فرآیند لینک کردن به نتایج - معیارهای خارجی و داخلی برای مشارکت ذینفعان در مدیریت و برنامه ریزی حوزه رودخانه

Within the natural resource management and environmental governance literature, a number of authors have argued that there is a need to pay better attention to how the social processes of planning and management influence the outcomes of such processes. These outcomes are often measured through the quality of their outputs (plans or strategies) as well as whether the objectives of the plans or strategies are achieved. This paper contributes to this debate by reporting on a longitudinal evaluation of stakeholder engagement in developing and implementing River Basin Management Planning (RBMP) in Scotland. We illustrate how many of the process and outcome criteria promoted in the literature (the external perspective) appear to be less important to stakeholders than would be expected (the internal perspective). The paper argues that a combination of internal and external criteria is best placed to understand how to judge a ‘good’ process. This paper draws on literature from water management, other natural resource management sectors, spatial planning and environmental management,, so the findings are of interest to scholars interested in evaluation, participation, environmental or natural resource management, as well as those specifically interested in RBMP under the Water Framework Directive (WFD).

This paper was motivated by the tension experienced when taking a critical and constructivist perspective when assessing to what degree stakeholder involvement influenced the development and implementation of the Scottish River Basin Management Planning (RBMP) process. Such an aim needed to consider from whose perspective a judgement about success would be made. This paper is a response to several trends in the literature. Firstly, Parkins and Mitchell (2005) contrast a focus on outcomes (optimal decision making) with a focus on process (communication and understanding). However, combining outcome and process evaluation practises is recommended (Blackstock and Richards, 2007, Blackstock et al., 2007 and Sabatier et al., 2005). Secondly, many of the papers above focus on what should, not what does, happen in NRM governance processes. There has been little empirical evaluation of WFD planning processes in Europe (Irvine and O'Brien, 2009). Thirdly, where evaluations have taken place, most authors rely on external criteria from the literature. However, the definition of what is ‘good’ depends on whose judgements are taken into account. Success may be understood and evaluated quite differently by participants within the process (Santos and Chess, 2003). Webler et al. (2001) illustrates how views of ‘good’ can vary depending on the relative weighting that internal participants put on different criteria. However, there has been little exploration of the difference between criteria derived from the literature and from participants. Therefore the paper reflects on whether there are differences between internal (participant derived) and external (literature derived) criteria for judging success of the Scottish RBMP process. The research questions are: • What are the internal criteria for a good process and a good plan? • What are the results of applying these internal criteria? • Does an application of external criteria bring out new perspectives? This paper does not evaluate substantive outcomes (environmental or economic impacts) of RBMP. Implementation processes are still being developed and the objectives are not due until 2015 (or later if derogations were applied) thus any substantive evaluation could be premature. The paper briefly explains the case study application before explaining the methodological approach. The results are split into five parts; a summary of external criteria from the literature, introduction to the case study and methods, analysis of the process using the internal perspective, analysis of the process using the external perspective and finally a comparison of the two approaches. These findings are then discussed in light of the overall research aim before the main contributions are summarised in a conclusion. The increased interest in stakeholder engagement in Natural Resource Management (NRM) stems from two distinct literatures; improving the implementation of NRM, and deliberative democracy (Parkins and Mitchell, 2005). Despite significant resources being mobilised, water quality and quantity issues are pervasive and the transaction costs of institutions still higher than most administrations would like (Ostrom et al., 1999). Equally, the move towards deliberative democracy is due to the perceived failure of traditional democracy to respond to problems prioritised by society (Fischer, 2000). There are also non-academic drivers for evaluating participation, prompted by the Aarhus Convention (1998). These principles were translated into Article 14 of Water Framework Directive (WFD) (Ozerol and Newig, 2008), whereby participation ensures effective implementation (Newig et al., 2005) and counteracts the democratic deficit of the EU (Newig and Fritsch, 2009). Thus, the WFD is an example where policy has prompted changes in governance of NRM (Rauschmayer et al., 2009).

The implications of the above findings are that, for most participants, implementing the plan is more important than improving knowledge, or improving capacity and democratic legitimacy. The focus is on achieving a consensus on the minimum regulatory burden and the priorities for funding voluntary measures, echoing Borowski's (2010) German findings. This result is not surprising; given the RBMP process was framed as a task-and-finish orientated process. However, internally, efficiency measures such as finishing on time were not seen as important as having a well-supported plan, and participants continued to attend meetings despite the cost to their organisation. Thus, the implementation of RBMPs may be supported by aspects of stakeholder engagement. Initially, the co-ordinators argued that the process was ‘boring but necessary’ but the members' focus was on implementation. Most of the discussion was around what Vigar (2009) called the ‘hard infrastructure’ of plans and data rather than the ‘soft infrastructure’ of learning and relationships. However, by the final questionnaires, respondents appear to put more emphasis on process criteria. They retained the emphasis on implementing the plan, but they recognise that building better networks and deepening their understanding is linked to having more influence on the plan's implementation. Therefore, it is important to use criteria that are appropriate and seen as salient, legitimate and credible (Matthews et al., 2010) if the evaluation is to have traction with participants. Our paper has illustrated the value of involving a wide range of participants in setting the criteria and providing data to make the judgements. However, it is useful to combine internal and external perspectives, to draw attention to gaps. In this case, taking a purely internal approach would have missed aspects of process such as capacity building and outcomes such as impact on future generations. Some caution is required. Firstly, it is possible that some criteria not be seen as important by the internal participants, but may still be necessary to deliver a good plan and outcomes. Secondly, readers could deem the judgements of participants as less relevant than the judgements of non-participants who stand to gain or lose from the plan's objectives. Additionally, the plan may be judged as ‘good’ by those who feel responsible for its development, but these judgements may be questioned by others. It may be too early to tell if these judgements are sustained. Finally, these arguments are based on one case study. Whilst the data set is robust and the interpretations have been internally validated by participants, the findings remain a product of a particular set of histories and decisions. Stakeholders in other countries may have very different values when it comes to judging processes and plans. However our insights should also prove relevant for other planning processes, both for water management in beyond Europe, but also in other fields of natural resource management. For example there are many calls for better evaluation and monitoring of interventions for species or habitat conservation (e.g. Ferraro and Pattanayak, 2006) and often that monitoring should involve stakeholders in the intervention or outcomes (Danielsen et al., 2009). We suggest that these calls should also emphasis a need to carefully consider the criteria for success, and how these might potentially benefit from being co-constructed and updated with input from participants in the process. To do this, insights from other fields such as health and risk management may be helpful (e.g. Santos and Chess, 2003). This process will also support the widespread arguments for promote meaningful participation in natural resource management (Parkins and Mitchell, 2005). In general we highlight a need to carefully consider on what basis success should be evaluated, before making judgements. However, our findings also suggest a number of specific recommendations for future RBMP processes (and potentially planning processes in other fields). In terms of representation, participants need to come from a wide range of knowledge bases, including economic and social science backgrounds and be motivated to attend. It is important to clarify if they are there to act in private or public interests and ensure these are well balanced around the table. In terms of process, all participants, including the lead authority, need capacity building in systems thinking, problem framing and methods to develop solutions collectively; as well as how to handle uncertainty in objective-setting. Participants should recognise that planning is a political, not just technical, process and sufficient deliberative space provided to explore these conflicts, even if they cannot always be resolved. Finally, RBMP will require a range of methods to calculate trade-offs that go beyond classical economic instruments unsuited to the many dimensions of sustainability. Other implications are for future research; to include the need to go back to internal and external criteria for evaluating success in the future, to assess the effect on the economy and the environment, and the degree to which in-group costs and benefits have changed. However, linking processes to outcomes is difficult and we need appropriate methodologies to judge complex and dynamic processes (Newig and Fritsch, 2009 and Rauschmayer et al., 2009). Therefore we offer this paper as a contribution to an area that is ripe for further exploration.