utvärdering av en syntesstrategi för uthålliga VA-system - Urban Water

More documents

Recommendations

Info

WHO SHALL DO THE SYNTHESIS? The three groups were a mixture of highly qualified stakeholders and there was for instance no representative from the future inhabitants in Hammarby Sjöstad. Users of the water systems were not present for two reasons. First and foremost is the circumstance that Hammarby Sjöstad is a planned area without inhabitants at the present time. Second was the conviction that users cannot be represented by one single person, their preferences ought to be articulated by more sophisticated methods. The final question asked to the groups during the evaluation of the test was who shall do this kind of synthesis. Uniform agreement was stated concerning the importance of involving stakeholders early in a planning process. The politicians were mentioned as having a specific responsibility for this kind of strategic decisions, although in dialogue with professionals and researchers providing adequate decision support. The degree of aggregation of material was discussed where too aggregated decision-support was accused of taking the work from the politicians. No person present thought that the challenge at this workshop could be solved solely by researchers, or aggregated results from research. Another statement from the groups was that ordinary people, users of the urban water system, should participate in the process only if they have a stakeholder position. They tend to favour major changes too much without having the responsibility to take part in the implementation, was an argument for this kind of statement. Their role in the process, even only as stakeholders, was although defined differently among the different participants. Some saw involvement of users only as a strategic way to render acceptance, others as a way to educate them. Another reason for involvement of users was that they should do the assessments of sociocultural aspects, while experts did the assessment of hygiene and environment. The last argument illustrates the confusion often connected to this kind of situation, where aims and focus are multidimensional due to the number of persons involved and the perceived degree of complexity of the question at hand differs. FUTURE STRATEGIES Two of the groups in the end preferred the separated system and one the combined (the reference group), although with minor differences. The Regime software showed uniform agreement between the results of the formal aggregation and the information made by the participants in method 2. The aim was not, however, to make a decision as such, but to test a methodology and strategy. One interesting observation was the consensus each group reached, despite the circumstance that their preferences was not explicitly outspoken during the discussions. A consensus was not needed or searched for. This can be taken as an argument for the approaches favouring individual assessments without group discussions, on the other hand there was very small difference between how the two systems were assessed. The advantage of the methodology used, according to the participants, X
was the structured discussions before each criterion was scored and that they had the possibility to process one type of criteria at a time. All three groups found it complicated to manage impacts - like environmental impacts and hygienic risks - and prerequisites - like crucial factors for users of the systems and organisational capacity – in the same framework. Pronounced criticism concerned the situation as such; it was perceived as very unrealistic. Instead the stakeholders wanted to be involved in an earlier stage in the process, forming the system structures to be analysed and the goals the systems shall fulfil. The decision support can also be developed in order to make it more comprehensive, pedagogic and at the same time presenting more with fewer details. We wanted to test a strategy for communicating and enabling stakeholders to handle very different kinds of knowledge; in some way it succeeded and in some way it did not. Our conviction was that involvement of stakeholders is the right way to go in order to make relevant synthesis of this kind, next time a more early involvement is needed. The mixture of stakeholders was good, although users were missing. A reflection to be made is that the procedure chosen here may have hindered reflected integration, since first it was quite research oriented, and second communicated a research tradition of impact assessment and quantified objectiveness. The intention for “Urban Water” is to continue the work making this kind of multi- and transdisciplinary syntheses strategies. Future work intends to focus more on a combination of multicriteria procedures and process support tools. A process has started in Surahammar, a small municipality in the Swedish countryside. Here involvement of users shall be tested and evaluated as one part of developing different strategies focusing on the everlasting challenge of integrating knowledge. Two different, more detailed, analysis of the workshop were presented as conference papers in 2002: Söderberg, H. (2002) “Multicriteria through stakeholder dialogue – evaluation of a test case” Proceedings from International Sustainable Development Research Conference, Manchester, UK, April 8-9, 2002. pp. 446- 454. Etnier. C. and Söderberg, H. (2002) Multicriteria assessment for choosing a wastewater treatment option: the case of Hammarby Sjöstad, Sweden Proceedings National Onsite Wastewater Recycling Association Conference, Kansas City, September 2002. XI
Page 1 and 2: Att väga samman det ojämförbara
Page 3 and 4: Sammanfattning Urban Water-programm
Page 5 and 6: tänka över behovet av mjukvara, d
Page 7 and 8: ferent mathematical models for proc
Page 9: ated locally. Useful by-products wi
Page 61 and 62:
Att väga samman det ojämförbara
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
show all

utvärdering av en syntesstrategi för uthålliga VA-system - Urban Water

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?