Collaborative planning in integrated water
resources management: the use of decision
support tools
A N N E U B B E L S
R1ZA, Institute for Inland Water Management and Waste Water Treatment, PO Box 17. 5200 A A Lefystad, The Netherlands
e - m a i l : a . u b b e l s @ h k w . r w s . m i n v e n w . n l
A N N E M I E K J. M . V E R H A L L E N
Department of Environmental Sciences, Sub-department of Water Resources, Wageningen University, Nieuwe Kanaal II, 6709 PA Wageningen, The Netherlands
Abstract The introduction of collaborative planning in integrated water resources management (IWRM) requires new decision support tools (DST) to support the integration of scientific technical knowledge in to the process, together with the dialogue between stakeholders. Decision support systems are used frequently, but there are other (less well known) tools available. To decide whether or not a certain DST is suitable for a collaborative planning process, guidelines for the choice of tools should be provided. Criteria for the use of DST and general conclusions on the suitability of three groups of DST are described.
K e y w o r d s c r i t e r i a t o r d e c i s i o n s u p p o r t ; c o l l a b o r a t i v e p l a n n i n g ; d e c i s i o n s u p p o r t s y s t e m s ; e v a l u a t i o n o f d e c i s i o n s u p p o r t t o o l s ; g a m i n g t e c h n i q u e s ; integrated w a t e r r e s o u r c e s m a n a g e m e n t
C O L L A B O R A T I V E P L A N N I N G P R O C E S S E S Towards a new way of planning
Integrated water resources management has introduced a growing complexity: water resources management n o w involves numerous aspects (environmental management, economic development, public health, social well-being), multiple goals, the mitigation of side effects and unforeseen impacts, and multiple users. Growing public awareness has led numerous interested parties (stakeholders) to wish to b e involved in decisions about their environment. All these stakeholders have their own (and often conflicting) interests, views and opinions. To ensure support for plans, decisions and actions that have to be carried out, it has become increasingly important to create an adequate level of consensus among all stakeholders.
The Dutch system of decision making has a legally formalized method of citizen participation. Plans and decisions are prepared by public authorities, the plans are made public and hearings are organized to give citizens and stakeholders an oppor tunity to react to these proposals. As a result, a proposal sometimes is slightly adjusted before it is agreed upon by the authorities. After this final decision, opponents have legal rights to fight this in court, first at a lower court, and ultimately at the High Court of Justice. However, the existing sfructure of citizen participation does not lead to a basis of agreement or acceptance, but rather to conflicts. Legal opposition by citizens and
pressure groups frequently results in long judicial procedures. As a result, plans are
delayed for a long time (Van de Ven et al, 1998). Unease about the existing procedures
and the wish of numerous parties to be actively involved in decisions on their environment has stimulated a movement to reconsider and change citizen participation.
New methods for collaborative planning
To enhance the potential for creative solutions and support, a common understanding among all stakeholders at an early stage of planning must be created. Solutions should be sought through a process of cooperation between stakeholders, i.e. collaborative planning processes. Collaborative planning processes are processes where all the stake holders (affected citizens, parties and agencies) are involved together with the prop onents of water resources planning and management (Bender & Simonovic, 1997).
Within The Netherlands, several methods for collaborative planning have been developed and are still developing. Similarities between the methods lie in the fact that they are all aimed at involving civilians and other stakeholders in the planning process. Differences between these methods exist mainly in the way people are actively involved at the stages of problem definition and generation of solutions. A frequently used method is Infraplan, which has been developed at the Department of Waterways and Public Works in The Netherlands. Infraplan consists of several phases in which all stakeholders together make an inventory of the perceived problems and generate possible solutions. This way of working is not new in itself, but the primary role of stakeholders is.
In the traditional approach to decision making in I W R M , plans and decisions were strongly based on scientific, technical and economic information produced and delivered by experts. The newly developed methods make use of the knowledge, opinions and experience that is present in society. Because all the energy is put into the involvement of stakeholders, there is no room and limited attention to the use of scientific-technical information within these new methods. On the other hand, technical experts are not used to working with people from different backgrounds and different levels of knowledge. The models and tools used by the experts do not meet the needs of stakeholders. However, in order to make good and sound decisions on water management both scientific-technical and the "every-day" knowledge of the public are important. Thus, it is time to re-balance the involvement of stakeholders and the use of scientific-technical knowledge in collaborative planning processes. In order to do so, it is important to provide clear guidelines on the use of tools that can support the required integration of scientific-technical knowledge and the dialogue between stakeholders.
D E C I S I O N S U P P O R T T O O L S Categories of decision support tools
To stimulate the use of scientific-technical knowledge as well as improve the dialogue between stakeholders, and between stakeholders and experts, several tools can be used.
W e name these tools decision support tools (DST) since they are all aimed at supporting planning and decision making. The most well known are decision support systems (DSS), but other (less well known) tools aimed to improve and support communication between stakeholders can be of benefit too. Examples of such tools are gaming techniques, group decision software, the internet, etc.
The variety of DST is enormous but not every tool is known or used. Therefore guidelines should be provided on when and how to use DST. The first step is to categorize the range of DST. W e have created three categories: (a) gaming techniques/ simulation role-play; (b) decision support systems (DSS) with an emphasis on simulation and prediction; and (c) general support tools (GST) related to activities like stimulating discussion or consensus building.
Gaming techniques The term gaming techniques refers to the use of a particular kind of simulation model that includes role-playing by persons participating in the operation of the model. In gaming, human players replicate the roles of interdependent decision makers. The involvement of stakeholders in planning processes has increased the interest in the use of this technique. Three uses can be identified for gaming in I W R M : to prepare management alternatives in the planning process itself (identify pitfalls or potential win-win situations), to train for (rare) operational situations (e.g. floods) and so improve performance in an emergency, and to gain awareness (education function: what information is needed, how decisions are made, insight into the position of stakeholders).
Decision support systems The complex models and techniques used in I W R M are not suited for collaborative planning processes, therefore they developed into a D S S . A large number of DSS have been developed to support decision making with expert knowledge. DSS use mathematical model calculations to produce information which is comprehensible and helpful to decision makers and stakeholders, facilitates public accountability in the way decisions are reached, and helps win acceptance for plans (Jamieson & Fedra, 1996). Most o f t h e existing DSS are designed to generate technical infonnation on the effects of water management measures.
General support tools GST cover a broad range of computer software mostly intended to improve communication between actors. Examples of GST are:
- Group decision software, such as electronic decision rooms where participants input their personal ideas, comments, solutions, etc. directly on to a computer workstation. Special software can then be used to structure, group and rank this information. Communication between stakeholders is anonymous, allowing honest and direct electronic discussions.
- Cognitive mapping is a method of defining relationships between concepts involved in a planning problem. A m a p of the problem is created in which causes, effects, measures, functions, goals and so on are schematized and relationships between them are defined by arrows. Implicit knowledge (available only in the participants' minds) can be stored analysed and presented.
- Virtual reality is a representation of (spatial) information in three dimensions, based on graphic computer techniques. Three-dimensional visualizations are frequently used in spatial decision making (location of highways, nuclear disposal
sites, etc.), but not yet in IWRJVI (e.g. for location of water reservoirs, re-engin eering of rivers or lakes, water-landscaping, etc.).
- Internet discussion groups provide the opportunity to open up important national decisions to a much wider audience and actually to involve the public (or sections of it) more directly. However, differences in age, background, education, occupation, etc. call for the provision of different levels of information to ensure effective interaction.
- Multi-criteria analysis tools (MCA) are commonly used to evaluate and rank information in the decision-making process. M C A tries to rank alternatives in the light of different criteria and priorities. A typical feature of multi-criteria analysis is the weighting of assessment criteria to achieve a classification of alternatives.
Supported activities
As mentioned earlier, almost all DST claim to support planning and decision making. However, supporting planning and decision making is a very broad objective. To decide whether or not a certain tool is suitable for a collaborative planning process we need to specify more clearly which activities take place in a planning process. In various studies, planning processes have been subdivided into a number of phases. For the purpose of this study, we have distinguished six phases: (1) design of the process; (2) problem definition; (3) search for solutions; (4) analysis of the alternatives and modelling; (5) presentation and discussion of (model) results; and (6) the policy choice. In reality the process is not sequential and the phases do not occur chronologically. However, the division gives us the opportunity to distinguish activities for each phase. Activities are named and listed in Table 1 as a result of intensive study of the literature and discussions with leaders of projects involving (collaborative) planning processes (Keeney & Raiffa, 1976; Simonovic, 1996).
Table 1 Activities in a collaborative planning process.
Activities/Phases 1 2 3 4 5*
Communication X X X X X
Storing generated knowledge X X X X X
Collective problem definition X
Incorporating divergent views X X
Identifying objectives/goals X X
Consensus building X X X
Identifying evaluation criteria X X X
Seeking possible solutions X
Initial ranking of possible solutions X
Translation of solutions into alternatives X X
Estimating effects of alternatives X
Visualization of effects X Comparing alternatives X Choosing an alternative X * D e c i s i o n m a k i n g is in fact a m a t t e r o f c h o o s i n g b e t w e e n d i f f e r e n t a l t e r n a t i v e s . T h e d e c i s i o n m a k e r is r e s p o n s i b l e for s e l e c t i n g t h e final a l t e r n a t i v e . T h a t is w h y t h e r e a r e a l i m i t e d n u m b e r o f a c t i v i t i e s d u r i n g t h i s p h a s e . It is t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e d e c i s i o n m a k e r s to e n s u r e t h a t t h e final d e c i s i o n is c o m m u n i c a t e d lo all s t a k e h o l d e r s .
C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S O F D E C I S I O N S U P P O R T T O O L S
Because of the enormous supply and diversity in D S T , it is difficult for project managers in I W R M to decide whether or not a certain tool is suitable for a collab orative planning project or not. Therefore, we have determined the main characteristics of decision support tools and designed operational criteria for these characteristics on which DST can be scored. Characteristics are determined by searching the literature, talking to experts in the field of decision support tools, and examining the different tools in detail. W e have distinguished five main characteristics: user-friendliness, collaboration, transparency, flexibility, and assessment.
User-friendliness means that a tool must be easy to use, especially when groups of participants with different features (e.g. different knowledge levels) are involved. The user should not need to be acquainted with highly professional language and he/she should be guided through the process by a clear manual or built-in help function.
Collaboration refers to the prerequisites for collaborative processes, i.e. ones where stakeholders are actively involved. Prerequisites are, for example, that the tool should support the achievement of a collective problem definition at the start of the project, that the tool includes some mechanism for achieving final consensus, where possible, or for revealing the different perceptions of the problem where no consensus is achievable.
Transparency refers to the fact that the assumptions and constraints under which the tool operates should be explicit and visible. A transparent tool will also visualize the uncertainties in the estimation of the effects.
Flexibility means that the tool can be used in relation to a wide range of policy questions without needing to be rebuilt. A tool is flexible in use if the database and models it uses can be easily changed in response to emerging information needs, and if changes in boundary and other conditions can be easily incorporated.
Assessment refers to the fact that a tool can have different objectives. A tool can either perform an integrated analysis of all relevant aspects (disciplines) of a problem, or analyse just one aspect of it. They can use rapid or comprehensive modelling, or expert systems. Some tools can help to identify goals and objectives, support the search for possible solutions, and rank and translate the possible solutions into alternatives.
Since these characteristics are still very broad, operational criteria for each of them have been defined. The criteria relate to the activities which take place during the course of a planning process (Table 1). The operational criteria are listed in Table 2.
E V A L U A T I O N O F DST: C O N C L U S I O N S A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S To provide some clarity on the suitability of the different categories of D S T foi-collaborative planning processes, we have evaluated three (or more) tools from each category: gaming techniques, D S S , and GST. A questionnaire was drawn up cont aining the operational criteria for each characteristic to evaluate the tools. By means of the scores for the tools conclusions were drawn on the suitability of the tools to support the activities as listed in Table 1. A more detailed description of this evaluation can be found in Ubbels & Verhallen (2000).
Table 2 Characteristics and operational criteria of DST. Characteristics Criteria Transparency User-friendliness Collaboration Well-organized screen
Background knowledge necessary Language (professional or simple) Encouraging communication Storing generated knowledge
Divergent views incorporated in the tool Model assumptions and constraints clarified
Possible to define new (policy) questions or measures
Visualization
Guidance through the tool Insight into modelling needed Identifying evaluation criteria Mechanisms for consensus-building Collective problem definition Uncertainties calculated and visualized
Flexibility Flexible architecture
Assessment
Initial ranking of solutions Simple linear relations (no comprehensive calculations) Integrated analysis
Identifying goals and objectives Search for possible solutions
Solutions translated into alternatives Expert systems
Detailed complex models Comparing alternatives Effects estimated by computer modelling
The initial conclusions based on this evaluation are that gaming techniques perform well in most of the activities undertaken in the first phases of a planning process (collective problem definition, identifying objectives, etc.). DSS score less well in relation to activities in the initial phase but are clearly the best tools for analysing effects of alternatives. GST can be used throughout the whole process since they are mostly aimed at facilitating communication and visualization.
We may also conclude that present DSS are not supporting actual social interaction between people. They are too comprehensive and time-consuming to be directly used in a collaborative planning process. DSS are tools for professionals wishing to analyse the behaviour of water systems and the effects of possible meas ures. Although most systems claim to have user-friendly interfaces, they are generally only user-friendly for the expert and not for the less experienced user.
Both gaming techniques and GST are rarely used in I W R M . Their limited use seems to be due to ignorance, a certain lack of interest and the low priority given to communication in the planning process, because of the strong focus on the deter mination of different effects in IWRM. The use of gaming and GST in I W R M should therefore be stimulated.
Collaborative planning requires specific tools for the integration of scientific-technical knowledge in the dialogue between stakeholders. DST can be very helpful during the process but it should be kept in mind that there are no generic tools. Each planning process has its own characteristics and the available tools always need adaptation or fine tuning. W e recommend that the choice of a DST is not made randomly in the course of the process, but receives thorough attention before starting a planning process. The list of characteristics and operational criteria as presented in this paper can serve as a useful guideline. This study is written from the point of view of an expert; further studies should evaluate whether stakeholders experience DST to be of surplus-value to the process.
R E F E R E N C E S
Bender, M. J. & Simonovie, S. P. (1997) Consensus as the measure of sustainabilily. Hydrol. Sci. J. 42(4), 4 9 3 - 5 0 0 .
Jamieson, D. G. & Fedra, K. (1996) The "WaterWare" decision-support system for river-basin planning. I. Conceptual design.
J. Hydrol. 1 7 7 , 1 6 3 - 1 7 5 .
Keeney, R. L. & Raiffa, H. (1976) Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. Wiley, New York, USA. Simonovie, S. P. (1996) Decision support systems for sustainable management of water resources: I. General principles. Water
International 21(4), 2 2 3 - 2 4 4 .
Ubbels, A. & Verhallen, J. M. (2000) Suitability of decision support systems for collaborative planning processes in water resources management. RlZA-rapport 99.067, ISBN 903695293x.
Van de Ven, F. H. M., Van Haperen, H. & Ubbels, A. (1998) New ways for decision making in water management and their effects on decision support systems. In: Lowland Technology Proceedings (ed. by N . Miura). Institute of Lowland Technology, Saga, Japan.
