Effective stakeholder engagement is fundamental to water management, yet there are as many approaches to consultation as there are efforts. This paper provides an evaluation of, and lessons learned from three water management engagement processes, and uses this assessment to offer a framework for stakeholder engagement. The Stakeholder Engagement Wheel framework is centered on a bridging organization that ensures that the process continues to move forward, and a steering committee that guides and changes activities according to stakeholder interests and concerns. Around the Stakeholder Engagement Wheel are four steps designed to examine iteratively the water management issue driving the engagement process and expand the sphere of interests involved. Many engagement processes have limited effectiveness because of: (1) paucity of time; (2) complexity of water resources management; (3) difficulty of engaging diverse stakeholders; and (4) lack of methods for engagement that are centered on empowerment, equity, trust, and learning. In this study, we have encountered all four of these issues and have addressed all but the first through a deliberate, iterative, and flexible approach. By cycling through activities and actions as proposed in the Stakeholder Engagement Wheel, we can build a community of practitioners with the nuanced and shared understanding needed for cohesive action and robust decisions in the face our considerable challenges.

Despite increased understanding of the science of environmental flows, identification and implementation of effective environmental flow policies remains elusive. Perhaps the greatest barrier to implementing flow policies is the framework for water management. An alternative management approach is needed when legal rights for environmental flows do not exist, or are ineffective at protecting ecosystems. The research presented here, conducted in the U.S. state of Arizona, provides an empirical example of engagement to promote social learning as an approach to finding ways to provide water for the environment where legal rights for environmental flows are inadequate. Based on our engagement process we propose that identifying and then building common ground require attention to the process of analyzing qualitative data and the methods for displaying complex information, two aspects not frequently discussed in the social learning or stakeholder engagement literature. The results and methods from this study can help communities develop an engagement process that will find and build common ground, increase stakeholder involvement, and identify innovative solutions to provide water for the environment that reflect the concerns of current water users.

Abstract:The benefits of public participation in water management are recognized by governments, scholars, and stakeholders. These benefits, however, do not result from all engagement endeavors. This leads to the question: What are the determinants for effective public participation? Given a list of criteria for achieving the transformational capacity of participation, we analyze the benefits (including the influence on public policies) gained through public participation and the determinant factors for obtaining these benefits in the Ebro River Basin in Spain and in the Tucson Basin in Arizona (U.S.). Furthermore, and considering that droughts and floods are major water management challenges in both case studies, we focus on the potential of participation to build adaptive capacity. Our analysis of these case studies concludes that influence on public policies is determined more by the context of the participatory process, i.e., legal framework, political leadership, and social awareness, whereas influence on adaptive capacity building depends more on the characteristics of the participatory process, particularly the existence of active on-site consultation and deliberation.

Abstract:Stakeholder participation is a foundation of good water governance. Good groundwater governance typically involves the co-production of knowledge about the groundwater system. Models provide a vehicle for producing this knowledge, as well as a "boundary object" around which scientists and stakeholders can convene the co-production process. Through co-production, stakeholders and scientific experts can engage in exchanges that create system knowledge not otherwise achievable. The process involves one-way transfer of information, active two-way conversations, and integration of multiple kinds of knowledge into shared understanding. In the Upper Santa Cruz River basin in Arizona, USA, the University of Arizona Water Resources Research Center (WRRC) convened a project aimed at providing scientific underpinnings for groundwater planning and management. This project, entitled Groundwater, Climate, and Stakeholder Engagement, serves as a case study employing the first two stages of knowledge co-production using a hydrological model. Through an iterative process that included two-way communication, stakeholders provided critical input to hydrologic modeling analyses. Acting as a bridging organization, the WRRC facilitated a co-production process, involving location-specific and transferability workshops, which resulted in new knowledge and capacity for applying the model to novel problems.

Conservation scientists call for establishing additional protected areas amidst ongoing threats of expanding human development. Nevertheless, some existing protected areas are being downsized and demoted of their existing conservation protections. In 2001, the Roadless Area Conservation Rule prohibited road construction and timber harvest in 240,000 km 2 of inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) located on United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service lands. IRAs represent a non-legislative protected status that is in jeopardy of conservation demotion or "degazettement," and few national protected area assessments recognize the IRA designation. Since the rule's conception two decades ago, little research has been conducted to assess the conservation values of IRAs and the values they could add to the existing system of highly protected areas in the continental United States. To increase understanding of these conservation values, we assessed three aspects of roadless areas: (a) how wild and intact are IRA lands compared to state, national, and protected lands, (b) how do IRAs complement the size, connectedness, and representation of protected lands, and (c) how do IRAs contribute to protection of important ecosystem services (drinking water and annual carbon capture)? Through this analysis we found that many IRAs are among the most wild, undeveloped areas both in the nation and within their respective states. IRAs increase the size of-and reduce isolation between-protected areas, likely buffering them from external stressors. In some places, IRAs protect watersheds that deliver drinking water to hundreds of thousands of people. IRAs also add significantly to the total carbon captured by existing protected areas. The results of our evaluation demonstrate the potential of IRAs to contribute to the conservation value of the U.S. protected area system and to deliver important ecosystem services.