Bridging boundaries Making scale choices in multi-actor policy analysis studies on water management phD: Sonja Karstens

1. Section Policy Analysis Bridging boundaries Making scale choices in multi-actor policy analysis studies on water management phD: Sonja Karstens Promotor: Wil Thissen Co-promotor: Pieter Bots

2. Section Policy Analysis Overview • Introduction, problem en goal • Theory & conceptual framework • Example: Analysis of scale choices in a case study • Conclusions & recommendations

3. Section Policy Analysis Scale choices • Selection of spatial scale(local versus international, channel versus river basin) • Selection of time scale(short term, long term) • Selection of level of aggregation(detailed, abstract)

4. Section Policy Analysis Problem • Selection of scale essential issue: processes are scale specific, so affects conclusions • Different perspectives are present • Importance increases because cross-scale interactions are more and more perceived • Little is known about the effects of scale choices  Important but neglected

5. Section Policy Analysis Goal of this research • Explain the making of scale choices (perspectives and effects) • Guide the making of scale choices

6. Section Policy Analysis Theory policy analysis (1) Borderline research and politics Aim: facilitate policy making process By: giving insight in policy measures and their effects, providing understanding of the system, conflict resolution, providing arguments

7. Section Policy Analysis Theory policy analysis (2)

8. Section Policy Analysis Theory Making scale choices • Research perspective: • Systems scale • Multi-disciplinary perspectives • Process perspective • Multi-stakeholder perspectives • Project perspective: • Budget and time constraints  trade-off scale and level of aggregation • Design perspective: • Design choices: observation scale, analysis scale, presentation scale

9. Section Policy Analysis Overview making scale choices

10. Section Policy Analysis Conceptual framework (1) • Pragmatic/ behavioural framework of rationality: means-end • Logic/ linguistic framework of rationality: Different rationalities: actor archetypes

11. Section Policy Analysis Conceptual framework (2) Reveal different perspectives on scale choices by using actor archetypes Problem situation Analysis Political actors Commissioner Policy analyst Researcher/ Scientist

12. Section Policy Analysis Two case studies • Long Term Vision study of the Scheldt Estuary • Water shortage study of the Netherlands Both studies: • Selection of spatial boundaries • Selection of temporal boundaries • Selection of level of aggregation

13. Section Policy Analysis Case study approach Questions: • How are scale choices made in practice? • What effects of scale choices can be identified? Structure: • Description of process of making scale choices • Analysis of selected scale • Thought experiment • Framing mechanisms

14. Section Policy Analysis Long Term Vision study ofThe Scheldt Estuary The Netherlands Port of Antwerp Belgium

15. Section Policy Analysis Long Term Vision study of the Scheldt Estuary: Objectives • Bilateral long term vision building between Belgium and the Netherlands • Resolve issue of deepening the navigation channel • Stimulate joint collaboration

16. Section Policy Analysis Selection of time scale Development of a long term vision for the Scheldt Estuary What is long term? ???????? 2010 2030 2050

17. Section Policy Analysis Arguments in favour • Large sense of urgency • Action ability increases • Oversee ability • Concrete projects • Match with economic processes 2010 Arguments against • Little challenge to address and overcomedifferences of opinion • Limited set of options • Not possible to create an ambitious vision • Not possible to calculate the return on investment

18. Section Policy Analysis Arguments in favour • Governmental relevance • Possibilities for consensus building increase • Often used in vision building: looking one generation ahead • Balance between different issues 2030 Arguments against • Difficult to make predictions • Sense of urgency decreases

19. Section Policy Analysis Arguments in favour: • Forces people to think out of the box • Match with spatial scale (according to the morphologists) • Possible to make predictions on morphology 2050 Arguments against: • Small sense of urgency • Uncertainty increases • Too far for people to think about • Nobody takes it seriously

20. Section Policy Analysis

21. Political actors in favour of the deepening Morphological researchers Section Policy Analysis Time scale: preferences 2100 2050 2010 2020 2030 Economic researchers • Political actors against deepening • (Environmentalists) • Policy analysts • Clients Ecological researchers: no fixed time scale; look at trends

22. Section Policy Analysis Long Term Vision Development sketches middle long term Situation sketch Short term Now Selected time scales • Sense of urgency • Possibilities for consensus building

23. Section Policy Analysis Selection of spatial scale Selected spatial scale: Scheldt Estuary without tributary rivers Thought experiment: What if?

24. Section Policy Analysis Scheldt Estuary without tributary rivers

25. Section Policy Analysis Larger scale: Scheldt river basin

26. Section Policy Analysis Smaller scale: Western Scheldt

27. Political actors in favour of the deepening Commissioner Economic researchers Political actors against deepening Clients Policy analysts Morphological researchers Section Policy Analysis Spatial scale preferences Estuary including Zeebrugge River basin Estuary Ecological researchers • Focus on the agenda • Complexity • Number of actors involved Selected spatial scale = Scheldt Estuary without tributary rivers

28. Section Policy Analysis Conclusions (1) • No ideal scale exists • Scale is not politically neutral, actors can be advantaged or disadvantages and scale can be used strategically by actors: • Hide/ fade out negative effects by selection of high level of aggregation or large spatial scale • Delay the process by desiring large scale and low level of aggregation • Scale can be used as a framing instrument by policy analysts: • Fade out less important or unsolvable problems • Create more solution space • Remove the sting out of a conflict

29. Section Policy Analysis Conclusions (2) Scale choices have large effects On the process characteristics: • Actors involved • Protection of core values • Committment • Support On the research characteristics • content of the study (Problems addressed, policy options found, impacts evaluated) • Validity On the project characteristics: • Progress • Focus on the agenda • Efficiency • Effectivity On the design characteristics: • Policy relevance • Action ability • Justifiability • Coherence

30. Section Policy Analysis Recommendations (1): • Distinguish different scale related variables • Make scale choices explicit • Be aware of strategic handling of scale choices by actors involved • Use scale choices as a framing instrument • Make scale choices fit with the function of the study • Do a multi-scale analysis quick scan • Organise the process of making scale choices with care

31. Section Policy Analysis Recommendations (2)Facilitate rational deliberation on scale choices 1. Identify options for scale choices 2. Identify effects to be expected by revealing arguments in favour and against each scale option 4. Identify trade-offs that need to be made 5. Make trade-offs transparent and communicate them