slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Assessment of capacity development progress in IWRM PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Assessment of capacity development progress in IWRM

play fullscreen
1 / 22
Download Presentation

Assessment of capacity development progress in IWRM - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Download Presentation

Assessment of capacity development progress in IWRM

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Assessmentof capacitydevelopmentprogress in • IWRM • Readiness & Willingnessof the public toparticipate in IWM: Someinsightsfrom the Levant • Dr. Philippe KerRault & Dr. Heleen Vreugdenhil • • <date> May 2013

  2. Content • Background on public participation in IWM • Research Objectives & Questions • Theoretical Framework & Methodology • Individualknowledge of WM challenges • Attitude towardsparticipation • Conclusions • Recommendations

  3. Background • IWM is based on a participative approach, but… • WM is a complex societal problem: Solution identification is influenced by problem understanding (interconnection, interaction, uncertainty). • Public Participation is also subject to different interpretations, as a problem solving tool, it is a wicked concept. • ... But little is known on the readiness and willingness of the wider public to participate

  4. Background • Barrierstoimplementation • A barrier for implementation is the top-down (negative) perception of the wider public. • The perception that the wider public • is not well organised • has limited knowledge of water management challenges • Limited awareness of environmental problems • No holistic view of water management • Reasons: • Uneducated • Lack interest in environmental issues

  5. Research Objectives & Questions To present a grounded investigation of public knowledge of water management challenges and the publics’ attitude to participation in the Levant at river basin level • What is the individual knowledge of water management challenges at river basin level in the Levant? • 2. What is the public’s attitude to participation in water management: • their experiences, • willingness to participate and • expectations towards public participation? • 3. Are there statistical correlations between sociological descriptors such as gender, age, level of education and knowledge and attitude?

  6. Case Study • Areas Gökova Bay, Turkey Tartous, Syria Chekka Bay, Lebanon AZB, Jordan

  7. Theoretical Framework & Methodology • GroundedTheoryMethodology • Inductive & Theoretical • Qualitative & Quantitative approach • 8 Expert scoping interviews • 60 initial stakeholders questionnaires • 1800 questionnaires (social survey) • 121 decision-influencer open questionnaires-interviews

  8. Results: Individualknowledge How urgent is the need to make an effort to manage efficiently in your region? Perceivedneedtoimprove WM

  9. Results: Individualknowledge • Suggestionstoimprove WM

  10. Results: Individualknowledge • Suggestionstoimprove WM - examples of ‘VeryRichAnswers’ • Harvesting rainwater in every house/farms; • Use modern irrigation techniques (eg drip irrigation); • Water saving measures; • Financial schemes (eg fines for people not complying with rules); • Holding debates to enlighten people about the importance of water management processes 24% in Jordan & in Lebanon, 13% in Syria, 0% in Turkey

  11. Results Attitude toParticipate • Willingnesstobeinvolved in water debate

  12. Results Attitude toParticipate • Preferred type of involvement

  13. Results Attitude toParticipate • Preferred type of involvement

  14. Results Attitude toParticipate • Reasonsforparticipating

  15. Results: sociological descriptors • Role of gender, age and level of education on attitude towards Public Participation • No distinction between gender in all four study area • women and men have similar knowledge in WM and attitude towards participation. • Little distinction in age group • mid-age group (26-45 yrs old) has slightly higher knowledge in WM and willingness to participate than youngest and oldest respondents. • Level of educationimpacts the quality of answers, interest in WM and willingness to participate However, in Jordan and Lebanon respondents with lower education level were sometimes very knowledgeable and willing to participate

  16. Results: sociological descriptors • Correlation between perceived need to improve water management and quantity and quality of answers to • improve water management • change water consumption habits • the willingness to be involved in water debates.

  17. Conclusions • Content

  18. Conclusions: readiness • The public is rather interested, knowledgeable and aware that water scarcity must be addressed at both institutional and individual levels. • In the country with the lowest TARWR (Total Actual Renewable Water Resources ), Jordan, the population has the most comprehensive understanding of causes for poor water management.

  19. Conclusions: willingness • Public in all four areas is willing to participate, but more in low TAWRW countries than in high TAWRW countries • Preferred mode of participation is direct involvement • Prime objective for PP is to have power to communicate, express opinions and exchange personal understanding of the situation in which one lives, NOT to have power over decisions! • 3 mainsreasonstoparticipate: SOCIAL LEARNING • Givemyopinionsto the public authorityaboutfutureplans • Exchange views withothercitizensand stakeholders • Receivesome information aboutfutureplans the public authoritywillimplement

  20. Conclusions Conditions to foster public participation seem to require both 1- Political stability: an open society where opinions can be formed and exchanged, 2- Enough pressure on resources and services for the public to be interested and willing to take part in water management ...But... The apparent disorder of the wider public remains a strong hurdle to initiate the process

  21. Recommendations • 3-step approach to create structure between social actors and WM • Structuration of the problem • Structuration of the social actors and participative SK maps • Structuration of the process: who participate for what: what who when approach • KEY Messages • Public participation is a dynamic process & different types of participation for difference challenges • The performative power of participation is initially to construct a rich inclusive reality of the situation people experience.

  22. Purpose of 5th Symposium Thankyouforyourattention. Philippe Ange KER RAULTAlterra, Wageningen University, NL Heleen VREUGDENHIL ICIS, Maastricht University, NL Paul JEFFREY Centre for water science, Cranfield University, UK Jill HillarySLINGER TU Delft, Policy Analysis, NL