resilience-increasing strategies for coasts toolkit · 3 publishable summary the...

1

Resilience-Increasing Strategies for Coasts – Toolkit

www.risckit.eu

Multi-Criteria Analysis Guide

Ref.: WP4 - Task 4.2

Date: July 2016

http://www.risckit.eu/

2

Deliverable Title D.4.2 – Evaluation of DRR Plans

Filename RISCKIT_D.4.2_MCA_Guide_2016

Authors Dr. Karina Barquet (Stockholm Environment Institute)

Contributors Lydia Cumiskey (Deltares)

Dr. Oscar Ferreira (Universidade do Algarve)

Dr. Michael Paolisso (University of Maryland)

Jan Jaap Meijer (Stockholm Environment Institute)

Dr. Lisa Segnestam (Stockholm Environment Institute)

Date 12/07/2016

Prepared under contract from the European Commission

Grant Agreement No. 603458

Directorate-General for Research & Innovation (DG Research), Collaborative project, FP7-ENV-

2013-two-stage

Start of the project: 01/11/2013

Duration: 42 months

Project coordinator: Stichting Deltares, NL

Dissemination level

X PU Public

PP Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission

Services)

RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission

Services)

CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission

Services)

Deliverable status version control

Version Date Author Review

1.0 15/01/2016 Dr. Karina Barquet, Stockholm

Environment Institute

Dr. Michael Paolisso, University of

Maryland

Dr. Oscar Ferreira, Universidade do

Algarve



Lydia Cumiskey, Deltares



Lydia Cumiskey, Deltares

3

Publishable Summary

The Resilience-Increasing Strategies for Coasts – Toolkit (RISC-KIT) FP7 EU project (2013-

2017) aims to produce a set of innovative and EU-coherent open-source and open- access

methods, tools and management approaches (the RISC-KIT) in support of coastal managers,

decision-makers and policy makers to reduce risk and increase resilience to low- frequency,

high impact hydro-meteorological events.

The Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) is one of the five tools used to assess the proposed measures in each of the RISC-KIT case studies with respect to criteria that capture the key dimensions of the decision-making process. The analysis is based on a one-time workshop with key stakeholders in each of the cases. In this workshop, stakeholders systematically score and weigh out options against four selected criteria (feasibility, acceptability, sustainability, and suitability). MCA methodologies have been widely applied in environmental studies as they have proven useful tools when assessing performance of options against criteria that are difficult to quantify and involve qualitative aspects. In RISC-KIT, MCA is used in three ways: 1) as a way facilitate the communication and presentation of project results in a coherent and contextualized manner to relevant local stakeholders and decision-makers; 2) as a way to capture other types of knowledge, such as local every-day experiences, socio-economic and political factors that might affect how the proposed measures are perceived; and 3) as a way of facilitating interaction between local stakeholders and raising awareness of risks and potential measures. This document provides guidance to MCA users as well as examples on how to carry out a MCA session. The guidance document is designed so that users with little previous experience on participatory methodologies or social-science background are able to carry out such exercise in their own context.

4

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 6

1.1 RISC-KIT Project Objectives ......................................................................................... 6

1.2 Project structure .......................................................................................................... 7

1.3 Deliverable context and objective ............................................................................... 7

1.4 Approach ..................................................................................................................... 8

1.5 Outline of the guidance report .................................................................................... 8

2. The Stakeholders ................................................................................................................ 9

2.1 Selection of Stakeholders in RISC-KIT .......................................................................... 9

3. The role of facilitators and co-facilitators ........................................................................ 13

4. Planning the meeting ....................................................................................................... 14

4.1 Provide advance notice to participant ...................................................................... 14

4.2 Make the necessary logistical arrangements ............................................................ 15

4.3 Develop a strong agenda ........................................................................................... 16

4.4 Manage the process during the meeting .................................................................. 16

4.5 Follow through........................................................................................................... 17

5. The MCA Matrix ............................................................................................................... 17

5.1 Selection of criteria .................................................................................................... 17

5.2 Expected outcomes ................................................................................................... 19

5.3 Steps .......................................................................................................................... 19

6. References ........................................................................................................................ 21

Appendix A. Flip Charts and Matrices ...................................................................................... 23

Part 1. Flip Chart for Stakeholder groups. ............................................................................ 23

Part 2. Flip Chart to record SAs ............................................................................................ 24

Part 3. Example of MCA Matrix ............................................................................................ 25

Part 4. Scoring Guide for stakeholders................................................................................. 26

Part 5. Scoring Matrix for stakeholders ............................................................................... 27

Part 6. Weighting Matrix for stakeholders ........................................................................... 28

Part 7. Score Flip Charts for CSOs......................................................................................... 29

Appendix B. Templates for agendas ......................................................................................... 30

Part 1. Template for a process agenda ................................................................................ 30

Part 2. Template for a participant agenda ........................................................................... 37

Appendix C. Templates to report MCA process ....................................................................... 38

Part 1. Template to report stakeholder selection ................................................................ 38

Part 2. Template to report MCA consultation ..................................................................... 41

5

Appendix D. Template for Evaluation of MCA consultation .................................................... 56

Part 1. Stakeholder survey ................................................................................................... 56

6

1. Introduction Recent and historic low-frequency, high-impact events such as Xynthia (impacting France in 2010), the 2011 Liguria (Italy) Flash Floods and the 1953 North Sea storm surge, which inundated parts of the Netherlands, Belgium and the UK, have demonstrated the flood risks faced by exposed coastal areas in Europe. Typhoons in Asia (such as Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines in November 2013), hurricanes in the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico, and Superstorm Sandy, impacting the northeastern USA in October 2012, have demonstrated how even larger flooding events pose a significant risk and can devastate and immobilize large cities and countries. These coastal zone risks are likely to increase in the future which requires a re- evaluation of coastal disaster risk reduction (DRR) strategies and a new mix of prevention (e.g. dike protection), mitigation (e.g. limiting construction in flood-prone areas; eco-system based solutions) and preparedness (e.g. Early Warning Systems, EWS) measures. Even without a change in risk due to climate or socio-economic changes, a re-evaluation is necessary in the light of a growing appreciation of ecological and natural values which drive ecosystem-based or nature-based flood defense approaches. In addition, as free space is becoming sparse, coastal DRR plans need to be spatially efficient, allowing for multi-functionality.

1.1 RISC-KIT Project Objectives In response to these challenges, the RISC-KIT project aims to deliver a set of open- source and open-access methods, tools and management approaches to reduce risk and increase resilience to low-frequency, high-impact hydro-meteorological events in the coastal zone. These products will enhance forecasting, prediction and early warning capabilities, improve the assessment of long-term coastal risk and optimize the mix of PMP-measures. Specific objectives are:

1. Review and analysis of current-practice coastal risk management plans and lessons-learned of historical large-scale events;

2. Collection of local socio-cultural-economic and physical data at case study sites through end-user and stakeholder consultation to be stored in an impact- oriented coastal risk database;

3. Development of a regional-scale coastal risk assessment framework (CRAF) to assess present and future risk due to multi-hazards;

4. Development of an impact-oriented Early Warning System (EWS/DSS) for hotspot areas consisting of: i) a free-ware system to predict hazard intensities using coupled hydro-meteo and morphological models and ii) a Bayesian-based Decision Support System which integrates hazards and socio-economic, cultural and environmental consequences

5. Development of potential DRR measures and the design of ecosystem and cost-effective, (non-)technological DRR plans in close cooperation with end-users for a diverse set of case study sites on all European regional seas.

6. Application of CRAF and EWS/DSS tools at the case study sites plans for a combination of scenarios of climate-related hazard and socio- economic vulnerability change and demonstration of the operational mode;

7

7. Development of a web-based management guide for developing integrated plans along Europe’s coasts and beyond and provide a synthesis of lessons learned in RISC-KIT in the form of policy guidance and recommendations at the national and EU level.

The tools are to be demonstrated on case study sites on a range of EU coasts in the North- and Baltic Sea Region, Atlantic Ocean, Black Sea and Mediterranean Sea (Figure 1). These sites constitute diverse geomorphic settings, land use, forcing, hazard types and socio-economic, cultural and environmental characteristics. All selected regions are most frequently affected by storm surges and coastal erosion. A management guide of DRR measures and management approaches will be developed. The RISC-KIT Toolkit will benefit forecasting and civil protection agencies, coastal managers, community members, NGOs, the general public and scientists.

1.2 Project structure The project is structured into seven Work Packages (WP) starting with WP1 on ‘Data collection, review and historical analysis’. WP2–4 will create the components of the RISC-KIT Toolkit containing an ‘Improved method for regional scale vulnerability and risk assessment’ (WP2), ‘Enhanced early warning and scenario evaluation capabilities for hotspots’ (WP3) as well as ‘New management and policy approaches to increase coastal resilience’ (WP4). The Toolkit will be tested through ‘Application at case study sites’ (WP5). WP6 will be responsible for ‘Dissemination, knowledge transfer and exploitation’ and ‘Coordination and Management’ are handled in WP7.

Figure 1 Case study sites (stars), RISC-KIT case study site partners (blue solid dots) and non-case study partners (red open

circles)

1.3 Deliverable context and objective The present guide has been developed by the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) as part of Task 4.2 in RISC-KIT’s WP4:

8

Task 4.2 will work in close conjunction with WP5 taking the results of Tasks 5.3 in which the site-specific DRR measures and Strategic Alternatives (SAs) will be tested in the light of various hydro-meteo event scenarios using the EWS/DSS that were set up at each site in Task 5.2 (see description of WP5). Based on the results of these scenario simulations the proposed SAs for each case study site will be evaluated through a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) that will capture key criteria of the decision-making process including (physical, political, technical and economic) feasibility, sustainability and (social) acceptability of SAs. The MCA process will take on some of the principles from soft systems methodology so that criteria are assessed by end-users and stakeholders at each case-study site though participatory consultation sessions. The outcome of the MCA coupled with results from Task 4.1 will generate local qualitative data that can improve the assessment of DRR measures and SAs in the EWS/DSS and allow us to build DRR Strategies (including objectives and the preferred SA). Findings will be described in an evaluation report presenting the outcomes of the task and highlighting both similarities of, and differences between, DRR strategies across all case study sites (D4.2).

1.4 Approach The aim of this guide is to provide facilitators with all steps involved in the implementation of the Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA). The goal of the MCA in RISC-KIT is to assess the strategic alternatives (SAs) (i.e. combinations of DRR measures) in each of the RISC-KIT case studies with respect to criteria that capture the key dimensions of the decision-making process. MCA is about determining the extent to which options create value by achieving objectives, identify the areas of greater and lesser opportunity, prioritize the options, clarify the differences between the options, and help the key players involved in the assessment to understand the situation better (Van Ierland, de Bruin, & Watkiss, 2013) Participatory MCA methodologies have been identified as suitable decision support tools for the prioritization of adaptation options, and their application is growing particularly in projects addressing environmental issues (Saarikoski et al., 2015). These methods are meant to help decision makers to evaluate and choose among alternative options that are ranked based on multiple criteria and stakeholder preferences (Munaretto, Siciliano, & Turvani, 2014). MCA is an approach that allows for the consideration of both qualitative and quantitative data in the ranking of alternative options. The approach provides a systematic method for assessing and scoring options against different pre-selected criteria. These criteria are then weighted to provide an overall ranking of options. In RISC-KIT these steps are carried out by selected stakeholders representing one of the pre-identified groups in the project (see Section 2 for a description of stakeholders’ groups) and facilitated by a leader involved in the project.

1.5 Outline of the guidance report The guide is formed by 6 main sections with sub-sections, a reference list, and 4 appendices (A, B, C, and D) with sub-sections. Section 2 explains the process for selecting stakeholders. Section 3 summarizes the role of facilitators and co-facilitators in the MCA consultation.

9

Section 4 is divided into several sub-sections that contain suggestions on how to carry out the MCA consultation. Section 5 explains all the steps for the MCA Matrix. References can be found on section 6. All documents that CSOs will need to hand out to their stakeholders, or that they need to fill in for documenting the MCA implementation have been included in the Appendices.

2. The Stakeholders Stakeholder identification is a crucial step in any participatory methodology. In MCA methodologies, the type of stakeholders involved in the process depends on the aims of the study and can thus be limited to decision-makers or can be open to other type of actors deemed relevant, including the private sector, citizens, or associations. However, there is an increasing recognition of the need to include a broad spectrum of stakeholders in decision making (not only decision-makers), especially in relation to urgent societal–environmental problems, such as adaptation to climate change (O’Neill, 2001; Renn, 2006). This recognition emerges from the acceptance of other forms of knowledge, not just scientific or technical, that allows policy-making to take into consideration traditional forms of knowledge and every-day experiences of people. In RISC-KIT we adopt this latter approach.

2.1 Selection of Stakeholders in RISC-KIT In RISC-KIT, we depart from the 8 main stakeholder groups previously identified in the project. To this list, one more group has been added to include the private sector (Table 1). To carry out the MCA, facilitators can choose to go back to the same stakeholders previously identified, or replace some of the stakeholders and identify new ones that represent one of the pre-identified groups, or select a whole new group of stakeholders. These options are further explained below. Option 1. Including the same stakeholders allows for a continuous process where you will be able to follow stakeholders’ perceptions and attitudes from the start until the end of the project. Including the same stakeholders will save facilitators time, as stakeholders are already familiar with the project. In some cases, existing stakeholders might want to continue being part of the process out of own interest and curiosity, and some stakeholders might even see it as a way to express their opinions through a different and less politicized forum. Option 2. Replace (or add) some of your stakeholders if some of them are not willing to participate, or if you are not satisfied with the participation of the initial group of stakeholders because they did not engage sufficiently, or if they do no longer seem relevant for the purpose of the study. In some case studies, the area of focus might have changed and the stakeholders originally interviewed might no longer be relevant. In other cases, stakeholders might be unwilling to continue participating because of lack of time or interest in the project and facilitators will have to find a replacement. If the most relevant person for your case is not available or is not willing to participate, approach the second best alternative. If this fails, approach a third or a fourth option. Option 3. Getting a new stakeholder group might be necessary, particularly for those case studies that in WP1 had very few and/or irrelevant stakeholders. When identifying the new stakeholders, keep in mind that the aim is to gather stakeholders representing a particular

10

group or holding a decision-making position and which are relevant for the goals and geographic location of the project. Keep in mind that these stakeholders should be able to use their expertise to answer to the questions posed during the MCA. If one or several stakeholder groups do not fit your local context (for instance, there are no inhabitants in your area of focus), then you do not need to include a stakeholder from that particular group.1 Similarly, if there are relevant stakeholders that do not fit any of the 9 categories, a category that better describes the role of your stakeholder can be added along with a motivation as to why this new category is needed. The most important thing is to have at least one representative for each of the groups, which implies a minimum of 9 participants, if all stakeholder categories are relevant for your case. Each of these stakeholders will only represent one group. Ultimately you want a stakeholder group formed by representatives who have the support and confidence of their group, who can make the time commitment to actively participate in the session, who can work effectively with others despite differences in styles and interests, and who have the knowledge relevant to the issues that will be discussed or willing to acquire the necessary information. Table 1 Stakeholder Groups. The first eight groups depart from WP1 and the table presented in the T1.2 Living Guidance Document. The last group has been added by WP4 leaders to fulfil the purpose of T4.2.

Stakeholder groups Description Why they need to be engaged with.

SHI: Coastal manager High-knowledge of both coastal processes and the communities at risk. Involved in coastal protection and defence against flooding and erosion.

To understand the risks associated with the study area in both physical and social contexts.

SH2: Land use planners

High-knowledge of local policies and policy processes involved with regulating coastal land use.

To understand the local polices, as well as processes and stakeholders involved in policy development.

SH3: Civil protection agency/ disaster management agency

High – knowledge of local DRR plans including technical and non-technical measures for disaster risk management. Planning and preparation for safety of citizens as well as property during an extreme event.

To understand local DRR plans and non-technical measures taken in the case of an event.

SH4: academic working in coastal zone

Medium – high knowledge of coastal processes, policies and/or DRR measures. Researching, consulting, and/or working with local planners and managers.

To obtain and understand additional information in regard to design and implementation of the local environment, policy processes, and DRR measures.

SH5: Consultant previously engaged in managing the coastal environment

Medium – high knowledge of coastal processes, policies and/or DRR measures. Researching, consulting, and/or working with local planners and managers.

To obtain and understand additional information in regard to design and implementation of the local environment, policy processes, and DRR measures.

SH6: Local resident previously affected by the hazard

Medium – high knowledge of historical context of case study site, understanding of local environment, cultural and social context.

To understand the needs/perceptions/values of the local population and to learn about past events. Will also provide information on what is politically feasible in terms of the local community.

SH7: Chairperson of local active citizen groups

Low – medium knowledge of local environment, political process and DRR measures. May be involved in consultation but little further involvement.

To understand the needs/perceptions/values of the local population and to learn about past events. Will also provide information on what is politically feasible in terms of the local community.

SH8: Local authority (e.g. port, tourism board, fishing,

High-knowledge of coastal activities (i.e. sectors) as well as political processes and the local communities.

To understand the local socioeconomic activities, political processes and sectoral policies. Will provide data and knowledge on

1 A motivation for not including a particular stakeholder groups will be necessary when submitting results

11

housing) sociocultural, socioeconomic and socioecological aspects of the study area.

SH9: Representative from private sector

Medium-high knowledge of hazards and the real and potential economic losses deriving from risks.

To increase our understanding of economic impacts of hazards and how to achieve public-private partnerships that can produce innovative solutions to risks.

Don’t leave out stakeholders because they seem difficult to deal with. Inviting to the table those expressing the most intense opposition might cause some initial discomfort, but doing so is very important particularly if the opposition group/stakeholder has the ability to stop the implementation process of DRR Strategic Alternatives (SAs) and other DRR plans through legal or other means. Nothing is gained by excluding people from the stakeholder group purely because of their views, criticism or concerns. The ground rules for mutual respect, however, must be followed. Table 2 Flip Chart for Stakeholder Groups in Kristianstad

Stakeholder Group Stakeholder in each case study

Role

De

cisi

on

-mak

er

Lob

byi

st

Info

rme

d R

ece

pto

r

Ove

rse

er

Imp

lem

en

ter

Exp

ert

Pri

vate

Se

cto

r

SH1: Coastal manager N/A ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

SH2: Land use planners NAME, landscape architect, Sustainable Development Management, Kristianstad Municipality

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐

SH3: Civil protection/ disaster management agency

NAME, Fire Protection, Safety and Security, Emergency Services, Kristianstad Municipality

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐


NAME, Geo-planning and Climate Adaptation Unit, Swedish Geotechnical Institute

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐


NAME, Research assistant, World Maritime University ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐


NAME, representative from community association in Äspet

☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐


N/A ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

12

SH8: Local authority (e.g. port, tourism board, fishing, housing)

NAME, Coordinator Environment and Security, Åhus Port

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐

NAME, Environmental Communicator, Sustainable Development Management

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐


NAME, Claims Manager, Claims Department, Länsförsäkringar Insurance

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒

To better identify relevant stakeholders in our pilot study in Kristianstad the chart presented in Table 1, was further developed by specifying the context-specific actors for each of the groups and indicated their role in DRR (see Table 2 Flip Chart for Stakeholder Groups in Kristianstad, for an example). The purpose of this flip chart is to facilitate the analysis of the data that each facilitator will send to WP4 leaders after the MCA workshop is finished, and to help you reflect when selecting stakeholders whether you have participants that fulfill all of these roles. Thus, this chart will be used at two different stages: first it will be used at the planning stage when CSOs review their stakeholder groups (before sending out the invitations to local actors) with the purpose of cross-checking whether all groups have been considered and are represented; second, the chart will be filled up by each CSO after the workshop has been carried out. A flip chart to be filled up by each CSO is provided in Appendix A. Flip Charts Part 1. Flip Chart for Stakeholder groups. The role of each stakeholder will vary across contexts. For instance, coastal managers will probably not have the same role across case studies (e.g. not all coastal managers are decision-makers throughout the 11 RISC-KIT cases). Therefore, below you will find a root definition of the different roles included in the flip chart and some examples of stakeholders that may potentially fulfill this function. Ultimately, CSOs will need to look at their own context and identify the role that each stakeholder fulfills in DRR in their locality. Notice that while stakeholders can only represent one of the nine (stakeholder) groups, they can play more than one role. Also, it is likely that one of the roles is more predominant than the other. In the case of Kristianstad, we had several stakeholders with “implementer” roles, whilst we failed to invite any decision-makers or lobbyists. For your case study, try to achieve better balance in your group. Decision-makers refer to stakeholders in a position to take and execute decisions over a society or community at different (local, national, regional) levels. They may include government ministers, state agencies and departments, senior figures in national or local administrations, members of parliament, donors and their governments. Lobbyists constitute a broad category that refers to individuals, associations and organized groups attempting to influence decision-making and advocate particular DRR strategies. Lobbyists can include individuals in the private sector, corporations, legislators, parliamentarians, government officials, advocacy groups (interest groups), funding agencies, or multi-stakeholder partnerships between state and non-state actors. Informed receptors are

13

individuals or groups directly benefited or negatively impacted by the implementation of the measure who are actively engaged in DRR debates in the community and might act as representatives of an association or group of citizens. It may include local communities, vulnerable groups, minorities, particular sectors of society (e.g. disabled, children, women, etc), or economic groups like fishermen or farmers. Overseers are individuals, organizations, or associations with the mandate to support, supervise or coordinate the decision-making process of DRR activities. Overseers can include public agencies, ministries, or international organizations like UNISDR, and their tasks may include gathering political support, enhancing parliamentary cooperation, promoting capacity building, improving DRR set-ups, strengthening legislative frameworks, and ensuring adequate budget allocations. Implementers are managing units in charge of the execution of DRR-related activities working closely to or at the field site (the locality). This category may include government officials, national institutions, NGOs, regional organs, civil protection authorities amongst others. Experts refer to actors producing and sharing DRR-related knowledge such as researchers, consultants, think tanks, or journalists. The private sector includes individuals or corporations that are either involved in DRR, should be involved in DRR, or are highly relevant for planning and establishing DRR measures. One obvious example is insurance companies, but also the tourist industry, energy (gas or oil) or electricity providers, extractive or food-producing companies that may potentially be affected by hazards and could contribute to solutions, etc. Some facilitators might be able to gather more than one stakeholder per group. In Kristianstad, we allowed all stakeholders to represent themselves, rather than grouping stakeholders representing the same organization into one. The reason for this is that not all stakeholders might have the same opinion, even though they might work at the same place. Allowing individual MCAs, rather than MCAs per organizations, will better reflect the local and organizational politics at play in disaster risk management.

3. The role of facilitators and co-facilitators Facilitators help the group members decide where they want to go, but the group itself deliberates and makes the final decisions. At the meeting, a facilitator 2 acts as a “content-neutral” person who leads the group through the agenda—but does not contribute to the substance of the discussion and has no decision-making authority. Facilitator functions:

• Helps group define its meeting purpose and desired objectives for a meeting • Designs processes for group to meet its goals, create products, or make decisions • Guides group discussions to keep meeting participants on track by asking key

questions and reminding groups of their stated goals • Ensures that group assumptions are stated and tested, and that all participants’

voices are heard • Acts as a “neutral party” that has no stake in the outcome of a meeting • Takes notes to record key points of conversation and group decisions • Helps group plan to carry out decisions made at a meeting

2 It is recommended that facilitators are the CSOs of each of the cases.

14

A co-facilitator will also be needed to be able to carry out the MCA. This person can have two roles. S/he can help organize the logistics of the meeting, which involves contracting with the meeting location, arranging for catering, purchasing supplies, and so forth. More importantly, the co-facilitator can help document the process, deliberations, actions taken, outcomes of the meeting, and keep notes. It is highly recommended to assign both a facilitator and a co-facilitator so that one of them can entirely focus on leading the meeting while the other can keep track of exchanges and document the session. Appendix D. Template for Evaluation of MCA consultation provides further guidelines and concrete questions on how to qualitative data should be collected and the kind of data needed for this task.

4. Planning the meeting The U.S Environmental Protection agency (2013) lists the major elements for running a successful meeting:

- Provide advance notice to participants. - Make the necessary logistical arrangements - Develop a strong agenda. - Manage the process during the meeting. - Follow through.

4.1 Provide advance notice to participant

Before setting the date and time, get a feeling for what the most convenient day and time might be for your stakeholders. For instance, in Kristianstad, our local end-user suggested the workshop could take place on a Friday, and we suggested using four hours, plus a one-hour lunch (10:00 - 15:00). There were two problems with this date and time. First, Friday in Sweden is often a day when people try to end their workday earlier, particularly people commuting; second, the time for the meeting was too tight and did not allow for any delays or changes in the agenda. As a result, we could not carry out the MCA as planned, the last 15 minutes of the meeting were stressed up, and people lost focus during the last part of the meeting.

Space - The physical space of a meeting is important for setting the mood of a meeting and influencing group dynamics. Pay attention to: location and room selection, seating arrangements, temperature, light and sound quality, availability of essential equipment, etc. Time - Appropriate scheduling and disciplined time management are essential to a successful meeting. Be sure to adapt date and time to participants’ availability, allow adequate time for different agenda items, keep an eye on the clock and stick to agreed agenda time frames. Eventfulness - Pay attention to human aspects of group interaction. Use humor, ice-breaking exercises, etc. to put people at ease and create a sense of eventfulness. Product – Always clearly define the aim or expected outcome of the meeting. Refer to this aim frequently throughout the meeting to keep people focused. Style – The facilitator’s image, role and way of relating to the group can have strongly influence the end product.

Table 3 S.T.E.P.S. for Successful Participatory Meetings

15

Based on the experience in Kristianstad, it is suggested to keep a more flexible timeline and to plan the meeting at the beginning of the week, if possible (see Appendix B, Part 2. Template for a participant agenda). You could make use of doodle polls, or simply suggesting a few time slots. By asking them first, you are letting them know that this is their meeting and you are trying to accommodate their schedules, not just yours. One way to set your meetings off on the right foot is to provide plenty of advance notice to participants. Once you have notified them about the time, place and date, it is always a good idea to send a reminder a day before the meeting takes place. This shows respect for their time, demonstrates good planning skills, and increases the chance of attendance. Advance notice also refers to any materials the stakeholders need for the upcoming meeting. Make sure stakeholders have adequate time before the meeting to review such materials. includes some further suggestions for successful participatory

meetings (African Development Bank, 2001)

4.2 Make the necessary logistical arrangements Some issues to consider when arranging for logistics include:

Where will the meeting be held? • Do participants have enough information about the meeting? We recommend you to

send the participant agenda/timeline some days ahead of the meeting. • Who is the contact person for facility and logistical arrangements? • Take into account participants’ availability, convenience and comfort in planning the

venue and timing of the meeting. Ensure that a “neutral” location is chosen. Ask yourself whether this is the most appropriate location? (Consider “territory” issues, convenience, comfort, accessibility.)

• What kind of space, furniture, wall space (for instance for the projector), lighting, and audiovisual equipment does the site have?

• What are the starting and ending times? Be strategic about date and time by taking into account local culture and norms (e.g. in Sweden if you schedule a workshop on a Friday ending at 15:00, it is likely that people will leave earlier than that as they try to catch the train or travel for the weekend).

• Have arrangements been made for food and beverages? • Make sure to include time for social interaction at some point in the meeting (for

instance through breaks, or at the beginning or end of the meeting). Time these breaks strategically (for instance half-way through the workshop).

• Is any additional equipment needed (audiovisual, displays, computers, etc.)? • Make sure the workshop is planned for being carried out in the local language

How the room is set up depends on the content of the meeting and the type of interaction expected between participants. Different setups will allow for different types of learning and participation. Common room setup options include conference style, hollow square, theater style, classroom style, round tables, and U-Shape. This last option is the recommended one for the MCA workshop, and it consists of rectangular tables positioned to form a “U,” with chairs placed around the outside. This setup is particularly helpful when using audiovisual equipment so that all participants can see the screen place in the open part of the U.

Table 4 Room Set Up

16

A suggestion for setting up the room for the MCA workshop is described in Table 4.

4.3 Develop a strong agenda The agenda will serve as a road map to accomplish your meeting objectives. The agenda provides the focusing framework for the meeting, puts tasks in a logical order and timeframe, and offers an outline for writing the summary report at the meeting’s conclusion. An agenda should be considered a guideline, not a law. Flexibility is essential to ensure that tasks are accomplished in the best manner possible. There are typically two versions of an agenda. The participant agenda is the concise version participants receive before a meeting (for a template see Appendix B, Part 2. Template for a participant agenda). At a minimum, the participant agenda includes the meeting title, location, start and end times, objectives, discussion topics, and information about how and when attendees will participate. The participant agenda is a clear and streamlined version of the detailed process agenda. The process agenda has the additional information the facilitator and meeting leaders need to ensure that the meeting runs smoothly. Putting together the detailed process agenda helps the meeting leaders think through the details of the entire session. A template for a process agenda has been provided in Appendix B, Part 1. Template for a process agenda. We strongly recommend you to read through this guide and the templates provided in Appendix B and develop it into a more detailed draft agenda that suits your needs (including the objective, expected results, format, duration, etc. of each item).

4.4 Manage the process during the meeting Here are some tips you can follow to start a meeting off on the right foot:

• Strive to create an atmosphere of trust and collaboration • Have the participants introduce themselves if they don’t already know each other. • Make sure everyone is clear on the objectives of the MCA and what you hope to

accomplish. • Review the roles of the participants and how decisions will be made. Make it clear to

the participants what their roles are. • Develop ground rules. Setting ground rules at the beginning of a meeting helps to

focus the participants on the task at hand and provides a structure for the meeting. The facilitator should use the ground rules to guide the meeting and refer to them if they are not being followed. Typical ground rules include the following:

- Honor time limits. - Speak one at a time. - Refrain from personal attacks. - Maintain confidentiality if requested and clarify that working documents will

not be beyond the project. - Allow the participants to add additional ground rules if they feel the need.

• Keep track of time and try to stick to the agreed schedule as much as possible.

17

4.5 Follow through Once the meeting is over, you’re still not done. A successful meeting will conclude by summarizing what occurred during the meeting, identifying action items based on the discussion, assigning people to accomplish those action items, and thanking all the participants. The final element of a successful meeting is producing and distributing a meeting summary. Effective meeting summaries are brief and well organized, and they are distributed a few days after the meeting (see separate word file “MCA Workshop Brief for End Users” for an example of the workshop brief used for the pilot-test in Kristianstad).

5. The MCA Matrix The aim of this MCA is to map the diversity of perspectives that may be taken on a particular set of measures, to highlight the key features underlying the differences in opinions and to provide a framework for debate. The outcomes of this exercise should not be interpreted as providing the basis for decision-making, but rather they should be understood as a way of facilitating constructive discussion. While RISC-KIT is not attempting to plan, finance or implement measures, we do work from a scenario perspective built upon assumptions. We assume that certain hazards are linked to certain risks, and that these risks could be mitigated through particular measures, regardless of whether these risks will take place today or in fifty years, and regardless of whether the measures will ever be implemented. Similarly, this MCA departs from a hypothetical scenario where DRR measures may be contemplated as an option to reduce risk regardless of whether these measures might ever be implemented or only be used to inform the debate. Outweighing different DRR measures in different contexts implies that different criteria need to be considered in order to assess which option is the best, for whom, for what, and when. Below is a description for inclusion of criteria in the MCA.

5.1 Selection of criteria Criteria have been selected based on a literature review of the most important factors when contemplating, planning, financing, and implementing DRR measures. Studies identify factors such as social acceptance, political will, availability of financial resources and technological know-how, as crucial for increased investments in DRR measures (Davis, Yanagisawa, & Georgieva,

Strategic Alternatives (SAs): the groups of measures identified by stakeholders which will be scored against different criteria. SAs can be composed of combinations of previously identified DRR measures. Criteria: are the set of conditions through which each SA will be scored against. Scores: Values to assess the performance of each SA against criteria, ranging between 1 (lowest) and 5 (highest). Weights: are the values ranging from 1 (lowest) to 4 (highest) given to each criterion to indicate the criteria’s importance relative to other criteria in DRR. Weighted Scores: are the weighted scores of criteria for each measure DRR strategies: Is the outcome of the MCA. They include objectives, and the preferred “strategic alternative”, and highlight priority actions for institutions and timelines (short, medium and long term) for possible implementation.

Table 5 THE 6 PARTS OF THE MCA

18

2015). Particularly, social acceptance seems to be the most crucial factor when planning DRR measures. Governments are accountable to voters and tax-payers, whom either support or not investments in DRR. Investments in DRM, particularly preventive measures, are often difficult to grasp unless disasters occur. But acceptance can be created through information dissemination and by presenting costs and benefits of measures for different groups, in different sectors, throughout time. However, benefits and tradeoffs of measures need to be grounded in context (Shreve & Kelman, 2014), because the applicability and relevance of a measure will not only depend on foreseen gains or losses, but on whether the measure is likely to be accepted, prioritized, and supported (in a given socio-political landscape) to begin with. Some measures might make perfect sense when looking at the physical conditions, but will never be implemented because of strong local opposition; other measures might initially seem adequate to prevent infrastructural losses, until outweighing investments versus short and long-term gains. In order to map the social and political landscape of localities, participatory assessments and stakeholder inclusion for understanding risks and measures are gaining prominence in the DRR literature (Adger, 2009; Pahl-Wostl, 2009; Pelling, 2007). For instance, Rød et al. (2012) argue for a combination of top-down and bottom-up vulnerability assessments in order for the study to be reliable. Their study shows the importance of taking into account the perceptions of local-level authorities for raising awareness, achieving local acceptance of scientific studies, and integrating local knowledge in scientific research. Such assessment could then be used to support decision-making as to where necessary adaptive and preventive measures to climate change-related hazards should be carried out. Naess et al. (2006) similarly argue that open-dialogue and participation and cooperation can facilitate proactive local adaptation to climate change effects. Even more, local ownership can lay the foundations for increased cooperation between research and policy, making policy more science-informed and research more policy relevant. This MCA has been structured to cover 4 main categories of criteria: Feasibility, Acceptability, Suitability and Sustainability. Feasibility refers to that (human, technical, time, and financial) resources required to implement the SA are available or can be acquired. Acceptability refers to the expectations of stakeholders and recipients in the case studies sites. These actors may include civil society, interest groups, and influential individuals in society. Suitability refers to the rationale of the SA; for instance, whether the proposed measures address underlying concerns in society, or whether the proposed location for implementing the SA is suitable for local needs and plans. Sustainability addresses the relevance of the SA in the present and future, its impact upon human activity and ecosystems, and the resilience of the measures to future changes (see Part 4. Scoring Guide for stakeholders for a more detailed description of criteria). When defining criteria, the selection was made so that all relevant criteria have been included; that each option can be judged against each criterion; that criteria are mutually independent; and so that criteria contain no double counting and are consistent with effects occurring over time (Bruin et al., 2009).

19

5.2 Expected outcomes We expect two sets of results to emerge from the MCA. The first set of results is qualitative data that will be documented during the MCA implementation. On the one hand, the MCA implementation will generate context-specific data pertaining to DRR issues in each of the case-studies that will allow WP4 leaders to analyze each of the cases separately but also draw comparisons across cases. At this level we expect to be able to draw conclusions on why stakeholders chose a particular combination of DRR measures and not another, or why a particular measure might enjoy support in one case-study but not on another; on the other hand the MCA will generate data that will allow us to better understand the specific socio-political context in each of the cases. This data will be partly collected through the templates provided in Appendix C. Templates to report MCA process, and partly through the skype interview that SEI will conduct with each of the CSOs following the MCA workshop in the respective case studies. The second set of results is the numerical values produced by the MCA. The MCA workshop will present and use the results from the Bayesian Network where the effectiveness of different DRR measures and SAs are evaluated based on indicators, damage reduction and risk to life. Together with local stakeholders, a selected number of SAs will be defined and evaluated based on their feasibility, acceptability, suitability and sustainability using the MCA. A preferred DRR strategy can then be selected taking into account the BN and MCA results. In certain cases, the MCA workshop will also collect information to qualify or update the assumptions made in the Bayesian (BN) analysis (WP5) for the measures affecting the exposure and/or vulnerability in collaboration with the local stakeholders which can potentially be fed back into the BN. These results will a) reflect local perceptions on the proposed SAs; and b) it will allow us to link model results and qualitative data to develop DRR strategies3 in close cooperation with local stakeholders. Where applicable, results from the MCA will be integrated in the Web-based Management Guide. The detailed steps for carrying out the MCA are further specified below.

5.3 Steps The MCA Matrix will follow the following steps:

1. Interactively present preliminary DRR measures from BN results and agree on SAs: The MCA session will start of by facilitators reminding stakeholders (or get more input on) the problem analysis, the objectives, the proposed long list of measures and selected measures (from task 4.1). Next, facilitators show the results from their respective case-study by handing out the pre-prepared cards to each stakeholder (as demonstrated at the MCA Training Workshop in Faro and in the supporting PowerPoint file). The cards will display a picture and a short description of the measure and qualitative estimate of cost, the hazard (inundation, erosion) results, the impact results (damage reduction, loss of life) and other relevant information (e.g. map, assumptions of the operator/uptake factors). One card should be made for the “zero alternative” i.e. current situation with no measures, which can be used for comparison. Depending on the size of the group, it can be split in two4.

3 “DRR strategies” is the term replacing “DRR plans”, and includes objectives, and preferred “strategic

alternative”. 4 If the group has 8 people or more it is recommended to split into two groups.

20

Stakeholders are given some time to digest the cards individually and compare results to the zero-alternative. The web-viewer can be used to show stakeholders additional supporting information that is not presented in the cards e.g. with climate change, results for different areas. The stakeholders will then be asked to select their preferred DRR measures individually and then as a group by placing the cards on a flipchart. The BN results for these combinations of DRR measures i.e. SAs will be explained interactively using the pre-prepared cards (for each SA). Using the webviewer, they will have the possibility to “turn on and off” different measures and discuss the impacts of SAs, and some blank cards should be available in case stakeholders define SAs that were not pre-prepared and results can be taken from the web-viewer. Stakeholders can discuss these results and prioritize four SAs that will be used for further evaluation in the MCA analysis. These four SAs will be stuck on the MCA flipchart. Further details of this process are explained in the process agenda (Appendix B. Part 2. Template for a participant agenda).

2. Score measures against criteria: In this step, stakeholders will assess the performance of

each SA against criteria (e.g. how feasible/sustainable/acceptable/suitable are sand dunes as a measure to prevent coastal erosion in your area?). Facilitators will explain the different criteria (using the Scoring Guide provided in Appendix A. Part 4. Scoring Guide for stakeholders). Heron stakeholders will assign a value individually, ranging between -2 and +2, to each criterion per SA. The individual scores will be first recorded in the Scoring Matrix for Stakeholders (provided in Appendix A. Part 5. Scoring Matrix for stakeholders). Once stakeholders have assigned all scores, they will write them up in colored post-its (provided in the information package at the beginning of the workshop). CSOs will pre-assign a color per score previous to the session so that all stakeholders use the same color to the same corresponding score (the purpose of the post-it’s is to make the exercise more visually accessible and to more easily identify the values when looking at the flip chart). At the workshop, stakeholders will use these colored post-it’s to write their individual scores that will be pasted in the MCA flip chart (e.g pink post-it corresponds to -2, yellow to -1, orange to 0, blue to +1, and green to +2). The facilitator will initiate a group discussion and get the group to agree on one score per criteria. If consensus is not reached, scores can be averaged. A more detailed description of the MCA steps is provided in the Template for a process agenda (Appendix B, Part 1. Template for a process agenda).

3. Weigh criteria: to indicate criteria’s importance relative to the objective of the process (e.g., what criterion is most important to consider if sand dunes were to be implemented to reduce coastal erosion?). This will be done through 2 main steps: first, stakeholders will be handed out 10 stickers. These stickers should be distributed individually and used on the

How to assess performance and importance when scoring and weighting? The MCA departs from the assumption that the stakeholders involved in the exercise are relevant and adequate for making a judgement call. If the stakeholder is representing a particular group, then s/he should make an assessment based on the group s/he is representing. If the stakeholder is only representing his or her opinion or official post, then the assessment should be an individual one.

21

“Weighting Matrix for Stakeholders” (Appendix A. Part 6. Weighting Matrix for stakeholders to assign a weight per criterion. The more stickers a criterion receives the higher its weight. More stickers indicate a criterion is perceived as very important to take into consideration when implementing measures, while fewer stickers indicate the criterion is perceived as less relevant. The second step is once stakeholders have assigned individual weights, a group discussion to agree on a weight per criteria will follow. First, stakeholders will agree on the most important criterion. The same procedure should be repeated for the second, third, and fourth criteria. Equal weights can be given to more than one criterion; however, it is common in MCA to give different weightings to different options, reflecting their importance in the overall objectives. Keep in mind that you a limited amount of stickers (10). If consensus is not reached, scores can be averaged. Criteria will only be weighted once, as it is assumed that their importance will be constant across all SAs. Thus, make sure that all SAs are first scored before moving on to this step (see Appendix B, Part 1. Template for a process agenda for an example on how to go through each of the steps and Appendix A. Part 3. Example of MCA Matrix).

4. Calculate weighted scores of criteria: for each measure by multiplying scores times the weight for each criterion for all measures.

5. Generate sums per measure by adding the weighted scores for all criteria per SA and

entering the total value in the row titled “SUMS” at the end of the MCA Matrix. The SA will the highest weighted scores will be stakeholders’ preferred alternative.

6. Sensitivity analysis: A sensitivity analysis will be generated by the stakeholder themselves

when they fill up the individual flip charts with the weights for each criterion. WP4 will then compare the individual data given by stakeholders to the final value assigned by the group.

Suggested questions for discussion (each CSO should develop this list further. Please note down the key points of discussion for each of the questions)

Are the best performing SAs also the most accepted and feasible?

Are results what stakeholders expected, or did they expect other results?

Are these results representative for the local context and stakeholders’ perceptions of what would be accepted or feasible in their localities?

Are these results new, or have other (earlier) studies shown similar results?

How could these results be improved?

How do these results influence stakeholders’ views on DRR measures (if they do)?

(if you have a passive preparedness measure) what is the uptake factor– how many people will be willing, or needing, to implement the measure (e.g. flood proofing)?

Could you consider implementing one of these measures in your area? YES/NO, WHY?

6. References Adger, W. N. (2009). Social Capital, Collective Action, and Adaptation to Climate Change.

Economic Geography, 79(4), 387–404. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-8287.2003.tb00220.x

22

African Development Bank. (2001). HANDBOOK ON STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION AND PARTICIPATION IN ADB OPERATIONS. Environment and Sustainable Development Unit (OESU).

Bruin, K., Dellink, R. B., Ruijs, A., Bolwidt, L., Buuren, A., Graveland, J., … Ierland, E. C. (2009). Adapting to climate change in The Netherlands: an inventory of climate adaptation options and ranking of alternatives. Climatic Change, 95(1), 23–45. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-009-9576-4

Davis, I., Yanagisawa, K., & Georgieva, K. (2015). Disaster Risk Reduction for Economic Growth and Livelihood: Investing in Resilience and Development (Vol. 2015). New York: Routledge.

EPA. (2013). Getting in Step: Engaging Stakeholders in Your Watershed (pp. 1–86). Washington, D.C: United States Environmental Protection Agency.

Munaretto, S., Siciliano, G., & Turvani, M. E. (2014). Integrating adaptive governance and participatory multicriteria methods: a framework for climate adaptation governance. Ecology and Society, 19(2). http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06381-190274

Næss, L. O., Norland, I. T., Lafferty, W. M., & Aall, C. (2006). Data and processes linking vulnerability assessment to adaptation decision-making on climate change in Norway. Global Environmental Change, 16(2), 221–233. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.01.007

O’Neill, J. (2001). Representing People, Representing Nature, Representing the World. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 19(4), 483–500. http://doi.org/10.1068/c12s

Pahl-Wostl, C. (2009). A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environmental Change, 19(3), 354–365. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.06.001

Pelling, M. (2007). Learning from others: the scope and challenges for participatory disaster risk assessment. Disasters, 31(4), 373–385. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.2007.01014.x

Renn, O. (2006). Participatory processes for designing environmental policies. Land Use Policy, 23(1), 34–43. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2004.08.005

Rød, J. K., Berthling, I., Lein, H., Lujala, P., Vatne, G., & Bye, L. M. (2012). Integrated vulnerability mapping for wards in Mid-Norway. Local Environment, 17(6–7), 695–716. http://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2012.685879

Saarikoski, K., Barton, D. ., Mustajoki, J., Keune, H., Gomez-Baggethun, E., & Langemeyer, J. (2015). Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) in ecosystem service valuation. In OpenNESS Ecosystem Service Reference Book. EC FP7 Grant Agreement no. 308428. Retrieved from www.openness-project.eu/library/reference-book

Shreve, C. M., & Kelman, I. (2014). Does mitigation save? Reviewing cost-benefit analyses of disaster risk reduction. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 10, Part A, 213–235. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2014.08.004

Van Ierland, E. ., de Bruin, K., & Watkiss, P. (2013). Multi-Criteria Analysis: Decision Support Methods for Adaptation, MEDIATION Project. MEDIATION Project, Briefing Note 6.

23

Appendix A. Flip Charts and Matrices

Part 1. Flip Chart for Stakeholder groups. In this Flip Chart CSOs will enter the name, title, and organization of each stakeholder for each group (second column), and their role in DRR (last column). Stakeholder Group Stakeholder in each case study Role

De

cisi

on

-mak

er

Lob

byi

st

Info

rme

d R

ece

pto

r

Ove

rse

er

Imp

lem

en

ter

Exp

ert

Pri

vate

Se

cto

r

SH1: Coastal manager ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

SH2: Land use planners ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

SH3: Civil protection/ disaster management agency

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐


☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐


☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐


☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐


☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

SH8: Local authority (e.g. port, tourism board, fishing, housing)

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐


☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

24

Part 2. Flip Chart to record SAs In this flipchart CSOs will record the combination of measures for each SA after a group discussion. Each SA can be composed of one or several measures. Different SAs can contain different numbers of measures depending on the context and stakeholders input; e.g. some may want to test dike raising only and others may want a strategy with an early warning system (leading to increased use of sandbags) and port wall increase. See example below for Ria Farmosa for two of their SAs. It is recommended not to develop more than 4 SAs. Case Study: Ria Formosa (see separate power point containing empty cards for CSOs)

Strategic

Alternatives

DRR Measure 1 e.g.

dune nourishment

DRR Measure 2 e.g.

managed retreat

DRR Measure 3 e.g.

channels of

communication

raised households

SA 1

SA 2

SA3

SA4 … … …

25

Part 3. Example of MCA Matrix

CRITERIA Weights SA1 SA3 SA3 SA4 SA5

Score Weighted

Score

Score Weighted

Score

Score Weighted

Score

Score Weighted

Score

Score Weighted

Score

Feasibility

-2 -8 0 0 2 8 0 0 1 1

Acceptability -2 -4 0 0 2 4 1 2 1 2

Suitability

-2 -6 2 6 1 3 -1 -3 0 0

Sustainability -2 -2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0

SUM -20 6 16 -1 3

Step 1: Choose composition of SAs from Bayesian model

Step 4: Calculate weighted score by multiplying the score (-2) times the weight (1). In this case, a high negative value indicates that the SA will probably not comply with the outlined criteria (-2) and that the criterion is regarded as not very relevant to consider (1). This weighted score reflects that SA1 is perceived as probably not effective in addressing sustainability, and that sustainability is perceived as not very important when considering DRR measures.

Step 3: assign weights using stickers. Each stakeholder will be given 10 stickers to distribute in between criteria, to indicate criteria’s importance relative to the objective of the process. Once all stakeholders have assigned their individual weights, a group discussion will follow and the group will agree on only one weight per criteria.

Step 2: Score criteria using a -2 (probably no) to +2 (probably yes) scale as explained in the next page and using post it’s as outlined in section 5.3

Step 5: Calculate SUMS by adding the five weighted scores. Results reflect people’s perception and can give an indication as to which SAs might potentially be well received by local actors and which SAs might face greater opposition. The SA with the highest positive SUM indicates that local actors regard this option as the one most probable in addressing the four outlined criteria. Conversely, a high negative SUM indicates that the proposed SA is regarded as the least probably option for addressing the criteria. Thus, a high positive number can be interpreted as the most favored option, whilst the highest negative number as the least favored option.

26

Part 4. Scoring Guide for stakeholders

Criteria Probably No Possibly No No effect Possibly Yes Probably Yes

-2 -1 0 1 2

FEASIBILITY - can the SA be made to work?

It is financially viable considering costs and revenues

Human, infrastructure and technical resources are available or can be made available

There is sufficient information and knowledge available or can be obtained

ACCEPTABILITY – Would the SA be accepted?

Meets local expectations of economic, health, social, cultural and recreational benefits

Enjoys local support from civil society and groups

Perception of gains/needs outweigh perception of risk/threats

SUITABILITY - Would the SA work?

It makes economic sense

It is suitable for local capabilities/capacities

It makes political sense

SUSTAINABILITY - Would the SA endure?

It can be justified even if expected changes do not occur ("no-regret")

It improves ecosystems and human life

It is resilient to changes and disturbances

27

Part 5. Scoring Matrix for stakeholders Score criteria to indicate the potential performance of SA’s upon each criteria. Use a value from the -2 to +2 scale

NAME:

Criteria SA 1 SA 2 SA 3 SA 4

FEASIBILITY - can the SA be made to work?

ACCEPTABILITY – Would the SA be accepted?

SUITABILITY - Would the SA work?

SUSTAINABILITY - Would the SA endure?

28

Part 6. Weighting Matrix for stakeholders Weigh the criteria (once) to indicate their importance for each of the SAs. Distribute the 10 stickers between the four criteria: the more stickers the higher the weight of a criterion. High weights mean the criterion is regarded as important when considering a SA.

NAME:

CRITERIA WEIGHTS

Feasibility

Acceptability

Suitability

Sustainability

29

Part 7. Score Flip Charts for CSOs Co-facilitators will specify under the column “Scoring Method” whether the value on criteria was assigned through a group discussion (negotiation), or through averages (individual scores were first summed up and then divided into the amount of stakeholder groups) for each SA.

SA 3

Criteria Scoring Method

Discussion Averages

Feasibility ☐ ☐

Acceptability ☐ ☐

Suitability ☐ ☐

Sustainability ☐ ☐

SA 4


Discussion Averages

Feasibility ☐ ☐


Suitability ☐ ☐


SA 1


Discussion Averages

Feasibility ☐ ☐


Suitability ☐ ☐


SA 2


Discussion Averages

Feasibility ☐ ☐


Suitability ☐ ☐


30

Appendix B. Templates for agendas

Part 1. Template for a process agenda

Multi-Criteria Analysis Workshop, DATE, 2016

Process agenda for CSOs Equipment/Materials:

Projector

Welcome PowerPoint Slide with agenda

Closing thank you PowerPoint Slide with contact and follow-up information

List of participants

Printed documents and material to include in information package (1 x participant):

o RISC-KIT overview sheet o Cards with measures and SA’s (one set per stakeholder, including zero alternative, and blank cards) o Flip Chart to record SAs (to be filled up after presentation of results/web-viewer) o Scoring Guide for Stakeholders (Appendix A, Part 4)

o Scoring Matrix for Stakeholders (Appendix A, Part 5)

o Weighting Matrix for Stakeholders (Appendix A, Part 6)

o Participant agendas (Appendix B, Part 2)

o Stakeholder Survey (Appendix D, Part 1)

o Post-it’s in 5 different colors (for scoring)

o Stickers (for weighting)

o Name tags (optional)

o Pens and note paper

o CSO’s business card with contact details (optional)

Digital recorder

2 laptops to show Bayesian models and web-viewer

Flip chart with the SAs (to make scores and weights visible on paper for everyone)

31

Tape or glue to paste the cards into the flip chart to record SA’s

Pre-designed spread sheet with MCA Matrix to record values and show on projector

Set up:

o Test equipment

o Arrange tables and chairs

o Have copies of documents ready and organized

o Have snacks and drinks ready

o Distribute information packages around the room

WELCOME & OVERVIEW

15 min

o As participants arrive, welcome them, tell them location of toilets, and invite them to help themselves to tea, coffee and biscuits.

o If not done so already, introduce yourself and your co-facilitator! Remember to be friendly so you set a relaxed and open atmosphere from the very beginning.

o Send around participant list to be signed

Initial welcome is given by facilitator

Thanks very much for joining us for the Multi-Criteria Analysis Workshop. We look forward to learning about your views on the measures that were chosen earlier in the RISC-KIT project.

While most stakeholders are probably familiar with RISC-KIT (if you have invited the same stakeholders), it is nevertheless a good idea to re-introduce the overall goals of the project and explain the progress that has been made so far.

About today’s discussion:

o What you say may be used in project documents and published reports.

o We would like to record the discussion. This will help us to accurately write about what you tell us. The audio recordings will not be available for anyone outside of the project. Is everyone OK with this?

Go through the participant agenda (see Appendix C, Part 2 for a suggested participant agenda)

o Give a short description of each of the parts in the schedule (e.g. break the workshop into two, where the first part is focused on presenting the results through the web-viewer, and the second part will be the implementation of the MCA)

o Indicate lunch or coffee breaks according to the schedule.

o The workshop will finish at TIME?

o Quick description of information package

32

o Any questions?

INTRODUCTION TO THE WORKSHOP

15 min

[REMEMBER TO TURN ON DIGITAL RECORDER]

Introduce the aim of the workshop

The Multi-Criteria Analysis that we will be carrying out today will be used as a tool for facilitating a debate about the DRR measures that we (RISC-KIT) together with some of you previously identified. These measures have gone through a modelling process and the results from these models will be presented today. The basic idea of today’s exercise is for you to decide how these measures could be combined, the impacts of these combinations of measures upon the area, and the local perceptions of these measures. By the end of the session, the expectation is that the MCA was able to generate a discussion in the room about how you (stakeholders in the session) perceived the acceptability, feasibility, suitability, and sustainability, of the proposed measures. I will explain in a few minutes how we will do this. But first I would like you to introduce yourselves.

Allow stakeholders to give a very short introduction of themselves (name and title), if they do not already know each other.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

20 min.

[Summarize for your stakeholders what you consider relevant when it comes to results accomplished in RISC-KIT]

Examples of results that could be relevant to present:

The process of data collection that led to the selection of DRR measures: when, how, number of people interviewed, etc. This might be particularly important if the group of stakeholders in the MCA is different from the people involved in the interviews

The selected hotspot(s)

The model train that the measures have gone through (only a summary and not a technical report!). Very briefly present the CRAF results in the webviewer.

The general aim of RISC-KIT: who will be able to access and use the toolkit, how can it be used, etc

PRESENTATION OF RESULTS FROM BAYESIAN MODEL AND DISCUSSION OF SAs

70 min.

[Display the Bayesian Network of the focus area through the web-viewer]

Hand each stakeholder a set of cards. If preferred, divide the group into two. This is recommended for groups of 8 or more people.

Introduce the cards with the individual DRR measures (included in the information package)

Facilitator will explain the measures included and how the results of the Bayesian Network should be interpreted including the assumptions made on the factors (uptake, operator, etc.) for primary/non-primary measures.

Give the stakeholders some time to digest the cards individually and compare to the zero-alternative (5 – 10mins). The facilitator can walk around and help with questions.

If more information is needed than on the cards e.g. scenarios with climate change or in different areas, then the webviewer can be used guided by the facilitator to the group(s). Ask stakeholders to select their 2 most preferred measures and hold in their hands. Facilitators will note down the selected measures.

Open up the floor for discussion (10-15mins)

33

o Why did they pick these measures? o What do they think about the results? Do they agree/disagree? o What do stakeholder think about the assumptions made (the intermediate pathways) when modelling measures? o Do they agree with the DRR measures that CSOs have selected?

[if two groups the facilitator should stay with one of the groups and the co-facilitator with the other group]

Explain the next steps for selecting the Strategic Alternatives: o Explain what a Strategic Alternative is o The “Flip Chart to record SAs” will be stuck up on the wall. o The facilitator guides an open discussion to combine the measures that the stakeholders have selected in consultation

with them (approximately 15 minutes). o The facilitator will present the SA cards with the combined results of the selected SAs and the web-viewer can be used

to test the results of different combinations. Blank cards can be used to write down the results from the web-viewer of any combinations that were not pre-prepared.

o Allow 10-15 minutes of discussion time for the group to discuss possible SAs with the support of the facilitator. Note that individual DRR measures and/or the zero alternative can be selected as SAs if decided by the stakeholders.

[Facilitator should support the group(s) and highlight issues related to combining certain measures. For instance, combining dune nourishment and beach nourishment wouldn’t make sense, because dune nourishment would reduce the beach area]

o After 10-15 minutes of discussion, the facilitator will guide the group(s) agree their combinations in an open discussion and prioritize four.

o Co-facilitators will stick agreed SAs in their own Flip Chart for the MCA so the participants can easily remember which ones were selected.

[Co-facilitators take notes throughout the session regarding the behavior, comments, questions, and activity of participants – however, please do so in a non-intrusive manner. It is important that participants do not feel like they are under surveillance!]

LUNCH BREAK

1 hour

[IMPORTANT! breaks often work as extensions to discussions. Facilitators and co-facilitators are encouraged to mingle with the participants.

[Collect the computers to avoid distractions.] [Facilitators display the MCA Matrix for CSOs on the projector]

34

MCA MATRIX PART 1

45 min.

Re-introduce shortly the goal with the MCA and how it links to the results from the Bayesian model.

I will now give an overview of the steps involved in the MCA Matrix so you have a rough idea of what we will be doing for the next hour. However do not worry if you do not fully understand all the steps. I will go into detail in each of the steps when it is time for them.

Give and overview of the step-by-step guide. Use the numbers provided in the Matrix (should be shown in the projector) when you explain the different steps.

Go superficially through the steps provided in the MCA Guide, Section 5 “The MCA Matrix”. Once you have done this, you will provide a more in-depth explanation starting from Step 2 (Step 1 was the selection of SA’s already carried out in the morning session).

STEP 2 SCORING

Ask participants to bring out their “Scoring Guide” and “Scoring Matrix”. Start off from step 2 and explain once again what the purpose of scoring is:

Scoring is to assess the performance of each SA against several criteria. What we will be assessing here is the expected impact of the group of measures (SAs) upon these criteria.

Show the “Scoring Guide” on the projector and explain the different criteria and scoring method. Highlight that each criteria has a different question that should be kept in mind when assigning the score.

Give an example of how this will be done.

Ask stakeholders to bring out their Scoring Matrix and Post It’s. Ask them to write down a value on their scoring matrix (so they remember the score they assigned to each SA), and to write them on the Post It’s as well. Give stakeholders 15 to score all SAs. After that ask stakeholders to post their post it’s on the flip chart.

Reconvene into the large group. Next step is to agree on one score per criteria per SA. Go through the post-its pasted in each of the criteria. If the scores have a wide range, ask stakeholders to motivate their answers (co-facilitator should note down this). Try to get the group to negotiate a score. If this doesn’t work, you can average the score. If the scores are close to each other in the score scale, consensus might be easier to reach. Once a score has been agreed upon or set (through averages) move on to sub-criteria 2, and repeat the same process until all criterion have one final score.

[Make sure to group the post-its per criteria, add a post-it with a * (to identify it from the est and with the final score on top of the bunch of post-its, and paste them back in their respective places to keep the flip chart as part of the documentation. You will continue using the flip chart in the next step]

35

Parallel to the scoring exercise, the co-facilitator will enter the final score per criteria per SA into the computer shown in the projector, so that final scores are visible to everyone.

Once all criteria have been scored, ask stakeholders whether they feel satisfied with these scores or whether they would like to change any of them. If YES, then let the group engage in a discussion until they either agree on a new score, or you add up individual scores and divide them into the amount of represented groups to come up with a score.

COFFEE BREAK

15 min. [A 10 minute-break is suggested to allow participants to continue discussing the scores, and to mark the change in activity]

During the break, collect the Scoring Matrices from the stakeholders

MCA MATRIX PART 2

45 min. STEP 3 WEIGHTING

Gather the group again and get their attention. Make sure you show in the projector the “Weighting Matrix for Stakeholders”. Explain what the next step is about:

Weights will indicate each criterion’s importance relative to the objective of the process. For instance for SA1 (Sand bags and flood early warning system), acceptability scored high as the implementation of the measure involves participatory processes; however, in this particular case social and cultural acceptability does not matter greatly when implementing the measure because there is low local interest and historically low levels of civil participation in DRR, so stakeholders do not expect any active involvement from civil society groups or individuals neither in favor nor against the implementation of SAs.

Weights will be first assigned individually by distributing the 10 stickers each stakeholder received in the information package. The more stickers a weight receives the more important the criterion is regarded (see example of MCA Matrix on Appendix A. Part 3.

Example of MCA Matrix In the second step, all stakeholders engage in a group discussion and agree upon one weight per

criteria.

Give stakeholders 15 minutes to assign their weights individually using the 10 stickers.

Get the group to discuss on the weights assigned to each criterion. Try to get them to agree first, on the most important criterion (ranked 1) and decide on the number of stickers it will receive. This is the highest value and it will become the standard to which all other criteria are compared.

Get the group to agree on the amount of stickers for the second highest-ranked criterion. Continue with the third and fourth. Start by trying to get consensus. If this fails, the facilitator and co-facilitator will have to average the weights.

36

STEP 4 WEIGHTED SCORES

The excel table shown in the project should automatically calculate the weighted scores per criteria per SA. You can highlight this to the stakeholders and discuss the results

STEP 5 SUMS

The excel table shown in the project should automatically calculate sums of the weighted scores per SA. This is the final result of the MCA. Hopefully the result shows the most preferred and least preferred option (SA). Discuss the results with the stakeholders.

WRAP UP

10 min.

Discuss the results of the MCA based on the individual experiences of the stakeholders. For instance, do these results reflect their opinion? Do they think the preferred SA will ever be implemented? What is it needed for it to be implemented? (see recommended questions at the end of Section 5).

Allow stakeholders to give a final remark if they want to

EVALUATION OF WORKSHOP AND CLOSURE

10 min.

Ask stakeholders to fill up the evaluation (included in the information package)

Collect the evaluations and collect as well the Weighting Matrices from stakeholders.

Thank stakeholders for their participation.

Let them know that you will be sending a short summary of the workshop’s results to them in a few days (this is important because many stakeholders will need to account for what they have done that day to their bosses).

Ask participants if they would like to join for a group picture (if you consider this appropriate).

37

Part 2. Template for a participant agenda This is an example of a simple participant agenda using our pilot case in Kristianstad.

Multi-Criteria Analysis Workshop, DATE, 2016

Participants’ agenda

The More Hotel, conference room “Arcade”, Kristianstad Sweden 10 of March 2015

Conference code: RISC-KIT Conveners: Karina Barquet and Jaap Meijer (Stockholm Environment Institute)

Contact details: [email protected], 070-25750985

TIME DURATION TASK

10:00 – 10:15 15 min. Welcome and overview

10:15 – 10:30 15 min. Introduction to the workshop

10:30 – 10:50 20 min. Summary of results

10:50 – 12:00 70 min. Presentation of results from Bayesian model and discussion

of Strategic Alternatives

12:00 – 13:00 60 min. LUNCH

13:00 – 13:45 45 min. MCA Matrix Part 1

13:45 – 14:00 15 min. COFFEE BREAK

14:00 – 14:45 45 min. MCA Matrix Part 2

14:45 – 14:55 10 min. Wrap up

14:55 – 15:10 10 min. Evaluation of MCA Workshop and Closure

Total duration of the workshop: 5 hours including 1 hour lunch

mailto:[email protected]

38

Appendix C. Templates to report MCA process

Part 1. Template to report stakeholder selection To be filled up by CSOs previous to the MCA meeting

1. Which option for recruiting stakeholders did you choose (described on page 6)?

☐Option 1

☐Option 2

☐Option 3

2. If you chose Options 2 or 3, motivate why (you can choose several)

☐Previous stakeholder did no longer seem relevant

☐Previous stakeholder did not want to participate

☐Previous stakeholder was not available

☐I needed more stakeholders than the ones included in WP1

☐I replaced a stakeholder because I considered the discussion would be more fruitful

☐I replaced a stakeholder because I considered the discussion would be less confrontational

☐I invited a new stakeholder because s/he requested to participate

☐I invited a new stakeholder because s/he was the one available

☐Other. Explain:

39

3. How many stakeholders have you invited?

☐More than 9

☐9

☐Less than 9. Motivate why:

4. Do you have representatives for each of the 9 groups (explained on page X)?

☐YES

☐NO. Which groups are not represented and why?

5. What is the age and gender composition of your stakeholder group?

How many men? _ _ _ _ _

How many women? _ _ _ _ _

40

How many under 40 years? _ _ _ _ _

How many over 40 years? _ _ _ _ _

41

Part 2. Template to report MCA consultation To be filled up by co-facilitators during and after the MCA workshop This part consists of a combination of specific questions with more open-ended guidelines for taking notes. There are two types of information we want to obtain from the workshop, besides from the results of the MCA matrix. The first type is descriptive information, in which you attempt to accurately document factual data [e.g., date and time] and the settings, actions, behaviors, and conversations that you observe; and the second is reflective information, in which you record your own thoughts, ideas, questions, and concerns of the workshop. General guidelines for gathering descriptive information:

Describe the physical setting.

Describe the social environment and the way in which participants interacted within the setting. This may include patterns of interactions, frequency of interactions, direction of communication patterns [including non-verbal communication], and patterns of specific behavioral events, such as, conflicts, decision-making, or collaboration.

Describe the participants and their roles in the setting.

Describe, as best you can, the meaning of what was observed from the perspectives of the participants.

Record quotes or close approximations of comments that relate directly to the purpose of the study.

Record any recurring questions raised during the workshop whether related to the workshop, the content of the MCA, or the project as a whole.

General guidelines for gathering reflective information:

These notes build on the descriptive field notes to reflect your personal account of what you are learning. They should go beyond the descriptions presented above, to include your speculations, feelings, problems, ideas, hunches, impressions, prejudices, analyses, plans for future inquiry, clarifications, syntheses, connections, and other ideas about what you are learning in the inquiry.

Include any unanswered questions or concerns that have arisen from analyzing the observation data.

Clarify points and/or correct mistakes and misunderstandings in other parts of field notes.

Include insights about what you have observed and speculate as to why you believe specific phenomenon occurred.

Recon thoughts that you may have regarding any future observations.

42

Descriptive Information (to be filled up by co-facilitators during the workshop) Please fill in this section with the factual parts of the workshop. Fill in the information requested below. Answer the questions as best as you can, providing accurate descriptions of events and actors. CASE STUDY:

CASE STUDY OWNER:

FACILITATOR:

CO-FACILITATOR:

DATE OF THE WORKSHOP:

START TIME OF WORKSHOP:

END TIME OF WORKSHOP:

1. How would you describe the atmosphere and context of the workshop (e.g relaxed, friendly, people knew each other since before,

strained, heated, etc)? Please provide a description and not only key words and account for the whole duration of the workshop.

Example: rather than writing “strained”, you want to write “the atmosphere was strained at the beginning and more relax towards the

end of the workshop. During the workshop some actors had very contentious issues which caused heated discussions. The group did not

reach consensus when assigning the weights so they took a decision to merge the individual results and come up with an average. Most

of the group was pleased with this solution except two actors who felt that results did not reflect their perception of things in the

community…”

43

2. What were the main issues raised by the respondents during the workshop (e.g. main problems in the community, points of agreement/disagreement)? A chart is provided below so you enter a short description under “MAIN ISSUE” and the amount of times mentioned in the workshop under “TIMES”. Under “NOTES” you have the possibility of providing additional information, like for instance if a particular point was raised repeated times by the same actor, or whether a particular point was especially contentious, or whether a particular issue was raised by several stakeholders, etc. Add as many rows as necessary.

MAIN ISSUE NOTES

44

3. Describe the group dynamics during the workshop: general description – level of participation, dominant and passive participants, interest level, boredom, anxiety

45

In the chart below you can enter quotes or main arguments raised during the workshop and that you would like to follow up on the next section (the reflective part). Please distinguish quotes from arguments by using “citations marks” on quotes. Write one quote or argument per numbered line. These numbers are identity codes that will be used in the next section as reference when developing your arguments. These arguments will be further developed during a one-to-one interview with WP4 package leaders. Insert as many rows as necessary.

No. Quote or argument

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

46

8

9

10

NOTES: The questions above are only key-points for CSOs to have a general guideline,

instead of an exhaustive list, of what is relevant to observe. However, It is highly

recommended and desired that CSOs write down other notes that the questions above did

not capture but which you consider relevant.

48

Reflective Information (to be filled up by CSOs and co-facilitators after workshop) Please fill in this section with your own reflections of the workshop. Fill in the information requested below. Answer the questions as best as you can, providing note ideas, impressions, thoughts, and/or any criticisms you have about what you observed. We encourage you to write any other reflections/observations under the headline “OTHER REFLECTIONS” (at the end of this section), which have not been raised in the questions below.

1. How would you describe stakeholders’ cooperation during the workshop?

2. Was there a particular moment (during the workshop) or particular issues in which stakeholders had a harder time agreeing or

reaching consensus?

49

3. Was there a clear leader amongst the stakeholders, whose ideas and voice predominated above everyone else’s?

For each of the statements below, chose whether you strongly agree, agree, not sure, disagree, or strongly disagree.

Strongly agree

Agree Not Sure

Disagree Strongly disagree

The matrix’s results reflect the diversity of opinions and interests amongst stakeholders.

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

The workshop was a useful forum for evaluating DRR strategic alternatives

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Stakeholders were satisfied with the process and the methods employed during the workshops

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Stakeholders were satisfied with the outcomes of the workshop

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

The workshop generated a better picture of the feasibility and acceptability of the strategic alternatives

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

50

Please write down short reflections on each of the quotes or arguments made in the section above (during the workshop). These reflections will be discussed during the one-to-one interviews between CSOs, co-facilitators and WP4 work package leaders following the MCA workshop. Thus, your reflections do not need to be fully developed here but it is strongly recommended that they are formulated in a way that allows you to remember the main argument and the context in which the argument was made. Add as many rows as necessary.

Quote/argument Reflection

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

51

For each of the statements below, chose whether you strongly agree, agree, not sure, disagree, or strongly disagree.

Strongly agree

Agree Not Sure

Disagree Strongly disagree

Overall I am satisfied with the workshop

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

I am satisfied with the guide and training provided previous to the workshop

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

The format of the workshop was effective for achieving its aims.

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

I am satisfied with the communication with WP4 package leaders

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

It was clear what was expected of me as facilitator

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

It was clear what was expected of me as co-facilitator

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

4. Was there anything surprising to you personally?

52

5. Were there any problems with the topic guide (e.g. wording, order of topics, missing topics) you experienced in the workshop?

6. Were there any problems with the design of the workshop or the matrix?

7. What was the most difficult part of holding the workshop?

53

8. What could have done differently and why (e.g. in reference to the design of the workshop, the content of the matrix, the

methodology, chosen stakeholders, etc)?

OTHER REFLECTIONS:

56

Appendix D. Template for Evaluation of MCA consultation

Part 1. Stakeholder survey To be filled up by stakeholders at the end of the workshop Print out this survey (1 x participant) Thank you for attending the Multi-Criteria Analysis workshop of the RISC-KIT project. We are interested in your feedback about this workshop. Please take a moment to give us your opinion on this evaluation form.

Please indicate the strength of your

agreement with each statement below

Strongly

agree

Agree Not

Sure

Disagree Strongly

disagree

The workshop was a valuable use of my

time ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

The purpose of the workshop was clear ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

The workshop was the right length of

time ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

If you disagreed with the above

question, was the workshop… ☐ Too long ☐ Too short

The workshop generated a better

picture of the feasibility and

acceptability of each of the Strategic

Alternatives

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

The format of the workshop was

effective for achieving its aims. ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

We engaged in a fruitful discussion ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

I feel that the workshop contributed to ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

57

the debate on DRR strategies

The workshop was a good forum for

discussion on DRR ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Thanks to the workshop I learnt more

about how others perceive DRR

Strategic Alternatives

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

I have a better understanding of the

feasibility and acceptability of each of

the Strategic Alternatives

☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

I am satisfied with the outcomes of the

workshop ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Were any of the results surprising to you, or did you expect these results?

In your opinion, what was the most interesting part of the workshop?

58

In your opinion what was the least interesting part of the workshop?

OTHER COMMENTS:

resilience-increasing strategies for coasts toolkit · 3 publishable summary the...

Documents