Abstract:The European Union (EU) Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires EU member states to produce and implement river basin management plans, which are to be designed and updated via participatory processes that inform, consult with, and actively involve all interested stakeholders. The assumption of the European Commission is that stakeholder participation, and institutional adaptation and procedural innovation to facilitate it, are essential to the effectiveness of river basin planning and, ultimately, the environmental impact of the Directive. We analyzed official documents and the WFD literature to compare implementation of the Directive in EU member states in the initial WFD planning phase (2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009). Examining the development of participatory approaches to river basin management planning, we consider the extent of transformation in EU water governance over the period. Employing a mixed quantitative and qualitative approach, we map the implementation "trajectories" of 13 member states, and then provide a detailed examination of shifts in river basin planning and participation in four member states (Germany, Sweden, Poland and France) to illustrate the diversity of institutional approaches observed. We identify a general tendency towards increased, yet circumscribed, stakeholder participation in river basin management in the member states examined, alongside clear continuities in terms of their respective pre-WFD institutional and procedural arrangements. Overall, the WFD has driven a highly uneven shift to river basin-level planning among the member states, and instigated a range of efforts to institutionalize stakeholder involvement-often through the establishment of advisory groups to bring organized stakeholders into the planning process.

Participatory modeling engages the implicit and explicit knowledge of stakeholders to create formalized and shared representations of reality and has evolved into a field of study as well as a practice. Participatory modeling researchers and practitioners who focus specifically on environmental resources met at the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC) in Annapolis, Maryland, over the course of 2 years to discuss the state of the field and future directions for participatory modeling. What follows is a description of 12 overarching groups of questions that could guide future inquiry.Participatory approaches to resource management must involve those who are affected by the decisions that stem from environmental management decisions (Reed et al., 2009). Environmental resource management often requires a combination of descriptive and normative knowledges as well as local capacity for action (and inaction). Because resource users have such knowledge and capacity, local engagement is crucial in PM. However, there are imbricated layers of power between researchers and locals-often with researchers holding the balance of power due to their increased access to social goods such as money, formal education,

Abstract. Including stakeholders in environmental model building and analysis is an increasingly popular approach to understanding ecological change. This is because stakeholders often hold valuable knowledge about socio-environmental dynamics and collaborative forms of modeling produce important boundary objects used to collectively reason about environmental problems. Although the number of participatory modeling (PM) case studies and the number of researchers adopting these approaches has grown in recent years, the lack of standardized reporting and limited reproducibility have prevented PM's establishment and advancement as a cohesive field of study. We suggest a four-dimensional framework (4P) that includes reporting on dimensions of (1) the Purpose for selecting a PM approach (the why); (2) the Process by which the public was involved in model building or evaluation (the how); (3) the Partnerships formed (the who); and (4) the Products that resulted from these efforts (the what). We highlight four case studies that use common PM software-based approaches (fuzzy cognitive mapping, agent-based modeling, system dynamics, and participatory geospatial modeling) to understand human-environment interactions and the consequences of ecological changes, including bushmeat hunting in Tanzania and Cameroon, agricultural production and deforestation in Zambia, and groundwater management in India. We demonstrate how standardizing communication about PM case studies can lead to innovation and new insights about model-based reasoning in support of ecological policy development. We suggest that our 4P framework and reporting approach provides a way for new hypotheses to be identified and tested in the growing field of PM.

No abstract

Pressure on the world's water resources is increasing, restraining social and economic development in many countries, and threatening ecological values in others. In order to manage water resources in a more sustainable manner, new planning methodologies/processes for river basin management need to be developed. This study attempts to construct a set of useable normative criteria for the analysis and evaluation of such processes. The criteria were designed as a response to the lack of deductive approaches in the evaluation of methodologies and working procedures used in the context of river basin management, making it possible to highlight their potential for sustainable development. The criteria are based on the twin concepts of participation and integration. These concepts function as well-established dimensions of both sustainable development and sustainable river basin management, and they are of significant methodological relevance. A synthesis of the key aspects connected to the two concepts is undertaken, based on a broad literature review. Focus is laid on how in methodological terms, and in relation to regional water management, to achieve participation and integration in a decision-making or planning process. The criteria are concerned with how knowledge and values are integrated into the planning process and how commitment, legitimacy, or acceptance for the resulting plan is generated.