Concepts and methods for analysing the role of Information and Communication tools (IC-tools) in Social Learning processes for River Basin Management

The Water Framework Directive requires Public Participation in River Basin Management (RBM), including previously excluded constituencies besides water experts and policy makers. In this context, the HarmoniCOP project studies ways to improve PP based on the concept of Social Learning (SL). SL refers to the growing capacity of a social network to develop and perform collective actions. Complex issues such as RBM can be better resolved taking into account the diversity of interests and mental frames, and relying on disseminated information and knowledge. Information and Communication tools (IC-tools) can thereby play an important role. In this paper we firstly present our main concepts in relation to SL and PP. Then we propose a provisional qualitative characterisation of the role of IC-tools. Thirdly, we present a framework of analysis to explore IC-tool impact on participatory and SL processes. This framework is used to assess the IC-tools from three perspectives: their technical characteristics, their impact on PP and SL and their usability as perceived by the users. In the fourth part we present a first application of the framework of analysis for two case studies in Flanders and in Dordogne (France). Finally, we discuss some expected future outcomes of the project.

[1]  Dominique Vinck,et al.  Mediating and Commissioning Objects in the Sociotechnical Process of Product Design : a conceptual approach , 1995 .

[2]  Marc Craps,et al.  Participation and social learning in the developmental planning of a Flemish River Valley (HarmoniCOP Case study report produced under workpackage 5, deliverable n° 7 prepared under contract from the European Commission n° EVK-CT-2002-00120) , 2004 .

[3]  Art Dewulf,et al.  Constructing common ground and re-creating differences between professional and indigenous communities in the Andes , 2004 .

[4]  Sylvie Guillerme,et al.  Contraintes environnementales et gouvernance des territoires , 2006 .

[5]  M. Craps.  Social Learning in River Basin Management , 2003 .

[6]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  Institutional Ecology, `Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39 , 1989 .

[7]  E. Mostert.  The challenge of public participation , 2003 .

[8]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity , 1998 .

[9]  Eric Johnson,et al.  Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts , 2004 .

[10]  John Ingham,et al.  Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model , 2003, Inf. Manag..

[11]  A. Ubbels,et al.  Suitability of decision support tools for collaborative planning processes in water resources management , 2000 .

[12]  P. David Marshall,et al.  Introduction to Communication Studies (Second Edition) , 1993 .

[13]  Barbara Gray,et al.  Disentangling Approaches to Framing: Mapping the Terrain , 2005 .

[14]  T. Webler,et al.  What Is a Good Public Participation Process? Five Perspectives from the Public , 2001, Environmental management.

[15]  S. Arnstein,et al.  Ladder of Citizen Participation , 2020 .

[16]  Claudia Pahl-Wostl,et al.  Social Learning in Public Participation in River Basin Management - Early findings from HarmoniCOP European Case Studies , 2005 .

[17]  Claudia Pahl-Wostl,et al.  Participative and Stakeholder-Based Policy Design, Evaluation and Modeling Processes , 2002 .