The Water Framework Directive institutionalises participatory processes in river basin planning across the European Union. This paper reports on three case studies from southern Europe where conflicts over water exist. In each a different method for participation was experimentally employed: scenario workshops, mediated modelling, and social multicriteria evaluation. Scenario workshops and mediated modelling proved well suited to the early stages of a planning process (problem solving and identification of goals and alternatives) and to be good at educating participants and supporting capacity building. Their performance was less satisfactory with respect to resolving long-standing conflicts and achieving consensus. In comparison, social multicriteria evaluation was better able to address the evaluation of alternatives, reveal trade-offs, and aid convergence between divergent stakeholders' views, but it relied more heavily on experts and allowed less participation and deliberation in goal-setting than the other two methods. These results show complementarities amongst methods which imply that hybrid or combined approaches would be best for aiding the water planning process. They also reveal problems confronting the use of participatory approaches and constraints which prevent theoretical promise from being converted into practical results.

Cabello, V., B. Willaarts, M. Aguilar, and L. del Moral. 2015. River basins as social-ecological systems: linking levels of societal and ecosystem water metabolism in a semiarid watershed. Ecology and Society 20(3): 20.http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-07778-200320

Spain is equipped with an extensive hydraulic infrastructure, aimed at the correction of temporal and spatial irregularities in the availability of water resources. This structural network, mainly based on surface water, is the manifestation of the traditional hydraulic paradigm, which has technical, economic, socio‐political and cultural ramifications. The traditional water management perspective tends to view drought as the structural deficit between water demand and water regulation capacity. This conceptualisation of drought led primarily to a structural response, while ignoring the need for drought risk assessment and water crisis management rules. The traditional hydraulic paradigm can, paradoxically, be regarded as one of the main constraints to the development of drought contingency planning and drought management. However, a new dynamism has entered the water policy arena, which encompasses elements of both innovation and persistence of the traditional perception. This dynamism is analysed through the Seville water management system, which is often affected by drought and severe water crises.

Nature-based solutions (NbS) are currently a priority of international institutions (UN and EU) to improve urban resilience to hydro-climatic risks. However, responsible institutions, such as river basin authorities and local governments, while still prioritizing gray infrastructure, often present resistance to these strategies. This paper analyzes this issue in the case of Seville (Spain). We identify historical and recent institutional practices related to the development of gray infrastructure and the experience of citizens’ movements that demand the implementation of green infrastructure and the naturalization of urban space. Based on the theoretical framework of the sustainability transition, the article contributes to the identification of the factors that hinder or trigger the processes of change, drawing from the results of a case with a long tradition in hydro-climatic disaster management. The research has included an in-depth review of risk planning in the city of Seville, semi-structured interviews with 24 social and institutional actors, and participant observation of both urban planning processes and the practices of citizen movements. Our results show that the generation of shared visions clashes, first with conflicting perceptions of the city’s strengths and weaknesses regarding risks; second, with contradictions between institutional discourses and practices, and finally, with the operational limitations of public participation processes.