging and time consuming than planned, and so were not entirely completed (Rougier, 2007). This challenge, along with the French researchers being slightly in disagreement with some of the participant selection methods for the workshop process, appeared to lead to a few small tensions emerging in the project team (Ferrand and Ribarova, 2008 -pers. comm.). They considered that some of the citizen groups were not representative of the targeted populations in the region and too close to the regional partners' own social networks, although they also understood the time and budgetary constraints placed on the Bulgarian work team and so respected their decisions (Rougier, 2007; Rougier, 2007 -pers. comm.;

Ferrand, 2008 -pers. comm.). Despite a lack of complete interview processing being ready in time for the workshop process, the first workshop was considered to be a success from a number of points of view. The policy makers' workshop, which included national ministers, national government bureaucrats and national NGO representatives, was principally re designed and planned by the private research consultant, the Bulgarian facilitator and the Bulgarian regional partner, with some support provided by the French contract researcher and the Bulgarian evaluator (Hare, 2007). During the workshop, due to constraints on some of these high level policy makers participating in the workshop, some of them had to leave early. This meant that the organisers had to cope with reduced time for working. Despite this adjustment, the workshop was still implemented in a calm and well organised manner in a pleasant hotel chosen by the Bulgarian regional partner (Hare, 2007). It appeared that most of the policy makers very much appreciated the opportunity for getting to know one another better and learning about each others' perspectives (Hare, 2007).

For the members of the project team, this workshop helped to build their trust and personal relations with each other (Rougier, 2007 -pers. comm.). However, although the relational objectives of this first workshop were well achieved, the method based outcomes relative to the SAS model were found to be only partly satisfactory by the

? -!= $ $

The second series of workshops' outcomes had similar issues of model content, since each of the facilitators' groups producing different types of cognitive maps of the situation. As the French contract researcher mentioned when asked about this issue, it appeared that when the facilitators and groups appropriated the models as being their own, they also adapted the syntax rules which had been developed. This meant that the groups felt strong ownership over the models that they had created but the models were unable to be used as intended by the researchers (Rougier, 2007 -pers.

comm.). This second set of workshops saw a change in the project team membership.

The private research consultant's contract in the project had been completed, so he did not participate in any further workshops. The French research director took his place in the implementation finalisation at last minute and in workshop re design and organisation activities, along with the French contract researcher. During these workshops, there was also a need for more facilitators, so the regional partner's young student friend (21 years old) and the regional partner took on these roles. For these workshops there was a large amount of last minute organisation required, a few small relational difficulties, not enough support for the untrained facilitators and too many in workshop changes which led to more tensions emerging in the project team (Rougier, 2007 -pers. comm.;Popova, 2008 -pers. comm.). Despite these challenges, the Bulgarian facilitation team dynamically adapted the pre planned method relative to what they felt their facilitation capacity allowed and to the relational processes seen in the group (i.e., tiredness, confusion) (Ferrand, Ribarova and Popova, 2008 -pers.

comm.

). This led to some changes through the workshop series and some aspects that were implemented as planned for all groups, the results of which were considered interesting by the French research director, especially the preference elicitation game developed at the last minute which had worked well in all groups, and the actors systems models that had been developed despite them having a range of model syntax which varied between the different facilitators' groups (Ferrand, 2008 -pers. comm.).

However, the French research director was frustrated at not being able to understand Bulgarian (as full translation was not ensured during the workshops) and thus understand how much the facilitators were driving or adding their own thoughts to the process (Ferrand, 2008 -pers. comm.). In particular, he found the student facilitator too young for the target groups of stakeholders and had difficulty in trusting her (Ferrand and Ribarova, 2008 -pers. comm.). The student facilitator realised this but CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ( -!!!8 ! also believed that she was capable of doing the job well and was very proud of her own work, especially with one of the citizen's groups as it had been a very emotional experience for her and the citizens as they had shared and built a group model out of their own in depth experiences of being recently flooded (Popova, 2008 -pers. comm.).

At the same time the Bulgarian regional partner was very stressed as the workshops had not been very well organised for her standards or planned sufficiently in advance and she was not overly pleased about having to spend so much time in roles that she had not envisaged taking on at the beginning of the project (Ribarova, 2008 -pers.

comm.), especially as she knew that she could not be paid through the European project (Ferrand, 2008 -pers. comm.). This led to her holding a rather emotional meeting where she laid down that she wanted the other project team members to make more effort to organise the next workshops better in advance, and especially for the Bulgarian facilitator to take more responsibility over the process organisation, as had originally been planned in her contract (Ribarova, 2008 -pers. comm.). The others seemed to understand her point of view and the situation improved in the next policy makers' workshop where the process was successfully co designed, planned and implemented predominately between the Bulgarian facilitator and the French contract researcher, with some support from the Bulgarian regional partner and the French research director in the planning stage (Ribarova, 2008 -pers. comm.). The French contract researcher, with one of his colleagues in France, had worked to process and format all the outputs of the previous workshops in order to be able to present some of their viewpoints to the policy makers; an effort which was respected by the policy makers and the regional partner. This workshop helped to rebuild some of the slightly damaged relations and pride of the project team in their work (Rougier, 2007 -pers. comm.), without the pressure from the French research director to respect the research plan and to achieve the expected research oriented outcomes required for the AquaStress project (Ferrand, 2008 -pers. comm.) or the need for the Bulgarian regional partner to intervene.

? ! 0 + 4

The period before the second series of interviews and fourth series of workshops turned out to be stressful time or simply one full of changes for the project team members, which would impact the future direction of the process and its outcomes.

Just prior to the Workshop 4a series commencing, the project team found out that the Bulgarian facilitator was not likely to return from an overseas trip as planned, as she had an opportunity to take a job in the overseas country (Ribarova, 2008 -pers. comm.). Although the project team members were very upset about this sudden personal and project loss, as well as the apparent disappearance of some of the data from the interviews, they mostly appeared to understand why she had left ( ). She also decided to take on the rest of the facilitation herself with her student friend, as they already had gained sufficient experience and were at ease in the role. She thought it would be much easier and less risky for her, even if it would take her own time, rather than trying to find and train someone new who did not understand the project (Ribarova, 2008 -pers. comm.). On the French project team side, the French project director was also worried about what to do with the contract of the French contract researcher, which had already been extended once and for which there was no additional budget available (Ferrand, 2008 -pers. comm.). This was a difficult situation, especially since the project team claimed that it would be a great shame to lose him, and his memory and understanding about the full process.

However, considering the difficult to overcome financial issues and the French research director and contract researcher's trying relations, the French research director thought that an Australian researcher, his PhD student who had just returned to France, might be able to participate in the remaining phases of the process so that she could use the Bulgarian project as one of the case studies in her thesis and entirely replace the contract researcher for the last workshop of the process.

? . 8 $ -. . = " %

$

The final lead up work to the fourth series of workshops was remarkably calmly and effectively carried out despite all the project team and role changes. The Bulgarian student friend of the regional partner performed a very efficient and effective job of contacting and carrying out the second phase of cognitive mapping interviews with the policy makers, helped by the Regional partner's supervisor (Popova, 2008 -pers.

comm.). The French research director, French contract researcher and Australian researcher also worked well together in France to develop the list of options and the methods for use in the workshops for strategy building, despite this exercise originally being designed to be carried out with aid from the experts in another part of the AquaStress project. This issue, and the fact that some of the other group decisions made in France for the Workshop 4a implementation were not entirely in keeping with the original process to be tested for the AquaStress process, meant that the French research director upon his arrival in Bulgaria took the decision to try to adapt the implementation back to closer to its original form to limit the risk of not achieving the project's research objectives. However, process time constraints and the Bulgarian The chosen collaborative design was prepared ahead of schedule in the few days preceding the workshop, implemented as planned with the help of two more stakeholders from the process acting as facilitators and turned out to be a commonly perceived success, based on the objectives they had just set themselves, as evidenced by many comments in the debriefing session. However, it did leave them, and the French research director, with many more questions about how the results could be used later and specifically what could be done in the final workshop. This short term success helped the new project team to bond together and to feel proud of their collective achievements in helping the stakeholders to appreciate each others' views and work well together. Nevertheless, it also made them all feel even more disappointed that the French contract researcher would probably not be able to participate any further in the process and worried about how the last workshop would be designed to provide a positive end to the project that had so far built up so much hope in a number of the stakeholders for future improved management (Ribarova, These issues of creating a positive end to the process were discussed further amongst the research team and the French institution's AquaStress project manager who arrived the next day and was taken on a field trip to see some of the stakeholders and hear their stories about the recent flood events in their town. By this stage, the Australian researcher was unsure about the objective of using a participatory multi criteria analysis in the final workshop, as was originally outlined in the project plan, because she did not think it would provide the stakeholders with anything particularly useful, would not be a particularly interesting activity for them considering they had already undertaken similar activities and would be exceedingly difficult to carry out, considering the results obtained which were not in the required form for such an analysis. She thought all of these provided an ethical reason to consider changing the content objectives of the last workshop, as she did not want to be responsible for the Bulgarian's first experience of participatory processes to end on a negative or uninteresting note. She voiced these concerns to the other project team members and to her institutional project director, who all mentioned that they wanted to give something more to the stakeholders and were in agreement that the process should be finished with a positive exercise if possible. At this stage, the Bulgarian regional partner mentioned the possibility of there being Bulgarian European structural funds available to help with regional development and wondered whether the last workshop could be organised to help the first stage of designing a proposal to obtain some of these funds for the region which had the major flood issues. A week later after she had travelled to Brussels for a meeting with the European Commission, she excitedly wrote to the project team to let them know that there would be structural funds dedicated to risk management and in particular flood management, and ask whether we could use the final workshop for creating an action plan for the flooded region which was also on the list of structural funds priority regions. The Australian researcher was rather excited about this news but her French research director was a little less so, due to some of the original research objectives and the contractual commitments not being able to be achieved if the program was changed: in particular, that the multi criteria analysis tool created in the AquaStress project would not be tested; that the planned area for the Action Plan (Elin Pelin) would not be of as much interest for all of the stakeholders involved in the project; and that drought management would not be treated to the same extent as had been planned. Despite these concerns, he was willing to discuss the proposition and to find out what the AquaStress project manager thought. As the project manager could understand the regional issues at stake and he trusted the regional partner's and the Australian researcher's judgement, he viewed this proposed change positively and would support it if the French research director wanted to adopt it. The French research director did so, and the Australian researcher went about trying to design a process for the workshop which would help to achieve a variety of their remaining objectives, both scientific (linked to her thesis and the French research director's project test needs), and operational (linked to gathering the maximum information necessary for the action plan that could be turned into a structural funding application). After discussion with the French research director about the design, the French research director made a couple of small additions and sent the proposed design on to the Bulgarian regional partner. At a first read, it seemed she was not too keen on much of it, as she did not think the stakeholders would be interested in the Australian researcher's idea of dividing into taskforce groups to deal with certain sectors of the planning: construction and infrastructure; planning, management, decision infrastructure and monitoring; education, empowerment and capacity building; crisis management and action plan; and remediation and insurance. She also thought that the some of the other activities related to carrying out the AquaStress project objectives and helping to complete a large amount of the work that would be required for the structural funding plan were unnecessary. The French research director wrote a rebuttal to the regional partner's email, outlining how many of her arguments would not actually support her own goals or the needs of the AquaStress project, a rebuttal with which the Australian researcher was strongly in agreement. The regional partner wrote back, "9

% + ! + + P P ' ' ! + ' # + + + / ! + "
" She also mentioned that it would be best to organise the rest of the workshop program when the researchers arrived in Bulgaria, as she thought that they were more efficient and understand each other better when discussing " + + " (Ribarova, 2008 -pers. comm.). This was thought to be a reasonable idea by the Australian researcher, as she was aware that as long as everything would be ready by at least the day before the workshop so that the Bulgarian regional partner could sleep and feel calm for the next day knowing what she would have to do, the process would be fine. A few days before the Australian researcher arrived alone in Bulgaria, she worked with the French research director to further specify the agenda proposal and methods to be used for the activities. This work was collaborative and productive as the two researchers had similar ideas about what was required and had much experience in working together on these types of proposals from the first year of the AquaStress project. The Australian researcher arrived in Bulgaria two days before the French research director, and by the time he arrived she, the Bulgarian regional partner and the student facilitator had worked effectively together to understand the ideas behind the proposed workshop activities, re negotiate certain aspects to find integrative solutions to remaining issues, and prepare the documents and activity supports for the workshop. During this process, they seemed to work much as equals, with the Bulgarians confident to take an active role in the final co design, similar to before CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref / 68 + ! ! % -" ( Workshop 4b. One of the main changes was that the Bulgarians wanted to keep the workshop confined to just the morning before a late lunch, rather than all day, so that participants did not leave before the end, as had been common in the previous workshops with policy makers. This required a little adaptation to remove the least operationally useful activities, but did not appear to significantly effect what could be obtained from the workshop. After his arrival, the French research director had the opportunity to make a couple of small additions to the activity supports and to check and add to the end of process evaluation questionnaire that the Australian researcher had developed before it was sent to the translator. The Bulgarians remained in charge of most final design decisions and they were very happy to feel prepared for the workshop.

?

1 - /= & - # '
The final workshop was well attended and ran very smoothly, with the mixed groups of stakeholders working very effectively together on what appeared to be a very equal level of understanding and competence (Popova, 2008 -pers. comm.). In fact, it ran so smoothly that the activities were completed quicker than expected and the risk response plan of 24 action sheets (projects) and their spatial mapping had been described, computerised, presented, debated, voted on and further discussed, and the workshop evaluation and a debriefing session carried out by lunch time. By this stage, the facilitators and participants appeared to be at ease in using the types of group work and participatory methods that they had now been using for almost a year. Even two of the three of the participants who were asked to facilitate one of the groups seemed proficient in the role that they had never previously practised. Almost everyone appeared very satisfied with the outcomes of this final workshop and the good relations that had been built with other stakeholders and the project team through the process. From the evaluation results, there was just one participant who wondered how the results would materialise, and the French research director, although generally pleased, was still a little disappointed with some parts of the stakeholder analysis and the lack of stakeholders representing stronger interests in drought management at the final workshop. Otherwise, the process ended on a very positive note and the good personal relations of the adapted project team members had been significantly strengthened, including between the Australian researcher and the Bulgarians who then thought they knew each other very well, both on a personal and work level, and between the French research director and the young facilitator.

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ? , +

In a more formal analysis of the intervention process, Table E.1 presents the elements of the Tsoukiàs (2007) decision aiding process model and how members of these sets evolved through the process.

* ' 6 8 $ " # " "

3 "

A A A A - # A A A A = C C C C ∪ K K K K, T T T T ⊆ A A A A C C C C -'
" # " : approximately 60 members in the set over the whole process Many more participants were involved in the first interview phase (100) than who participated in the workshops -Participants were chosen and invited primarily by the Bulgarian regional partners (who were themselves invited by the AquaStress project steering committee).

K K K K -' " %
: elicited through project team stakeholder analysis and through most of the interviews and workshops and in project team meeting discussions; present on cognitive maps of risk drivers and impacts, actors and actions maps, in option, strategy and project construction activities as "responsibilities".

Approximately 50 discernable actors or actor groups were identified in the actors and actions mapping in WS2 (i.e. National government departments, municipal governments, private businesses, research groups, NGOs, community associations and user groups). Approximately 30 of these actor groups were invited or represented in the core participants -the actor networks linked to each of these representatives is thought to be large but was not specified entirely as part of the project. Main evolutions included increasing awareness that more Parliamentary representatives (who would be present during the workshops) would help to increase the potential for real decisions to be made. Groups re signalled in interviews and workshops not present in the workshops included the Ministry of Finance, the Roma communities and farmers.

T T T T -' 0 "

' : approximately 30 from 20 institutionsuniversity, government institution and private researchers, a diverse stakeholder steering group selected as part of the overall AquaStress Iskar test site (National ministry directors, NGOs, private businesses, research experts in water engineering, forestry and ecology, municipal government and citizen representatives) and a couple more citizen helpers Membership different for development, design and implementation process. 21 present in some part of the co development, 7 present in some part of the co design and 15 present in some part of the co implementation. 5 actors played the largest key co engineering roles through the entire process: the Regional Partner (university researcher) and her chief, the French research director (government research institute), the Bulgarian facilitator (university student) and the Bulgarian external evaluator (university administrator). Others left and entered the process -Bulgarian facilitator (internationally qualified) left after WS3, French contract researcher left after WS4b, Australian PhD scholar arrived prior to WS4a. * * % :

P P P P = 〈 A A A A , O O O O , R R R R 〉 O O O O -
# elicited as risk drivers and impacts, water system elements, expectations, visions in the first interviews, WS1, WS2 and WS3; others were present during discussions and time resources were present in WS4a and 5 Hundreds of individually and group elicited objects were classified into a smaller number by the project team following the workshops, for example 18 risk driver categories and 15 impact categories.

The six stakeholder groups' visions from WS2 and WS3 were synthesised by the project team into 8 category "values" and reintroduced into the last stage of the process, against which the potential impacts of the 24 chosen projects were evaluated (WS5)

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref / 68 + ! ! % -" ( 1 R R R R - %
# elicited principally through the preliminary and secondary interviews. Some of these and some other resources (needs and requirements) were also elicited in WS2 and WS4a.

The principal resources elicited in the first interviews were types of water resources, plus finances and social resources such as information, competence and accountability. Many of these and other resources were treated implicitly through much of the process or just in oral discussion, such as the needs for "expertise" and "support". Evolution of resources made explicit predominantly occurred during WS4a and WS5 when actions and projects were investigated as needing certain resources for realisation: finance and social and political coordination and will, although the categories were defined by the project team (time, infrastructure, citizens, institutions, other resources, cost).

Π -

*

# 2 risks formed the pseudo problem statementsthese were also divided into three problem categories each: prevention, during crisis and remediation

The problem statements were considered to be the risks requiring treatment: floods and droughts. In WS2, WS3and WS4a they were analysed in terms of prevention, during crisis and remediation. This was an evolution from the original "problem statement" which was to look only at crisis management (and not prevention and planning). In the final workshop, only the flood risk problem statement was treated in depth over the three categories.

A -* # these were elicited as "actions" or options in the interviews, WS2 and WS3 Potential actions were brainstormed individually in the first set of interviews, then laid out in the cognitive maps of WS2 and WS3. Especially at the beginning of the process, there was confusion or lack of attention to defining first which actions currently occur, and which ought to occur to cope with flood risks -some participants showed their confusion in the first interviews and WS2 maps.

& % * : Γ = 〈 Π A A A A, V V V V 〉 V V V V - * * !# elicited
from participants in interviews and cognitive maps. Some sourced through the visioning exercise in WS2 and WS3

Although explicated in the form of cognitive maps, the set of potential points of view that each actor was to use to analyse actions remained fairly tacit. This being the case, many of the points of view used to evaluate the options in WS4a and some in WS5 had been proposed by the researchers, i.e. the impact categories: households, industry, agriculture, politics, nature, infrastructure, droughts, floods. The 8 value categories extracted from the visions by the project team also became points of view for analysis in WS5.

A* -# derived from full set of potential actions by the project team, with some redefinition in the second round of interviews, WS4a, WS4b and WS5.

From the set of potential actions elicited from the participants and some others proposed by AquaStress project experts and the design team, over 40 "Options" were provided and further defined in the second round of individual interviews and in WS4a as the "set of alternative sets of actions". Some of these were further refined in the strategies of WS4a, WS4b and WS5.

D D D D -

# predominantly defined by the project team

Dimensions used in the large multi criteria analysis matrices of strategies in WS4a looked at actor types, needs (i.e. resources) and impacts on the 7 categories that were defined as the points of view above.

Equally the 8 value categories, plus 3 more resource/constraint categories proposed by the project team, were used to analyse the final projects in WS5.

( +* * % : M M M M = 〈 A*, { D D D D, E E E E }, H, U, F 〉 E E E E - * #
predominantly defined by the project team and later adapted in collaboration with the stakeholder groups For the matrices of WS4a, the scales varied somewhat between the facilitators, with a variety of coloured dots, ticks, crosses, numbers, pluses and minuses, as well as a few other comments. In fact, the scales often remained fairly cryptic to outsiders even after explanation from the facilitators.

For WS5, the scales were much simpler with a "1" attributed to the value category on which the project would be perceived to have the most important positive impact, and a "2" for the second most important. Similarly a "1" was attributed to the largest perceived constraint, and a "2" to the next most important perceived constraint. Preferences were formally gathered as part of the money distribution game in WS2 and WS3, as outlined in Section 8.4.2. However, this was based on the categories defined by the project team and original project scoping: the sectors of Agriculture, Households, Industry and Nature in the regions of Samokov, Sofia and Elin Pelin. These were not really used in the process afterwards, except as part of the legitimisation for changing the scope of the final exercise to just focus on Elin Pelin.

Preferences were also distributed in the form of votes on the final projects proposed in WS5.

U -

%

% % # uncertainty structure considered in WS4b as part of the extreme event analysis exercise The structure of uncertainties was formally considered through the "robustness analysis" that was carried out by subjecting the merged strategies of WS4b to three extreme events each of which had been defined by the project team. Also, one category in the "constraints" section of the project analysis in WS5 that was available to aid reflection was "uncertainties in the execution".

Other uncertainties such as knowledge uncertainties were only discussed, often implicitly through the workshop and were not systematically analysed. The construction of the final recommendations used many of the above sets, which resulted in 13 planning and prevention risk response projects, 5 projects to aid in times of crisis and 6 to aid current and future remediation efforts. The top seven projects received more than half the total votes, and contained 3 non technical projects and 4 technical projects.

? ! < " ? ! *

In the second series of workshops, 23 joint actor action cognitive maps were produced by the five groups of organised stakeholders and citizens outlined in Figure 8.5. The maps focused on flood and drought risk management by looking at actions required for prevention, during times of crisis and for restoration and remediation, and the actors that could carry out these activities. The analysis of these maps was carried out co jointly between the Australian researcher and the Bulgarian facilitator in France to ensure reasonable Bulgarian English translations and count validations. In total, over 50 distinct actors, whole or named parts of institutional bodies were counted on the maps. These were then classified as National government, including state owned From these results there is a certain bias towards the citizen's preference for direct help (medical or otherwise) and assistance, compared to that represented by the organised stakeholders in their cognitive maps. The organised stakeholders rather emphasised the management, information and financial issues required for risk CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ( -!!!8 ! management, in particular the coordination that is required between the different levels and departments of government, businesses and NGOs, and the information that is needed by municipalities and citizens to help them to plan, cope and restore their lives before, during and after flood and drought crises. These top 10 actions also show a tendency to preference the need for non technical actions, and both stakeholder types represented the technical options more consistently.

? ! <

The final projects defined and evaluated in the last workshop are shown in This is an interesting final outcome considering the distribution of drivers of flood and drought that policy makers identified at the beginning of the workshop series, in which the policy makers outlined a large number of more non technical socio economic drivers for floods and droughts. There could be a number of reasons for this deviation, although just two potential hypotheses of explanation will be given here. Firstly, as the list of prioritised projects was to be targeting Bulgarian structural funds to finance projects, it is possible that the policy makers took a pragmatic stance of voting for the projects which had the best chances of being accepted -due to the largely "infrastructural" nature of the funds. Secondly, the policy makers may have voted for the projects which they themselves would be able to run and fund, which were those that were more technically orientated. This may have equally been true for the citizens and municipalities voting for some of the non technical projects which could occur under their controls or with which they could more easily involved.

" - % + & # # 0 & + *# + C + + + &7 $ ', & 0 $ 4 % 6 % + % " / % > # & $ + . & > # & & 0 ' & & F . ! + % . # ' 0 # '' # # F # ' & 6 ' 0 ' + ' & 0 0 ' ? + ' & & ' > & 0 $ K # & # ? + ' & ' 0 ' & F = + * , % 7
Whether this final voting underlies a strong appropriation of the process and willingness to personally continue to contribute to flood and drought management activities in the region is still difficult to determine. Considering the previous actions put forward by the citizens and organised stakeholders in the Workshop series 2 (Table G.2), there do seem to be some changes in perspectives or preferences. The top voted project in the final workshop did not appear in the top 10 mentioned actions of Workshop 2. In fact it had been only mentioned twice by the same group -the Elin Pelin citizens. These issues of perspective change and learning will be further investigated in the evaluation results section.

? . < $

This Section supplements the information already provided in Sections 8.5.2 and 8.5.3.

Following the quantitative responses in Figure 8.13, qualitative evaluation responses of how the process helped stakeholders to work with and to communicate with others included that:

-@! E ! " + " " +A -"! % " % < % " =A -"! + > + ' ' " + ' " % " " " E " -"* % + " " 0 " " " "
-"* 0 % + " " * " " " " ." Others were more in the middle of these two extremes. For example, "* / ! + " + ' "

' " E ! + + / " % # + + " " Therefore, it is evident that the process has led to a range of changes for the stakeholders, from light attitude or knowledge construction to more dramatic mind frame shifts.

Whether all of the learning and changes can be considered as positive is another question. The final questionnaires also elicited some comments which could be interpreted to be a little worrying. For example, one stakeholder stated that: "* ! ' " ' ", although a very positive statement, exactly what is meant by this phrase is a little more of an issue. In fact, as has already been mentioned in Chapter 3 of this thesis, many complex problems cannot really be "solved" but must be continuously managed. A similar comment of "! ' ' ' " R " ", is also worrying as this stakeholder appears to think that there are outright "best CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref / 68 + ! ! % -" ( solutions" to problems that can be learnt about, which was not one of the purposes of the process. Rather it was to appreciate that there may be many potentially good or useful options for managing problems. Of course, the interpretations of these comments may not reasonable if the meaning in Bulgarian did not correspond to this English translation. The following could also be (mis )interpreted in a similar way:

"* " ' " ' % ' " " " + ' " " ' % ".
Finally, there were some stakeholders who seemed to become more afraid about things, which was again not the purpose of the process: "! " + ' > ! " ". One of the issues in the co engineering team that could have led to some of these potential misunderstandings, especially related to concept definitions such as "risk", was that the non Bulgarian speaking researchers were unable to understand the subtleties of the content of the workshops being proposed and discussed. This was even the case with the translators present as the meanings were likely to be filtered first by the understanding of the translators, and so many of the small differences in stakeholder understanding of the concepts was not transferred and could not be brought up for discussion.

It appears that at least the first steps towards developing coping capacity have been aided by the participatory modelling process, as these participant comments on whether the process has helped manage water in the Iskar Basin demonstrate:

-"* % ' ' % +

."

-"9 + ' " ! " " " + ' ' + ' " " " ' % ." -"* 0 " /" + ' % # " / " -"! % " " " 0 " > ' " -"* " " 0 " " 9 $ " " -"* " ! % ' : ' + ' " "
In support of this view that the project has been innovative and new collective action on the scale described above, stakeholders mentioned in their optional evaluation comments that:

LIST OF TABLES

INTRODUCTION

This document presents the methodology designed for the stakeholder engagement process in the production of the new Lower Hawkesbury Estuary Management Plan. A process description and findings from the first community stakeholder workshop that was held at the Hornsby Shire Council Chambers on Friday the 3 rd of November are also outlined.

Project Background

The creation of the Lower Hawkesbury Estuary Management Plan (LHEMP) is one of the first broader scale plans of its type to be implemented in Australia. This initiative follows recommendations from a

Hawkesbury Nepean River Estuary Scoping Study Report [START_REF] Kimmerikong | Hawkesbury-Nepean River Estuary Management -Scoping Study -Final Report[END_REF]) that to improve effectiveness, estuaries should be managed relative to catchment boundaries or a "whole-of-estuary" approach rather than based on administrative local council area boundaries. It was considered that developing such an approach would "be more strategic, would facilitate an understanding of the links between issues, allow priorities to be identified, and enable more effective and efficient management of issues by improving exchange of information and coordination of activities."

Currently on the Lower Hawkesbury River past Wisemans Ferry, not all parts of the estuary and

Project Aims

The project aims to create a regional "Lower Hawkesbury Estuary Management Plan". This planning process will help to: -Develop an effective and cost effective monitoring (data collection program), evaluation and reporting process to drive the future planning and management of the estuary; and -Showcase the region's proactive approach to supporting research and "best practice" participatory processes (including their continuous evaluation) as an example for other regions to follow to improve their own estuary planning and management processes.

Compared to the current small scale estuary plans developed for parts of the study area, creating the LHEMP will ensure:

-Better use of local and regional knowledge;

-Improved strategic goals and objectives which are based on a system wide understanding of the estuary;

-All values and issues related to the Lower Hawkesbury River will be considered and not confined to local areas;

-Government resources will be used more efficiently and effectively;

-Greater potential to access and integrate funding and research opportunities; and -Creation of opportunities for projects and community groups to address similar problems in different parts of the estuary.

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

PROJECT PROCESS AND TIMELINE

The process for this project was outlined in the Tender Document (HSC, 2006b), originally developed by the Hornsby Shire Council's Estuary Manager, Mr Peter Coad, and his colleagues. The project process differs from that of the NSW Estuary Management Program for a number of reasons including time and budgetary constraints. The proposed process instead relies more strongly on a stakeholder based approach of integration of their knowledge, use of the Australian Risk Management Standard AS/NZS 4360:2004, and use of existing reports and scientific studies carried out in the region. This will be performed in two principle ways: through running a series of three stakeholder workshops and through a document review. Plan writing and public exhibition of the plan will occur before it is rewritten and submitted to the Hornsby Shire Council and Gosford City Council for approval.

Project Process

The process for the series of three content is outlined in Table 1.

Table 1: Stakeholder Workshop Series Overview

Identify stakeholders' values (assets) and issues related to the estuary -How and by whom are these currently being managed? -Are the resources to manage them sufficient? Workshop No. 1

Management Situation

Identify overall goals, objectives and a vision for the estuary Assess estuarine risks (related to defined issues) for their consequences on the assets and the associated likelihood of these impacts -Determine risk level -Classify the uncertainty of this prediction Workshop No. 2

Risk Analysis

Evaluate and prioritise risks -Classification as "Acceptable, Tolerable or Intolerable" Define strategies and their associated actions to treat priority risks -Which stakeholders and resources are required to carry them out? Workshop No. 3

Strategy Formulation

Determine target states of risk reduction the actions are to achieve -Select indicators, monitoring needs and information dissemination strategies to evaluate and improve management

Timeline

The project process outlined in the Tender Document (HSC, 2006b) was defined to be carried out over a period of approximately 1 year. The current proposed timeline for the LHEMP project is outlined in Table 2. The project will also be externally evaluated throughout and following the process by a project team from the Australian National University for a PhD project and as part of an international evaluation project. This project is funded by the French National Research Agency under their "Agriculture and Sustainable Development" program that has been created to comparatively examine applications of participatory Natural Resources Management initiatives in over 20 case studies in a number of countries.

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

Session 1: Individual Views

As part of the personal introductions, participants were asked to introduce themselves to the group giving their name, where they were from and, in ten words or less, one thing they like and dislike about the estuary. Although the "ten words or less" rule was not commonly adhered to, this first activity of 17 minutes duration gave a wonderfully succinct overview of many of the issues and values that were to be discussed throughout the remainder of the day. Likewise, the diversity of stakeholders and views represented was very clearly defined for all the participants in the room. A collage of participants introducing themselves to the group is shown in Figure 3. Each participant was asked to hold on to their cards and take them to their small groups after morning tea.

Session 2: Small Group Work

Groups were selected by coloured sticky dots on the chairs: red, yellow, blue and green. A couple of groups as seen in Figure 5 were a little uneven due to a few spare chairs in the room so a few participants were redistributed before commencing the small group activities. categories (shown in Figure 6). It was suggested that the groups attempt to distil the values and issues into around 6-10 categories each. These could then be prioritised by the group members and written onto a "values-issues" matrix as a summary of the groups' main issues and values.

Figure 6: Card sorting in small groups

As well as a matrix for participants to fill in with their distilled values and issues, a map of the estuary study area was attached to a board behind their working area, as shown in Figure 7.

Session 3: Large Group Discussion

Lunch was followed by a large group discussion session where the values from the four groups' matrices were compared and contrasted. This process was used to develop a common list of core values for the estuary, resulting in a final list of eight values. The matrix comparison and list of core values is shown in Figure 9. Using this list of values, participants were then asked to individually reflect on how they are related to "goals" for the estuary. Each participant was given a few cards on which to write either goals related to these values for the estuary or overall vision statements related to all or a number of the goals. They were then given the opportunity to share their goals and visions with the rest of the group, a number of which were written on the board and further debated. Participants writing their goal and vision cards, as well as a list of some of the goals written on the board and debated, are shown in Figure 10. The large group session then was drawn to a close with the facilitator describing the following steps of the project process and thanking the group for their participation and hard work.

Participant workshop evaluation

At the end of the large group session, evaluation questionnaires were distributed to the participants to find out how they thought the workshop had been run and how the future ones could be improved.

One of the most important aspects of participatory processes is the continuous monitoring and evaluating that should occur throughout them. Giving participants the possibility to individually reflect on the objectives, content, process and outcomes of the process they are involved in can be invaluable to both the participants and facilitators for a number of reasons including:

-Determining the degree to which expectations have been met; -Understanding perceptions including whether: the workshop was useful or valuable; there are any important problems or conflicts that need to be resolved; the required tasks had been adequately understood and completed; the facilitation and possibilities to participate were adequate; -Verifying if anything major has been overlooked (in the project definition or context, stakeholders who should have been present, and resources required by the participants);

-Finding out what has been gained through the workshop process such as learning outcomes and the building of relationships between stakeholders; and -Providing the opportunity to comment or raise any other concerns.

The questionnaire provided to participants addressed the ideas listed above and contained 15 "open"

and "closed" answer questions. The questionnaire is given in Appendix D and some of the findings are discussed in Section 4.3.

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

WORKSHOP FINDINGS

In this summary of findings from the workshop, every effort has been made to correctly represent the views of the participants; however, it is acknowledged that some of the author's interpretations could vary slightly from those intended. Please contact the author with your concerns if you believe any major misrepresentations have occurred. Only information directly presented or discussed in the workshop has been included in these summaries and so is based on stakeholder opinions. These views will be further enhanced and discussed at a later stage after the completion of the document review of relevant reports, studies, management plans and legislation.

Values

From the final session of the workshop, one of the participants put forward that a vision for the future of the estuary is "to conserve and enhance existing values". These values have been expressed by the participating group as:

-A unique and beautiful estuary of national significance (scenic amenity)

Stakeholders Resources

Users:

-

Stakeholders Resources

Users:

-User communities (residents, visitors, industry, commerce)

Managers:

-User communities

Stakeholders Resources

Users:

-User communities (residents, visitors, industry, commerce)

Managers:

-User communities The participant brainstormed goals for the estuary and its management can be found in Appendix E.

Issues

Throughout the workshop, a number of activities were used to elicit issues in the estuary including individual cards and the small group issue classification using the matrices, spatial mapping and issue sheets. From this information, the principle issues for the estuary from the participants' viewpoints can be classified into eight categories:

-

Stakeholders Resources

Users:

-

Stakeholders Resources

Users:

-User communities (residents, visitors, industry, commerce)

Managers:

-User communities The spatial distribution for these issues as described by the participants during the workshop can be found in Appendix F.

Workshop Evaluation

The questionnaire distributed to participants at the end of the workshop took participants between five and fifteen minutes to complete. Sixteen responses were returned to the facilitators, indicating just over a fifty percent return rate. Responses were received from a good distribution of participants including state and local government representatives and industry and community representatives. values and goals would occur in the following workshop (including how a couple of differences of opinion would be resolved), and the others voiced concerns over representation at the workshop. There were concerns that not involving upstream Hawkesbury-Nepean River representatives would reduce control over the lower estuary and that wider catchment representation focussing on areas other than Brooklyn was required. Only one respondent thought that the workshop's objectives had not been achieved, citing "a complacency within the community that seems to portray the ecosystem as healthy despite evidence to the contrary".

On whether participants found the workshop useful or valuable, the responses were overwhelmingly positive with only one participant found that it was of "limited value". Reasons cited in the positive responses included:

-To contribute and also to work with other concerned and enthusiastic members of the community small groups assisted conversation. The activities were also thought to have "focussed participants to common criteria/objectives" and to have been "not too confrontational". Another couple of participants noted that the activities aided "personal interaction" and that it was "good to meet community representatives and other government representatives". A couple of participants seemingly skipped the "how" in the question and instead responded to the question as if it started with "did the day's activities help…?", responding for example with "yes, very effective". From Figure 11, it can be seen that overall there were high levels of agreement that the workshop's activities helped participants to get to know one another and to share their views and opinions with others. Most participants agreed that the workshop's activities aided creativity and the creation of new thoughts or ideas, although there were also a small number who disagreed with this statement.

Responses to the most important things that participants learnt through the workshop included; how diverse the estuary and its stakeholders are; and how passionate and genuinely concerned many of the stakeholders are for the future wellbeing of the estuary. Although a positive point, a couple of participants noted that this passion can sometimes lead to a difficulty in listening to others' points of view, and that views of the less passionate members of the estuary community are not commonly represented in these kinds of workshops. A quantification of the participants' depth of learning resulting from the workshop relative to a number of other domains is represented in Figure 12. From Figure 12, it can be seen that through the workshop there were only a few people who learnt nothing about either the management of the estuary and its surrounding environment or themselves and their own opinions and practices. It appears that during this first workshop, participants learnt more about the other participants in the group than estuary management, and comparatively less about themselves. However, it is interesting that even though the workshop's objectives did not specifically include "encouraging participants to learn about themselves, and their own opinions and practices" that a quarter of the participants still stated that they learnt "a fair bit" about themselves, and over half "a little bit".

The next section of the questionnaire looked at whether the participants were satisfied with the facilitation of the workshop and how the facilitation could be improved. All but one of the participants were satisfied, with the last one being "mostly" satisfied. A number of good points were raised about how the facilitation could be improved. These included:

-Reducing the noise levels for work in the small groups (possibly by separating them more from one another); -Demonstrating in more detail at the start of the sessions what was expected from each of the activities (matrix and card techniques);

-Potentially using a laptop and screen for the large group summary so all participants can see it easier; and -Making sure that issues from each geographical sub-section of the estuary are given equal discussion time.

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

Participants were also asked what they generally liked and disliked about the workshop, and how it could be improved. The likes were wide-ranging and included: the food, working quickly, having plenty of time for one-to-one discussions in the tea and lunch breaks, the opportunity that all participants had to convey their views and that it was facilitated well. Dislikes included: some polarisation on issues, that it was too slow/quiet in parts, too noisy in the small groups and a lack of sandwiches. Suggested improvements focussed on how the small groups could be separated to reduce noise levels, that good quality coffee and herbal teas be provided (plus more oysters!), and that questions could be issued prior to the meeting so that people have more time to consider their responses. One participant also thought that there could "maybe a bit more guidance for Council on issues rather than open slather".

Finally, the participants were asked to define how important they consider the planning and management of the estuary to be for a number of different things as shown in Figure 13. From Figure 13, it can be observed that the majority of participants believe the planning and management of the estuary to be either important or very important for all of the above categories.

Greatest responses of the estuaries' management being "very important" were attributed to the environment and communities living around the estuary, followed by future generations. Managing the estuary for the regional economy was comparatively a little less important. Overall, the responses to this question show that the participants in this group do consider estuary management to be important personally or for their organisations, as well as recognising its importance to people, the environment the economy and future generations.

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

CONCLUSIONS

This report has presented the process and preliminary findings of the stakeholder workshop for the Lower Hawkesbury Estuary Management Plan. The workshop was attended by a diverse range of representatives from State Government Departments, Local Governments and community (including industry and residential) groups. The 30 participants worked through a variety of individual and group activities to develop a set of common values for the estuary and issues that are currently affecting its management. Goals and estuary management vision statements related to preserving these values were also elicited.

The wealth of stakeholder knowledge and opinions presented in this report show that workshop process was very productive. Participant evaluations of the workshop were also predominately positive and showed that the process had been effective in learning outcomes, helping the participants to get to know each other better and to share their views and opinions with others.

The information provided in this report, when combined with the document review of relevant existing reports, studies and legislation, will form a solid base for the following project stages and stakeholder workshops of the LHEMP creation.

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to acknowledge that document has been written as part of the development of her PhD in water management and sustainable development, which is kindly funded by the General Sir John Monash Foundation, the CSIRO, CEMAGREF and the Centre for Resource and Environmental CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref Goals for "Recreational opportunities":

-"Our vision is to see the Hawkesbury Estuary used by all recreational users in a sustainable and socially responsible manner supported by appropriate marine and community infrastructure"

-"Improve the quality of recreational experiences"

-"Re-investing locally generated recreation revenue into protection of the estuary's health (e.g. mooring fees, rec. Fishing Licence fees etc.)"

Goals for "Sustainable economic industries":

-"Sustainable and resilient oyster industry and commercial fishery that is integrated into all river and catchment management processes, and the cultural life of the river"

-"Improve the sustainability of commercial activities"

-"To manage and regulate the estuary's fisheries resources for long term sustainability"

-"An estuary that supports thriving communities and businesses"

-"A diverse and ecologically sustainable economic base"

-"Valuing local, small -business based, river industries"

Goal for "Heritage":

-"Progressing a waterway to reflect its aged history/heritage/uniqueness" Goals for "Improving water quality that supports multiple uses":

-"Aspirational water quality goal of direct harvest standard for all oyster harvest zones"

-"To improve water quality throughout the catchment"

-"Equitable monitoring of water quality to be used as a report card of river management"

-"Improvement to water quality"

-"That there are improvements in water quality through restoration of natural flows and reduction of STP flows through water reuse directives in the future"

Goals for "Community value":

-"To foster a sense of caring and belonging among all users of the river and its resources and services"

-"A community that values and understands their impacts on the aquatic ecosystem"

-"That the input of concerned members of the local and wider community be valued and considered in future estuary management directives"

-"We have a vision in which river, catchment and user communities work together for the common good of the estuary and all users"

-"An estuary managed within its capacity by better integration of responsibility of agencies, council and community"

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

-"An estuary in which the river community character is conserved and valued"

-"Educate all people in the catchment area to be more aware of their impact on the river"

-"Highlighting shared values across diverse estuarine users, landscapes, waterways and the interconnectedness of these"

-"Building on existing knowledge and integrating technical and "citizen" science"

-"Enhancing my ongoing life in a world of "happy""

-"Diverse group of people concerned with the health and sustainability of the Lower Hawkesbury: holistic management"

As well as these goals, several more holistic visions for the estuary that tie a number of these values together, or speak more generally of its management are outlined here.

Visions for the estuary and its management:

-"A healthy and productive estuary for current and future generations"

-"Aim to reduce adverse influences"

-"Conserve and enhance existing values"

-"Planned and focussed management within a natural holistic framework"

-"Focussed management of estuary parts for a sustainable whole"

-"Fill gaps in knowledge necessary to make appropriate management decisions for sustaining the value of the estuary"

-"Protect, preserve and improve the unique and beautiful estuary with strategies and actions that balance biodiversity, economic activity and recreational use"

-"Resource funds to implement the plan within 15 years" -"Put in place management systems to protect river for future generations"

-"My great grandchildren can safely swim in the river"

-"To maintain and increase the Hawkesbury River health so that the river community, wider stakeholders, visitors, industry and riverine/marine environment can all continue to benefit from the river's unique qualities"

-"An estuary that supports sustainable recreational and commercial use through the maintenance of key values -water quality, community, aesthetics"

-"That the estuary be a sustainable natural environment to support commercial, recreational and community values into the distant future"

-"An estuarine system which can support multiple uses (recreation and commercial operations) with no decline in the health and natural functioning of the estuary"

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

APPENDIX F SPATIALLY DISTRIBUTED ISSUES

During the small group session a number of issues were spatially distributed on the maps provided.

The following list summarises these issues to specific locations within the estuary.

Wisemans Ferry

  Figure A.1 shows the evolution of worldwide water withdrawals since 1950, which have steadily grown along with population growth in both the rural and urban sectors, and the total area of irrigated land.

  managers and planners were required to look at and reduce all environmental impacts of interventions (Thomas and Elliott, 2005). Over the past 30 years, the impacts of climatic extremes such as floods and droughts, as well as increased urbanisation, levels of water pollution, and the use of water for agriculture and industry, has led to more conflicts over rights to water and how water resources should be managed . * With the advent of computers, communication systems and advanced technologies for water treatment later in the 20th century, large changes and further development of water supply, demand control and management of water systems became possible.

  3 1.9 million people for the Three Gorges Dam on China's Yangzee River(Gleick et al., 2006). Contemporary water management is therefore often characterised by a process of deciding how available water should or could be used and shared between a variety of stakeholders and the environment, and conflict resolution amongst these stakeholders; where stakeholders are considered as people, institutions or organisations that have a stake in the outcome of decisions related to water management as they are directly affected by the decisions made, or have the power to block or influence the decision making process(Nandalal and Simonovic, 2003). CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref 3 For thousands of years, water has aided peace and war. Rivers in particular have often been the centre of rivalries over water use, as water use downstream is affected by upstream users, and water use on one bank can be affected by use on the other bank. It is interesting to note that the meaning given to the Latin word @ A means @ A (Wolf et al., 2005). However, whether this implies that rivers incite cooperation or conflict is entirely another question. It is suggested that since 2500 B.C. until the current day, over 3600 individual water treaties have been created globally (Wolf, 2002a). Water has been a common source of conflict in transboundary water basins, especially in the Middle East, Asia and Africa, as outlined in the "water and conflict chronology" (Gleick et al., 2006). In such tensions, water systems and resources can be considered as sources, instruments or targets of conflict (Gleick, 1998). Around 720BC, irrigation systems of the Haldians in Armenia were targeted and destroyed by the Assyrians (Gleick, 1998). A couple of centuries later, a type of "hydraulic warfare" based on using dykes to divert deathly floodwaters onto opponents' villages and fields was used in China (Cech, 2005). In more recent times, conflicts in developed countries have also occurred with a variety of motives. Direct attacks on a water system for survival or political motives included the dynamiting of an aqueduct system being used to divert water away from California's Owens Valley farmers for use in Los Angeles between 1907 and 1913 (Reisner, 1986) and more recent attacks on pipelines and treatment plants in Israel and Palestine (Gleick et al., 2006). In many more recent conflicts such as World War II, the Korean War and the Gulf War, dams, levees, pipes and desalination plants have also been targeted to disable the vital infrastructure of their opponents (Gleick, 1998). In 2000, an economic motive prompted conflict when French protesters aiming to protect their work rights at a chemical plant dumped 5000 litres of sulphuric acid into a tributary of the Meuse River near the Belgian border. A specialist in social conflicts stated that "the environment and public health were made hostage in order to exert pressure, an unheard of situation until now" (Cu, 2000). At the same time on Australia's Sunshine Coast, another potentially economically motivated and previously unthought of "cyber terrorist" attack on a wastewater treatment plant was uncovered. For two months, it had been a mystery to the managers of the Maroochy Shire wastewater system how the plant had been leaking hundreds of thousands of litres of putrid sludge into parks, rivers and nearby hotel grounds, killing marine life and creating an unbearable stench. During his 46th successful intrusion into the plant's computer system from a radio transmitter and stolen computer in his car, the culprit was finally discovered and arrested by the police (Gellman, 2002). These new kinds of water related conflicts show just how interconnected to other interests and different parts of society effective CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

  invented through the ages, including instruments such as rain gauges, which have been used since 300 B.C. as a tool for determining government tax collections and aiding planning decisions in India, China and Korea(Cech, 2005). CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref -With the industrial revolution came the increased need to manage production and workforces, leading to a proliferation of new thinking on viable forms of management and societal structures such as scientific management (Taylor, 2003), administrations (Fayol, 1918), bureaucracies (see Albrow (1970) for a succinct overview) and organisational models (see Dixon and Dogan (2003) for an analysis of different currents of thinking on the subject). In more recent times, theories of planning and associated management practices have been developed in many domains including: management (operational, organisational, and of the society, economy and environment); military strategy, engineering (projects, production and construction); and education. All of these theories tend to delineate, or help to delineate, a certain number of phases in the planning and management process which are required to designate actions that will help to meet specified objectives. One of the best known examples of a planning process to help delineate project phases through time is the Gantt chart, designed by the American engineer and management consultant Henry Laurence Gantt in the 1910s and later used all over the world in business, production or construction management, including for the management of the Hoover Dam project in 1931 (UNITAR, 2005). Since this time many other planning and management models have emerged, including systems models, long range planning, contingency planning, strategic planning and strategic management (Ansoff, 1965; Emery, 1969; Steiner, 1969; Ansoff, 1984; Mintzberg, 1994), many of which are based on Simon's (1960) depiction of the decision process. Although diverse in their content, some of these models take a cyclic rather than linear form, and have been developed for use in a number of domains. For example, Boyd's OODA loop or "Observation, Orientation, Decision, Action", was originally developed for military strategy planning but is now commonly used for organisational planning and management (Strömgren, 2003), as shown in Figure A.3. CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref 3 This kind of planning and management cycle differentiates between a number of phases that could be considered to be part of a conscious decision making process. It is important to note the possible incomplete nature of such processes, as feedback loops may occur at a number of stages. Boyd's loop is also typical of many other planning and management cycles, which include Deming's (1986) continuous improvement cycle for Total Quality Management and Holling's (1978) adaptive management cycle for environmental and ecosystem management. The new "best practice" cyclical (or spirallic) planning and management processes designed to achieve sustainable development objectives have also specified that ongoing evaluation or monitoring is required as the planned actions are implemented (Walker et al., 2002) if real progress towards such objectives is to be achieved (Bellamy et al., 2001). This consideration, even though not clearly explicated, is still evident in through the feedback loop to "observation" in Boyd's loop. From all of these cycles, irrespective of how many phases they are divided into, a number of key ideas can be summarised by a number of questions, as illustrated in Figure A.4. CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

  ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref 3 goals in ancient societies (such as digging wells, irrigation channels or situating their homes near an already available water supply), there are many ancient examples of water related and other types of development that inherently required some form of organised planning. Dam building, water distribution and sewerage system design and construction were just some of the projects that could be created through the centralised decision making structures of those times.Looking specifically at planning approaches used for water management in modern times, Sharifi (2003) identifies three dominant styles of planning that are currently in use: traditional supply side planning; least cost planning; and integrated resource planning. Each one of these planning styles targets to a certain degree the three types of scarcities outlined in TableA.1: physical/environmental scarcities; economic scarcities and social/political scarcities. The third type of planning approach identified by Sharifi (2003) as integrated resource planning is also outlined in detail in Nichols et al. (2000) who compare it to the first two "traditional approaches" to planning. Traditional +# is a process based on ensuring that a safe and adequate quantity of water can be provided to users. It is often based on the development of extra water storage and usage capacity and does not generally take other goals into account, such as environmental protection or the possibilities of reducing water demands. It concentrates on coping best with physical and environmental (i.e. climatic/hydrologic) uncertainties. This type of planning and its associated management practices are what Wolff and Gleick (2002) refer to as the "hard" path to water management.

  down into their simplest elements in order to solve them (Dandy andWarner, 1989; Pahl Wostl, 2002; Bouleau, 2003a). Considering a number of challenges in the water sector that the social /political type of water scarcities imply (refer to the causes in Table A.1), these planning methods have come under intense criticism by many authors (i.e. Matondo, 2002; Pahl Wostl, 2002; Wolfe and Brooks, 2003; Falkenmark et al., 2004), due to their incapacity to adequately predict human behavioural effects which do not conform to the economic ideal of behaviour. One of the responses to such critiques was " the planning systems behind "Integrated Water Resources Management" which typically takes a wider view of water management issues, and can commonly find itself addressing problems of social/political water scarcity. These approaches are underlain by Simon's (Simon, 1954; Simon, 1977) concept of "bounded rationality", where human behaviour can be "rational" but only within the constraints of partial knowledge, cognitive capacity and organization of memory. In other words, different stakeholders may all have different rationalities and different decision behaviour based on their own normative positions and constrained environments. Integrated resource planning is therefore based on multiple objectives and constraints, usually derived from the kind of sustainability objectives outlined in Agenda 21 (United Nations, 1992) which focus on the conservation and development of all social, environmental and economic resources for the future, in participation with all related stakeholders. Integrated

  From Figure A.5, it can be observed that there is a typical management cycle inside (type "Deming or Shewhart loop: Plan Do Check (Study) Act (Adapt)"

CemOA : archive ouverte

  d'Irstea / Cemagref predisposition to embrace or reduce complexity in or to study system behaviour, as shown in Figure B.1.

3 .

 3 Engage in "ongoing construction" of knowledge (based on a dynamic of oscillation between action and reflection); this should be a collaborative process between the researchers and practitioners where continuous dialogue and on going evaluation are maintained (Couix, 1997) in order to redesign and re orientate the loops of action and reflection throughout the intervention. As Moisdon (1984) explains, it will be the reflection on previous stages that form the basis for new research, analysis, testing and reflection in the following phases. In the intervention process, the researcher should use their initiative to select the methods and theories considered to be most adapted to the situations encountered (Berry, 1995).Although the posture has recently been theoretically specified by these researchers, it has common roots with a number of other "transformative" or engineering research methods of developing knowledge through action in the "field", which include action research (e.g.Toeman and Thompson, 1950; Lewin, 1951; Susman and Evered, 1978; Checkland and Holwell, 1998), grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967), inquiry in action (Torbert, 1976), "direct" research (Mintzberg, 1979b), cooperative enquiry (Heron, 1981), action science (Argyris et al., 1985), clinical research (Schein, 1987), participatory action research (Whyte, 1991), decision aiding science (Roy, 1993), and the intervention research in Thomas and Rothman (1994). Taking the traditional views of action research as described by (Lewin, 1951) and (Argyris et al., 1985), as well as other traditional forms of research in the management sciences of observation methods and theoretical model construction, David (2000)

  people) and objects (their outside environment)(Landry, 2000).Many domains have attempted to formalise the concept of problem formulation, especially since the Second World War (Landry, 2000), including: operational research, engineering, management, the physical and social sciences and even literary theory.

  where a problem is to be co formulated, Rousseau and Deffuant(2005) suggest that problem formulation is a continuous cycle of individual viewpoint construction then collective comparison and discussion that feeds back into the next reiteration of individual and collective problem formulation. This implies that problem formulation is an inherently subjective process, whose outcomes are likely to be largely related to the person or group of people involved in any such process. This view is backed up, specifically referring to the domain of water resources planning and management, by HarmoniCOP (2005) and ADVISOR (2004). However, despite these process classification and clarification attempts, there is still no single agreed upon definition of exactly what constitutes the process of problem formulation or structuring (Corner et al., 2001) in water management or in other domains.

  management of such problems (Watzlawick et al., 1974). Such change often requires the creation of new options outside of a pre formulated set of alternatives (Watzlawick et al., 1974). The example outlined in Figure B.2 demonstrates just how such a reframing could occur.

  which possesses multiple definitions (Dart et al., 1998) and has evolved in a number of forms in different civilisations and disciplines (i.e. public health, organisational sociology, industrial psychology, education (Freeman, 1977)) through time, many of which are dependent on different value systems and corresponding epistemologies (Krane, 2001). Edwards and Newman (1982) identify

  Following on from a similar line of reasoning of the incapacity of technical experts to deal with certain types of messy or "wicked" problem situations, Funtowicz and Ravetz (1993) have suggested that methods of "post normal science" are required in contexts where facts are uncertain, values are in dispute, the stakes are high and decisions must be made urgently, as shown in Figure B.5. This categorisation can generally be translated onto the surface between the uncertainties and conflicts axes of Figure B.4. When stakes and uncertainties (i.e.

  Panarchy and complex adaptive systems (CAS) (Forrester, 1961) (Gunderson and Holling, 2002) (Matthews, 2004) (Perez and Batten, 2006) (Pahl Wostl et al., 2008)

A

  number of these approaches were used to inspire the design and implementation of the Montpellier Pilot Trial decision aiding intervention outlined in Chapter 6 and Appendices D and E: Japanese learning and innovation theory was used as a basis for the selection and placement of methods through the process design, in an attempt to incite individual and collective learning and innovation; Spiral Dynamics inspired a mix of different work methods to suit participants' underlying value systems and working preferences (based on questionnaire responses in the first workshop); and the CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref Panarchy concept inspired the three inter linked scale version of the Oval MappingTechnique for investigating decisions at a personal, neighbourhood and regional (water basin level).CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / CemagrefThis Appendix supplements Chapter 3 by extending the brief definitions and outlines of participatory modelling previously provided.

  participants; and communication and decision mode. He suggests it could be used to inform institutional design choices for public participation planning initiatives. His use of the cube to represent the difference between government or private agency work and public hearings is shown in Figure C.3.

From

  been briefly outlined in Section 3.1.2 and Section B.3.As all models are only different abstractions of reality, certain hypotheses and assumptions are always present in their construction. Models can be analysed by adjusting or changing these hypotheses, assumptions or various initial parameters.Because all models exhibit underlying assumptions or hypotheses, they can be challenged or rendered illegitimate by someone who does not agree with or accept them(Korfmacher, 2001). This property of models is of extreme importance when they are to be used by a third party or a number of parties to aid decision making. If the model is deemed unsatisfactory by these parties, then the decisions informed by the model are also open to be challenged. Landry et al. (1996) pointed out that models may concurrently serve different purposes and can be thought of as instruments or tools, which throughout their lifetime permit various modes of human-model interaction, as depicted in Figure C.4. Figure C.4 it can be seen how models can be used as enabling or constraining devices and in a number of modes. They may be used to allow open reflection or suggestions of options for action in the instrumental mode, or be used in modes requiring accommodation of modellers' and decision makers' (model users'): uncommonly observable traits of feelings and values in the underground mode; and the more observable interests of each party through methods such as negotiation or consensus building in the symbolic mode. Model legitimacy is likely to be based on the perceptions of the model in all three modes described in Figure C.4, and not just on the instrumental mode. Traditional technical models are mostly produced with maximum attention focussed on the instrumental mode of use. The legitimacy of models in the public decision making or policy analysis domain is sometimes difficult to achieve as the models have not been specifically built to allow the accommodation of various interests, values and feelings of all who will use them to guide their decisions (Mintzberg, 1979a). Increased attention to the underground and symbolic modes of model use is thus required.

  from the earliest problem identification stages (Nancarrow, 2005). Participatory modelling is different from traditional modelling in that the source of information, assumptions and hypotheses in the model do not stem from just one point of view, representation or set of values. It is a process of collective creation of a common model, by a number of people or stakeholders with varying interests and world views. Participative modelling requires the management of conflicting points of view, as well as the assembly and coordination of views, differing value systems and various understandings, without necessarily integrating them. The methods, processes and needs required to achieve such socially orientated objectives are commonly different from those required in unique viewpoint modelling methods. Due to the inherent involvement of a variety of stakeholders in the modelling process, this type of modelling is more likely to exhibit increased levels of underground and symbolic modes of usage, outlined in Figure C.4. Loucks (1992) noted that even though models produced in such settings are more apt for the problems addressed, they must also be technically valid, not only from the perspective of modelling process participants, but by peers or experts in the field of analysis. A balance must therefore be achieved between ensuring model legitimacy and model validity in participatory modelling exercises.Although the theoretical basis of "participatory" modelling, defined as the creation of a common model taking into account more than one individual's point of view, is relatively clear, how this process can be achieved, and to what degree it is really "participatory" is relatively less so. For example, the amount of participation required to "take a view into account" can vary dramatically from brief verbal consultation at any period during initial modelling stages with a stakeholder of the model, to the model's stakeholders co constructing and being physically involved in every stage of model development from problem definition to decision implementation.

  conditions of uncertainty, complexity and conflict in the water sector, traditional water resources models designed to aid decision makers only focussed on evaluating management alternatives (e.g. to optimise a certain number of objective functions, to choose the best "economic" option, or even giving the decision maker a range of options corresponding to different risk levels), rather than supporting the full decision process from the definitions of problems. Such isolated evaluation models are commonly overlooked or shelved as they are incapable of taking into account a multitude of social and environmental factors that can commonly carry more weight in a political debate than "the best technical solution", from just one or a limited number of points of view of the modellers. As can be seen from Bogardi's (1994) vision of the composition of sub systems in a water resources system in Figure C.5, technically or economically optimised solutions for this multitude of sub systems are not likely to be able to adequately treat the required dimensions of water resources systems problems. Even these subsystems are not likely to be the only ones in need of consideration, as was outlined in the contextual description of water related "problem situations" in Chapters 2, Chapter 3 and Section B.3.Messy water planning and management problem situations therefore require approaches to decision aiding that can allow the representation of various points of view, mutually agreed classifications of the problems and the development and implementation of collectively acceptable or "reasonable" solutions(ADVISOR, 2004; HarmoniCOP, 2005). As models are most commonly used to aid water management decisions, a logical advance towards trying to meet these new demands is to involve stakeholders with conflicting views in the process of building these models. This process of the co construction of models by multiple stakeholders, or participatory modelling, has now been applied in a variety of different forms to a reasonable number of water resources problems around the world, with varying perceived levels of success. Examples will be outlined at the end of this Section. CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

Figure C. 6 .

 6 Continuing to consider the potential interactions of the three sets of highly idealised parties in Figure C.6, Thomas (2004) presents a critique of water management and planning scenarios under either individual, or in combined, actions by the three parties. He maintains that any set acting entirely on its own is likely to be more ineffective in significantly improving water management than when they work together. Each combination of sets working in pairs may have certain advantages and disadvantages: for example, a collaboration between science and politics is likely to be more efficient and will ensure that decisions are made based on sound scientific knowledge but does carry the risk that public backlash could occur if the decisions are deemed unacceptable by the wider population. Collaborations between science and the public are likely to improve the knowledge of both sectors, which can potentially drive changes to management and policy if lobbying takes place, although if

  from a well performed stakeholder analysis related to the perceived problem situation under question is likely to be a good starting point(Hare and Pahl Wostl, 2002). Ensuring that science, politics and the public are represented in water planning and management inter organisational working groups, it is also hypothetically likely that the potential for knowledge transfer and integration to help a decision aiding process could be maximised, although this claim remains largely unevaluated. Other suggestions on current "best practice" and potential risks to avoid, when considering participant choice, are outlined in Allen et al. (2002), Hare et al. (2003) and van Asselt et al. (2001).

Figure C. 7 )

 7 is in fact not at all participatory in nature. It corresponds to traditional forms of modelling in water management and planning, where the managers tells the modellers or engineers (technical experts) what problem needs to be solved. It is noted that engineers or technical experts in a government bureaucracy may determine the problem themselves (due to their combined management/expert role). The technical experts then analyse this pre defined problem and develop any model(s) they require to develop a set of solutions (or range of options) which they can present to the managers. At this stage, either based on the experts' recommendations or on some other criteria such as the budget or fear of public backlash, the managers and policy makers will choose their preferred option or solution which will then be implemented. This phase of implementation commonly means that the affected public or "stakeholder CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref make some kind of change or carry out an "action" (i.e. meet the requirements of a new piece of legislation, or prepare for a new measure of water supply and demand management such as a new dam, water use restrictions or recycled water systems).When dealing with complex, disputed problems, often with high levels of uncertainty, the approach shown in Figure C.7 has been extensively criticised (Rosenhead and Mingers, 2001) and has often failed to reach a reasonable level of adoption of, and thus solution to, the problem. There are a number of reasons why this approach may fail to obtain the expected results, which include: actual or perceived irrelevance of the proposed or chosen solution alternatives (either from the points of view of the stakeholder communities or the policy makers and managers); social inertia and various social opposition from the stakeholder communities who have not been included in the modelling or decision making process; lack of integration between the stakeholder communities' visions and the other actors' visions (i.e. the "right" problem may not be addressed); lack of model transparency; and inadequate support from the policy makers and managers for implementation (i.e. adoption incentives may be unrealistic or real education needs are not covered).The second level of the classification, shown in FigureC.8, could be included under the umbrella of multi criteria decision aid and, more generally, of classical decision

  The third classification level, shown in FigureC.9, is less common (although currently gaining support through "integrated water resources management approaches"), as it assumes an open scenario approach based on a given model of the situation. Scientific or technical experts provide an "integrated" model (often taking into account information from stakeholder communities and policy makers and managers), which is used by decision makers and other stakeholders to explore and select scenarios or actions. The model is "external" from this point of view.

  The fourth and final classification level (shown in Figure C.10) is what will be defined in this thesis as "participative modelling", where the role of the scientists, engineers and technical experts is to provide support and requested knowledge for the local stakeholders and other decision makers to formulate, structure, build and use a model or several models (i.e. the "meta objects" outlined in Chapter 3) of their messy problem situation. The participatory modelling process constitutes a series of collective decision cycles of problem identification, problem definition, model structure and hypotheses, potential solutions, scenarios and their evaluation, culminating in final collective decisions on planned actions for implementation.

modelling ( 1 )

 1 helps to examine the "real" underlying problems; (2) increases trust, appropriation and understanding of the models created, as assumptions and uncertainties are more likely to be explicitly identified and discussed; (3) generates greater creativity and innovation; (4) leads to an improved ability to respond to change through enhancing social capacity, adaptability, flexibility and resilience; (5) leads to greater individual and social learning; (6) produces richer and more realistic action plans; and (7) provides greater chance of adoption or implementation of problem management alternatives. It is also noted that participatory modelling may have a number of drawbacks, including being more costly in time, money and personnel in the short term than the other classification levels (Korfmacher, 2001).

  rigour and validation surrounding model structure, inputs and outputs. In theory, the design of a participatory modelling process should support the construction of a model which is concurrently viewed as legitimate by stakeholders and which is considered as valid by technical standards, as represented in FigureCreal life decision aiding, as applied in operational research, models constructed may often not meet the required standards for academic peer review, as they have not been created as models, but rather as analysis tools in larger decision processes. It is therefore suggested that, along with seeking stakeholder legitimisation of the participatory modelling process, two extra tests should be considered: whether the model and modelling process are theoretically sound and meaningful; and whether they are operationally complete and useful for participants.

3 "

 3 which were originally initiated by planners and engineers for large scale planning processes with greater numbers of stakeholders. More recently, multi agent systems based participatory modelling and related role playing games have been used for larger scale problems with the inclusion of water policy makers (i.e.Dray et al., 2005).However, these approaches still remain highly experimental, with a strong focus on learning for future adaptive management rather than on aiding collective decision making. An overview of some recent experiments related to the companion modelling approach can be found in D'Aquino et al. (2002b).Despite the relatively few concrete examples of participatory modelling using multi agent systems to date in water resources planning and management, multi agent modelling combined with increased participant interaction is being heralded by many researchers as the way of the future(Parker et al., 2003). This is especially due to its capacity to be linked to spatial information such as GIS maps and to include both qualitative and quantitative information in simulation tools(Daniell et al., 2004).Following the power of multi agent systems technology used in the Artificial%+&"#$"* %#CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref Intelligence field and in computer gaming for planning, strategy and learning, such as in computer simulation games including SimCity™ and Civilisation™, the race has commenced to create similar level platforms to aid water resources management and planning (Poujol, 2004). One recent example is the Dutch produced SimCity like game, "Splash!" (screen shot shown in Figure A.2), which allows players to manage river basin activities in order to attempt to satisfy the various urban, rural and industrial constituencies (Wien et al., 2003). The task of opening up these games for easy re personalisation of the environments and stakeholders' behaviours and values will require more time, as will embedding such tools in multi stakeholder group participatory decision aiding processes for water planning and management. & ! ! ' 0 Unlike participatory modelling methods based on systems dynamics or multi agent systems modelling, problem structuring methods typically use more qualitatively based tools, in some cases with supporting computer software. Most of the methods were developed in the field of "Soft" Operational Research, as introduced in Section 3.1.1, the most common of which include: -The Soft Systems Methodology (Checkland, 1981); -The Strategic Choice Approach (Friend and Hickling, 1987); -SODA: "Strategic Options Development and Analysis" (Eden, 1989); -Robustness Analysis (Rosenhead, 1980); -Drama Theory (Bennett and Howard, 1996) and its precedents, including Hypergame modelling (Bennett and Dando, 1979; Bennett et al., 1989) and Metagame analysis (Hipel et al., 1974; Howard, 1989); and the Viable Systems Method (Beer, 1984).

  Such methods typically aim to express and structure underlying assumptions, as well as to develop the adaptive capacity of participants to deal with problems exhibiting high levels of complexity, uncertainty and conflict. This section will only provide brief details on the Strategic Choice Approach and SODA. Rosenhead and Mingers(2001) and Heyer (2004) provide further information on these and other problem structuring methods.

-

  Environmental uncertainties: those related to external factors such as climate and the economy or a lack of information on variables required for management; Value uncertainties: those related to the underlying political goals and values of the participants and related organisations that render strategy analysis and planning difficult; and -Choice uncertainties: related to whether other management alternatives exist under the current problem formulation or if the problem situation could be framed differently in order to uncover other choice alternatives.It has also been developed with the underlying hypothesis (Friend andHickling, 1987) that in a time constrained environment, decision makers do not tend to follow a "phase like" process (see Section B.2), but rather appear to switch haphazardly between various focal points and different associated types of reasoning. In the methodology of the Strategic Choice Approach, Friend (2001) has therefore preferred to outline and support four "modes" of working with decision makers in a decision aiding process, between which the participants of the process may switch at will, as presented in Figure C.15. For each of these four modes, Friend (2001) outlines a range of activities and thought processes which the participants of the decision aiding groups are likely to use, as well as a number of specific methods, some based on computerised supports such as the STRAD software (Stradspan Limited, 2007), which may be used in the implementation of the Strategic Choice Approach; a few of which have been summarised in

  sector include: de Jong (1996); deCarvalho and Magrini (2006); and Malmqvist et al.(2006). Although positive results were generally reported, issues of difficulties in finding common ground between stakeholders and agreeing on the definition of system boundaries were encountered(Malmqvist et al., 2006). Strategies for negotiating common decisions are not overly evident in the approach and may therefore warrant further attention.

Bonner ( 1993

 1993 ), Spicer (1998), Eden and Spender (1998) and Lauriol (1998). Focussing on the use of cognitive mapping in group settings, SODA and Journey Making have the stated underlying aims of facilitating: consensus building among process participants; development of emotional and cognitive commitments to action; and the management of " " ' +" (Eden and Ackermann, 2001). The proposed process of "JOURNEY Making", as it is presented in Eden and Ackermann, (1998) is reproduced in Figure C.16.

  continuous improvement and adaptation en route, based on evaluation insights through the methodology implementation. Through her literature review, she had already found a number of methods, models and theories that she was interested in using or exploring through the participatory modelling exercise and evaluation, which included: Ackermann and Eden's (2001) "Oval Mapping Technique"; the MERF process for reverse engineering the planning cycle in Figure A.5 (Fleming, 2005); including the elements of Tsoukiàs' decision aiding process model described in Section 5.1.3 (Tsoukiàs, 2007); Nonaka and Takeuchi's innovation and organisational learning cycle (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995); the four quadrants/fields from integral theories and learning theories (Schumacher, 1977; Wilber, 2000); Spiral Dynamics (Beck and Cowan, 1996); and the Panarchy concept (Gunderson and Holling, 2002)

  based on preliminary work by the scholar, and then collectively redefined. The first version proposed by the scholar followed the four stages of the Tsoukiàs (Tsoukiàs, 2007) model and the planning stages of the MERF model. However, the PhD supervisor insisted that not enough emphasis had been placed on the modelling CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref methodology and that this section should be re examined. He suggested designing a role playing game as part of the methodology like SelfCORMAS (D'Aquino et al., 2003) or JustGame(Ferrand et al., 2005). Such a game and its accompanying model could be used by the students to "play out" their roles, which is similar to the case that was explained in the "integrated methodology proposal for participatory modelling" in Section 3.3.5. These proposals were then collaboratively expanded upon to produce a planned methodology incorporating six participatory workshops, as shown in Figure D.2.

  Cemagref using the model (Finaud Guyot, 2005), as well as a range of other references including Marsh et al. (2001), Beck and Cowan (1996) and Loubier and Rinaudo (2003).

  The questionnaires were not all prepared prior to the methodologies implementation, but rather developed in an adaptive fashion by the researcher and discussed with her supervisor just prior to each workshop session. A number of examples of the Montpellier trial questionnaires are provided in Appendix H.

  three hour long workshops (WS1 WS7) with a range of activities in each one, as shown in Figure 6.2, between the 19th of October and the 23rd of November 2005. Throughout the process, the nine students appeared to participate actively in a convivial atmosphere. The principal methods used during the participative process, which are outlined in more detail in Appendix E, included: two types of cognitive mapping (current situation and strategy mapping); UML modelling; a dynamic interaction specification game; pay off construction; brainstorming; a role playing game supported by an Excel model; and open debate.

3

  After the first three workshops, a modeller who had previously worked on multi agent models to support role playing games, arrived at the institution and, when asked by the PhD supervisor, agreed to create the computer model for this exercise. Due to the time constraints of the exercise, his work started on a Sunday afternoon one week prior to the model needing to be ready for the role playing game. The researcher worked as the main consultant for the modeller who transferred the existing UML conceptual modelling that the students had carried out at the end of WS3 to CORMAS(Bousquet et al., 1998), a multi agent modelling platform with which the modeller was very well acquainted, as he had helped to design it. This first stage of modelling worked well, with the modeller attending WS4 to present the first form of the model to the students. However, he also explained to them how there was not yet enough CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref -!!!8 !

  objective of achieving personal happiness (' ). This statement appeared in the collective problem formulation map, as shown in Figure D.3.

------

  Figure D.5 demonstrates that the linkages across scales had helped create a number of reasonably coherent clusters, which can be identified to highlight the central ideas they contain: -Personal and community security and wellbeing development; -Water use reduction; -Integrated urban water resources planning and management; -Building social capacity and direct democracy to encourage respectful water governance and reduce vulnerability to natural disasters; -Mitigation of water scarcity (quality and quantity related); -Sustainable energy systems; and -Preserve water and the environment.

  sensitising the population! It was interesting to see that a number of the participants had seemingly reverted to their original value systems in the final sessions when comparing the evaluation questionnaire responses from the beginning of the first workshop with their positions in the final workshop. This was after having flirted with a variety of new ideas and critically appreciated others' views in the first series of debates.

  As outlined in Section D.2.6, an analysis of the change in cognitive state of the participants, the "Cognitive" dimension of ENCORE, was attempted by posing the same questions in the first and last questionnaires of the workshop series. The results of these participant self evaluations of their general "understanding of issues" in a number of domains are represented in the spider graphs in Figure D.6. Similarly the participants' self evaluation of their "awareness of the effects of their actions and practices" in a number of domains is represented in Figure D.7.

  As well as trying to assess cognitive states, attempts were made to determine the levels of participant learning in a number of other ways. Firstly, participants were asked directly at the end of each workshop how much they thought they had learnt on a range of aspects. A selection of these results is given in Figure D.8.From these results it appears that learning in a number of areas continued through the workshop sessions, even if it was just "a bit" during each session. Perhaps what is more interesting is that the greatest depths of learning appeared to occur during the sessions with more open debate (WS6 was almost entirely a large group discussion and WS3 had around 1.5 hours of large group discussion). The more structured activities on the model and game building did not appear so conducive to participant learning. The learning in the first workshop also seemed to appear more based on CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref on other types of learning; the "Relational" component of ENCORE. The learning also dropped slightly for the less creative UML modelling and game building workshops (WS4 and WS5). However, in order to gain yet another perspective, there could be a triangulation of these results with participants' impressions of their learning experiences in the previous workshops. Some of the responses to the ex ante workshop questionnaires are outlined in Figure D.9.

FromFrom

  Figure D.10, it appears that at least some of the workshops had an effect on the thought and action patterns of participants in their lives outside the interaction space, the "Operational" dimension of ENCORE. However, the exact magnitude of that effect is more difficult to gauge as the participants are likely to have a baseline level of thought and action related to water which was present before the workshops. As a minimal hypothesis, it could be assumed that the lower average values seen in the ex ante WS5 responses (i.e. on the effect of WS4) are close to the base participant characteristics. For future studies, if this question is of interest, it would be valuable to try to assess the baseline characteristics at the beginning of the first workshop by asking the questions in a more general form (i.e. ")The results in Figure D.10, indicate there was a drop in effect due to WS5. The model building activities of WS4 were not as heavily focussed on the objectives and actions of individuals such as students, but a broader range of roles. Alternatively, the more technical and convergent thought processes of the conceptual modelling process for the simulation model may not have been of particular interest to the participants, nor did it instil the required types of divergent creative thinking that may be more likely to lead to changes in practices. Such hypotheses obviously require further investigation.Finally, in order to determine how well the participants understood the simulation model and role playing game they created, a number of questions were posed based on CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref / $8 3 -* the hypotheses and uncertainties of the model. The results of these questions are shown in Figure D.11. Figure D.11, it can be observed that, as the modelling process progressed, at least until the last workshop, there were general improvements in the participants' awareness of the model related hypotheses and uncertainties. In particular, it appears that taking the time to collectively debate and examine the model and some of its hypotheses in WS6 aided the process of model understanding. These results help to support the second half of the hypothesis that " obviously further examination of participants' "trust and appropriation" of the model is required. This proved to be a challenge due to the unfinished nature of the model. With the unfinished model, the hypothesis could potentially even be refuted for this exercise considering one of the participant's final thoughts on the outcomes of the participatory modelling process as noted in the final questionnaire: Such a hypothesis obviously requires further testing. CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

  These views are backed up by the quantitative results from WS1 shown in Figure D.8 and Figure D.9. It is also interesting to note how the participants' personality traits and disciplinary backgrounds are transferred in the responses, especially related to comfort levels with the exercise and levels of mental clarity experienced by the end!

  results and further student perspectives in quantitative form on a number of Marsh et al.'s (2001) process and acceptance criteria are given in Appendix E.

  Despite the process not being entirely completed as planned, the methodological basis of the process could be considered to have been given external ex post validation, as similar processes based on this one were accepted for implementation in the next two interventions to be outlined in this thesis. In other words, carrying out this particular process and the results obtained were considered sufficient to give the two principal organisers sufficient knowledge and confidence to intervene in other water management processes! " "+ Determining the intervention's efficacy requires investigating to what extent the means

Figure D. 2 .

 2 Figure D.2. At the beginning of any participatory activity, especially for a group of people who are not well acquainted with each other, it is advisable to provide participants with sufficient time, space and activities that will allow them to start to build relations with one another. Creating an open group dynamic can be aided with the use of "ice breaking" activities and followed by the definition of session, process and personal objectives. The clarification of objectives for any process is of utmost importance as it helps to create a vision of what the work is supposed to achieve and how the process might be adapted to allow achievement of these objectives to occur.

Figure D. 2 .

 2 The model can then be used in order to determine to what extent the objectives determined in the previous stage of problem

Figure D. 2

 2 is classified as "model testing and construction of rules for role analysis". This phase firstly consists of re examining the hypotheses used in the model construction and in finalising the work of model development through calibration, testing and validation procedures. The most important objective of this activity is to ensure that all participants agree with the content of the model and believe its outcomes to be plausible and an adequate representation of the real world problem being analysed.

  As described in Section D.2.3, the students were given very little information regarding the content of the workshops or what the work was eventually to be in aid of. This being the case, the introductory part of the first workshop consisted of five main activities: a brief introduction about the Cemagref and the fact that the workshops were designed as part of a research programme on water; a short round of participant introductions which included what they did in terms of studies and why they replied to the publicity flyers or were interested in participating in these workshops; a presentation of the research programme and what the Cemagref's objectives were for the workshops; administrative activities such as the explanations of the stipulations outlined in the contract that the participants were required to sign; and a session on the objectives of each of the participants for the workshops.

  pin board so that they could be more easily collectively discussed. The participants thinking about and writing their objectives are shown in Figure E.1. The objectives which were outlined by the participants were stuck to a pin board and rearranged into similar categories. The principle themes were to learn, both generally and regarding water, to meet other people and to exchange or share thoughts and experiences with others. These objectives are shown in Figure E.2.

  These objectives were briefly discussed further and later transferred by the PhD scholar to an electronic form, using Decision Explorer® so that they could be more easily referred back to in later sessions(Figure E.3). CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref The electronic version given in Figure E.3 shows more clearly the distinction between the relational objectives (in orange) and the learning objectives relating to water (in blue) linked to the central concepts of collaboration, cooperation, learning and sharing (in yellow). Other comments are given in green. / " ' Using the problem scale outlined in Section D.2.4 and following the stages of the conceptual methodology presented in Section E.1.1, the problem situation exercise was started by each of the participants outlining individually the responses to a set of five questions about three scales relating to his or her life, neighbourhood or village and river basin or region. On five different coloured cards, the participants were asked to reply to the questions outlined in Figure E.4. CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref -Translated from French, as shown in Figure E.4, the questions were: 1. !"# For your life (V), neighbourhood or village (Q), and your region (R), what is the most important? (4 maximum by scale -mark the corresponding letter on the card) 2. $ % "# For what or by whom is water used (or what do you use water for)? (number them in order of importance) 3. & "# Who are the other people, what are the other processes or constraints that influence, directly or indirectly, the state of water? 4. ' "# What are the problems associated with water? 5. ( "# What are the decisions, political choices or management choices that are important with respect to the previous elements? Once the participants had finished writing their answers to the questions on the cards, they were asked to form three groups of three and to start organising their cards and their relations to one another on a stylised background where the three scales of: life or house; neighbourhood or village; and river basin or region were represented. The sheet presented a mountain range at the top of the sheet with a river running to the sea at the bottom (mimicking the catchment structure around Montpellier), as well as "the managers" who were located at the outer boundary of the neighbourhood. If there were elements missing that the participants realised they needed, they were asked to write them on white cards or to draw them directly onto the diagram's background. Pictures of the groups working on their first problem visions are shown in Figure E.5. CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref By the end of the first session it was interesting to note that no groundwater was present in any of the diagrams. The participants continued their visions at the beginning of the second workshop (groundwater was added to one of the visions at this stage) and were then invited to present them to the other groups. The three finished visions that were discussed, are shown in Figure E.6. Each of the three visions highlighted certain aspects of water and its related systems. The first group's vision, shown on the left side of Figure E.6, focussed on the transport of pollution (stemming from agricultural and household practices) through the three scales; how it can impact human life and aquatic life (killing fish). The second group's vision (centre of Figure E.6) was based on the basic necessity of water for life and its impact on the higher goals of humanity such as wisdom and education, and they linked all their concepts to a central triangle between society (and individuals), managers (politicians) and life/nature. The third group's vision, shown on the right side of Figure E.6, was more focussed on mechanisms in the water related systemsincluding transfers between ground water, melting snow, rivers, water towers for distribution, water treatment systems and the impacts of man's usages. Money transfer and the fact that water is usually paid for was highlighted, as well as the effects of droughts on agricultural water use.# 'Using the three problem situation visions, the problems related to water over the three scales under examination were structured further by the group using a technique similar to the "Oval Mapping Technique" (Ackermann and Eden, 2001). This was carried out by asking for a representative from each of the three groups to form another group for one of each of the scales: life; neighbourhood or village; and river basin or region. The information and questions to help with the formulation of water problems were presented, as shown in Figure E.7. In Figure E.7, given the perspective of trying to find "good" utilisation and management of water, the participants were asked for each of the scales: -!"# What are the objectives to achieve or the catastrophies to avoid? -' "# What can be done (plans or strategies) to achieve these objectives? -( "# What are the means, resources or actions necessary to carry out these plans or strategies? -) "# what are the constraints or risks that could negatively impact or prevent these actions occurring? After writing them on the correctly coloured cards, they were also asked to position and link them as shown in Figure E.7. CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / CemagrefThe groups started this process towards the end of the second workshop, although time constraints meant that it had to be completed in the first half of the third workshop. Figure E.8 shows the beginning of the problem formulation process.

  groups were then asked to bring their scale formulations together and to link elements of the different scales together as required using pieces of string, and to add extra elements onto the other scales if they believed they were lacking. The finished linked problem formulation is shown in Figure D.4.

(

  Australia) household; and a fourth problem situation vision created using the same rules as the participants (except that actors (pink) had been divided from the factors) was presented and discussed, as shown in Figure E.10.

Figure

  Outside of the workshops this preliminary information was translated into a basic model layout with a modeller from Cemagref programming it into a CORMAS model(Bousquet et al., 1998).

(

  and element) and to determine what one element gives the other one and vice versa, with a card being written for the exchanges in each direction. Each of these cards was then pinned to the table of dynamics, and a new pair of group members was formed to continue the process. Pictures relating to this interactive process and the table of dynamics are shown in Figure E.13.

  To help the participants construct the individual gains, it was suggested that they look back over the problem formulation diagram and choose the three most important objectives and corresponding indicators with which they could be measured for each role. Once the indicators had been chosen, it was then suggested that they could try to determine the functions for the changes in satisfaction of each of the indicators (in terms of a numerical value between 0 and 1, where 0 is completely dissatisfied and 1 is completely satisfied, for 0%, 50%, 100% and 200% of the previous value after a round of the game). The participants set about deciding on these individual gains, but seemed to have a little difficulty connecting the exercise with their previous work on the objectives. Most of the objectives were consequently un water related, with indicators that were too general to be easily measurable. The participants were consequently prodded to re analyse their original work and to better define their indicators into something that could be measured numerically and calculated in a computer model.

  of the individual gains are shown in Figure E.15.

3

  Unfortunately a few days before the sixth workshop, it appeared that the modelling based on the CORMAS model was not going to be able to completed in time, and so on the Monday morning before the Monday night session (theoretically the game playing session), the modelling was all turned over into an Excel model by the PhD supervisor and scholar. Consequently, through lack of time for testing and a certain lack of linkages in the model, it was not ready for the Monday night session. This was explained to the participants, and the session was taken as an extra opportunity to re look at some of the hypotheses and numerical assumptions in the model. An example CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref the assumptions which was discussed with the participants was that it can cost more each year to have ecologically friendly practices. It was finally decided that the set up costs of being ecologically friendly are higher than for other types of practices but the ongoing costs after an initial investment (in terms of time and money) are much lower than for non ecologically friendly practices. This was therefore changed in the model in real time.The role and indicators that had been classified for the public manager were also re examined and a long debate ensued about what constitutes a good manager, and on what his or her success or satisfaction should be based. In order to contextualise the debate and further examine one of the roles to be played in the game, the initialisation values of the water usages of the actors in the model were taken as a base for discussion along with a scenario of a plan for a tourism project of the littoral plains, close to the more polluted section of the river just downstream of the city and agricultural areas, which was supposed to increase the economy of the region.However, the project also required decreases in pollution and protection of the surrounding ecosystems to occur, in order to be able to attract the tourists. The participants were then asked for their management plans and policies on how to help implement this new project, the results of which are shown in FigureE.17

  .

  from these cards was then to be entered into the model for the next time steps of simulation. Screenshots of one of the action cards and the hydrological module of the model are shown in Figure E.18. CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

  chosen from those not still being represented. Following the comprehension time for the new roles, the participants became a little more animated and started to discuss strategies in small groups. Some participants also placed notices on the media board, such as the environmental association advertising for members to join. This time, after the action cards had been returned and the participants had filled out their card of question responses as in the first round, it was decided not to enter the information into the computer, but to just rotate roles straight away and give the information of the new state of the model environment on the model visualisation board, as shown in Figure E.19.

  more numerically or linguistically orientated became much more observable during the game session. Finding the right balance between the quantitative and qualitative sides of the game and model will still require further thought. A couple of images from the last stages of the game are shown in Figure E.20

  these problem statements were elicited as the "objectives" in the problem formulation map

  The next question responses, shown in Figure E.23, helped to elicit insights on which modelling techniques or methods incited the highest levels of creativity and innovation from the participants. From the results in Figure E.23, it can be seen that the highest levels of creativity and innovation occurred in the problem situation and problem formulation workshops using the cognitive mapping techniques. The session with the long debate (WS6) also seemed relatively conducive to harbouring creativity and innovation. Some of the perceived relational aspects between the participating students and the design team are outlined in Figure E.24. CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

  These results help to present some coherent reasons for why there appeared to be a degradation of relations in the final two workshops. As can be seen in Figure E.25, the participants became increasingly aware of their diversity of views and the challenges of working together to surmount these. A number of more procedural issues are presented in Figure E.26. From the responses shown in Figure E.26, it can be generally ascertained that the participants mostly agreed that working together encouraged their mutual learning,

Finally, an overview

  of the participants' opinions on process and acceptance based on Marsh et al.'s evaluation criteria (2001) are summarised in Figure E.27 and Figure E.28.

  This document is in fact one of the starting points of the "review" and "improvement" stages of a planning and management cycle, as shown in Figure A.5, for the Berowra Creek Estuary Management Plan. A number of opportunities for potential improvements and innovations for this new cycle of planning and management have been outlined in the previous sections which include: devising a process to allow the collective analysis and sharing of knowledge about the estuary and its surrounding communities from a range of different spheres (politics and management, scientists and stakeholder communities) to aid future visions of sustainable development of the estuary and how these could be achieved through good quality planning and management; capitalising on the existing Hornsby Shire Council's high quality planning and monitoring programs and integrating the relevant parts of these programs into this estuary management program; investigating the role that a Bayesian network model of the estuary and other scientific or expert tools could play in improving its planning and management; investigating how other recent stakeholder, government or community initiatives could be integrated into the estuary planning and management process, such as the draft NSW Oyster Industry Sustainable Aquaculture Strategy and the Hornsby Shire Council's Community Sustainability Indicators Program; developing an effective monitoring (data collection program), evaluation and reporting process to drive the future planning and management of the estuary; and

Figure A. 4 )

 4 . The theory behind this stage is to elicit the individual viewpoints or "world views" of each of the participants, in order to determine the nature of current situation of the estuary and its management, what elements are important to this problem, and how the participants believe these elements to be related to one another over a variety of scales (personally, the estuary, the catchment etc.). These elements should include the physical objects, actors or stakeholders, processes, stakes and resources. Once individual viewpoints of the problem situation have been established (potentially through a variety of means: written; oral; mapping or diagrammatic activities) over a variety of interconnected scales, the participants should be in a position to be able to share their viewpoints with one another and create a collective vision of the situation and mechanisms of the problem being treated. It is also relevant at this time for the consultants to present their external review of the current state of the estuary and success of the previous estuary management strategies.

CemOA : archive ouverte

  d'Irstea / Cemagref exhibited a number of similar leadership or managerial qualities which led to an interesting dynamic in the design team through the process. They also all possessed technical education and research backgrounds in environmental science and engineering to a high level (the project manager had finished his PhD in 2004 and both the estuary manager and researchers were working on PhDs), as well as interests and different levels of experience in planning and management processes. As all three held legitimate positions in the project to be aiding the design and management of the participatory process, they agreed to continue to design and develop it collectively. This led to all three proposing process suggestions, designing and commenting on each other's work and negotiating final supports and outcomes to be presented and used in the workshops. Who would facilitate or present each activity outlined in the agenda was decided at the time of writing the agenda by negotiation. A brief outline of the methods used in each workshop is given in Section 7.4.1 and more information on the process and activities in and between workshops is given in the reports in Appendix I.

  AS/NZS 4360:2004 and associated documents by researcher between WS1 and WS2, others derived from planning needs voiced in the workshops, such as financial cost and time to implement actions 5 prime dimensions used in the risk assessment model were considered relative to each of the 9 assets and included: consequence, likelihood, risk level, knowledge uncertainty and management effectiveness. Other dimensions used in the plan included "initial capital cost" and "indicative on going cost".CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref examples in AS/NZS 4360:2004 and associated documents by the researcher between WS1 and WS2. Plan related scales set after the final workshop by the consultants and estuary manager 5 prime dimensions measured on numerical scales of 1 to 5, with 5 corresponding indicative qualitative descriptions for the 5 points along the scale. Derived from information in AS/NZS 4360:2004, existing documents and the synthesis report by the researcher and checked by the other project team members. Scales for costs used in the draft plan were in Australian dollars, either a once off payment or an annual cost. actions obtained during WS3. Some other preferences were voiced in discussions or could be observed during the workshops.

  the French researchers finally agreeing to the text based citizen interviews (Ribarova, 2008 -pers. comm.). However, cognitive mapping interviews were still carried out with all of the policy makers with the support and training provided in Bulgaria by the private research consultant, with the results being computerised in Germany(Hare, 2007). The French researchers simultaneously worked on how they might develop a semi automatic data processing capability to create cognitive maps from the text response interviews(Ferrand, 2008 -pers.

  s general level of fatigue due to their increased level of participation in the process organisation, plus the additional pressures of the French research director who also had a difficult task to perform in fulfilling the European project's research requirements, led to a high level of stress in the project team(Ferrand and Ribarova, 2008 -pers. comm.). Although the organisation of each workshop improved as the Bulgarian facilitators (the regional partner and her student friend) adapted the methods and worked to better fit the time allocations and to increase the interest of the process for the participants (Popova, 2008 -pers. comm.), when the French contract researcher arrived after the first three workshops and the Australian researcher arrived for the last two workshops to meet the Bulgarians for the first time since the process began, they both found the Bulgarians all very physically and mentally exhausted. After observing how the Bulgarians had been implementing these workshops and helping to suggest further changes to improve them, the French contract researcher and Australian researcher worked together with the Bulgarians to co design the first workshop where all the groups' participants would work together for the first time in the process. As all the results from each of the Workshop 4a groups had ended up being formatted too differently to be of much comparative worth, and the results of the previous models had not been obtained and combined as planned by the French researchers, the French contract researcher and Australian researcher took it upon themselves to design what they thought would be of most interest to the stakeholders (but potentially less useful to the overall European project's research aims) and let them all meet each other and work effectively together.

  the workshops and for manipulating workshop outputs were defined by the project team. Other informal operators were developed or used intuitively by the participants throughout the workshops.Mostly very simple operators such as causal arrows and visualisation tools. Participants and facilitators often appropriated methods and changed the syntax (operators) en route through the workshops. Other implicit operators and arguments were used by the participants to synthesise, present or defend their views during the workshop series. in the Elin Pelin risk response plan at the end of WS5.

Figure G. 1 .

 1

  In Figure G.1, the less technical projects have been placed in italic text, and the more technical projects placed left in normal text. From these results it can be seen that in the top five preferred projects there were three technical and two non technical projects. The first two projects were restoration activities, showing the difficulties the Bulgarians currently have to find funding to maintain and restore their infrastructure following flood events. The next two are broad scale education campaigns: one directed at the municipal government level about how to prepare and find funding for flood (and drought) risk management; and the other directed at the general population about how to prepare and cope with flood events more effectively. The final of the top five is a project to correct the current channel of the Iskar river to provide more control of flood drainage, another very "hard" engineering solution. In total, 14 of the 24 final projects could be classified as largely technical and 10 as non technical. The distribution of the different types of Iskar Stakeholders' votes over the final project types are given in Figure G.2.

From

  Figure G.2, it can be observed that at the end of the process the policy makers had a preference for the more technical projects, while the citizens had an overall preference towards the non technical solutions. The organised stakeholders were between the two other stakeholder types, but considering the total percentage of technical projects available for selection, chose slightly to the side of non technical projects.

S

  Su um mm ma ar ry y R Re ep po or rt t: : C Co om mm mu un ni it ty y W Wo or rk ks sh ho op p ke es sb bu ur ry y E Es st tu ua ar ry y M Ma an na ag ge em me en nt t P Pl la an n D Do oc cu um me en nt t p pr re ep pa ar re ed d f fo or r t th he e: : H Ho or rn ns sb by y S Sh hi ir re e C Co ou un nc ci il l ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

Figure 1 : 2 Figure 2 : 7 Figure 3 : 7 Figure 4 :Figure 6 :Figure 7 :

 122737467 Figure 1: LHEMP boundaries and existing management plan areas (HSC, 2006).................................................2 Figure 2: Representation of workshop activities -individual to collective .............................................................7 Figure 3: Participant introductions .........................................................................................................................7 Figure 4: Individual value and issue card writing...................................................................................................8 Figure 5: Defining four small groups ......................................................................................................................8 Figure 6: Card sorting in small groups ...................................................................................................................9 Figure 7: Spatial mapping and issue-value matrix construction .............................................................................9 Figure 8: Facilitators aiding the completion of values and issues sheets..............................................................11 Figure 9: Large group session -using matrices to define common values ...........................................................11 Figure 10: Large group session -defining goals and a vision for the estuary......................................................12 Figure 11: Questionnaire responses -workshop outcomes ...................................................................................35 Figure 12: Questionnaire responses -workshop outcomes ...................................................................................36 Figure 13: Questionnaire responses -importance of estuary management..........................................................37

  tributary creeks are covered by estuary management plans. Following the NSW Estuary Management process, the Berowra Creek Estuary Management Plan (HSC, 2002) is currently in a review phase and the plan for the Brooklyn Estuary (HSC, 2006a) is in the final stages of being accepted by the Hornsby Shire Council (HSC) and the Gosford City Council. Gosford City Council has also established the "Brisbane Waters Plan of Management" and Pittwater Council is developing a Pittwater Estuary Management Plan, both of which are downstream the proposed plan coverage and are outside of the Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Management Authority's jurisdiction. The areas currently encompassed by plans in the proposed Lower Hawkesbury Estuary Management Plan are highlighted in Figure 1.

Figure 1 :

 1 Figure 1: LHEMP boundaries and existing management plan areas (HSC, 2006)In order to include the other parts of the estuary in the Lower Hawkesbury River currently not encompassed by an existing plan of management, the Hornsby Shire Council is funding the enlargement process. The LHEMP project is to be conducted in close cooperation with the Gosford City Council who also has jurisdiction over a large area of the proposed plan area, as well as with a large range of stakeholders and State Government representatives. WBM Oceanics and SJB Planning were selected as consultants through a public tender process to run the project in collaboration with the Hornsby Shire Council and researchers from the Australian National University.

  workshops has been developed based on Ms Daniell's PhD work on decision aiding for water management and planning (Daniell et al., 2006) as outlined in the project Tender Document (HSC, 2006b). Specific methods and processes used in the workshops are then decided upon in collaboration with WBM Oceanics and HSC. A general overview of the workshops'

Figure 2 :

 2 Figure 2: Representation of workshop activities -individual to collective

Figure 3 :Figure 4 .

 34 Figure 3: Participant introductions The participant introductions were followed by some individual reflection time where participants were asked to identify from their own perspective a number of values and issues related to the estuary. Ten minutes were given for writing values on green cards (one value per card) and ten minutes for writing issues on yellow cards. The participants writing their issue and value cards are shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4 :

 4 Figure 4: Individual value and issue card writing

Figure 5 :

 5 Figure 5: Defining four small groupsOnce the small groups had convened in the adjacent room, the participants, along with a group facilitator, were given a number of activities to complete. Firstly, the participants were encouraged to present their value and issue cards to the other group members and to start sorting them into general

Figure 7 :Figure 8 :

 78 Figure 7: Spatial mapping and issue-value matrix construction

Figure 9 :

 9 Figure 9: Large group session -using matrices to define common valuesThese values will be outlined and discussed in further detail in the results; Section 4 of this report.

  CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

Figure 10 :

 10 Figure 10: Large group session -defining goals and a vision for the estuary

  Functional, sustainable ecosystems, and biodiversity -Largely undeveloped natural catchments and surrounding lands -Recreational opportunities -Sustainable economic industries -Heritage (cultural, biological, physical, history of change) -Improving water quality that supports multiple uses -Community value (willing and active communities -living on and away from the river -with concern for the area and estuary; sense of community, place and belonging) Considering the information provided by all of the participants from their work individually and in the small and large groups, the following Tables 4-11 summarise the essence of each of the values.

-

  Government departments and authorities: NPWS (DEC), DPI-Fisheries, NSWMA, DNR, DoP, NSWFA, EPA -NGOs and Community environmental groups (i.e. Landcare, OceanWatch) -Industry associations (OFA, NSW BIA,

---

  available to describe the value: -Land use maps -Zoning plans and legislation -Plans of management (Councils, CMAs) National park zoning and Council planning controls -Natural topography (de-facto) -Lack of access and infrastructure (de-facto) -Local and catchment management plans -Environmental programs (i.e. Streamwatch, Government departments and authorities: Tourism NSW, NPWS (DEC), DPI-Fisheries, NSWMA, DNR, DoP, EPA -Industry associations (NSW BIA) -CMAs (Hawkesbury-Nepean, Sydney) -SWC Data available to describe the value: -Tourism Brochures -Websites (Councils and tourism operators) -Maps (i.e. of bushwalking trails and picnicking areas/services) -Photos -Anecdotal stories -National Park entry numbers -Tourist service provider data -Numbers of registered recreational boats Extra resources required: -Studies of the impacts of recreational users (i.e. boaters, fishers, bushwalkers, picnickers) on the environment, economy, well-being and infrastructure requirements -Recreational fish catch numbers -Educational programs for recreational estuary users CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref Some recreational user attitudes -lack of respect for the environment and other users -Poor infrastructure -Aquatic and land pests, weeds and diseases -Fish stock depletion -Climate change

--

  available to describe the value: -Census data and ABS statistics -ABARE Research reports -Reports and data from the stakeholder managers Extra resources required: -Studies of fish stocks (and species types) investigating the impacts of recreational and commercial fishing -Production of Economic Impact Statements for boating, fishing and oyster industries -Collation of existing information -Research the link between water quality changes and economic productivity CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref Associations (i.e. NSW Farmers' Assoc.) -Aboriginal Land Councils -NGOs and Community environmental Data available to describe the value: -Plans of management (Councils, CMAs) Value table for "Improving water quality that supports multiple uses" Government departments and authorities: NPWS (DEC), DPI-Fisheries, NSWMA, DNR, DoP, NSWFA, EPA -NGOs and Community environmental groups (i.e. Landcare, OceanWatch) Data available to describe the value: -Reports and data from the stakeholder managers -Regional Studies -Water infowise website Extra resources required: -Collation of existing information and determining what is missing -Improve public access to monitoring information -More bio-indicator monitoring: fish, phytoplankton, nutrients, bacteria and pathogens CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref -Industry associations (OFA, NSW BIA,

  exploitation of resources (i.e. fish stocks, use of nutrients, boat density)

  Water quality and flows -Land use and catchment management -Lack of integrated planning, management and research -Social equity, cultural heritage protection and community participation -Ecosystem health and biodiversity loss -Infrastructure and facilities -Waterway use and impacts -Broadscale considerations: climate change, carrying capacity and cumulative impacts CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / CemagrefConsidering the information provided by all of the participants from their work individually and in the small and large groups, the following Tables 12-19 summarise the essence of each of the issues.

---

  water authority Data available to describe the issue: -Reports and data from the stakeholder managers (SWC, DEC, NSWFA, Councils) -Regional Studies (i.e. HNR Forum report on gauged dam -Water infowise website Extra resources required: -More integration of existing information and better data sets -Determining more appropriate guidelines for data collection and storage -Determining impacts of boat repairs (antifouling) and STP releases -More bio-indicator monitoring: fish, zooplankton, phytoplankton, nutrients, bacteria and pathogens Current management Values threatened -Tidal flushing (de-facto) -Dam releases (legislated for environmental -A unique and beautiful estuary of national significance (scenic amenity) CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref flows but none yet due to drought) Government departments: NPWS (DEC), DNR, DoP, Department of Lands, Federal Data available to describe the issue: Historical information (community, Councils, State Government, libraries) Extra resources required: -Measure the level of contaminants in CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref Government (population policy) National park zoning and Council planning controls (i.e. SEPP 35) -Natural topography (de-facto) -Lack of access and infrastructure (de-facto) -Local and catchment management plans -Environmental programs (i.e. Streamwatch,

-

  Current and future communities (residents, visitors, industry, commerce) available to describe the issue: -Plans of management (Councils, CMAs) -Council reports (tenure, transport, zoning) Government departments and authorities: NPWS (DEC), DPI-Fisheries, NSWMA, Data available to describe the issue: Extra resources required: -Studies of in-stream aquatic habitats and species -Studies of catchment use practices on CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref DNR, DoP, NSWFA, EPA -NGOs and Community environmental groups (i.e. Landcare, OceanWatch) -Industry associations (OFA, NSW BIA,

--

  Aerial photos to show bank erosion and habitat damage over a number of years (air force used to practice photography -GCC and HSC surveys + NSWMA have numbers of boats and moorings -Anecdotal stories -National Park entry numbers -Tourist service provider data -DNR hydro-surveys Extra resources required: -Study of the impacts of "new" anti-Councils manage infrastructure (i.e. carparking, picnic facilities) -NPWS management of National Parks and facilities -NSWMA policy and policing of marine activities -Industry group controls and licensing procedures (i.e. for boat ownership)

---

  Government departments and authorities: NPWS (DEC), DPI-Fisheries, NSWMA, DNR, DoP, NSWFA, EPA -NGOs and Community environmental groups (i.e. Landcare, OceanWatch) -Industry associations (OFA, NSW BIA, Tidal flushing (de-facto) -Navigation and no wash zones -Cap on moorings -DA process -Policing by NSWMA -A unique and beautiful estuary of national significance (scenic amenity) -Functional, sustainable ecosystems, and biodiversity -Largely undeveloped natural catchments CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref -Existing legislation (i.e. Fisheries Act, Government departments and authorities: NPWS (DEC), DPI-Fisheries, NSWMA, Data available to describe the issue:

  Participants were firstly asked to outline what they believed the objectives of the workshop to be, and whether or not they had been satisfactorily achieved. For the most part, responses for the workshop objectives were very consistent with what the facilitators had presented at the beginning of the session including: "To obtain values and issues for the estuary study" and "To come together with all players to reach a common understanding and goal for the plan". Only one participant mentioned having to ask a workshop organiser what the objectives were prior to answering the question as the objectives were somewhat unclear. As to whether these objectives had been achieved, eight participants responded categorically "yes" and five responded yes with some justification or minor reservations. A few of participants in this category were waiting to see whether further clarification on the issues, CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

---

  Reassurance of shared vision -Learnt about issues -Good to hear everyone's perspectives from different backgrounds/affiliations -Helped to focus my own thoughts while giving a clearer understanding of what others thought -It was useful in renewing relationships with other stakeholders and meeting new ones of the estuary It will be a good reference point as to whether the final plan addresses the issues that are important When asked "who else should have participated in the workshop?", one respondent replied that "Enough people were invited, it was up to them to attend. The cross-section is pretty good". Other participants thought that the following people or agencies should have attended the workshop: Upstream estuary representatives (i.e. Baulkham Hills Council) -A local historian -More representatives from Gosford (in infrastructure and planning) and Hornsby community representatives The following questions focussed on the impacts of the workshop activities. Firstly, the question "How did the day's activities help you work with and relate to the other participants" elicited a range of responses. Some responses focussed on the idea that the activities aided the sharing ideas and that the CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

  The next closed question helped to further quantify the opinions expressed by participants related to the outcomes of the workshop. The percentages of responses corresponding to each level of agreement of the statements are represented in Figure11.

Figure 11 :

 11 Figure 11: Questionnaire responses -workshop outcomes

CemOA : archive ouverte

  d'Irstea / Cemagref

Figure 12 :

 12 Figure 12: Questionnaire responses -workshop outcomes

Figure 13 :

 13 Figure 13: Questionnaire responses -importance of estuary management

  Studies (CRES) at the Australian National University (ANU); and supervised by Prof. Ian White (CRES-ANU), Dr. Pascal Perez (RSPAS-ANU/CIRAD, France), Prof. Alexis Tsoukiàs (LAMSADE-CNRS, France), Dr. Nils Ferrand (CEMAGREF, France) and Mr. Stewart Burn (CSIRO Land and Water).

----

  Bank erosion not an issue from boats but possible from tidal/hydro movements -Livestock damaging inter-tidal areas -Boating wash -Habitat loss: Saltmarsh on private land -Caravan park downstream of Mill Ck Main oyster harvest zone A -Brooklyn STP modelling 'hotspot' -Twin beaches -no toilets -Lack of funding for WQ monitoring SQ -Lack of parking Berowra Ck and Berowra Waters -STP inputs Calna Ck -Antifouling in high boat use areas e.g. marinas -Overdevelopment -poor development controls -Failing on-site systems -QX and how it took hold so quickly Boat repair /maintenance (mouth) -Moorings (mouth) -Commercial fishing (mouth) CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref Brooklyn high boat use area -marinas -Swing boat moorings -Brooklyn outfall discharging into estuary instead of another outcome i.e. Recycling -Pollution: stormwater and sewer Stormwater runoff -north of Apple Tree Ck -Boating issues e.g. marinas, moorings, no. of boats -Main channel -exotic weeds, caulerpa -Boat building, repair and maintenance (near mouth) -Small recreational fishing vessels downstream of Smiths Ck -Marinas for large vessels and pleasure craft at Coal and Candle Ck and Cockle Ck -Passive craft in Smiths Ck -

  ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

  E

	# >	! ! ! ! ! !	4	! ! ! !	-# 1 -# 1 -# 1 -# 1 -# 1 -# 1 H# H# H# H#	( ( ( ( ( (	! ! ! !	J3 JK 3. 3-35 33 3K 2. 2-25
	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h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` : C 2 ( . B C (I(. ' % /000+% (I(. % N % B C ( ( ) ! ! ' "-! ) " ! " ' # 0 1+ 0 "' & ( % M !! "! 8 N ; M ! < ( < ( ! C9 ) ) C B 8+ J B & " +Z % ! +Z C ( % 2 Z -F % % % 2 -< Z -< Z 1+*+-+ 5 # 5 @5,5 A ( 5 D.K2HE* > R & D.KK.'E* D+666E* " D+66HE% ! ! C % ( ; 2 F % ). / & & & N ' MI 4 ! !! "! " . : B C ). % -77E 9 -77E 9 /000+ ; ' ,+ B ! & +Z (I(. ). % /008+% # $/ !" $/(( $$ ) Z % )$ ' % -77-+% 8 -% B C N B " " & C < / !$ < / !$ C ) ) ( 2 )H % /008+ 0 ' H%.# 0 ! ! 0 % # ! R & C 1+*+0+ . : )/00-9 /00,+ B. C% B 2 ! ' , -" ; . 4 -+ B * N +Z ! N +Z C9 + ' /+ M! " * ! ! C9 < : < % ; :	CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref
	G .E M/ " ( I 'I : N ' -! -B! $ )$ % -77?+ )/00E9 /00?+ D & % % ( ; % 'I # !H . )/001+% . = )/00E+% > )/00?+ ; & ; , -/% F % % ! I " ! % (I(. ; B % )< % /000+ F % 3 )-7?1+ 4 ' " ' ! ' ! ' ' * & % % % 2 !2 g ) ! % /00-+ 2 I N B C )# . ( ( . )& % -7?-+% ( % % ). !! ! & $ ( % C " ' )> : % /00-+ )$ F % -7?E9 $ % /00-+ (I )! % /00-+ ( & & , ,% 2 N B C )# /00-+ B C B < -77/+ % 2 % % 2 ( $ 9 % 9 9 ( N I B C ). % /00-+ N % % % : : $ % % 2 ' . % ' > % I % # < B N C ! C9 B B! " C9 (I(. ( % B C B )$ ' % -77-+ F % ; % (I(. % -7EE9 -7?09 $ % -7?/+% < B )-77,9 -7759 < )/00/+ , -0 > , " % /00-+ % -777+ 2 % 2 & % -7?79 ! (I % . C ; B % )$ % % % 3 < C 4 ( % 2 : . . 2 % $ % 9 B )-7?,9 -77-+ N C 8 -B C % % ( % B N ) 8 ,+% . C % B )-77/+% )-77,+% $ )-771+% . ! C $ < : : B ! ' & " C % $ : % B B B !! 'I )/000+ . )/008+ . )/008+% 4 ! ! & ! C . : ; * ' % C % ! ! ' * ! ! C (I(. ( F : )-7E/+ -+ > ! J B % $ ' D G E ! C9 B C ). % /000+	% 4 C % C% % C C% c

  ,

	+6+ +6H +6J +62			# ) # ) # ) # )					! ! !			2# > 2# > 2# >					1 1 1	& & &	& O $ & O $ & O $	+6-+65 +63
	$	$		C+3+*+ 2 ? -,%					#	>						;	N (	%	;
		%			N														!	:	B	C
	. $ >	/00?%					%	%							;	; " -	(	%	%	$ 1 -,% <(, %	:	%	( (	$	" , / ! ? -/ ? ,	" -1% %	%
		$								;							%				%	:	?
		%						;	%				? 5% %	%	<(,	<	;	2	%	/8
	B	;	%	+ (		C C	2	% <(8	) + $ % ;				>	;	%	J	%	%	%	%	)# ;	2	B % /00E J : % ( J	? /
				< C+3+-+ 5	;									%			%	N % :	B '	'	$	C
		B							) -00b						+C	%	:
	> $ C ( > /0 C+1+0+ ;: % > " ! % % 2 ; <( 2 % 2 $ $ 3F!. 8 % > % 2 B C% 2 :	? # % 2%..# 0 2%.+# % ( 2 ( %	B % ? 8% ; % % : 1 5 ; %	%	;	%	? $ % . " ! ! ! <(8 $ ;	% ? --& % %	( " ! I % % ? -, ; N	C% ' ;	%	# ! ( ;	: ? -0 < B 2 $ ; % : : ! &I#! ! > ; % % N $ %	%	% % %	F >	:	%	CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref
												;		%	%	;					;	;	%	B	#	;	;	C	&	B	%
	> N (	N (	B				; $	;	% %	;			; )<(8 + * C <(8 3 % ;	% N	(	! :	$	2 $ ( N	"	! * " )<( > % )3 ($+ ! >	! !!# " C% % 8 +
	C+3+	;'	!		2									%					%	%	;	$	2 2	% B	%
		%		.				%		C						N					=	N
							B													>	C%	:	;	>
				>															$		4	%	;	;	.	;	%
								:					(		N		? 1	9	%	%	%	% >	%
	! &I#! %	>	=	2	>		%			9 2%.-#			!	%	!	;	% !	!	& !
					%					%	;									!	%

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

  ITS MANAGEMENT................................................... 307

	# #/	-	-	!!!8 !!!8		!	!			3		a a / 1
	$ &8 3 expands as it reaches its freezing point. Ice is therefore able to float on liquid water, a " # % Sandstone and Northwestern Sahara aquifer systems), Australia (the Great Artesian
	A. 8 9 < 111=> -! < UNDERSTANDING DECISION AIDING ................................................................... 333 ! " " # ' " " 8 :; < (=> % ,= 1 8 / 7 + ) " < (= , 8 + ??$ @. A " 8 B < = ( 8 C " " + " " $ 8 3 " ' ; 9 " "" 9 " $ 8 -" " + " 8 $ '0 " % *+ " " " " " 8 ) % < 11 => 9 % < => ) " " " + "% ) 4 " / + In its gaseous state, water also plays a key role in supporting many of Earth's life * ' * ' * ' < 11,= in large water bodies such as lakes and oceans. This is because, even if lakes or oceans freeze over, the densest water at around 4 degrees Celsius will remain close to the bed or ocean floor providing habitable living conditions for a variety of organisms. UNDERSTANDING WATER AND B. $ 18 3 " / " ; 9 " "" 9 chemical property which has aided the capacity for life to evolve and remain protected Basin) and the Middle East (UNESCO
	$ " 8 -forms. Water vapour in the atmosphere is one of the most important and abundant # % "+" , " '0 " % " " 8 $ < =	&
	' 2 greenhouse gasses which regulates the Earth's temperature (Forster et al., 2007). " # C. (8 3 4 ' "%8 @3 24 " A " 8 4 < (= 8 ?'0 " $ " / J 8 C ' * ' / @ A " # % ' # " 1 UNDERSTANDING PARTICIPATORY MODELLING ...................................................... 366 ( 8 2 " ' ' " " / + (8 * % ' * ' -" + " '+ 6 ' . " < 1&1= However, despite its comparative importance to other greenhouse gasses, water
	) ) -vapour's influence in future global warming is still surrounded by high uncertainties * " ' " + -" + " " + 5 ' < = < 11 = ! < = ,8 * ' 8 -' " " * ' " " # ,	,, ,
	) 8 2 * ' ) 4 (Forster et al., 2007) and the subject of continuing scientific enquiry (Held and Soden, -" + ' D " # " &8 * ' ' " " ' " "	&	(
	* ' ) 2006).	D. 8 ) <9 9 MONTPELLIER PILOT TRIAL ............................................................................... 397 " # " # -1 # ( " 8 ) ,> 9 6 ,= ( 18 ) " ' " " ( 8 ?' " @ " "A ' " 8 3 < '= ,1 " ) " " " 8 4
		$ 8 -' <	=	. " "	/	'0 "	"	"	"	1	1	,
	$ $ (8 -' * ' $ * " Even though water is also one of the most common liquids on the planet, it is one of * " # " -" + " , # "" 4 "E 2 E < 11 = , 8 ) " " '0 " ' 8 $ ' " " /	& 1
	$ ) 8 * * ' $ -the most scientifically interesting as well, with much about its physical properties, " " " E " " 8 < 1,1= ,& 8 * @ " /" A " + + " " 9 ' " +	&
	$ ( E. ( F. 4 4 4 4 4 ( G. ) 8 -) 8 * $ SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ON THE MONTPELLIER PILOT TRIAL, FRANCE............. 433 2 % " # " 3 + 3 + 1 $ " # , -" , -" " , SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ON THE LHEMP PROCESS, AUSTRALIA .................... 473 $ " $ " # " # &, 4 + 1 $ " # 1 .5 3-" 1, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ON THE ISKAR PROCESS, BULGARIA......................... 499 " " " ' " " " 8 -< 1 = ,1 " "+ ) ' " 8 4 < ,= ) 8 $ " 8 . + < 11,= ) (8 ' + " " + " 8 < 11 = ( ) ,8 -' " 8 * < = & ) 8 . # * / & ) &8 . # * / % " + & ) 18 . # ! / " " " # & ) 8 . D -" + " " " # " & ) 8 % # % " 8 . + < 11,= & ) 8 -" " 8 < = & 1 8 -+# + ( (8 / " " " " ( ,8 -" ( 8 3 + ( &8 * + " /" " " (, 18 ) " " ( 8 * + (& 8 4 " " (1 8 : "+ + " , 8 -" " + , 8 -" 8 " , (8 -" % " + ,( ,8 -" " " ,( 8 -" " 8 -,, &8 -" " 8 -6 8 4 0 " -% ( D . 4 and colleagues hypothesised that water was brought into the atmosphere in an almost , " ( * ' $ " # " " , * ' 4 -+ " * ' 4 * " & * ' 4 K + 0 " &1 * ' 4 $ " # " " 1 * ' 4 (8 -% " < 3* 9 3 &= 1 * ' 6 $ " # " " ( & * ' 6 7 " % " '+ % " E ( This Appendix supplements Chapter 2 by extending the brief descriptions of water planning and management previously provided. The investigations presented here on water, its place in the world, and associated means of planning and managing it, were carried out prior to the development of Chapter 2 and have significantly informed the views presented in the thesis. @9 " A behaviour and origins remaining unknown or under heavy debate. For example, recent scientific exploration has demonstrated that the well known expression, " /", should soon be qualified by " " ", because if water is degassed, certain oils can be dispersed in it without the use of any other additives (Francis et al., 2006). Another common belief that the hydrological cycle is closed and that the water on Earth has been here since the planet's creation, or arrived shortly after in large meteors, has also come under debate in recent years. In 1986 after viewing ultraviolet images collected by NASA's Dynamic Explorer I spacecraft, Professor Louis A. Frank	CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref
	6 8 * ) 6 8 $ constant stream of small icy comets that vaporise upon entering the atmosphere " # " # ) 3 " " 8 < '= &1 % # + ' " " # " 6 $ " # 6 4 " " + ) 8 * $ " + F " 8 9 < = 1 0 " (Gleick, 1998). Since its release, the theory has come under harsh criticism, but recent 6 4 " 6 ( 4 % H. ) (8 * " ) " " " 8 4 < = 1 ) ,8 @* G?:2; H + % +A research continues to support the original hypothesis (Frank and Sigwarth, 2001). Life and water and are inextricably linked. All known forms of life require liquid water " 11 ( & ( ( ( ( ( 1 " 8 < "% 11&= 1 With calculations of thousands of such comets entering the atmosphere each day, the to survive in the long term, due to its unique chemical properties (Ball, 2001). Water, QUESTIONNAIRES, WORKSHEETS AND INTERVIEW SCHEMES ................................... 523 5 / 7 3 ( 5 / ! % " 7 ) 8 ?$ " " 8 "% < = < = entire volume of water on the planet could be accounted for if this rate has been fairly the molecular compound H2O, can act as an effective solvent due to its high dielectric 1( $ 8 ) " 3 4 " < 6 .3 -constant, its capacity to form hydrogen bonds and its wide temperature range in the constant since the Earth's creation (Frank et al., 1986). ( ( 5 / ! " (( I. RESEARCH REPORTS PRODUCED FOR THE LHEMP PROCESS, AUSTRALIA ................. 553 111= 11 $ 8 ) " + " + " liquid state (which corresponds to many current environmental conditions on the ( $ 8 5 0 '0 " Earth's surface) (Rothschild and Mancinelli, 2001). It also plays an important role in Of the 1360 million cubic kilometres of water on the planet (Clarke, 1993),
	$ 8 ) approximately 97.5% is found in the oceans and approximately one third of the " ' " " most metabolic processes as a reactant or product and constitutes a large proportion 8 " < => ' " < => (60 95%) of all living organisms (Pimentel et al., 1997). remaining 2.5% is fresh liquid water (the rest is either found in the form of glaciers,
	' snow or polar ice caps). Of the world's liquid fresh water, it is estimated that 98% < =
	$ (8 I $ ,8 ) Water possesses many other interesting properties compared to other chemical " # " " " " < = ( " # 1 occurs as ground water, with the largest remaining portions being found in either
	% lakes or rivers (Shiklomanov, 1999). Some of the largest stocks of groundwater occur ' /? -/00/% % $ 8 ) " # ' substances, including that it is densest at approximately 4 degrees Celsius and 1 in the most arid regions of the world such as Northern Africa (i.e. the Nubian

Irrigated Area (milliion hectares)

	-	!!!8	!
	change in trend is observed for Irrigated Area. Potential drivers for these trend
	changes will be examined in the following sections of this Appendix, but could include:
	improvements in water use efficiency (i.e. through new irrigation technologies, use of
	less water intensive crops, and more efficient urban management systems,
	technologies or use behaviours); and/or decreasing availability of water (i.e. water
			!				CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref
	4	8 9				'
		"	" 8 :; <	(=>	%	< 111=> -! <	,=
	However, it is interesting to note from Figure A.1 that growth in water use as a
	percentage of the total population (and thus water use per capita) was on the rise
	between 1950 and 1980 but has since plateaued and decreased slightly. The same

  changes and innovations and contextual nature of changes and innovation that occur through and could occur after the research process.

				/ 8 :		$ "	#
	* '	8 4	"	/		+	"
				" 8 $	<	=
				2		" ?'0 "
			Mental construction of reality	Concrete construction of reality
		Based on an
		existing
		situation
		(observation of
		happenings or
		group work on
		its own
		behaviour)
	" 3
	2
		Based on an
		idealised
		situation or a
		concrete
		project of
		transformation

Table B.1 based on the degree of formal definition of CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref Description The arrows in thick full lines indicate what is actually carried out during the research, the thin full lines with question marks indicate what would be a logical continuation of the process, but not carried out during the research.

  classification of methods is by no means strict as methods may be used for a variety of reasons in different contexts. The purpose is rather to present some of the wide variety of methods commonly used in decision aiding practice. Where possible, references of these methods used in the water sector will be highlighted. relational, political, institutional, economic and equity dimensions); the material world (i.e. including the physical, biotic, abiotic, technological, infrastructural, spatial and temporal dimensions) and the interrelations or "interbeing" among them(Morin, 1990; Low, 2002). As Edgar Morin (1990) explains, this is the type of relation that occurs

	,	-	!!!8	!	/ 8 :	$ "	#	(
		) !			+
		A	'	can be described as the context in which decisions need to be
		made. In the decision making domains of water planning and management, such a
		context typically has many constituents including those from the physical or
		environmental, economic and social or political spheres. Depending on the possibility
		of nesting elements within these spheres, other contextual factors that should be
		considered in a problem situation have been outlined by a number of authors:
								CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref
		Although potentially considered as sub sections or more general classes of some of the
		above dimensions of the context, temporal, behavioural and abiotic considerations
		could also be added to the list!
		Observing all of these potential contextual elements, it can be considered that the
		"problem situation" of any decision is a personal construction (or social construction if

-Taking a systems approach to analysing the sustainability of water resources systems, Foley et al.

(2003)

outline that both the "natural" resources (environmental and social), as well as the "man made" resources (infrastructural / technological and economic), should be taken into account; -Looking at natural resources management, it is suggested that the technical, ecological, economic, social, political, institutional and legal dimensions should be considered (Cumming, 2000; Bellamy et al., 2001; Allison and Hobbs, 2006);

-For participatory socio environmental processes, Le

Bars and Ferrand (2004)

suggest that the external, normative, cognitive, operational, relational and equity dimensions of the context (and continuing decision making process) should be taken into account; and -The "multi modal" systems thinking approaches propose between 14 and 17 modalities that should be considered: credal / pistic, ethical, juridical, aesthetic, economic, operational, social, epistemic, informatory / communicative, historical, logical / analytic, sensitivity / psychic, biotic, physical, kinematic, spatial and numerical/quantitative

(Dooyeweerd, 1958; De Raadt, 1997; Basden, 2002; Khisty, 2006; Lombardi and Brandon, 2007)

.

there is more than one person interested in the "problem" or "decision"), which covers three main domains, as defined by Habermas (1984): the personal world (i.e. including cognitive and normative dimensions); the social or interpersonal world (i.e. including

  problem analysis stage, such uncertainties can also be joined by uncertainties related to data (i.e. quantity and quality) and the models or processes used (i.e. methods of calibration and validation, modeller or analyst capacity, data match to needs and valid usage of data sets) (Maier and Ascough II, 2006; Brugnach et al.,

	&	-	!!!8	!
	2007); and
	-: %		%	are uncertainties that no one knows anything about -they
	are what could be considered as "surprises". Despite the lack of knowledge
	surrounding such uncertainties, some water planners and managers are trying to
	develop systems which are the most adaptable or resilient possible so that they
	may potentially adapt or recover in the face of an unknown unknown (Pahl Wostl
	et al., 2008).
					CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref
		-: %	%	: that occur when one person does not have knowledge of
			something, but there is someone else whom they do not know who does possess
			such knowledge. One of the ideas of participatory processes is to attempt to avoid
			such uncertainties;
		-K	%	: the most common type of uncertainty which are recognised as
			such, and thus tend to be the only type of uncertainty taken into account in the
			risk management approaches. For water management problems these
			uncertainties often include issues of climate, hydrological responses,
			infrastructure capacity, future land use changes, human behaviours (especially

known. It can be considered a human perceived condition of having limited knowledge about a future outcome, or an existing state of something. However, there are also many other definitions and viewpoints on the concept (Myšiak and Brown, 2006; Bammer and Smithson, 2008). The concept of % is closely related to uncertainty, yet it tends to be used to explain the likelihood of occurrence of potential event consequences that are undesired (Standards Australia, 2004). There are a number of types of uncertainties that may have an impact on water planning and management, which include those related to:

-K % : uncertainties most often related to cross perceptual issues, with one person questioning the beliefs and representations of another when both believe the subject matter to be "known" in their own minds. Such representations could include competing scientific (or non scientific) theories; stakeholders related to the problem under analysis), political environment and the economic climate. However, the list of potential uncertainties could be extended to the list of contextual dimensions at the beginning of this Section. During the

  assumptions of homogeneity and stationarity (which often involves ignoring outlying statistical points) used in statistical models for hydrology appear to rarely hold true(Alexander et al., 1970; Vogel et al., 1998;[START_REF] References Daniell | Towards an art and science of decision aiding for water management and planning: a participatory modelling process[END_REF] Kuczera, 2008), and similar debates are under way on the assumptions of human behaviour translated into economic and social models related to water management.One of the major issues in water resources and hydrological modelling is how to account for and deal with changes that have occurred over the life of the collection of the data set, such as land use changes, changing withdrawals, decision behaviour, and dam and infrastructure construction over the catchment's life. There is now also mounting evidence of climate change outside of normal variability patterns affecting some of the world's catchments (Gleick, 1998), thus likely rendering the models based on long term planning and management decisions may prove dangerous or very costly in the future(Gleick et al., 2004). Such issues highlight the new complexities that need to be given attention to in today's and tomorrow's water planning and management practices.

	( ( (	---	!!!8 !!!8 !!!8	! ! !	/ 8 : / 8 : / 8 :	$ " $ " $ "	# # #	( ( ((
	decision rules of reasoning based on expert advice (Rowe and Davis, 1996; Pomerol, and Martel (1998); Bouyssou et al. (2000); Dodgson (2000); Belton and Stewart (2002). are mostly participatory based exercises of prospective analyses (Bouleau, 2003b) and Jakeman et al., 2006; Maier and Ascough II, 2006; Myšiak and Brown, 2006;
	1997; Letcher, 2002). Many of these methods can also be "fuzzified" to further cope with uncertainties or other forms of "what if" analyses using interactive simulation models and role playing Brugnach et al., 2007).
	impreciseness, with example applications in the water sector including: Fleming and games (Pomerol, 1997; Bousquet, 1999; Barreteau et al., 2001; Barreteau, 2003b).
	In some water management applications, typical objectives of attempting to control or Daniell (1996); Bender and Simonovic (2000); and Srdjevic and Medeiros (2007). Such Working in and with ambiguity has required the development of alternative methods, Other complexities and uncertainties that need to be coped with in water management
	) ! reduce uncertainty and cope with system complexity include trying to: increase the , " multi criteria methods, although aiding complexity to be embraced, may also prove too many of which focus on mathematical methods of expressing and dealing with are driven by increasing human interest and conflicts over priorities for water use.
	Traditional scientific methods (i.e. reductionist or positivist) have focussed for many ' + or ' + of systems; reduce system ' + or " ' +; and complex in their underlying mathematical structures and associated meanings for uncertain scientific knowledge (Hipel and Ben Haim, 1999), including: fuzzy sets,
	years on controlling or reducing complexity by isolating elements of problem situations increase system ' <5 1& > 5 1& '> 5 decision makers to understand them adequately, thus leading to the potential for fuzzy logic and possibility theory (Zadeh, 1978; Fleming, 1999; Bender and Simonovic, ) ! ! &
	and attempting to understand their internal and external function relative to other 1&1=. The methods used for decision aiding with these objectives have included decision makers to have less confidence in them (Hajkowicz et al., 2000; Belton and 2000; Srdjevic and Medeiros, 2007); rough set theory (Pawlak, 1991); interval analysis, It is generally considered that the scarcities created by unequal geographical
	elements (often via causal mechanisms) (Kuhn, 1962). Experimental methods with developing statistical and probabilistic models (i.e. for calculating climatic variability Stewart, 2002). grey systems theory and grey programming (Moore, 1979; Huang et al., 1992; Bass et distribution and interrelations of water systems with human populations and
	control samples or groups of people to determine system (or element behaviour) in an and flood risks) and using safety factors above model estimates to further reduce al., 1997; Chang et al., 1999); qualitative physics (Faltings and Struss, 1992); development needs (sometimes causing physical, economic and social scarcities) have
	attempt to control or reduce complexity are typical of such approaches (Tharenou et uncertainties of design failure (i.e. for dam construction). Monte Carlo simulation Modelling methods that place a greater emphasis on dynamic complex system Bayesian or probabilistic networks (Batchelor and Cain, 1999; Jensen, 2001; fuelled conflicts between various water uses (i.e. industrial, rural, urban and pure
	al., 2007). Considering the common incapacity to sufficiently control or reduce (Kuczera and Parent, 1998; Rousseau et al., 2001) is just one common method. In understanding and analysis include many of the systems theory family outlined in Ticehurst et al., 2007); and Markov chains (Meyn and Tweedie, 1993; Stewart, 1994). subsistence) (Ohlsson, 2000). However, this is a simplified view of water related
								CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref
	assumptions, many elicitation methods are used including: cognitive mapping; brain
	In order to embrace or live with uncertainty, emphasis is placed on increasing system storming; interviews; facilitated discussions or dialogue; and other reporting or
	/ ' + and mapping techniques (Axelrod, 1976; Buzan, 1993; Eden, 2004; Creighton, 2005; ' + (or + ), as well as learning to work
	(Daniell and Daniell, 2006). A number of heuristic techniques for finding optimal or Multiple Objective Linear (or Mathematical) Programming (MOLP and MOMP) methods with ambiguity. Flexibility can be associated with the idea of increasing + to Tharenou et al., 2007). For example, explicit mapping of various uncertainty types
	near optimal solutions in complex systems and for multi objective decision making (i.e. Goal Programming (Charnes et al., 1955); Compromise Programming (Zeleny, change and adaptivity to the ideas of " of systems and their " ' + and (environmental, values and choices) on an "uncertainty graph" as part of the Strategic
	4 1973); Multi Attribute Utility (and value) methods (i.e. MAUT, MAVT) (Keeney and 8 ) " # " # -1 # ( " 8 <9 9 ) ,> 9 6 include: Simulated Annealing (Kirkpatrick et al., 1983; Dougherty and Marryott, Choice Approach, has been used to develop greater participant understanding (Friend ' + (Holling, 1973; Howell, 1989; Walker et al., 2004). Methods of dealing ,= 1991), Tabu Search (Glover and Laguna, 1997; Tung and Chou, 2002), Genetic Raiffa, 1976; Edwards and Newman, 1982; Bunn, 1984); the ELECTRE (Roy, 1985) with uncertainty in this manner aim to promote system + in order to keep the and Hickling, 1987; Hickling, 2001). These types of methods are commonly used in
	Algorithms (Goldberg, 1989; Simpson et al., 1993), Ant Colony Optimisation (Maier et and PROMETHEE (Brans and Vincke, 1985) methods based on "outranking" of maximum number of future paths open, develop alternatives that maximise the problem situation and problem formulation stages of the decision aiding process,

). Moreover, the scientific uncertainties over assumptions used in traditional water resources models are likely to cause further problems and prove invalid for a variety of reasons, leading to the necessity to develop new methods

(Borgman et al., 1970)

. For example, the data sets in these areas invalid for prediction (even if they have not been subject to the other changes listed previously). Perth in Western Australia is a prime example of where the majority of experts agree that climate has undergone changes in two step intervals in the past 30 years. From an average 10 to 20% drop in rainfall over the last 30 years in Perth's catchment, there has been an average 40 60% (or more) drop in streamflow entering the city's dams

(Wentworth Group, 2006)

, as shown in Figure B.3. The unpredictable effects have had a major impact on the water management systems of the city. These types of changes are also now being found in Australia's other cities, such as Sydney (Wentworth Group, 2006) and Melbourne (Tan and Rhodes, 2008), and likely to be found soon in many other regions around the world. In light of such changes, relying on future prediction based on past data records to aid future water CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

complexity for successful management, many methods that consider complex systems in a more embracing manner to aid decision making have been developed, as partially described in Section 3.1.2. Those still considering individual elements and the causal interrelations of the system's elements include methods such as causal loop diagrams and system dynamics models

(Forrester, 1961; Sterman, 1989; Zwaan and Radvansky, 1998; Lasut, 2005; Forrester, 2007)

. Such models may be constructed as part of the problem situation, formulation or evaluation model stages of decision aiding, depending on the typology of their components and purpose.

Many other types of modelling techniques have been developed to embrace and live with both complexity and uncertainty, some of which do not attempt much to understand the complex mechanisms, and others that are more focussed on understanding how the system complexity is manifested. Statistical methods such as Artificial Neural Networks

(Kohonen, 1988; Daniell, 1991)

prefer to leave the "black box" (the complex system and its behaviour) largely closed and use the results after validation with real world data but not necessarily a "causal" understanding. Such methods can be appropriate when good quality quantitative data are available on a range of system properties, but less useful where high uncertainties or gaps in data exist (i.e. climate change or land use changes altering the underlying data patterns) al., 2003; Dorigo and Stützle, 2004) and Particle Swarm Optimization (Kennedy and Eberhart, 1995; Chau, 2004). Other complex decision making processes may be aided by AI applications such as "Expert systems" which are based on pre established order to pursue system robustness, techniques of developing scenarios of possible system futures and then using decision tree analyses or simulation models to test for system failure or inadequacy are common (i.e. for designing and testing water supply systems) and sometimes result in building "+ into systems (Dandy et al., 2007). The majority of these methods have typically focussed on uncertainties related to elements of the "evaluation model", rather than other stages in the decision aiding process. Some of the most common methods for aiding decision making under uncertainty and risk include expected utility methods (Schoemaker, 1982) and those based on prospect theory (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979). However, some forms of robustness analyses also address issues in the "problem situation and formulation stages" (e.g. Rosenhead, 2001) and some recent standards and models for aiding risk management processes encourage a more complete treatment of uncertainties from the problem situation to the final recommendations (Standards Australia, 2004). A large range of multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) tools and approaches have also been developed to help structure the complexity of decision problems and make subjectivity explicit (Belton and Stewart, 2002), especially linked to decision makers' values and preferences. This very broad family of methods that helps decision makers to explicitly take into account multiple criteria in their decision problems includes: problem management alternatives over one another ; and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) (Saaty, 1980) and SMART methods (Edwards, 1977) based on additive value models. More example methods and useful descriptions of differences in underlying backgrounds and assumptions of these methods can be found in Guitouni Section B.3.1., which include cybernetics, system dynamics and multi agent systems. Multi agent systems in particular can be used to concentrate on analysing emergence effects (Weiss, 1999; Janssen, 2002; Perez and Batten, 2006) and system dynamics models on understanding feedback effects, which are often counter intuitive (Sterman, 1989; Forrester, 1992). In terms of further exposing and understanding complexity, a number of qualitative or semi qualitative methods have been developed including various forms of cognitive mapping, some which can also be fuzzified to cope with a range of uncertainties (Kosko, 1986; Hobbs et al., 2002; Giordano et al., 2005) or are used as part of the large range of "problem structuring" methods (Rosenhead and Mingers, 2001). Some of these problem structuring methods have already been noted in Sections 3.1, 3.3 and B.2.1 and will be further investigated in Section C.3.3. A large range of models designed principally for improving understanding of spatial and temporal complexity (i.e. using Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and simulation models) that can be used in the development of the problem situation or for use as evaluation models are outlined in (Agarwal et al., 2002) and (Parker et al., 2003). ' + potential (i.e. the precautionary principle), build scenarios and adaptation strategies in anticipation of change, and build human capacity to cope and react to change and uncertainty. Examples of practical approaches for achieving these aims Most of these methods concentrate on the evaluation model stage of the decision aiding process.

If uncertainty is to be further exposed and understood before the evaluation model stage, there is a need to outline: limits and gaps in knowledge; model related assumptions and performance (in all phases of the decision aiding process); and representations of the world, beliefs, perceptions, values and preferences. This includes assumptions about the past state of the world (what happened through history and what it means); the current state (including dynamic understanding); and the future states (what is possible, probable, plausible and desired). For exposing and understanding these future related uncertainties, visioning, future building or scenario building and analysis are the most commonly employed methods. Miser and Quade (1988) consider that a "good" scenario should possess a number of attributes (consistency, plausibility, credibility, rationality, relevance, utility and probability), while others see visioning and scenario building as a more creative and exploratory process that can drive innovation. For other knowledge and human related as well as in the exploratory part of evaluation model use. A large number of other methods designed to understand the evaluation model uncertainties (i.e. input data, framing, structure, parameter values and output) also exist including sensitivity analyses and uncertainty analyses (Pomerol, 1997; van der Sluijs et al., 2004; conflicts, the underlying story of which will be examined in a little more detail here. ) " can be considered as a human perceived state of discord. Such a state may occur due to differences in a range of factors, including: values (normative positions); beliefs and representations (cognitive positions); goals; needs; rights; interests; priorities; and actions or power relationships. Conflicts can occur at a number of levels, including: intra personal; inter personal/intra group; and inter group (where "group" is considered to have the largest possible definition i.e. a number of individuals with something in common, a society, a State, a real or virtual ideological program or movement). Conflicts may therefore also occur at a variety of spatial or virtual scales, including: in an individual's mind; locally/intra nationally; and

  When water is the "source" of a conflict, the situation can be attributed to reasons of quantity, quality, timing or some or all of them(Wolf et al., 2005), underlying the more fundamental causes (i.e. value, belief, interest and power differences). One of the major challenges for water planners and managers in the future will be to be able to companies, industry, environmental groups), who are all likely to manifest a large range of concerns, different value sets, representations of the world, power levels and capacities to act. Many such conflicts are likely to be associated with other conflicts involving even more participants and interests over a variety of interrelated scales, conflict include some multi objective analysis methods, such as the Delphi Method or the Nominal Group Technique(Goicoechea et al., 1982; Fleming, 1999).Of course another eventual way of dealing with conflict is just to circumscribe it, as

	(, (&	--	!!!8 !!!8	! !				/ 8 : / 8 :		$ " $ "	# #	( (1
	(i.e. their mathematical structures) may be disputed in some problem situations (Holz
	et al., 2004).
	Other forms of conflict management attempt to embrace and live with conflict rather
	successfully work and deal with conflicts. This involves working through a number of rendering analysis and management of such conflicts complex and full of than to try to control or reduce it (Hardy and Phillips, 1998). For example, it has long Machiavelli suggests!
	stages in the life of conflicts, including: identifying both manifest and latent conflicts; uncertainties. been considered that debate and diversity of opinion are important for innovation and
	effectively managing the conflicts; and resolving or neutralising them (Vlachos, 1998). effective political governance. Most methods of embracing and living with complexity ) ! / 0
	) ! . , are necessarily participatory. Many political methods fall into this category of decision From the previous parts of this Section, Chapter 2 and Section 3.1, it can be seen that
	) aiding approaches and include mediated debates, discursive struggles, deliberation " " and analysis can occur in anticipation of a latent conflict Decision aiding methods to deal with conflict can be grouped according to categories water planning and management is commonly dominated by complex, uncertain and
	manifesting itself or once a manifested conflict has been noted. A number of analysis including approaches to: and dialogue (Forester, 1999), policy analysis models (Mayer et al., 2004) and other conflict ridden problem situations; in other words, messes!
	tools have been created to help to identify different aspects of conflicts, including their: -) or " conflict; communicative tools (Bots et al., 2005) and theoretical aids such as Habermas' (1984)
	sources or causes (refer to the previous factor list); their participants (concerned -' " and conflict; and Communicative Action Theory or Critical Systems Thinking (Ulrich, 1991; Midgley, As already noted in Figure 3.1, can be defined as dynamic situations that
	-2000). This is not surprising, considering that "! / and conflict. consist of complex systems of interacting and changing problems (Ackoff, 1979). " "
		" Specifically related to natural resources planning and management, Lachapelle et al. '+ " (Fischer, 2003). Decision aiding approaches to
		(2003) describe that:
			@ "% " ""	'	"	"	+ " "%	'	+ " "	#	"	'+ " A	7	CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref
	Thomasson, 2004) or a situation where there are P White et al., 2007). A number of "Group Decision Support Systems" (GDSS) (DeSanctis identification and differentiation of conflicting viewpoints on consequences and
	" and Gallupe, 1987) or interactive computer or internet based tools have been " ' ' "% '+ + desirable consequences of alternatives. Carrying out such identification activities early
	' developed as a basis for aiding these negotiation, consensus building or compromise / " " ' "% " (Frey, 1993). However, it is during the definition of a "problem situation" may help to better anticipate, diagnose
	noted that these definitions are likely to be too closed to explain the full complexity of is the final stage of the conflict management process, where an processes. These include group multi criteria decision support or negotiation systems or prevent conflicts manifesting themselves (Vlachos, 1998), all of which will prove ) "
	water related conflicts (considering the multiplicity of conflict causes previously listed agreement is made that is accepted by the parties in conflict. Such a conclusion or such as those from the Decisionarium tools website (SLA, 2007), including "WEB valuable in the later stages of water planning and management. Some ICT tools are
	in the general definition). As already mentioned in Section A.2.1, water systems and neutralisation of a conflict could occur through collaboration or consensus building or HIPRE" (Mustajoki et al., 2004) and "Joint gains" (Hämäläinen et al., 2001) software better suited to encourage open definition and conflict identification in the problem
	resources can also be considered as sources, instruments or targets of such conflict other arbitration processes as noted above (e.g. White et al., 2007). which have been used for water management decision aiding purposes, and the situation stage including actor or stakeholder analysis methods, cognitive mapping,

(Gleick, 1998)

. Examples of water being used as an "instrument" or "target" of conflict have already been given in Section A.2.1 and more are outlined in

Gleick (2006)

. parties); their impacts on the problem situation (i.e. increasing the apparent overall level of conflict, complexity or uncertainties); and their relations to other conflicts, whether they be water related or otherwise (e.g.

Yoffe et al., 2001; Rinaudo and Garin, 2003)

. Carrying out such activities early during the definition of a "problem situation" may help to better anticipate, diagnose or prevent conflicts manifesting themselves (Vlachos, 1998), all of which will prove valuable in the following stages of water planning and management.

)

" is a process designed to work with manifested conflicts. It has been suggested that strategies of conflict management could include: avoidance; accommodation; competition; compromise; and collaboration (Thomas, 1976), depending on the relations and the intent of satisfying the party's own and others' interests (Thomas, 1992). Much literature exists on mechanisms of mediation, negotiation, trust building or arbitration, that can be used to manage conflicts to attempt to obtain the best possible solutions for both parties (often considered to be "collaboration" which will help to achieve long term "win win" outcomes) (Fisher and Ury, 1981; Pruitt and Rubin, 1986; Priscoli, 1990; Wolf, 2002b; Nandalal and Simonovic, 2003; Zeitoun and Warner, 2006). Some available decision aiding methods for conflict management will be outlined in the next Section. Water conflicts can be particularly complex due to the sheer magnitude of possible participants, organisations and government departments involved from different sectors of interest (i.e. indigenous and recent cultures, agriculture, water supply In order to control or reduce conflict, many decision aiding approaches exist, including those associated with "conflict management", which are briefly outlined in the previous section. It has been suggested that strategies of conflict management could include: avoidance; accommodation; competition; compromise; and collaboration (Thomas, 1976), depending on the relations and the intent of satisfying the party's own and others' interests (Thomas, 1992). Much literature exists on mechanisms of mediation, negotiation, trust building, or arbitration that can be used to manage conflicts to attempt to obtain the best possible solutions for both parties (often considered to be "collaboration" that will help to achieve long term "win win" outcomes) (Fisher and Ury, 1981; Bellenger, 1984; Pruitt and Rubin, 1986; Priscoli, 1990; Wolf, 2002b; Nandalal and Simonovic, 2003; Zeitoun and Warner, 2006). Conflict resolution tends to be considered as the final stage of the conflict management process, where an agreement is made that is accepted by the parties in conflict. Such a conclusion or neutralisation of a conflict could occur through collaboration or consensus building or other arbitration processes as noted above (e.g. MULINO Decision Support System (mDSS) (Myšiak et al., 2005). Further examples of such tools are given in Bruen (2007). However, depending on the extent of conflicts, such tools may not prove sufficiently transparent and their underlying assumptions aid such conflicts include a range of interactive "Information and Communication Tools" (ICT) and group decision support systems, which have been designed for certain stages of the decision aiding process and more generally aiding "social learning processes" (Bandura, 1977; Pahl Wostl and Hare, 2004; HarmoniCOP, 2005).

As a basis for either type of conflict management, a preliminary phase of exposing and understanding conflict, also referred to as "conflict identification and analysis" can occur in anticipation of a latent conflict manifesting itself or once a manifested conflict has been noted. A number of analysis tools have been created to help to identify different aspects of conflicts, including their: sources or causes (refer to the previous factor list at the beginning of Section B.3); participants (concerned parties); impacts on the problem situation (i.e. increasing the apparent overall level of conflict, complexity or uncertainties); and their relations to other conflicts, whether they be water related or otherwise (e.g. Yoffe et al., 2001; Rinaudo and Garin, 2003). Keeney (1992) suggests "Value focussed thinking" as a base decision making process that can aid the early facilitated discussions and questionnaires (HarmoniCOP, 2005). Other common methods of mapping out different stakeholder positions and working on issues of From the Sections B.3.1 to B.3.4, it can be seen that the complexity of a problem situation is largely driven by the number of uncertainties and number of interrelations, which include the complexities of the human system (i.e. the number and level of conflicts present). Although all of these categories are heavily interrelated, it is useful to arbitrarily divide them to create a conceptual model of problem situations, as shown in Figure B.4. Such a model can be used to understand the different types of problem situations that may be observed, from "simple" to messes.

  present the traditional views of science as an objective pursuit of knowledge, and engineering as "problem solving" first, and then "alternative" views, such as "problem structuring" (Rosenhead and Mingers, 2001), much later (if there is time in the curriculum!). Inhabitants of the Western world are largely programmed to think in a

	,	-	!!!8	!	/ 8 :		$ "	#	,
		* '	8 -	"	"	#
			" R
		/					?	R )
		2	"
	Spiral Dynamics particular way, of differentiating between objects, subjects and consequently what is 8 Cultural psychology, information ? 8 presents a useful basis and Mimetics theory, development and evolution theory. for understanding and embracing
	objective or subjective. This is even influenced by our Western languages, which have been constructed in relation to these "subjects" and "objects". However, like the little fish in the quote above, this way of seeing and understanding the world limits our comprehension of other possible viewpoints which could exist. As often quoted, Einstein is said to have noted many years ago that: "* ' / + " ' '+ % " A This means that we should be searching for alternative paradigms of thinking which may prove (Beck and Cowan, 1996) (Dawkins, cultural development and value 8 to give a conceptual basis to based concerns of individuals and understand and manage: cultural value groups, as well as to better study systems and their development, adoption behaviours. information transfers and adoption 1976) (Blackmore, behaviours. ) 8 For Spiral Dynamics 1999) (Rixon et al., 2006) difficulty in analysing and "labelling" 8 the existence of memes (or groups as predominantly exhibiting v memes) -units of cultural, imitation particular value systems (that may behaviour (or values) that can be be considered as higher or lower in transferred and develop through human or the development chain) -risk of societal development (mimetics -as theoretical rejection in a opposed to biological genes and genetics) participatory setting -theory does
							not consider physical processes or
							ecological evolution; for mimetics,
							the transferral mechanics proposed
							in the literature are harshly criticised
		Integral		8 philosophy, psychology, physics,
		Approaches (László, 2004) (Wilber, 2000) (Gidley, 2007) The integral review: http://www. integral review.org/ (Roy, 2006)	biology integration of predominant paradigms and to consider all aspects of human environment systems: integration of dualisms subjective / objective divide, and individual /collective through development and evolutionary phases in the cosmos.			CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref
	study or processes can be used for understanding (		) (Kuhn, 1962; Le
	Moigne, 1999; Berthelot, 2001; Allison and Hobbs, 2006). In order to realise just some
	of the potential paradigms or existing theories and general philosophies that could
	help us to think differently about the world and aid water planners and managers to
	address today's water issues in another way, Table B.4 presents a small eclectic
	collection of recent and not so recent approaches for consideration. It is noted that
	each does not necessarily constitute an entire paradigm or even theories that have
	stabilised, but each of them should start to provide a little food for thought for curious

more effective in helping us to aid the management of today's and tomorrow's complex issues. Embracing a broader range of ways of thinking may ensure that decision aiders can appreciate and help to co construct a greater range of perspectives for their potential clients to consider in their decision problems; or find more adapted decision aiding methods to use with clients who hold different general types of world views.

Many alternative paradigms of thinking and understanding the world have been developed throughout history, a number of which have already been lightly touched upon in the previous sections of this Appendix. A paradigm can be thought of as a model for understanding reality (Allison and Hobbs, 2006), which is made up of sets of assumptions about how the world works, and language and concepts (Kuhn, 1962).

These include assumptions about determining: "what exists?" and what constitutes this reality (

); "what is knowledge?", and how it (or different types of it) is constructed, the relationship between the knowledge possessor and the known, including his or her reality of existence and the value of this knowledge ( ); and "how can new understandings be created?" and what systems of and creative decision analysts looking to broaden their own world views and inspire their decision aiding practice.

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

  the system dynamics group of methods, specifically the "shared vision modeling" promoted by the US Army Corps of Engineers in the Institute for Water Resources and 2001) (mentioned in Sections 3.3.3 and B.3), some of which have been used in the water domain, will also be outlined to aid their comparison in Section 3.3.4 with the other two approaches. Models based on Forrester's (1961) systems dynamics have been used in water resources management since the theory's conception in the USA (Yeh, 1985), although using them in a participatory setting by many stakeholders is much more recent. The first test of the "shared vision planning" methodology, which includes the building of "shared vision models", occurred between 1989 and 1993 in the "National Drought Study" (Palmer et al., 1993). Some of the study test applications were considered successful for the learning and agreements drafted and others less so, often due to final political vetoing or lack of adoption of model results (Werick and Whipple Jr., 1994). These methods have since been reused in many other areas of the US and more recently in other countries. The US Army Corps of Engineers defines that:

				/ )8 :	-	"	+ 3	&(
	& !	"	,"			0
	@			"			+
	'			"	'	+	%	*
			+		"		'
			"	+		" +	A <9 "%
		9	G	11 =

a derivative termed "mediated modelling" (van den

Belt, 2004)

; and those based on a multi agent systems approach, in particular the "Companion Modelling Approach"

(Barreteau, 2003b)

. Another large group of methods that can be used in participatory modelling processes, the "problem structuring approaches" (Rosenhead and Mingers,

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

It is noted here that the final "model" in this form of participatory modelling is considered to be a technical computer simulation model, unlike other participatory modelling methods which may be used to build other "non computer" models. At the base of the shared vision model development the two principle questions cited as being the most important are "Who will use the model?" and "How will the model be used?"

(IWR, 2007)

. These pre model considerations and the later model development take place as part of the shared vision planning structure with a group of stakeholders, which is based on the traditional US Army Corps of Engineers planning principles (Werick and Whipple Jr., 1994):

  Table C.2.

							/ )8 :	-	"	+ 3	1
						1) Develop a set of alternative options for each of the identified "decision
						areas"	#
					Identification	#$	#
					of alternative
					options
			Designing	(courses of action) to
					.2! AB address the decision	>2CC. AB
					%C?F problems	%C?F
			& #	'			& #	# H
					?F. BA AB	>C% ! AB
					%C?F	%C?F
						&	CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref
	* ' ) 8					" ) "	"	" 8 4	<	=
	3	"	4 "		*+ "	"
	Shaping	Identifying and formulating the decision problems: expanding or narrowing the focus of decision problems	1) Identifying "decision areas": areas or issues of concern, with choices to be made between alternative courses of action 2) Identifying "uncertainty areas": areas where there is a lack of information or areas over which the participants have little influence or control 3) Constructing a "decision graph" (including highlighting doubts or disagreements) of the identified "decision areas" connected by "decision links" where relations exist between them 4) Choose a "problem focus" by outlining a boundary of specific interest on the "decision graph"

  1( supported analyses. The process of cognitive mapping may either be carried out through individual interviews, from which composite group maps can be constructed by the analyst, or directly carried out in groups using a technique such as the "Oval Mapping Technique" (Ackermann and Eden, 2001; Eden and Ackermann, 2001). As

	considered by Eden (cited in Clarke and Mackaness (2001) and Heyer (2004)), such
	maps can be thought of as models of "action orientated thinking" where the directional
	links represent some type of causal argument. The general structure of the cognitive
	maps that is sought through these techniques in SODA is shown in Figure C.17.
	4	)	8 ?$ "	"	8 "%	<	=
				<	=

SODA in a group situation is usually carried out in small groups using simple paper and pen supports and is often accompanied by a computerised version using the Decision Explorer® Software (Banxia Software, 2008). The maps developed through the facilitated participatory process may then be analysed in terms of both content and structure, using many available qualitative and quantitative techniques

(Eden et al., 1992; Langfield Smith and Wirth, 1992; Daniels et al., 1994; Mohammed et al., 2000; Eden, 2004)

; one aim of which can be to inform better decisions on future strategies to pursue.

  .1.

				/ $8 3	-	*
	* ' $ 8 *	"	"	/		"
		!	"	/
	Join an awareness movement (association	For me, being a	I do not wish to do anything more
	type) related to water problems	to	keeper of one part	and conserve my line of action =
	participate in increasing individual awareness and to put pressure on the public powers Write a text on the current aberrations (subsidising private interests!) and attempt to diffuse it	of this universal resource, I can: turn the tap off when I brush my teeth and do the washing up	I pay attention to my water consumption I respect the quality of my environment = I don't throw detritus on the ground and I recycle my waste
	In the long term, to provide myself with better means for collecting rainwater and treating water (algal basin type)	not throw out left over water inform those	I inform people around me of my conduct and of the consequences that certain actions of ours can
	Not use any polluting detergents even	around me of the	have
	when "I am in a hurry" Try to accept "the reality" and actual state of the level of consciousness to not therefore fall into the hate of and disgust of my human sisters and brothers and for myself become extremist	stakes/issues and try to sensitise them to the problem catch rain water drink wine ☺	Despite that, I still sometimes take a bath! do not fall into extremism Be conscious of the problem and act as best as I can I am open to any new action
	isolate myself and cut myself off from			propositions that I can implement
	others				at my scale
		)				CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

  .2.

				/ $8 3	-	*	(
	* ' $ 8 -	"	9	'	"	+	"
							CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

  The range of scenarios that the group members were interested in investigating is shown on the left hand side of Figure E.16. The responses were quite diverse, ranging from analysis of normal day to day issues such as: water distribution and allocation; between different users), and did not believe that analysing crisis management issues were the point of the workshops, while others debated that it was these types of crises (which they insisted do occur in reality) that would bring about a greater level of interest in the game. Due to a lack of time to further pursue the debate, it was decided that any of these issues could potentially occur during the game session model simulations (randomly generated by the model or the game organiser).

	/ 8	+ !	3	-	*	4	"	(
	water sharing; water conflicts; state interventions in management rules; ecosystem
	modification; local water scarcity; reductions in water quality; and changes to the
	price of water, to the effects of events or crises such as: widespread drought; "surprise
	flooding" such as that associated with tsunamis; water contamination and ensuing
	medical epidemics (chemical or bacterial); melting of the ice caps and consequent sea
	level rises; and even what would result from a sudden lack of energy resources (fossil

fuels). The debate that followed in the group turned a little heated over the fact that some group members already perceived there to be a sufficient number of day to day problems that are not well treated or understood (such as effective water sharing CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

  Table F.1.

		-	!!!8	!
				* ' 4 8 -	+	"
					What has been completed from the 2002 BCEMP?
	,"		#
					Were these actions adequate (based on what indicators?)
					Which issues from the 2002 BCEMP are current or ongoing?
					Which issues are redundant?
	-"		#	%	Are there any new issues?
					What could be the future scenarios?
					What indicators are being used to assess these issues?
					1995 Estuary processes study
	." / !	*	#	*	Prototype Bayesian Network model
					Community and expert opinions
					Goals
					Actions
	0"		'		Costing Gaining support for plan from Governments, communities, private sector	CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

  (unavailability at certain times, administrative hurdles, personal or professional difficulties etc.). Despite these potential complications in determining how long a participatory project such as this proposal may take, an estimation of a potentially feasible timeline is presented in this section to provide a basis for discussion with the Hornsby Shire Council and the consultants. The resources required to carry out such a process are also outlined.A proposed timeline for the Berowra Creek Estuary Management Plan revision process is outlined in Table F.2. From previous experience, it has been found that a reasonable amount of time is required between participatory workshop sessions to allow the organisers to treat the information and work received in order to adequately organise the following session. The proposed planning process, as outlined earlier in this section, has therefore been spread out over a number of months.

	/ 48	+ !	.5 3--"	&
	* ' 4 8 *	"
	3 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006	-determine what has been done or not (in consultation with council and " Tender process Consultants selected Plan revision process organised and publicised Participants (stakeholders) found Research administration completed Planning review: consultants to analyse previous processes and stakeholders where required) External evaluation: process commenced	CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref
		1st participatory workshop (1/2 day day) stage 1
	September 2006	External evaluation: context evaluation finished, process observation
		started
	October 2006	2nd participatory workshop (1/2 day day) stage 2
	November 2006	3rd participatory workshop (1/2 day day) stage 3
	December 2006 / January 2007	4th participant workshop (1/2 day day) stage 4 Public consultation and opinions about plan sought
		5th participant workshop (only if required)
	January 2007 / February 2007	Plan completed and sent for approval
		External evaluation: process observation completed

*

  This proposal document has been written to outline a potential participatory process for the Berowra Creek Estuary Management Plan revision. It firstly outlined the background to this project and the needs of both the Hornsby Shire Council and the researcher's PhD project. Apart from being based on innovative research methods that will bring more positive publicity to the region, this collaborative project is expected to have a number of benefits for the Hornsby Shire Council's environment and communities. Firstly, this project of knowledge integration is a process that will add value to the large volume of existing high quality research, work, monitoring programsThe principle elements of the co design and co implementation phases, including both relational and operational aspects, are outlined in this section. A brief description of the methods used throughout the LHEMP process follows. Further information on the process can be found in Coad et al.(2007) and BMTWBM (2008).

	&,	-	!!!8	!
	Shire Council, consultants and other stakeholders, has drawn upon a number of
	current "best practice" concepts in evaluation and monitoring, water resources
	participatory planning, integration and decision aiding theories.
	Part of this process could also be used to discover the current knowledge gaps or
	uncertainties surrounding estuary management and how initiatives such as model
	building (i.e. the proposed Bayesian Network Berowra Creek Estuary model) could be
	used to address such gaps. The need for model building for specific strategic outcomes
	could thus be properly integrated into the estuary's planning and management
	process. A proposal for the project to be externally and comparatively evaluated with
	other participatory modelling natural resources management case studies around the
	world has also been described. Finally, a proposed timeline and the required resources
	for this project have been outlined as a starting point for developing the tender and
	further discussions.
	<	,	and planning that have recently been undertaken related to the estuary. This work could include but should not be limited to the previous Berowra Creek process studies, the draft NSW Oyster Industry Sustainable Aquaculture Strategy (DPI, 2006), the Hawkesbury Lower Nepean Catchment Blueprint (DLWC, 2003), the Bayesian Network model of the Berowra Creek catchment, the Community Sustainability + +	CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref
			Indicator Program and Report Cards (HSC, 2004a), the Shire's Management Plan
			(HSC, 2005b), the 2004/05 State of the Environment Report (HSC, 2005a), the Water
			Management Plan (HSC, 2004b), the Sustainable Total Water Cycle Management
			Strategy (UTS/SKM, 2005), the Water Quality Monitoring Program (HSC, 2005c), and
			other plans and research related to urban development, tourism, boating and
			ecological processes of the estuary.
			An approach for how such knowledge integration could take place throughout this
			plan revision was outlined as a four stage participatory modelling process. Such
			participatory processes are considered to help improve management, planning and
			monitoring processes through improving: communication and understanding between
			stakeholders; education; individual and collective learning (knowledge production);
			relationships and building social capacity to aid the sustainability of the environment
			and society; and the adoption of more sustainable behaviours. The proposed process
			which is to be further developed and decided upon in collaboration with the Hornsby

  These strategies are outlined in priority order in Table F.5.

	/ 48	+ !	.5 3--"	1
	* ' 4 (8 -		%	"	< 3* 9 3
		&=
	;
	In the Draft LHEMP, 149 strategies were outlined and assessed for treating the 16 risks. Of these strategies, 32 were outlined as short listed strategies which are suggested as having high implementation priority in terms of risk reduction potential (BMT WBM, 2008). CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

  French researchers, as the elements of a water related situation causal model of the region were not really obtained (Rougier and Ferrand, 2007 -pers. comm.). The groups had rather created institutional or actor maps of regional water management, which the private research consultant considered to be some of the best that he had seen(Hare, 2007).

	/ 68	+ !	! % -"	(
				CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

  Bulgarian regional partner very little time to decide quickly how to reorganise the Bulgarian part of the project team. She finally managed to find two work colleagues also working in the AquaStress project to help her with the organisational aspects, such as contacting stakeholders, making bookings and other logistical aid (Ribarova, 2008 -pers. comm.

	/ 68	+ !	! % -"	(
				CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

Rougier, 2007 -pers. comm.; Ferrand and Ribarova, 2008 -pers. comm.)

. This left the

  NGOs and international funders (13%) and private companies (24%). These results could be interpreted in a number of ways. Firstly that the citizens and municipalities believe that the State and other private companies such as water supply companies) should take on more responsibility for ensuring their protection and aid before, during and after times of flood and drought, and that they themselves can do little. Secondly, that the participants considered "citizens / population" and "municipality / municipal services" to form more coherent groups than some of the other types of actors such as National Government Departments and different private businesses and NGOs, an idea which is supported by fact that both these categories received counts of over double many other actor types. However, elements of the first hypothesis also remain supported as many of these mentioned were at the receiving end of aid, protection or information -only a few mentions of citizen actions such as reducing water consumption to relieve droughts and planting trees to reduce flood risks were provided. The top 10 out of 50 most highly counted actions or activities counted from the 23 maps are outlined in Table G.2. More technical actions are provided in normal font and the more non technical actions in italic font.

		/ 68				+ !		! % -"	(
	companies (48%), Municipal Governments (7%), Citizens and citizens' groups (7%),
	* ' 6 8 Actions (provision of…) 7 " ! 3 +O " O'	'+	"	%	Total Count 16 15	% " E Organised 12 stakeholders' 11	maps	Citizens' 4 maps 4	CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref
	5	O	"					12	3	9
	3	O"	O		O ""	' +	11	7	4
	Water supply system				6	3	3
	4	O"	'					5	4	1
	Equipment						5	2	3
	Dykes						4	2	2
	Technical expertise/analysis			4	2	2
	Medical help						4	1	3

  From these last comments, which also have an operational or method based content, it appears that the activities and new forms of interaction were appreciated by the stakeholders and helped them to work together. It is interesting to see that these two statements, although treating the operational management issues in the region have both come to different understandings of the progress, or lack of progress that is being made -one understands that there is still much management work to be done, and the other one is satisfied to see that management steps are being undertaken.

	( ,	-	!!!8	!
	More operational based statements or issues of process were also given in these
	qualitative responses including: "!	'
				"	+ !		! % '
		+ +	"	'	A	8 "!	"
	'		%			"	>	%
	F" Examining more directly at changes induced by the process related to attitudes, practices or behaviours, some stakeholders were not so sure there had been many changes, e.g. "! % + " " + + " ! % " ! ! " + " ' " Whereas other comments were on a very different level suggesting that their attitudes or practices had undergone much more dramatic changes. As this stakeholder states: "3+ ' " + " ' " ! E " + ".	CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

  This last comment brings up the idea of a "team spirit" that also emerged within the workshops which is of interest, especially considering the size and diversity of the final stakeholder groups in the workshops.For the Iskar process, the same type of closed response questions was asked at the end of each workshop. Only the methods evaluated varied.Translation to English is given here.The final workshop of the series also included the following open questions to obtain some qualitative participant feedback.

	( & ( , ( & ( ( ( ( , ( ( ( , ( & (( ((		-------------	!!!8 !!!8 !!!8 !!!8 !!!8 !!!8 !!!8 !!!8 !!!8 !!!8 !!!8 !!!8 !!!8		! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !		/ 58 C / 58 C / 58 C / 58 C / 58 C / 58 C / 58 C / 58 C / 58 C / 58 C / 58 C / 58 C / 58 C		! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !	/ 2	" " " " " " " " " " " " "	"	( ( ( ( 1 ( ( ( ( ( 1 ( ( ( ( ( ( 1 (( (
	-"* -"; > > ! < < > . 0 > / < 6. Similarly, how would you rate the effectiveness of the process so far? For 0 " 7 + "; "7 " /" " " + / 0 -" 5 4 $ -> < 0 -@ 5 0 -@ 5 $ % % -@ 5 0 -@ 5 % -% > # * -8 Allan, J. A. (1997) I 9 8 Bunn, D. W. (1984) $ " + McGraw Hill, New York. Fischer, F. (2003) 2 -' " -"+8 $ " -" $ ' -" " Zhang, L. (1999) " ! " . $ 8 * ) ) . -5 a. Did anything unexpected emerge from the workshop or interview * " M ? 9 ! 6 ?"" -; School of Oriental Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. 2 ! 8 " ! " . $ 7 + $ ' ! # ) example, for developing a collectively agreed upon action plan, for improving and African Studies, London, 21. [Online]: Burchfield, J. (1998) ' '+ 2 8 * . 2 -9 ) $ , China, 33.	'	"
	)	8OO '	" stakeholder relationships and for exchanging and understanding different / " % < ' => + + process? Did this change the next stages of the process and in what " %O " O X " O 0 " O O O & -, Chronicle of Community 3(1): 31 36.
	" Burke, E. (2005) * $ " $4 Zwaan, R. A. and Radvansky, G. A. (1998) ." way? points of view. 5 + 3 ) 3 +, Psychological Bulletin 123(2): 162 185. 3 . ( ) # (
	-@! 7. Do you think the results would have been different if other stakeholders were + '+ Allen, W., Kilvington, M. and Horn, C. (2002) : -" + . # ) . :) 9 5 + 9 % + -9 5 + " 0 " A> 4 " 8 " 3 5 " ) " 9 % : + ) 3 #) 2 " : , Santa Cruz, 15. involved? ) . Landcare Research Contract Report: LC0102/057, New Zealand. [Online]: 8OO " ' O " O O
	-@! 8. To your knowledge, have there been any external effects of this process so far? + 8. Advantages / disadvantages of the process " E / " '+ " > " + ! " 9. Major lessons learnt Buzan, T., Buzan, B. (1993) * 3 3 %8 5 : 2 * % For example, stakeholders taking a heightened interest in working with 3 / E H L : -BBC Books, London, UK.
			' 10. Any major changes in opinions/values? " 0 % ! Council.	A
	-@; Cech, T. V. (2005) -" /" 11. Equity of participation for stakeholders and inside project team? + E * + " " 8 + 9. What feedback, positive or negative, have you received from the stakeholders "+ John Wiley and Sons Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.
	/" Chang, N. B., Eh, S. C. Y. and Wu, G. C. (1999) 12. Major challenges seen in the next stages of the process (if there are follow ! about the process? ! + + " + % A ups)? ' + + + " 10. How are people to comment on the LHEMP once it goes on public exhibition? " # , International Journal
	13. Did the process highlight / lead to /manage any conflicts not already Will this be a standard or more participatory approach? of Systems Science 30(6): 571 589. [Online]:
	mentioned? 11. Do you have any thoughts on how the plan will be received by participating 8OO " O & O 11 1 1
	14. What are the major challenges of working in the inter cultural participatory and non participating stakeholders once it goes on public exhibition? Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W. and Ferguson, R. O. (1955) ? / "
	"! ) Chau, K. (2004) 2 ' + 15. If project resources had been different, what would you have changed? / " " " " H " '0 " > " " + '+ " " % ' ' /" " . project team process? How do you think these could be better managed? 16. Any final comments or suggestions? This scheme was then reused in a simplified form to drive a cognitive mapping interview carried out jointly with the research and operational leaders of the Iskar process. Emphasis was placed in particular on points (1), (3), (5), (9) and (14). > ! 8 + $ $ 3>#0' 4 12. What do you like and dislike about the risk assessment and management approach? Do you think it will be effective in helping the estuary management to improve? 13. What do you see as the next major challenges for the estuary and its management? 14. What are the advantages of working with both consultants and researchers? 15. What is the most important thing that you have learnt from the process? '+ . -, Management Science 1(2): 138 151. 4 " -" ? E . ! " ! " <-" ! ) " ! " " ! " / + ! O ! ? ) 3 + # = Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1166 1173. Checkland, P. B. (1981) + * % + -" " John Wiley, Chichester, UK. Checkland, P. B. and Holwell, S. E. (1998) " 2 " 8 ! ; I +, Systemic practice and action research 11(1): 9 21. China Daily (2006) P6 9 P % %. ,# ,# $ 18 8 &. [Online]: 8OO / " O O ,#	CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref
	,O O"	X ,	,
	Leading questions: Chown, E. (1999) 3 %	"	"	8		"
		"		1. What do you see as the key strengths or advantages of the participatory , Adaptive Behavior 7(1): 17 33.
	workshop approach to action plan creation? And the disadvantages or CISEAU (2006) $ " ! " 8 Extension de
	la salinisation et stratégies de prévention et réhabilitation, Conférence électronique weaknesses? sur la salinisation. [Online]: 8OO O O O E # 2. With your current knowledge of how the process has worked, what would you " O " O$ " ! " "
	have changed if you were carrying it out again? How could the weaknesses be Clarke, I. and Mackaness, W. (2001) 3 L! L8 ! "" overcome? " ) $ " " : ) 3 , Journal of
	3. Before the process started, you identified a couple of conflicts […]. How do you Management Studies 38(2): 147 172.
	think that the process has helped (or not) to manage these conflicts? Clarke, R. (1993) 9 8 " The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 204.
				4. Did the process create or make any other conflicts visible, and how do you
				2007) ! think these methods could have been better managed? 2 % 9 + 3 -	.
	5 % ' +#;	2	;	9	16th NSW Coastal Conference, 7 9
	November, Yamba, NSW, Australia. [Online]:
		8OO	"	"		" " O	O	O-	Z )	"

A stakeholder in the LPSF also outlined how constructive conflict management and resolution in the extended project team also led to the successful project outcomes: CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref 5. From your knowledge of past planning projects, how would you rate the efficiency of the process in terms of time, money and other resources? Coad, P., Haines, P., Daniell, K. A., Guise, K. and Rollason, V. (CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

Table 1 :

 1 Stakeholder Workshop Series Overview ....................................................................................................4

Table 2 :

 2 Proposed LHEMP Project Timeline ..........................................................................................................5

Table 3 :

 3 Value and issue sheet questions...............................................................................................................10

Table 4 :

 4 Value table for "A unique and beautiful estuary of national significance" ............................................13

Table 5 :

 5 Value table for "Functional, sustainable ecosystems, and biodiversity" ................................................14

Table 6 :

 6 Value table for "Largely undeveloped natural catchments and surrounding lands"..............................16

Table 7 :

 7 Value table for "Recreational opportunities" .........................................................................................17

Table 8 :

 8 Value table for "Sustainable economic industries" ................................................................................18

Table 9 :

 9 Value table for "Heritage"......................................................................................................................19

Table 10 :

 10 Value table for "Improving water quality that supports multiple uses"................................................20

Table 11 :

 11 Value table for "Community value" ......................................................................................................21

Table 12 :

 12 Issue table for "Water quality and flows" .............................................................................................23

Table 13 :

 13 Issue table for "Land use and catchment management" .......................................................................24

Table 14 :

 14 Issue table for "Lack of integrated planning, management and research"...........................................25

Table 15 :

 15 Issue table for "Social equity, cultural heritage protection and community participation" .................27

Table 16 :

 16 Issue table for "Ecosystem health and biodiversity loss" .....................................................................28

Table 17 :

 17 Issue table for "Infrastructure and facilities" .......................................................................................29

Table 18 :

 18 Issue table for "Waterway use and impacts" ........................................................................................31

Table 19 :

 19 Issue table for "Broad scale considerations: climate change, carrying capacity and cumulative

impacts".................................................................................................................................................32

  Capitalise on previous work such as the existing Hornsby Shire Council's and Gosford City Council's estuary planning, monitoring programs, as well as numerous regional studies; -Allow the collective analysis and sharing of knowledge about the estuary and its surrounding communities from a range of different perspectives (stakeholder communities', government representatives' and scientists') in order to aid future visions of sustainable development of the estuary and how these can be achieved through good quality planning and management strategies;

	-Investigate how other recent stakeholder, government or community initiatives can be integrated
	into a regional plan (such as the draft NSW Oyster Industry Sustainable Aquaculture Strategy
	(DPI, 2005) and the Hornsby Shire Council's Community Sustainability Indicators Program
	(HSC, 2004));

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref -

Table 2 : Proposed LHEMP Project Timeline Month Actions

 2

	October 2006	Inception meeting and project planning
	November 2006	1 st participatory workshop (3 rd November) and document review
	December 2006	Document review
	January 2007	State of the Estuary Report written and distributed to stakeholders
	February 2007	2 nd participatory workshop (15 th February)
	March 2007	3 rd participatory workshop (1 st March)
	April 2007	Plan writing
	May 2007	Public exhibition of plan for comment
	June 2007	Plan rewrite
	July 2007	Plan submission to council
	August 2007	Plan implementation

Table 4 : Value table for "A unique and beautiful estuary of national significance" Value specifics

 4

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

Table 6 : Value table for "Largely undeveloped natural catchments and surrounding lands" Value specifics Stakeholders Resources

 6

Table 8 : Value table for "Sustainable economic industries" Value specifics

 8

Table 11 : Value table for "Community value" Value specifics

 11

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

Table 12 : Issue table for "Water quality and flows" Issue specifics Stakeholders Resources

 12

Table 15 : Issue table for "Social equity, cultural heritage protection and community participation" Issue specifics

 15

Table 17 : Issue table for "Infrastructure and facilities" Issue specifics

 17

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

Table 18 : Issue table for "Waterway use and impacts" Issue specifics Stakeholders Resources

 18

& * &

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

& = % " & % H &

& * 7

& % ( -' / & & (!# & $ 2 2 %

& % 8% & 1CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

' 2%.# & ! &

!!!8 !

& # & 0 & ' '* , CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref &

& # & ' '

& CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref &

? + ' & # & -CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ( &

!!!8 ! CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ! " # $ % " & ' &( ) # * + * , -* ) , & archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ! "#!$% & ' ( )& * + ,-. /001 % % 2 2 &#!( 3 ! archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ! .# archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ! +# ( +. archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref ! +# ( +.

-.

Perhaps one of the most surprising content results of the participatory modelling process was that effective or "good" water management was equated to the overarching This Appendix supplements Chapter 8 by extending the brief co engineering negotiation event summary table in the form of an interpretative description of the detailed co design and co implementation processes. A Table summarising the use of the decision aiding process model through the intervention and the translation of the final Elin Pelin risk response plan are also provided. Forum (LPSF) for the AquaStress project. The preliminary questionnaires which were to be used for the policy makers' and citizens' interviews were designed, although not quite how the researchers had intended. The researchers wanted to use cognitive mapping interviews but the Bulgarian facilitator did not feel comfortable enough with the technique that she had not used before and preferred more traditional structured questionnaires, especially with the citizens (Popova, 2008 -pers. comm.). She also thought performing 100 such interviews with citizens would take too long, arguments This Appendix provides supplementary information on the questionnaires and semi structured interview schemes used for the pilot trial and case study interventions.

Questionnaires from the LHEMP case are presented as part of the full research reports produced through the intervention, which are provided in Appendix I.

> # 5 0

The Hawkesbury Estuary Plan which is on public exhibition, and made available for stakeholder comment. The report on the first workshop was also distributed to stakeholders as part of the estuarine synthesis report prior to the second and third workshops.

Their references are as follows: Forster, P., Ramaswamy, V., Artaxo, P., Berntsen, T., Betts, R., Fahey, D. W., Haywood, J., Lean, J., Lowe, D. C., Myhre, G., Nganga, J., Prinn, R., Raga, G., Schulz, M. and Van Dorland, R. ( 2007

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This document presents the methodology designed for the stakeholder engagement process in the production of the new Lower Hawkesbury River Estuary Management Plan (LHEMP). A process description and findings from the first community stakeholder workshop that was held at the Hornsby Shire Council Chambers on Friday the 3 rd of November are also outlined.

The workshop was attended by a diverse range of representatives from State Government

Departments, Local Governments and community (including industry and residential) groups. The 30 participants worked through a variety of individual and group activities to develop a set of common values for the estuary and issues that are currently affecting its management. Goals and estuary management vision statements related to preserving these values were also elicited.

The wealth of stakeholder knowledge and opinions presented in this report show that workshop process was very productive. Participant evaluations of the workshop were also predominately positive and showed that the process had been effective in learning outcomes, helping the participants to get to know each other better and to share their views and opinions with others.

The information provided in this report, when combined with the document review of relevant existing reports, studies and legislation, will form a solid base for the following project stages and stakeholder workshops of the LHEMP creation.

Workshop Aims

The aim of the first workshop, as suggested in Table 1, was to define the current management situation in the Lower Hawkesbury River from the stakeholders' perspectives. This involved defining why the estuary is valued from each perspective and what issues currently need to be resolved, as well as goals and an overall vision for the estuary. More specifically, the objectives of the first workshop were to:

-Introduce the project;

-Introduce the participants to each other;

-Elicit a range of community and stakeholder values, issues and goals related to the estuary;

-Give all participants the opportunity to voice their opinions;

-Work collectively to understand the other participants' points of view and create a shared vision; and -Evaluate and obtain feedback about the project process and content in order to improve the next workshop.

Workshop Process Overview

The activities undertaken during the first workshop are given in the Agenda which can be found in Appendix A. To achieve the objectives outlined in Section 3.1, the day was broken down into three main sessions. Prior to morning tea, a general welcome and project introduction were given before starting the personal introductions and then writing down individual values and issues related to the estuary. Between morning tea and lunch, the participants broke out into small groups to discuss their collective values and issues. After lunch, a large group discussion was held to combine and contrast the findings from the four small groups and to distil a set of common values and goals for the estuary.

This process of starting with individual voices and opinions and slowly melding them into a collective vision is represented in Figure 2.

CemOA : archive ouverte d'Irstea / Cemagref

Participants were encouraged to localise their issues on the map to facilitate greater discussion and understanding amongst group members of the broad range of issues that were put forward. It was evident that some groups favoured working with this visual medium of expression, whereas others preferred to rest with lists of written material and discussion around them.

Once the groups had reviewed, selected and written their 6-10 values and issues on the matrices, they were asked to determine whether there were any interactions between them (which issues impact negatively upon the values), and if so, to mark the corresponding box. This allowed groups to see the most important issues to resolve that had the greatest impacts on a large number of values. The results of these matrices will be discussed further in Section 4.

As part of the small group sessions, participants were also asked (with the aid of their facilitator) to fill in a number of "value" and "issue" sheets for their most important values and issues using the general category headings from the matrices. The questions from the values and issues sheets are outlined in Table 3. Copies of the value and issue sheets used in the workshop are given in Appendices B and C. During the two hours dedicated to the small group activities, each group completed 7-8 sheets to varying degrees, as well as their matrices and issues maps. The groups working on their value and issue sheets with their facilitators are shown in Figure 8.

APPENDIX E PARTICIPANT ESTUARINE MANAGEMENT GOALS

In the final session of the workshop, participants were given an opportunity to brainstorm goals or overall vision statements for the Lower Hawkesbury Estuary relatively to the commonly defined values outlined in Section 4.1.

The un-edited goals that correspond closest to each of the values are presented here.

Goals for "A unique and beautiful estuary of national significance (scenic amenity)":

-"That the natural beauty and character of the estuary be valued and preserved for future generations"

-"Maintenance of the aesthetic value of the system"

-"Stewardship of estuary for community and national interest"

-"A healthy and scenic estuary in which to work and play"

-"Improve river health to benefit all users and environment preserving its unique qualities"

-"Maintenance of scenic quality" Goals for "Functional, sustainable ecosystems, and biodiversity":

-"An estuary that is receiving sufficient fresh natural unpolluted water flows from its catchment to sustain a healthy aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem"

-"Improved / protected fisheries, habitat and nursery areas, especially seagrass, saltmarsh"

-"Protect key ecosystem functions and services"

-"To maintain functional ecosystems and biodiversity"

-"To mitigate the effects of global warming on estuarine ecosystems and biodiversity"

-"Maintain or improve environmental services provided by the estuary to enable the values identified for the estuary to continue into the future"

-"Improve and maintain ecosystem function and integrity"

-"Balance between use of estuary and ecosystem sustainability"

-"That there is priority given to maintenance and/or restoration of the natural ecosystem of the estuary"

Goals for "Largely undeveloped natural catchments and surrounding lands":

-"To integrate the management and planning of the catchments terrestrial and aquatic environments to mitigate adverse impacts and enhance collective ecosystem services"

-"Conserve, protect and where possible enhance the natural resource basis of the estuary"

-"Recognition of limits to human usage within estuary e.g. infrastructure provision"

-"Maintenance of good quality (near natural, undeveloped areas -terrestrial and aquatic) areas and valuing of the environmental services they provide"

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" $ $"! 3BC 8. """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 1 """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" # !"! 8. ,8 """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" ' !"1 /B3D -B B" $ .. 3E""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" ( !"# B3 /B3D -B B" !"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 7 1"$ /B3D -B 8. """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" % 1"! /B3D -B 3B BF 3F8 /""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" $ 1"1 8 3B 8B 0 B 83. 8B B >B , ; 38 D """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" $ 1"# 38 D ,E 8 . -B """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" $! 1"' 8,8 D -B, 3 38 D ,E 8 """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" $# 1"( /-B, >3B 8 8B B 3

, """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" $% 1"7

83 """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" ! 1"& /B3D -B B" ! G 8B 83 3

, """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" !$ 1"% B3 /B3D -B B" 1"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" !( #"$ /B3D -B 8. """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 1! #"! /B3D -B 3B BF 3F8 /"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 1! #"1 8 3B 8B 0 3 B 83. 8B B >B , ; 38 D """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 11 #"# 3 >E .

8 > . -B """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 1' #"' 3 8 8 3 >E .

8 > """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 17 #"( 3 8 8 3 3 8 38= 8B """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 1% #"7 3 8 8 F , 8B G 8B 83 """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" # #"& /B3D -B B" 1 G 8B 83 3

, """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" #$ #"% ,-. 3B

, """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" #7

/38 8 > """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" '$

3B>3 . -> """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" '( '"! B.. B -38 D .

3B -""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" (! '"1 B. , H8 E 8 B E -8 8 >3 8B """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" (# '"# .B 8 B38 >; F , 8B . > . E , """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" (( '"'

. + : 5 ; ! 76 < 9, 4 -4)

3

: 5/=. , ; ! 76" + ;

" :;: B " "

, 4 -4) . + 5,-.

) .

-

- . @ . "

5! (6 3 ) . + 4 )" B P 3,Q 00..