participative multi-criteria analysis for the evaluation of …€¦ · ·...

E C O L O G I C A L E C O N O M I C S 6 8 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 9 9 0 – 1 0 0 5

ava i l ab l e a t www.sc i enced i r ec t . com

www.e l sev i e r. com/ loca te / eco l econ

ANALYSIS

Participative multi-criteria analysis for the evaluation of watergovernance alternatives. A case in the Costa del Sol (Málaga)

P. Paneque Salgadoa,1, S. Corral Quintanab, Â. Guimarães Pereirac, L. del Moral Ituarted,B. Pedregal Mateosd,⁎aDepartamento de Geografía, Historia y Filosofía, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Carretera de Utrera Km. 1. 41013 Sevilla, SpainbDepartamento de Economía de las Instituciones, Estadística Económica y Econometría, Universidad de La Laguna, Campus de Guajara,s/n. 38071 La Laguna, S/C de Tenerife, SpaincInstitute for the Protection and the Security of the Citizen, European Commission, DG Joint Research Centre,Via E. Fermi, 1. 21020 (VA) Ispra, ItalydDepartamento de Geografía Humana, Universidad de Sevilla, C/. María de Padilla, s/n. 41004 Sevilla, Spain

A R T I C L E I N F O

⁎ Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P. Paneq

[email protected] (L. del Moral Ituarte), bpedrega1 Fax: +34 954349817.

0921-8009/$ - see front matter © 2006 Elsevidoi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.11.008

A B S T R A C T

Article history:Received 24 October 2005Received in revised form16 October 2006Accepted 9 November 2006Available online 22 December 2006

This paper presents the results of a participatory multi-criteria evaluation of urban watersupply alternatives in Costa del Sol Occidental in Málaga (Spain). Multi-criteria and socialresearch techniques were combined, relying on social actors' involvement throughout theresearch work. The paper documents that participatory processes allowed to unveilframings, perspectives, values and interests, as well as understanding of the social andinstitutional context in which the waters are governed. The deployment of thismethodological approach has in this case provided an extended diagnosis which was thestarting point to explore non a priori foreseen management alternatives by the researchers.The methodological approach proved useful for problem structuring in a collective, flexibleand iterative way, unveiling existing water management conflicts and their motivations,and improving the quality and effectiveness of the information exchange and the reflectionprocess, among social actors, even if the whole process developed in a research settingrather than in a policy for real one. Participatory multi-criteria evaluation could in this case,contribute to identify policy options that could be better defended before all the socialactors, including the general public, thus attempting to achieve shared ground. The papersuggests some methodological considerations for applying participatory multi-criteriaevaluation based on the outcomes of the case study application.

© 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords:Water governanceIntegrated evaluationMulti-criteria evaluationParticipation

1. Introduction

The European Union Water Framework Directive (WFD) (CEC,2000) establishes a compulsory framework for EU Community

ue Salgado), [email protected]@us.es (B. Pedregal Mate

er B.V. All rights reserved

action in the field of water policy (see Antunes and Ferreira inthis volume). The key objective of the directive is to achieve by2015 “good water status” for all European surface water andgroundwater. One of the five main instruments that will be

s (S. Corral Quintana), [email protected] (Â. Guimarães Pereira),os).

.

mailto:[email protected]





http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.11.008

991E C O L O G I C A L E C O N O M I C S 6 8 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 9 9 0 – 1 0 0 5

used to reach this objective is Public Participation, indicatingperhaps that extended assessment frameworks are desirableto govern European river basins.

WFD does not explicitly call for integrated approaches toimplement the several processes governing the EuropeanUnion waters, but it is recognised that “integrated” sorts ofevaluations have to be performed both in the water assess-ment and integrated assessment literature (see for instance,Rothman and Robinson, 1997; Neupane, 2003; Jønch-Clausenand Fugl, 2001; Jakeman and Letcher, 2001; Letcher et al., 2004).More specifically to deal with social, economical and environ-mental aspects, such as:

i) the Directive's own wordings of “sustainable activities”,“significant effects”, “significantly better environmentaloptions”, “environmental and socio-economical needs”which call for multi-dimensional analysis;

ii) the complexity and uncertainty associated with avail-able knowledge to govern, plan or foresight the waterresources of the EU;

iii) the gaps of scientific and technical knowledge about thewater resources and the need to extend the epistemo-logical basis to knowledge other than scientific ortechnical;

iv) the request for involving relevant social actors in thegovernance processes acknowledging a key feature ofwater governance: plurality of interests, of perspectives,of values and of relationships with water. WFD article14. on public information and consultation establishesin its first paragraph that “Member States shall encour-age the active involvement of all interested parties inthe implementation of this Directive (…).”

The “economics and the environment” guidance document(WATECO, 2003) for the implementation of the Directiveproposes evaluation tools mostly of economic and cost-effectiveness nature. The authors of that document pointout that other expertise and dimensions should be included inassessment processes of water resources. Hence, we wouldargue that such assessment processes require the inclusion ofother expertise, other knowledge and other dimensions ofanalysis processed with tools that:

i) do not amalgamate those multiple dimensions into asingle scale of measurement because they pertain todifferent actors involved in decision processes thatrepresent knowledge in disparate ways;

ii) acknowledge the inherent complexity of different typesof knowledge;

iii) account for associated uncertainty; andiv) since the framework seems to acknowledge extended

participation of relevant social actors, evaluation toolsshould also be able to operate with shared framing,scoping and assessment via participatory settings(Guimarães Pereira et al., 2003a).

Other regulation in Europe, namely the regulation onimpact assessment (CEC, 2001) requires integrated evalua-tions to be performed. Integrated evaluation calls for types oftools that desirably feature the elements described above,

being the only way off to responding to the inclusionary spirit ofthe WFD for some of its parts.

In this paper we argue that multi-criteria evaluationtechniques combined with institutional and social researchmethodologies (e.g. examination of normative context, anal-ysis of national and local media, study of political-economicprocesses, in-depth interviews, questionnaires, opinion polls,seminars, focus groups, participant observation) (Corral Quin-tana, 2000) can help with actual implementation of extendedintegrated evaluations.

2. Multi-criteria evaluation

There are a myriad of multi-criteria techniques, the ones thatinterest this study are the so-called “discrete” multi-criteriaevaluation methods, i.e. a finite set of alternatives is consid-ered in the evaluation (see for instance, Bana e Costa, 1990;Maystre et al., 1994; Munda, 1995). Roy (1985) pointed out that“the main aim of multiple criteria decision aid is not todiscover a solution, but to construct or create a set of relationsamongst actions that better inform the actors taking part in adecision process”.

Multi-criteria evaluation techniques have been deployed toaddress environmental management issues in several con-texts, (see for instance, Romero and Rehman, 1989; Funtowiczet al., 1990; Janssen, 1992; Janssen, 2001; Maystre et al., 1994;Munda, 1995; Guimarães Pereira, 1996; Beinat, 1997; Beinat andNijkamp, 1998; Martínez-Alier et al., 1998; Munda et al., 1998;Ringius et al., 1998; Salminen et al., 1998; Stewart and Joubert,1998; De Marchi et al., 2000; Kheireldin and Fahmy, 2001;Funtowicz et al., 2002; Guimarães Pereira and Corral Quintana,2002; Espelta et al., 2003;Munda, 2005a,b; Polatidis et al., 2006;Munda, 2006a,b; Gamboa and Munda, in press). In many ofthese applications multi-criteria evaluation techniques wereused as the framework in which the whole assessment processtakes place, that is, not only including the identification andcomparison of alternatives through a set of evaluation criteria,which are usual tasks of the multi-criteria evaluation processbut also it supported the process of issue framing, includingidentification of governance issues, as well as identification ofrelevant social actors, allowing the inclusion of multipleperspectives in the evaluation of alternatives, and conflictanalysis. In some cases the framework offers the means fortriggering a debate and/or a reflection about relevant alter-natives and evaluation criteria for the environmental manage-ment or policy issue being tamed.

In the last decade multi-criteria evaluation applicationsboth in research and policy contexts (see for instance, DeMarchi et al., 2000; Soncini-Sessa et al., 2000; Hämäläinen et al.2001; Ashley et al., 2002; Guimarães Pereira and CorralQuintana, 2002; Munda, 2004, 2006a) have also evolved, fromtechnocratic to participatory approaches, embedding thecontext in which decisions are taking place. Indeed, not onlythe algorithmic features have evolved to allow different typesof criteria scales, i.e. different types of information, to beprocessed simultaneously, but also the place of multi-criteriaevaluation methods in the decision-making process haschanged. They have been used by researchers and practi-tioners as structuring tools, to support deliberation and

992 E C O L O G I C A L E C O N O M I C S 6 8 ( 2 0 0 9 ) 9 9 0 – 1 0 0 5

decision-making processes, assisting on framing, scoping andgeneration of alternatives tasks and eventually evaluation andcomparison of alternatives.

The active involvement of interested parties is a necessarycondition to legitimise decision-making processes whendealing with complex issues characterised by high stakesand systems’ uncertainties (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1992, 1993).Ethical judgments are an intrinsic component of assessmentexercises, determining the overall outcome. Transparency con-cerning assumptions made throughout the whole process isessential as a guarantee for maintaining the study's quality(Moral and Pedregal, 2003).

2.1. Multi-criteria embedment of social context

Thiswork has certainly been inspired by other authors' work oncombining social research methodologies with multi-criteriaevaluation. The motivations for these types of combinationare probably quite different among the researchers community.Flavours of this concept include Munda's (2004) concept ofsocial multi-criteria evaluation (SMCE) which incorporates thenotion of participative and transparent social actors’ involve-ment in the multi-criteria structuring and evaluation phases,arguing however that participation is a necessary conditionbut not a sufficient one to carry out policy evaluation, whichsuggests that multi-criteria evaluation could be also used inother phases of the policymaking in a less inclusiveway and forthe purposes of legitimating policy making. Other importantflavours of this concept that interest the work developed herecan be found for instance in Banville et al. (1998) where theauthors refer to “participative multi-criteria” or “stakeholdermulticriteria decisions aid” or Mustajoki et. al. (2004) andMadlener& Stagl (2005) “participatorymulti-criteria evaluation”which is also used in Guimarães Pereira et al. (2003a,b), wherethe authors refer to a process where a multi-criteria tool, in-cluding the concept and the software, is used within participa-tory multi-criteria evaluation group research settings, and notjust as a mere way to frame and “digest” the outcomes of theparticipatory processes, as for instance described for a watergovernance issue in Troina (Sicily) in De Marchi et al. (2000). InGuimarães Pereira et al. (2003a and 2003b) the multi-criteriasetting is used both to guide the assessment, and also as asocial learning tool and as a “prop” to engage social actors in theassessment rationale. Indeed, it is in this sense that the workpresented here is developed. In Guimarães Pereira (2003a,b) themulti-criteria setting is used both to guide the assessment, butalso as a social learning tool and as a “prop” to engage socialactors in the assessment rationale. Indeed, it is in this sensethat the work presented here is developed.

Generally, two types of improvementmay be expectedwhensocial research techniques are combined with multi-criteriaones. The first refers to the enhancement of transparency ofpolicy making (Corral Quintana, 2000; Munda, 2004), i.e.“extended” representation of assumptions, interests and valuesin this case framed into different alternatives, different dimen-sions and criteria of assessment and even different importanceindications. The second deals with the multi-criteria method-ology itself. Through this combination, the multi-criteriaanalysis pitfalls concerning its technocratic character may beovercome, since the practitioner develops together with the

engaged social actors, evaluation criteria and alternatives,which are expected to better mirror the expectations ofinstitutional and societal contexts. In Guimarães Pereira et al.(2003b) it is argued that in policy making such combinations oftechnocratic tools and social research ones are means ofassuring the quality of the processes where they are applied,in the sense of social robustness and fitness for purpose.

Moreover, combining social research techniques that allowinvolvement of the relevant social actors in an evaluationprocess, namely surveys, in-depth interviews and focusgroups, with multi-criteria ones improves the understandingof the results of the assessments and clarifies the positions ofthe social actors involved in the policy process (see forinstance: EC-JRC, 1998; Corral Quintana, 2000; De Marchiet al., 2000; Guimarães Pereira et al., 2003a,b; Munda, 2004;2005a,b,c; Madlener and Stagl, 2005). This approach can “alsobe extended as a means to identify and articulate the socialcontexts where decisions are made or considered” (CorralQuintana and Funtowicz, 1998). In this combination of par-ticipatory and multi-criteria tools, different participatorymethods are used at different stages of the study, allowingfor continuous testing of assumptions and biases of theresearch/practitioners team (Munda, 2004).

2.2. NAIADE

NAIADE stands for Novel Approach to Imprecise Assessmentand Decision Environments; it is a multi-criteria methodoriginally developed at the Joint Research Centre by Munda(1995) and implemented as software at the Directorate GeneralJoint Research Centre, Ispra site (EC-JRC, 1996) — © 1997–2006European Communities. It is a discrete multi-criteria method,based on some aspects of the partial comparability axiomwhich features mixed information types and conflict analysis.Because it operates within fuzzy contexts, any attempt to reacha high degree of precision on the results tends to be somewhatartificial, and therefore a pairwise linguistic evaluation of alter-natives is used. This is done by means of the notion of fuzzyrelations, basedon “semantic”distancebetween linguistic qual-ifiers (the distance between qualifiers like “good”, “better” etc.).

Conflict analysis in NAIADE is done by constructing an“equity matrix”, which gives a linguistic indication of thegroups of interest's judgements for each of the alternativeactions. A similarity matrix is then computed, which gives anindex, for each pair of the groups of interest, on the similarityof judgment over the proposed alternatives.

So, NAIADE supplies the userwith twopiecesof information:a ranking of the alternative actions based on the selected deci-sion criteria, and a second (normally different) ranking of the“acceptability” of these alternatives by the stakeholder groups.

NAIADEwas used to develop the work presented in Section3 of this paper. NAIADE offers a series of featureswhichmakesit ideal for the study of socio-environmental problems throughits possible combination with socio-institutional analysis. Inaddition it responds to some criticisms that multi-criteriamethods have received in the past (e.g. on informationprocessing and outcomes) with some unique features:

i) it allows the use of information affected by different typesand degrees of uncertainty, such as qualitative,


quantitative, precise and fuzzy information, which is ofgreat importance when processing information that isnot wholly accurate, reliable, exhaustive andunequivocal;

ii) there is no differential weighting of the different criteriaused to evaluate the alternatives, i.e. the criteria are notprioritised according to whether they are economic,environmental, social or institutional in nature;

iii) the purpose is not to produce an undisputable or“optimum” ranking of alternatives, but to structure theproblematique and provide a framework for communica-tion among the social actors involved.

The NAIADE multi-criteria framework allows for two typesof mutually enriching evaluations. The first is multi-criteriaanalysis based on the impact matrix where alternatives arecompared according to the score values assigned to eachcriteria. The second is equity evaluation, based on the equitymatrix, which analyses the value judgements about eachalternative of the social actors involved in the evaluationprocess. This analysis provides two types of results: on onehand, looking at the possibility of coalitions formation amongactors through the resulting dendrogram; on the other hand,looking at apparently more defensible alternatives accordingto social actors' values, through a ranking of the proposedalternatives.

NAIADE may be combined with social research methods, acombination that leads to an improved information structureand better insight into the problem to be considered, as well asto a clearer understanding of the objectives and perceptions ofthe social actors involved. This way of structuring informationoffers two main advantages. On one hand, the analyst canclassify and work with the information in an easier way,taking into account that framing is a complex task whichreflects on decision making. On the other hand, communitymembers such as policy makers, relevant actors and othersocietal members will be able to access to more structuredinformation, possibly helping with conflict resolution.

2.3. Objectives of this study

In the remaining sections of this paper, we will illustrate anapplication of a multi-criteria methodological frameworkstrongly coupled with social research methods to case studyin the Costa del Sol region in Spain. The general objective wasto find out whether this concept and combination of toolsmaybe helpful with implementing the integrated evaluation andparticipation objectives established in the WFD. The work hasbeen inspired by other similar applications of this toolcoupling (e.g. EC-JRC, 1998; Corral Quintana, 2000; De Marchiet al., 2000; Guimarães Pereira et al., 2003a,b).

Specific goals guided the research described in this paper,namely to verify whether the proposed methodology helpedwith:

i) facilitating understanding and structuring of problemscharacterised by multiple dimensions;

ii) clarifying the nature of conflicts in the case study areaand with creating the conditions necessary to findshared ground in a highly contested terrain;

iii) promoting active participation in diagnosis, framing,scoping and evaluation phases of assessments of thistype;

iv) enabling social actors to exchange knowledge andacknowledge each others positions;

v) challenging social actors involved in the formulation ofinnovative policy options going beyond routine andinertia blinkered approaches.

We will first describe the case study in Costa del Sol,followed by the description of the methodological implemen-tation suggested in this paper. We will eventually offermethodological reflections and discuss the application ofthis methodology at the light of the goals set earlier.

3. Evaluation of alternative options for watersupply

3.1. Case-study area: the Costa del Sol

The Costa del Sol (in the province of Málaga, Andalusia region)is an area that has experienced rapid growth in tourism inrecent decades. This has led to a transformation of its socio-demographic and economic structures, mounting pressure onresources and land-use restructuring. The resident population(341,401 inhabitants in 2001) has continuously grown forseveral decades, a growth which has quickened even furtherin recent years. The sharply rising population trend, coupledwith high tourist flows, which triples the resident populationin the summermonths, doubling it during the rest of the year,has resulted in increasing congestion and land overdevelop-ment. The population density of the Costa del Sol, whichaccounts for 76% of the province's population, is almost thedouble of the Málaga province's population density.

From an administrative point of view, the area understudy comprises the elevenmunicipalities that for more than25 years, have voluntarily coordinated their competences inwaste collection, water supply and water depuration in theMancommunity (a joint municipal corporation) of the WesternCosta del Sol (see Fig. 1). These municipalities roughlycoincide with the hydrographical district known as Subsys-tem I-3 (Western Costa del Sol), defined in the Water Plan ofthe River Basin Authority (Hydrological Plan of the Confe-deración Hidrográfica del Sur de España), that in fact does notcover a single natural river basin but a number of smallbasins that discharge into the Mediterranean Sea betweenGibraltar (to the west) and the border with the region ofMurcia (to the east).

Urban development in the area has been characterised byintense growth in the absence of an adequate regulatoryframework. Investments in real estate and development of theconstruction sector have been key growth factors, benefitingfrom a seemingly unsaturated tourism demand in WesternEurope (8.6 million tourists visited the area in 2003).

From a hydrological point of view, the Costa del Sol hassuffered spells of drought that have highlighted competitionand conflict between different water uses. The area ischaracterised by an uncontrolled growth in water demandand the lack of anticipatory planning by the competentauthorities, whose response has been limited to instigating

Fig. 1 –Location and boundaries of the area under study. Source: ICA, 1:100,000-scale digital map of Andalusia. Paneque, 2003.


reactive emergency measures during drought spells, such asthe one from 1992 to 1995 (Paneque, 2003).

Due to the Mediterranean influence, rainfall in the areaunder study is relatively high, but varies considerably fromone season to another (long and severe summer droughts) andfrom 1 year to another (ranging between over 1200mm in verywet years and under 300 mm in dry years). The fact that thebasins of these rivers are relatively small and their coursesshort and steep, because the mountains where they originateare close to the sea, increases their irregular and torrentialregime. Groundwater plays a significant role as a source ofwater resources in the area although there are numeroushydrogeological units affected by local or seasonal overex-ploitation, and by deterioration of quality caused by saltwaterintrusion, as a result of excessive pumping of the aquifers.

The uncontrolled rise in demand and the lack of forwardplanning have aggravated the impact of drought in the area;which is further exacerbated by the conflict between thecentral government and regional authorities over watermanagement competences, in addition to the failure of theRiver Basin authority — Confederación Hidrográfica del Sur deEspaña, under the central government responsibility — toestablish adequate channels for wider involvement of rele-vant social actors (Paneque, 2003).

Closely linked with lack of societal involvement and publicparticipation, is the growing complexity and opacity of themanagement structure which is another aspect of the Costa

del Sol debate about water supply and potential answers. Themanagement of urbanwater supply in the area is shared by thecompany Acosol, which belongs to the Mancommunity of theWestern Costa del Sol, and the Town Councils. The former isresponsible for managing the surface raw or bulk water supplyand sewerage services in the eleven municipalities of itscompetence, whereas the latter are responsible for groundwa-ter abstraction, local distribution and direct billing of endusers. The local authorities can either directly manage theseservices through a municipally-owned company or chartercommercial companies to do so, which, in the absence of anadequate regulatory framework,makes it increasingly difficultto obtain information on basic aspects of water management.

Both types of local companies distribute water supplied byAcosol from the La Concepción reservoir on the River Verde inMarbella— themain surface water source in the region— andalso manage their own groundwater resources. These can bemanaged by them more directly and independently and at alower cost than surface-water from La Concepción reservoir.Surface water supplied by Acosol is more expensive (around0.15 €/m3) than the groundwater that local water companiescan obtain from the aquifers in their respective localities(averaging 0.05 €/m3). This difference in price has led to theoverexploitation and sometimes irreversible deterioration ofaquifers in the area. The difference in price is even moreserious when it comes to reclaimed waste water, alsomanaged by Acosol, which is responsible for sewerage


services. In this case, the price rises to around 0.25 €/m3, andthere are no regulations in force requiring the reclaimedwaterto be used for compatible purposes. This explainswhy, in spiteof the situation of alleged water shortages and scarcity, onlyaround 10% of reclaimedwastewater is reused, while cheaper,higher-quality groundwater is used to supply large areas, suchas golf courses and cropland (Paneque, 2003).

In the area covered by the Confederación Hidrográfica delSur, as in Spain as a whole, urban uses (domestic, municipal,industrial) account for only a small proportion— between 10%and 20% — of total water consumption, with agricultural uses(irrigation) usually accounting for 80% or more of totaldemand. In the Costa del Sol area, however, agriculturalconsumption has been progressively overtaken in recentdecades by urban and tourism uses to become a verysecondary sector of demand. Nevertheless, as observedabove, irrigation still accounts for a significant proportion oftotal consumption in the river basin, in some cases subject tothe problems of subsidized costs and hydraulic and economicinefficiency that often characterize agricultural uses of water.The reduction of water consumption by agricultural activitiesand reallocation to urban uses therefore continues to be anissue in the debate on alternative solutions to water supplysystem problems.

Finally, this overview of the characteristics of the watersystem in the area under studymust include a reference to theseawater desalination plant commissioned by the TownCouncil of the area's main town (Marbella) just as the lengthyperiod of drought that lasted from 1992 to 1995 came to an end.Since its completion in 1995, it has not been put into operation,because there has been no reoccurrence of such a droughtsituation. In spite of the fact that the plant is not in operation,amortization and maintenance costs still have to be met.

3.2. Methodology application: social actors' involvement

In order to apply the proposed methodology to the case of theCosta del Sol Occidental water supply, the following stages

Fig. 2 –Evaluation process'

were implemented by the research team (see Fig. 2): framing ofthe problem to be appraised and development of the studyscope, through institutional analysis and social researchtechniques; identification of the social actors and relevantvested interests; identification of alternatives and criteria toevaluate them; evaluation of alternatives troughmulti-criteriaanalysis; presentation of results (including equity matrix anddendrogram) to the social actors involved in the previousresearch phases, following the focus group methodology (seee.g. Morgan, 1998) with a view to obtaining feedback, sharingand clarifying the information collected and discussing theanalysis carried out up to that point.

3.2.1. Identification of stakeholdersInstitutional analysis (Ingram et al., 1984; Ostrom, 1990, 2005;Imperial, 1999; Koontz, 2006) and social research encom-passed examination of regulatory context, analysis of nationaland local press, study of economic political processes andparticipant observation (Corral Quintana, 2000)— researchers'immersion in the Foro de Málaga and the Agenda 21 of theprovince of Málaga — which lead to a preliminary definition ofthe problem by the research team, as well as identification ofrelevant social actors. The time periods selected for the pressanalysis were the years 1994–1995 and 2001–2003; the firstcoincides with a period of drought in the area, when the waterdebate was particularly heated, and the second time period,more recently, coincides with a further torrent of declarationsprompted by the threat of drought in the autumn of 2002.

In the social actors' identification process (see Fig. 3),efforts were made to strike a balance between the number ofactors from the public administration (5 participants), busi-ness organizations (5), non-governmental organisations (4)and experts (2). This is because we sought to include acomprehensive range of opinions and knowledges that couldhave been compromised by some social actors' actual capacityto participate in the decision-making processes.

The selected social actors were representatives fromvarious organisations, in most cases, the person in charge.

methodology diagram.

Fig. 3 –Social actors identified in the Costa del Sol Occidental area.


The spectrum of organisations involved was very broad,ranging from the top national and regional authorities inwater management to local citizens' groups.

The selection of the social actors was not particularlyproblematic, as there was broad agreement and acknowledge-ment as to who the relevant actors with legitimate interests inwater management in the area were.

The ADVISOR research team actively followed two consul-tation processes that were simultaneously taking place in thearea: the setting up of Málaga province's Agenda 21 and theMálaga Forum. The first — with a spectrum of sustainabilityrelated contents — included the identification of indicatorsand the definition of the political objectives for watermanagement in the whole province of Málaga. The first twostages, diagnosis and indicators, were undertaken during thedevelopment period of the research in ADVISOR. The MálagaForum dealt specifically with water issues, being a pioneeringexperience for identifying social actors and promoting delib-eration, through two one-day workshops. Agenda 21 wasorganised by the Málaga Provincial Council's Department ofthe Environment's Sustainability Section while the Andalu-sian Regional Government's Centre for New Technologies ofWater (CENTA) organised the Málaga Forum. Among others,the social actors identified in the ADVISOR project participat-ed in these activities, some attending both initiatives. TheADVISOR team's participation is important for understandingthe maturing process of the communication experiencebetween the team and the social actors since it improvedsynergy ahead and for intensified the process of informationexchange and collective reflection.

3.2.2. In-depth InterviewsThe objectives of the first phase of thework— fulfilled firstly byconducting in-depth interviews with relevant social actors —were to define or diagnose the problem (i.e.: What do you thinkare the main problems affecting the CSO? Why do you thinkwater governance problems arise? How would you evaluate

currentwater resourcemanagement?), identify alternatives andcriteria (i.e.: How should the question of the water supply andwater management be addressed? What do you think of theproposal to carry out hydraulic projects?), and record sugges-tions made by the actors (i.e.: What other companies, associa-tions, institutions or individuals should also be consulted?).

The information provided by the sixteen interviewees wasconfirmed through a written questionnaire that they wereasked to fill in after the interview. Analysis of the interviewsrevealed that there were gaps in the information required tocarry out a multi-criteria evaluation and complete the impactand equity matrices in the NAIADE model. The writtenquestionnaire was therefore formulated to refine some of thequestions already dealt with in the interviews, but whichneeded to be elaborated on or clarified at some degree (i.e.:Please mark the corresponding box (yes/no) to indicate yourassessment of the effectiveness and feasibility of each alterna-tive. Please mark the corresponding box (yes/no) to indicateyour assessment of the usefulness and relevance of each criteriain comparing the alternatives).

In this way, the social actors were involved at the very firststages of the evaluation to identify other social actors and tunethepreliminary framingof theproblemasset by the researchers.The problem framing was not intended to be an “expert”description of the current situation of water governance in theCosta del Sol Occidental area, but a systematic exposition of theperceptions and knowledge of the social actors (i.e. recollectingsituations suchas thewater restrictions,whydoyou thinkwaterproblems arise? What problems and impacts might the imple-mentation of a moratorium on tourist-residential developmententail?); these can be seen as justifications for the way the pro-blematique is framed by single social actors.

3.2.3. Focus groupIn the final stage of the case study, the research teamorganised a half-day meeting with the actors involved usingthe focus group methodology (see for instance, Morgan, 1998).


The session agenda was organised in order to look at thefollowing objectives:

i) to introduce the social actors involved to each otherand discuss the research process and methodology,sharing the information gathered during previousphases;

ii) to verify the correctness of the information obtained fromthe previous phases of social research and the reflectionmade by the research team about the diagnosis of theproblem and definition of alternatives and evaluationcriteria;

iii) to provide the social actors with the opportunity tomodify in a shared way, the information or the researchteam's analysis, and to discuss the results achieved todate;

iv) to assess with participants, the usefulness of thismethodology for facilitation of dialogue among thesocial actors; testing the feasibility of the actual use ofNAIADE in a participatory environment.

3.2.4. A surveyA survey conducted in the area under study by the SocialStudies Institute of Andalusia was used as means of unveilingthe perspectives and opinions of the general public, in order tocomplement the social actors' perspectives and tomeasure thedegree of public acceptance of the alternatives evaluated inthe process. A total of 425 people were polled: 200 in the city ofMálaga, 125 in the Costa del Sol Occidental area and 100 in therest of the province. The people polled are not social actorsdirectly involved in water management or experts in the field,but they have legitimate interests as the users community,whose opinions on the alternatives under consideration enrichthe evaluation process. The survey's results were later incorpo-rated in themulti-criteria evaluation, as an evaluation criterionlabelled “institutional difficulty” which was presented,explained and discussed during the focus group. As a mecha-nism for incorporating the general public into the evaluationexperience, the survey was useful to extend the geographicalscope of the target public, going beyond the case study's hydro-geographical limits.

The social actors did not question directly the survey'sresults, questioning, however its effects upon the impactmatrix.

Fig. 4 –Alternatives and criteria identif

3.3. Methodology application: alternatives, evaluationcriteria and NAIADE matrices

3.3.1. The alternativesSocial actors' involvement also contributed to the identifica-tion of watermanagement alternatives and evaluation criteria(see Fig. 4). The proposed alternatives that were accepted bythe majority of the social actors included both, actions aimedat increasing available resources and measures to improvedemand management. Most of the social actors had moretrouble identifying criteria to evaluate these alternatives,beyond the usual categorisation into economic, environmen-tal and social criteria. For this reason, a more thorough list ofcriteria was proposed and incorporated into the question-naire; on the basis of that list the social actors involved wereable to add new criteria and accept or reject those proposed. Itmust be noted that preference relations and crossover pointswere set by the research team based on indications comingfrom both in-depth interviews and questionnaires.

During the first and second steps of the social researchprocess, social actors proposed a total of twenty alternatives, ofwhich seven were included in the evaluation exercise by theresearch team (in addition to the “maintenance of the statusquo” alternative). The rest were rejected either because theywere similar to other proposals that had already been accepted,or partial proposals within broader alternatives, or because theydid not receive sufficient support from the other actors. Duringthe focus group session the final set of alternatives was finallyagreed upon, including some “new” alternatives.

3.3.2. The evaluation criteriaThe process for identification of criteria presented somedifficulties, probably owing to the complexity of the concept incomparison with that of alternatives. The initiative undertakenby the research team to formulate a criteria proposal based onthe interviews, onwhich the actors could continueworking,wasvital to identifying sufficiently meaningful evaluation criteria tocarry out a comparison of the alternatives. Eventually, elevencriteria of different dimensions (economic, environmental,social and institutional) were identified for which it was difficultto find quantitative and/or accurate information. This technicaluncertainty, that is, the lack of information, confirmed that theNAIADE multi-criteria evaluation method was quite suitablesince it allows expression of information affected by different

ied in the Costa del Sol case study.

Fig. 5 –Ranking of alternatives according to evaluation criteria and social actors.


degrees and types of uncertainty in several formats: numericaland fuzzy (when for some alternatives the same criterion can becharacterised and for others not), linguistic and fuzzy variables.In fact, the only criterion for which it was possible to obtainaccurate numerical values was investment costs for each of thealternatives.

A further two criteria, namely degree of social acceptance anddegree of institutional difficulty, were also added. With regards tothe former, it should be noted that the opinion poll conductedas part of the study was very important as it revealed that the

Fig. 6 –Dendrogram

“water problem” was not viewed in the same way by the socialactors and the general public, providing also an insight into theperceptions of people not only in the area under study, butalso in the rest of the province, including rural areas. Thiscontributed to introduce the debate on interscalability in theexercise. Indeed, the research team was constantly aware ofthe importance of the scale on which the problem should bedefined. In each scale, a specific combination of social actorswith their corresponding knowledge, visions and values,develop different framings about what a priory could have

of coalitions.


been deemed as shared and agreed issues. As it has alreadybeen mentioned, there is an agreement in the Costa del Solconcerning the group of actors identified as “interestedparties”, through which perspectives generated in completelydifferent scales are expressed. The survey, however, hascontributed to the addition of this interscalar factor to theexercise.

The institutional difficulty criteria — defined as the timerequired to study, process and execute the proposals, thesystem of subsidies and cost recovery, the number andheterogeneity of entities involved and environmental impactrequirements—made the evaluation exercisemore “realistic”,as it took into account the constraints and limitations thatwould affect the implementation of the alternatives.

3.3.3. The NAIADE matricesAll the information gathered in the previous process was usedto implement the following stages: construction of impactmatrix, equity matrix and dendrogram of social actors coalitionsusing NAIADE.

On the basis of the alternatives and criteria identified, theimpact matrix was constructed with value scores for each of theproposed water management alternatives, according to theeleven evaluation criteria. This matrix was based on data fromspecialised literature and technical reports, although the lack ofinformation expressed in quantitative and/or accurate termshas developed a matrix quite different from the researchers’expectations. In fact, all the criteria, except for the implemen-tation costs of each of the alternatives, had to be expressed inqualitative terms. The results allowed a comparison of thealternatives and the generation of a ranking according to theselected criteria.

In order to incorporate the criteria relating to the socialacceptance of each of the alternatives, the results from theopinion poll conducted among the inhabitants of the area, wasused. They were asked to give their opinion about the watersupply system in the Costa del Sol Occidental area and to suggest aranking of alternatives.

The social actors' individual positions were developed intoa new ranking using NAIADE, deploying the equity matrix,which represents the qualitative assessment of the alterna-tives (linguistic variables from ‘extremely bad’ to ‘perfect’)made by the social actors through the written questionnaires.

Both rankings coincide significantly (see Fig. 5), suggestingthe consistency of the analysis. In both cases, the demand-management alternatives (saving water in the urban watersupply, reuse of waste water) had the highest scoring. Themodernisation of irrigation systems also occupied the sameposition in both rankings, although in the equity analysis, itwas not as far behind the top-scoring alternatives. In bothrankings, the two bottom alternatives were the same, non-intervention and the heightening of the La Concepción dam,that is, the main water supply-side oriented alternative.

The equity analysis also provided information about thepotential formation of coalitions among the actors that coulddefend or veto a given alternative. A dendrogram of coalitionswas produced, representing the formation of possible ‘alli-ances’ among social actors, which also indicated the degree ofdivergence (see Fig. 6). This provided an insight into whichalternatives were more likely to be accepted, even though the

highest ranked alternatives were not necessarily the mostfeasible.

Finally, during the focus group session all the stages of theresearch process were presented to the participants, namelyidentification of relevant social actors, definition of theproblem, selection of alternatives, identification of criteria,evaluation of alternatives and their ranking based on themulti-criteria NAIADE method.

4. Discussion of case study results

In this section we report the main learningswith regards to theapplication of the proposed methodology to the case study inCosta del Sol. Those learnings are relevant to justify the casefor the application of participatory multi-criteria methodolo-gies as a means to implement the integrated evaluationsrequested by the WFD.

4.1. Involvement of social actors

The iterative methodology for the identification of social actors asdescribed in Section 3 proved to be useful to identify the relevantsocial actors in this water governance case.

The group of selected social actors as a whole reflectedexisting different standpoints, objectives and interests rele-vant for this water governance case, as well as the inter-relationships of the spatial scales that cross paths or overlapwithin the debate, be they local, regional, national or global.They are expressed in the form of unions, irrigators’ organisa-tions, business organisations and public administrations. Allthe representatives of such institutions brought directly intothe debate their respective commitments or the internationalinstitutional frameworks in which they operate.

Cultural, historical and traditions context, as well as existingconflict, play a fundamental role in setting up conditions for dialogue,including willingness to participate.

Although, this study is done in a research context, andtherefore many social actors may regard it as little influentialfor their cause, it is clear that a context influenced by a weakparticipatory culture determines the “availability” of the socialactors. This is also suggested by the fact that many of them didnot participate in the participatory initiatives described earlier:the ForumdeMálaga andAgenda 21,where theADVISOR's teamparticipated as well. Hence, key actors, such as the ResidentialUrban Development and Tourism Federation (Federación deUrbanizadores y Turismo Residencial), representing the mostpowerful and conflictive economic sector in the area did notwant to get involved. Some of the social actors who took part inthe exercise had limited availability, owing to (i) lack of time andscheduling clashes between some of the proposed tasks andtheir work commitments and (ii) friction and conflict amongsome of the actors. These problems led to interviews being cutshort, delays in returning the written questionnaires and, inparticular, failure to participate in the focus group session.

A research setting may be viewed as a “safe” place to start adialogue, even if social research processes of this kind fosteractual social processes in the area and hence, even veryreserved social actors could profit from these occasions toengage in these dialogues which are not fostered by existing

ox 1

This situation is comparable to that one analysed by L.

Nevarez in California, where this author described howwater

managers mediated the 1985–91 drought in order to create

a political climate conductive to their long-term objective

concerning importing external water resources to facilitate

urban development and growth in Santa Barbara County

(Nevarez, 1996).


institutional arrangements. However, as far as the “availability”of social actors is concerned, the lack of connection with thepolicy cycle and so, actual policy influence of these initiatives isfar more important for their decision to get engaged.

This “unavailability” may also indicate that the socialresearch methodologies deployed are not in line with manyof the social actors' professional life, and therefore othermethodologies can be tried out. Again, results could have beendifferent if the exercise was not done in a research context.

4.2. Framing of the water governance issues

The methodological approach seems to facilitate the implementationof more inclusive governance processes.

In the case of the Costa del Sol area, the analysis anddecisions (river basin and provincial plans) carried out prior tothis study can be described as follows: a) they were based onopinions and value judgements underlying and stronglyinfluencing the problem diagnosis; b) they tended to simplifythe complexity of ecological and social processes, sidestep-ping any analysis of the root causes of the problems andpossible consequences for natural and social systems; and c)they did not reflect the uncertainty underlying these systems.

As a result of the interviews and questionnaires, twodifferent perceptions of the water problem in the Costa del SolOccidental area came to light:

1) On one hand, the definition of the problem from theviewpoint of the authority responsible for water resourcemanagement in the area, as reflected in the Cuenca SurRiver Basin Hydrological Plan, based on the concept of a‘structural water deficit’, affecting the whole of the riverbasin as well as the specific area under study. Thisdiagnosis serves as an argument for investment in newhydraulic infrastructures to improve the water supply inthe area, in spite of the fact that at the same time theauthority goes to great lengths to downplay the problem inthe media, presenting a balanced, problem-free situation.

2) On the other hand, the other social actors highlighted thefact that the Costa del Sol Occidental water supplysituation is subject to tensions, conflicts and deficiencies,although the main reason for the problem is not absolutescarcity but inadequate management. The majority of thesocial actors regarded the Costa del Sol Occidental as anarea with sufficient water resources, but criticised the lack offorward planning in a geographic area suffering the effects ofunbounded growth, lack of coordination among the authoritiesresponsible for water management and those responsiblefor urban and land-use planning as well as weak, ineffectivewater management information and participation mechanisms.This does not mean, however, that there are no differencesof opinion among them regarding the need for more waterresources by constructing hydraulic infrastructures. All agreedthat measures to improve water management were ofutmost importance and should be given top priority.The methodological approach allows for extended scrutiny of

underlying assumptions, installed justifications and framings andunveils uncertainties and ignorance.

Taking into account this background, the methodologyframework of this case study has helped to overcomemuch of

these limitations. Throughout the process of analysing,framing, debating and evaluating different options, in anextended fashion, the spectrum of perspectives has widened.These perspectives framed the problem, a problem that is notmerely the balance between “available resources” and“demands” perspectives: indeed these cannot be viewed asfacts. The very logic of the water demands has beenquestioned and the institutional framework has been ana-lysed (management of groundwater regulation, water prices,levels of control, illegality, etc.), as well as the diversity ofvalues and interests at play including the simultaneous needto, and difficulty of, integrating water management into otherpolicies. The whole process has been marked by differentlevels of uncertainty, ranging from a lack of data concerningkey aspects (e.g. the quantity of groundwater being used in thearea and its price) to questions concerning the processesaffecting key social dimensions (e.g. forecasts concerning thegrowth of tourism and residential tourism in the area).

The methodological approach helped with fine tuning of theframing of the problem, eventually allowing shared insights of thegovernance issues.

The open participatory process, supported by two simulta-neous participatory deliberative experiences (Agenda 21 forMálaga province and theMálaga Forum) enabled the problem tobe structured. This process has led to new diagnosis perspec-tives of the problem; the main issue was not viewed to beexclusively or principally a physical shortage of water, butrather a poor water resourcemanagement issue, in a context ofgrowing demand. This evolution of perspectives was witnessedby the ADVISOR's researchers, through the results of their ownexperience and the other simultaneous experiences in whichthe team took part. In fact, as a result of the whole collectivereflection process in which the ADVISOR experience is embed-ded, an initial reorientation of the area's water policy hasoccurred, in spite of the onset of a new drought spell. This newdrought spell manifests a crisis in the water supply systemwhich fosters change. Yet, at the same time it enforces thearguments of those asking for new water resources, followingthe traditional supply-side strategy — see also Box 1.

The methodological approach encourages complex, systemic andwider scope analysis which enhances framing.

The water debate led to the discussion of broader issuesrelated to development processes (the tourist sector andproperty development) that are inextricably linked to waterissues. Furthermore, when the reflection process becamecollective (from individual interviews and questionnaires tothe collective dynamics of the focus group), the diagnosesbecame even deeper and more complex. For example,collective discussion reinforced the leading role played by

B


tourist-property development as a determining driver, sug-gesting the need for wider policy changes (e.g. the debateconcerning the need for a province-wide water company). Itquestioned the institutional mechanisms affecting the basicprinciples of the current model (e.g. the current system ofadministrative assignation — within a framework charac-terised by a lack of control— as opposed towatermarkets) andfacilitated the emergence of an eco-systemic perspective (e.g.the reforestation of watershed basins) as opposed to thepredominant perspective of water management improve-ments regarding it only as a productive resource.

4.3. Multi-criteria evaluation

Themulti-criteria evaluation helped finding incongruence between thesocial actors' perspectives and interests, and current decisionmaking.

Prior to the final participatory process, a preliminaryevaluation of alternatives made using NAIADE highlightedthe lack of coherence between the diagnosis made and agreedon by the social actors throughout the study and thealternatives that actually were prevalent (see Fig. 5).

In other words, the solutions advocated by the publicauthorities to redress the water supply problem in the Costadel Sol area did not coincide with the solutions that bestcorresponded to the selected multiple criteria. Neither did theysatisfy the most common shared position of the social actorsinvolved. This led the research team to hypothesise that“institutional pressure” was a key factor to explain thisdiscrepancy, resulting from short-term considerations and theensuing lack of hydrological planning formulated within areference spatial planning framework. The reflection andlearning dynamics set in motion by the participatory multi-criteria methodology suggests that inertia andmainstream trendsin the current decision-making system could improve. Wewould argue that the participatory multi-criteria setting has, inthis case, provided for a “safe” collective space for reflectionupon the property development-tourist processes and thespatialdevelopmentmodelunderlying thewaterdeficitproblemaffecting the area. In other words it added on the capacity toconstruct the problem by questioning, scrutinising and explor-ing an alternative to the traditional “scarcity of resources”perspective: the so-called demand perspective.

It is worth noting that the rankings obtained in NAIADEcoincide significantly (see Fig. 5 in Section 3): in both cases, thedemand-management alternatives (saving water in the urbanwater supply, reuse of waste water) had the highest scoring.

The dendrogram of coalitions formation helped to unveiljustifications for some partnerships in the terrain.

With regards to the analysis of coalitions among socialactors, it should be noted that an examination of existingconflicts revealed a split between the administrations respon-sible for water management. On the one hand, there waspotential for a coalition including the Regional Water Depart-ment (regional administration), opposed the managementpolicy of the Confederación Hidrográfica del Sur (central admin-istration), due to the fact that the position held by the lattertended towards alternatives involving an increase in thesupply of water resources. This split cannot, however, beexplained solely by political factors. For example, Acosol(Costa del Sol public water supply and sewage company)

held a prominently individualist position, refraining fromforming part of any coalition, in spite of its political affinitywith the regional administration.

This framework has helped with unveiling the relationshipof different alternatives with the institutional framework,their degree of public acceptance and their consistency withthe results of the evaluation exercise.

4.4. Participatory multi-criteria process

The focus group meeting was a place for tuning of the proposedalternatives for thewater governance case in Costa del Sol, suggestinghowever that a process of dialogue could start only from that momenton, because shared ground was facilitated at that moment, whichcould be further explored.

The focus group proved useful for providing the socialactors with the opportunity to modify the analyses, made onthe basis of the information supplied previously; to includenew aspects or to elaborate on those already addressed; todiscuss the results achieved to date and to assess the validityof the methodology, testing the feasibility of multi-criteriadecision aid tools in participatory environments.

In the focus group session, two considerations key to theanalysis of this evaluation exercisewere identified. First, whenthe social actors were confronted with the list of alternatives,they suggested the inclusionof other alternatives (reforestation,single management authority and water banks) initiallyproposed by few social actors, but not included by the researchteam in the final evaluation exercise precisely because theyhad not enjoyed extensive support. However, following anopen debate, one of these alternatives (reforestation of catch-ment's basins) was deemed quite appropriate by all socialactors participating in the focus group. Second, in this phase ofthe participatory multi-criteria process, the absence of certainsectors reflecting on-going conflicts among social actors wasremarkable. Those social actors, who had also been reticent toattend the initial individual meetings (interviews, question-naires), belong mainly to the tourist sector and, moresignificantly, to the authority responsible for water manage-ment in the area (Confederación Hidrográfica del Sur).

The multi-criteria evaluation helped confirming that on one hand,as the process evolves, so evolves the framing of thewater governanceissues and, on the other hand, it highlights that the type of socialresearch methodology deployed to structure a governance issue as amulti-criteria study is highly influential to the framing of the issues.

During the process of “generating alternatives” to complywith the multi-criteria evaluation structure, the researchershave proposed alternatives based on the inputs given throughthe individual in-depth interviews and survey. As it ispresented earlier, the set of alternatives that came out fromthe focus group was different from the one proposed by theresearchers. Not only it included different alternatives fromthe proposed ones, but it also made obvious that some of thealternatives, established through the individual participatoryresearch methods, were not mutually exclusive and could becombined. Such combinations of initiatives (once described asalternatives) were agreed by the participants as differentalternatives in the sense of a multi-criteria problem (see e.g.Munda, 1995). This evolution of framing resulted from theinteraction among the participants, when confronted with the


multi-criteria formalisation; it has fostered a sort of negotia-tion process which unveiled other possible shared ground notpreviously anticipated due to the lack of dialogue amongdifferent social actors.

Earlier implementation of focus groups, could have led to a sharedprocess from the start, avoiding the focus of discussion to be on theresearchers’ interpretations of the individual contributions of socialactors.

The manner in which the final meeting developed showsthat the latter phase, when all the social actors meet, cansignificantly change the final result, as issues overlookedduring the individual contacts were raised and debated. In thisjoint session, the social actors showed a flexible attitudetowards accepting proposals, opinions and judgements of-fered by the other participants. The question remains,however, of whether their attitude would be as flexible iftheywere taking part in a real-world decision-making process.

Participatory multi-criteria evaluation can be strongly compro-mised in high conflicting contexts, not only because it makes it difficultto implement dialogue but also discourages social actors' cooperationto make relevant knowledge accessible for the evaluations.

The main difficulty encountered during the work was thehighly conflicting atmosphere surrounding the issue ofwater management which in the case of the Costa del Soloverrides extraordinary spatial (land use) debates. The short-age of water resources and the competition for them can beattributed to a growing demand resulting from the rapid, un-controlled development of property and tourism where largeeconomic, social and political interests, characterised by a lackof transparency and the recurrence of irregular conduct, are atstake. These characteristics, coupled with the public wateradministration's institutional framework, explain why it wasparticularly difficult to gather relevant information. They alsoexplain the reluctance of certain social actors to participate inthe study, particularly in the final collective reflection phase.The application of this methodology to the Western Costa delSol case study highlighted the barriers that prevent theeffective implementation of this type of evaluation.

Participatory multi-criteria evaluation is useful if identification ofsocial actors is faithful to context.

In this case study, difficulties arose in defining the geograph-ical scope and time scale of the water issues, something thataffects the identification of social actors and, therefore, framing,the identification of alternatives and criteria to evaluate them.

5. Final reflections

In this section we will discuss the work described earlier inrelation to the objectives presented in Section 2.3. We will thenreflect on the discussion of Section 4 and highlight keymethodological issues to be taken into consideration by thoseembarking in the use of this type of methodology in watergovernance cases.

5.1. Reflections in relation to objectives

5.1.1. On facilitation of insight on the case studyThe methodological approach described earlier facilitatedinsight into the water governance issues in Costa del Sol. It

helped to confirm suspected conflict, power structures relatingto water governance, as well as institutional arrangementsgoverning the water policy in the region. The participatoryphases in the research context, facilitated and hindered at thesame time, the “willingness” of social actors to co-operate withthe ADVISOR team; on one hand the participatory events aretaken as “safe places” where sharing perspectives and knowl-edge is innocuous and cannot tie anyone's hands — henceconditions to enhanced shared ground were facilitated by thiskind of context; on the other hand, such non-binding contexthas also disinterested social actors whose power is deemedhigh in governing the waters of the region.

For the researchers, and those involved in this study, theadded structure that the methodology imposes, has helpedarticulating in a recognisable way for all, the main governanceissues of the case, hence working as a first step for starting anextended policy dialogue. Research projects of this type,despite their likely little influence in policy processes, raisehowever, societal awareness of alternative governance styles.

5.1.2. On facilitation of knowledge exchangeThe hybrid methodology facilitated the organisation of scat-tered knowledge in the structure of multi-criteria evaluation:alternatives and criteria to evaluate them. Hence, it requiredan effort from those involved to frame the water governanceissue into a language that the researchers could “digest”. Thisimplies a “translation” of representations, among all involved.Despite formalism, evaluating options withmultiple criteria issomething that we all do in everyday life; hence the multi-criteria evaluation is a tangible approach to deal with multi-dimensional issues in “cosmopolitan” contexts (where there isa large number of social actors telling different “stories”,representing knowledge in different ways…). The NAIADEmethod in particular, allows the representation of knowledgeaffected by different types of uncertainty, allowing vernacularlanguage to be processed together with accurate quantities.

In the case study analysed, the methodological approachproved to be a useful tool, especially in structuring the problemat hand in a collective, flexible and cyclic way, leveraging thequality and effectiveness of the information interchange andthe reflection process. By opening the social debate on waterresource allocation and by mapping the implications, issuesand interests involved, it contributed to finding alternativeslooking beyond short-term considerations, while simulta-neously rationalising social conflict and resistance.

5.1.3. Active participation throughout all phasesThe methodological approach developed here helped topromote active participation throughout the whole process,enabling social actors to acquire knowledge from each otherand acknowledge different perspectives, agendas and inter-ests. The “contract” with participants was quite clear withregards to the development of the multi-criteria framework.Social actors were expected to engage with a scientific tool,somehow regarded as the way out to rationalise a contestedterrain, mainly operated by social controversy giving it a moretechno/scientific profile, by providing a “space” for incorpo-rating justifications of that nature.

The identification and selection of the social actors, theirrepresentativeness and legitimacy, strongly influences the


extent to which the results of the evaluation are relevant tothe governance process and, thus, its operational ability tosuccessfully contribute to conflict resolution. We have con-firmed that social actors' identification and selection on thebasis of a careful analysis of the institutional and power-relations framework in which they operate is an essentialaspect of the methodology. In fact, failure to identify relevantperspectives, knowledges, interests and values may jeopardisethe whole quality of the multi-criteria evaluation. Finally, aspointed out earlier, the whole process can be adverselyaffected by the availability of social actors, particularly theabsence of those with important roles and/or positions thatare regarded as conflictive.

5.1.4. On exploring innovative alternativesMulti-criteria evaluation is highly flexible, for alternatives andcriteria to be added or removed and for evaluations to bechanged. The case study also demonstrated that once apreliminary proposal of alternatives is done, a sort of reflectiveand creative process started. In some ways, the “formalisation”of the water issues through the multi-criteria evaluationenhancedappropriationof the caseby the social actors involved.

5.2. Methodological reflections

5.2.1. Involvement should be iterative so that it may influencethe whole process, from framing through evaluationThe participatory multi-criteria methodology proposed andapplied here, requires that the social actors' identificationprocess is iterative and run in parallel to the problem framingstage; this is because in the proposed process, the framing ofthe problem is done by the social actors involved. The veryframing, in turn, influences the selection of social actors, in adynamic and cyclic process of feedback loops among thevarious steps of the exercise (see also Corral Quintana, 2000;Guimarães Pereira et al., 2003a,b).

Main reflection: This sort of process should be supported by asocietal board composed of the relevant social actors for thewater governance process, to be engaged throughout thewhole process, from framing through evaluation.

5.2.2. Where possible engagement with on-going socialprocesses should be soughtAs pointed out earlier, the engagement of the researchers withlocal deliberative processes, where social actors were also thoserelevant for theADVISORprojectwas important toavoid that theresearchers were seen as aliens to the water governance issues.Moreover it reinforced the process of communication andincreased the possibilities of collective reflection.

Main reflection: Those who promote these types of evalua-tion (in both policy and research settings) should seek toidentify where spaces of collective debate and deliberation arealready taking place and use such places, as much as possibleto launch their own initiatives, instead of creating completelyartificial settings.

5.2.3. Information requirement to frame a water governanceissue into a multi-criteria setting is highThe information required to set up a multi-criteria evaluationis high; it involves dealing with different sources, different

disciplines, hence different knowledge representations andthe involvement of the communities or social actors extendsthe scope beyond the disciplinary input.

Main reflection: The application of this methodologicalapproach is a transdisciplinary endeavour.

5.2.4. Scientisation of a societal debateAs it can be seen from the earlier description of the applicationof this methodology, specific structuring of the issues to behandled by themulti-criteria evaluation tool, into alternativesand criteria to evaluate them, is implied. Hence, the multi-criteria evaluation process imposes an a priori structure,requirements and procedures to which the other tools(institutional analysis and participatory methods) somehowhave to correspond, as well as social research processes haveto adapt. The application of multi-criteria evaluation in thiscase facilitated the quest for justifications of the social actorsto support this or that option, among other insights.

Main reflection: Awareness of this framing should always bein the mind of those who deploy these types of methodol-ogies. The water governance issues were “born” neither asscientific problems nor as multi-criteria problems, althoughone might me tempted to think that multi-criteria evalua-tion can, in these cases, be a good metaphor to tackle waterproblematiques.

Finally, as in Guimarães Pereira et al. (2003b), thedeploymentof scientific tools in the types of contexts that are sought by theWFD are seen as means to initiate, maintain or encouragedialogues and deliberations within extended governance pro-cesses. As O'Connor (2006) suggests, “it is the inter-subjectiveprocess of argument and dialogue with its affective as well asinformative dimensions that engenders new insights (learning) and,more particularly, builds (or undoes and rebuilds) alliances, modifiesmotivations and thus permits the exploration of contradictions andemergence of new solidarities”.

The methodological approach described earlier aims atenhancing such types of learning processes.

R E F E R E N C E S

Ashley, R., Blackwood, D., Butler, D., Jowitt, P., Oltean-Dumbrava,C., Davies, J., McIlkenny, G., Foxon, T., Gilmour, D., Smith, H.,Cavill, S., Leach, M., Pearson, P., Gouda, H., Samson, W., Souter,N., Hendry, S., Moir, J., Bouchartt, F., 2002. Making moresustainable decisions for asset investment in the waterindustry — sustainable water industry asset resourcedecisions: the SWARD Project. In: Strecker, E.W., Huber C., W.C.(Eds.), Urban Drainage 2002: Global Solutions for UrbanDrainage — Proceedings of the Ninth International Conferenceon Urban Drainage, held in Portland, Oregon, September 8–13,2002. American Society of Civil Engineers.

Bana e Costa, C.A. (Ed.), 1990. Readings in Multiple CriteriaDecision Aid. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

Banville, C., Landry, M., Martel, J.M., Boulaire, C., 1998. Astakeholder approach to MCDA. Systems Research andBehavioral Science 15, 15–32.

Beinat, E., 1997. Value Functions for Environmental Management.Kluwer, Dordrecht.

Beinat, E., Nijkamp, P. (Eds.), 1998. Multicriteria Evaluation inLand-use Management: Methodologies and Case Studies.Kluwer, Dordrecht.


CEC (Commission of the European Communities), 2000. Directive2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Councilestablishing a framework for the Community action in the fieldof water policy. Published at Official Journal (OJ L 327) on22 December 2000.

CEC (Commission of the European Communities), 2001. Directive2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plansand programmes on the environment. Published at OfficialJournal (OJ L 197) on 21 July 2004.

Corral Quintana, S., 2000. Unametodología integrada de exploraciónde los procesos de elaboración de políticas públicas. EuropeanCommission, Ispra.

Corral Quintana, S., Funtowicz, S., 1998. Afrontando problemáticascomplejas: La planificación y gestión hídrica. Ecología Política16, 111–117.

De Marchi, B., Funtowicz, S.O., Lo Cascio, S., Munda, G., 2000.Combining participative and institutional approaches withmulticriteria evaluation. An empirical study for water issues inTroina, Sicily. Ecological Economics 34 (2), 267–282.

Espelta, J.M., Retana, J., Habrouk, A., 2003. An economic andecological multi-criteria evaluation of reforestationmethods torecover burned Pinus Negra forests in NE Spain. Forest Ecologyand Management 180, 185–198.

European Commission-Joint Research Centre (EC-JRC), 1996.NAIADE: Manual & Hands-On. OPOCE, Ispra.

European Commission-Joint Research Centre (EC-JRC), 1998. TheValse Project. http://alba.jrc.it/valse. European Commission,Ispra.

Funtowicz, S., Ravetz, J.R., 1992. Three types of risk assessmentand the emergence of post-normal science. In: Krimsky, S.,Golding, D. (Eds.), Social Theories of Risk. Praeger, Westport,CT, pp. 251–273.

Funtowicz, S., Ravetz, J.R., 1993. Science for the post-normal age.Futures 25 (7), 739–755.

Funtowicz, S.O., Munda, G., Paruccini, M., 1990. The aggregation ofenvironmental datausingmulticriteriamethods. EnvironMetrics1(4), 353–368.

Funtowicz, S.O., Martinez-Alier, J., Munda, G., Ravetz, J., 2002.Multicriteria-based environmental policy. In: Abaza, H.,Baranzini, A. (Eds.), Implementing sustainable development.UNEP/Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 53–77.

Gamboa, G., Munda, G., in press. The problem of wind-parklocation: a social multi-criteria evaluation framework, EnergyPolicy.

Guimarães Pereira, Â., 1996. Generating alternative routes bymulticriteria evaluation and a genetic algorithm. Environmentand Planning B: Planning and Design 23, 11–720.

Guimarães Pereira, Â., Corral Quintana, S., 2002. FromTechnocraticto Participatory Decision Support: responding to the newgovernance initiatives. International Journal of GeographicInformation and Decision Analysis 6 (2), 95–107.

Guimarães Pereira, Â., Blasques, J., Corral Quintana, S., Funtowicz,S., 2003a. TIDDD — Tools to Inform Debates, Dialogues &Deliberations: The GOUVERNe Project at the JRC. EuropeanCommission, Ispra92-894-9350-X. EUR Report 21189 EN.

Guimarães Pereira, Â., Rinaudo, J.D., Jeffrey, P., Blasques, J., CorralQuintana, S., Courtois, N., Funtowicz, S., Petit, V., 2003b. ICTtools to support public participation in water resourcesgovernance and planning: experiences from the design andtesting of a multimedia platform. Journal of EnvironmentalAssessment Policy and Management 5 (3), 395–420.

Hämäläinen, R., Kettunen, E., Marttunen, M., Ehtamo, H., 2001.Evaluating a framework formulti-stakeholder decision supportin water resources managemen. Group Decision andNegotiation, vol. 10 No.4, pp. 331–353.

Imperial, M.T., 1999. Institutional analysis and ecosystem-basedmanagement: the institutional analysis and developmentframework. Environmental Management 24 (4), 449–465.

Ingram, H., Mann, D.E., Weatherford, G.D., Cortner, H.J., 1984.Guidelines for improved institutional analysis in waterresource planning. Water Resources Research 30 (3), 323–334.

Jakeman, A.J., Letcher, R.A., 2001. Integrated assessment andmodelling: features, principles and examples for catchmentsmanagement. Environmental Modelling & Software 18 (6),491–501.

Janssen, R., 1992. Multiobjective Decision Support forEnvironmental Management. Kluwer, Dordrecht.

Janssen, R., 2001. On the use of multi-criteria analysis inenvironmental impact assessment in The Netherlands. Journalof Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, vol. 10, Issue 2, pp. 101–109.

Jønch-Clausen, T., Fugl, J., 2001. Firming up the conceptual basis ofintegratedwater resourcesmanagement. International Journal ofWater Resources Development, vol. 17, Number 4, pp. 501–510.

Kheireldin, K., Fahmy, H., 2001. Multi-criteria approach forevaluating long term water strategies. Water International,vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 527–535.

Koontz, T.M., 2006. Collaboration for sustainability? A frameworkfor analyzing government impacts in collaborative-environ-mental management. Sustainability: Science, Practice, &Policy 2 (1).

Letcher, R.A., Jakeman, A.J., Croke, B.F.W., 2004. Modeldevelopment for integrated assessment of water allocationoptions. Water Resources Research 40 (5).

Madlener, R., Stagl, S., 2005. Sustainability-guided promotion ofrenewable electricity generation. Ecological Economics 53 (2),147–167.

Martínez-Alier, J., Munda, G., O'Neill, J., 1998. Weak comparabilityof values as a foundation for ecological economics. EcologicalEconomics 26, 277–286.

Maystre, L., Pictet, J., Simos, J., 1994. Méthodes multicritèresELECTRE — description, conseils pratiques et cas d'applicationà la gestion environnementale. Presses Polytechniques etUniversitaires Romandes, Lausanne.

Moral, L., Pedregal, B., 2003. Nuevos planteamientos científicos yparticipación ciudadana en la resolución de conflictosambientales. Documents d'Anàlisi Geogràfica, UniversidadAutónoma de Barcelona, vol. 41, pp. 121–134.

Morgan, D.L., 1998. The Focus Group Guidebook. Sage Publications,London.

Munda, G., 1995. Multicriteria evaluation in a fuzzy environment.Theory and Applications in Ecological Economics. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg.

Munda, G., 2004. Social multi-criteria evaluation: methodologicalfoundations and operational consequences. European Journalof Operational Research 158 (3), 662–677.

Munda, G., 2005a. Multi-criteria decision analysis and sustainabledevelopment. In: Figueira, J., Greco, S., Ehrgott, M. (Eds.),Multiple-Criteria Decision Analysis. State of the Art Surveys.Springer International Series in Operations Research andManagement Science, New York, pp. 953–986.

Munda, G., 2005b. Multi-criteria evaluation. In: Proops, J., Safonov,P. (Eds.), Modelling in Ecological Economics. Edward Elgar,Cheltenham, pp. 130–154.

Munda, G., 2005c. “Measuring sustainability”: a multi-criterionframework. Environment, Development and Sustainability7 (1), 117–134 2005.

Munda, G., 2006a. Social multi-criteria evaluation for urbansustainability policies. Land Use Policy 23 (1), 86–94 January.

Munda, G., 2006b. A NAIADE based approach for sustainabilitybenchmarking. International Journal of EnvironmentTechnology and Management 6 (1–2), 65–78.

Munda, G., Paruccini, M., Rossi, G., 1998. Multicriteria evaluationmethods in renewable resource management: the case ofintegrated water management under drought conditions. In:Beinat, E., Nijkamp, P. (Eds.), Multicriteria Evaluation in Land-use Management: Methodologies and Case Studies. Kluwer,Dordrecht, pp. 79–94.

http://alba.jrc.it/valse


Mustajoki, J., Hämäläinen, R.P., Marttunen, M., 2004. Participatorymulticriteria decision analysis with Web-HIPRE: a case of lakeregulationpolicy. EnvironmentalModellingandSoftware, vol. 19,pp. 537–547.

Neupane, B.R., 2003. Requirements of the world water developmentreport. Proceedings of theMonitoringTailor-Made IVConference:Information to Support Sustainable Water Management: FromLocal to global Levels, pp. 31–41. Available at: http://www.mtm-conference.nl/.

Nevarez, L., 1996. Just wait until there's a drought: mediatingenvironmental crisis for urban growth. Antipode, vol. 28, No. 3,pp. 246–272.

O'Connor, M., 2006. Building knowledge partnerships with ICT?Social and technical conditions for conviviality. In: GuimarãesPereira, Â., Guedes Vaz, S., Togentti, S. (Eds.), InterfacesBetween Science and Society. Greenleaf Publishing.

Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the Commons. The Evolution ofInstitutions of Collective Action. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Ostrom, E., 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity. PrincetonUniversity Press, Princeton, NJ.

Paneque, P., 2003. Evaluación integrada de la gestión del agua enterritorios vulnerables a riesgos hídricos: aplicación a la Costadel Sol Occidental (Málaga). Doctoral thesis, Department ofHumanities, University of Pablo de Olavide de Sevilla(in Spanish).

Polatidis, H., Haralambopoulos, D.A., Munda, G., Vreeker, R., 2006.Selecting an appropriate Multi-Criteria Decision Analysistechnique for renewable energy planning. Energy Sources PartB 1, 181–193.

Ringius, L., Asbjørn, T., Holtsmark, B., 1998. Can multi-criteriarules fairly distribute climate burdens? OECD results fromthree burden sharing rules. Energy Policy 26 (10), 777–793.

Rothman, D.S., Robinson, J.B., 1997. Growing pains: aconceptual framework for considering integrated assessments.Environnemental Monitoring and Assessment 46 (1–2), 23–43.

Roy, B., 1985. Méthodologie Multicritère d'Aide à la Décision.Economica, Paris.

Romero, C., Rehman, T., 1989. Multiple Criteria Analysis forAgricultural Decisions. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Salminen, P., Hokkanen, J., Lahdelma, R., 1998. Comparingmulticriteriamethods in the context of environmental problems. EuropeanJournal of Operational Research 104, 485–496.

Soncini-Sessa, R., Canuti, D., Colorni, A., Villa, L., Vitali, B., Weber,E., Losa, F.B., Laniado, E., Rizzoli, A., 2000. Use of multi-criteriaanalysis to resolve conflicts in the operation of a transnationalmultipurpose water system the case of Lake Verbano(Italy–Switzerland). Water International 25 (3), 334–346.

Stewart, T.J., Joubert, A., 1998. Conflicts between conservationgoals and land use for exotic forest plantations in South Africa.In: Beinat, E., Nijkamp, P. (Eds.), Multicriteria evaluation inland-use management: methodologies and case studies.Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 17–31.

WATECO (working group 2.6), 2003. Common implementationstrategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC).Guidance Document no. 1. Economics and the Environment —The implementation Challenge of the Water FrameworkDirective. Available at: http://forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/guidance_documents&vm=detailed&sb=Title.

http://www.mtmonference.nl/

http://www.mtmonference.nl/

http://forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?lramework_directive/guidance_documents&vmetailed&sb=itle

