Etude d`une méthode générique

Peut‐on évaluer expérimentalement l'impact des processus participatifs en gestion de l'eau ? Etude d'une méthode générique ciblant l'apprentissage social et la distribution des capabilités.
Can we use social experiments to assess the impact of participatory processes for water management? Studying a generic method tackling social learning and capabilities' distribution. Contenu
Résumé .................................................................................................................................................... 1 Context .................................................................................................................................................... 2 Methodology........................................................................................................................................... 3 Expected results and outcomes ............................................................................................................. 5 Schedule .................................................................................................................................................. 5 Conditions................................................................................................................................................ 6 Phd supervision ................................................................................................................................... 6 Doctoral School ................................................................................................................................... 6 Partnership .......................................................................................................................................... 6 Phd committee .................................................................................................................................... 6 Location ............................................................................................................................................... 6 Requirements from candidates* ......................................................................................................... 6 References ............................................................................................................................................... 7 Résumé
Suivant le paradigme de l’apprentissage social (« social learning »), les processus participatifs pour la gestion de l'eau pourraient contribuer à des apprentissages et changements sociaux. Cependant, la mesure et la comparaison, fiables et répétables, en contextes variés, restent à étayer. Cette recherche vise à proposer, tester et améliorer sur des cas réels une méthode d'évaluation de ces effets, utilisant une expérimentation sociale contrôlée, alternative aux approches classiques. De plus, nous considérerons la distribution des capacités des participants ("capabilities" selon Sen ou Nussbaum), pour interpréter la durabilité socio‐institutionnelle et l'équité. Les procédures de simulation participative contrôlée devraient donc révéler les changements (apprentissages et redistribution) dans les « capabilities » : savoirs, relations, et pratiques. Le pari est d'obtenir une micro‐expérimentation « portable » utile à la fois aux participants comme base réflexive, et aux observateurs pour qualifier process et impacts. La comparaison aux évaluations classiques abonderait aussi la recherche sur l'expérimentation sociale au service de la gestion de l'eau.
Summary
Participatory processes for water management are expected to induce learning and could impact on the capabilities' (ala Sen or Nussbaum) distribution among participants, driving sustainability and equity. However it cannot be measured reliably and repeatedly, for diverse conditions. This research aims at proposing, testing on real cases and improving a new impact assessment method, based on a social experiment apparatus, complementary to classical surveys and observations. Such controlled participatory simulations should elicit changes (learning and redistribution) in knowledge, relationships and water‐related practices. The goal is to get a lightweight micro‐experiment useful both for the users' group reflexive capacity, and for external stakeholders to qualify the process and impacts. Comparing with classical evaluation methods could feed the research on social experiment for water management.
Disciplines
Gestion de l'eau, évaluation des méthodes participatives, expérimentations sociales, apprentissages, théorie des capacités (Sen), évaluation sociale
Key words
Water management, evaluation of participation, social experiments, capabilities theory (Sen), social assessment
Context
Public participation is generally justified (Arnstein, 1975; Sewell, 1979; Renn & al, 1995; Wesselink & al, 2001; Maurel & al, 2007; Jones & al, 2009) by a need for redistributing decision capacity, improving relevance and appropriation of policies, fostering long‐term autonomy, and finally improving well‐being for target stakeholders. It has to be proved by systematic evaluation of the procedure and its impacts (Rowe, Frewer, 2000; Webler & al, 2001; Abelson, Gauvin, 2006). These processes are expected ultimately to impact on the environment, but through transformation of human agents and the social conditions (Ferrand & al, 2013) : beliefs (social cognition) about the environment, the society and process itself, preferences (normation), social relationships (networks), actual behaviors, and equity (see below). These dimensions are intricated and heterogenous, and causal disentangling is a real challenge for evaluators. Each of them is addressed by a different academic discipline. This practically explains the absence of a consensual, generic, integrative, assessment protocol.
Meanwhile an important normative rationale expressed by the civil society (e.g. for NGOs : UNDP, 2006) and analyzed by scholars (Syme, Sadler, 1994; Hampton, 1999; Clayton, 2000, O. Johansson‐Stenman and al. 2003) is to improve social justice. Among the various models of justice (Van Parijs, Arnsperger, 2002), we need to focus on learnings and induced capacities. We refer to the capabilities’ theory (Sen, 1984, 1990, 2000, 2013 ; Nussbaum, 2002, 2003; Robeyns, 2005; Alexander, 2008) which targets the actualization of capacities, freedom and autonomy. It also aligns with an extended aim for participation and local socio‐institutional resilience: bringing individuals and communities to improve their autonomy and capacity to cope with new decision and choice situation, after the currently supported project.
If we consider the evaluative issue attached to participation, and try to relate to the capabilities’ theory, we face a twofold problem:
1. it is not clear how a given participatory method changes the stakeholders’ capabilities distribution, among participants or in the social periphery (Herrero, 2008; Sen, 2010; Alkire, 2010),
2. the method for measuring it is also questionable, including social and temporal scale issues (i.e. short‐term vs. long‐term capability development) (Alkire, 2002; Alkire, Foster, 2011).
This research will develop in the context of the multidisciplinary research unit G‐EAU, working in water management and governance, and especially innovative protocols for public participation (esp. companion modeling ‐ Barreteau, 2003), participation engineering and evaluation methods. This experience has been established through several international, European and national research projects (e.g. on evaluation of participation : FIRMA, HarmoniCOP, Aquastress, Newater, Afromaison). G‐EAU has started (for 5 years) developing a new group on Social Experiments for policy support (ANEXPE). Social justice issues have also been investigated by surveys (Moreau & al, in press), participatory protocols (Ferrand & al, 2005 ; Ferrand & al, 2013) and a co‐chaired CNRS school (“fondements moraux et politiques de l’agir environnemental”). This phd proposal builds on this protracted experience to target an operational need of policy makers, implementers and scholars: assessing the learning impacts and capabilities redistribution with a cheaper, transferable and comparable method. The ANEXPE group wants to test the hypothesis that a simple social experiment protocol (Ostrom & al, 1994; Anderies & al, 2011), an abstract and quick role playing game, based on the tools currently used by G‐EAU, may be an alternative to the standard, but expensive in terms of skills and time, survey and observation protocols. This future measurement method of learning and capabilities would be socially embedded, dynamic, deliberative and adaptive. Can it be achieved?
The G‐EAU research unit gathers the skills in the different sub‐topics of this PhD: water management, public participation, action research, process evaluation and social experiments. It is currently not skilled in the capabilities theory where partnerships are currently being established. Unlike large scale social experiments (through statistical paneling and causal verification through a semi‐controlled process: Campbell, 1979 ; Greenberg, Schroder, 2004), small scale social experiments (extending the principles of field experiments in economics ‐ Carpenter & al, 2005) are rarely used in the field of socio‐environmental management as a measurement apparatus for intricate features like learning (outside education sciences and psychology) and distributive justice, or as a reflexive tool for participation (setting a specific form on participation “above” or “about” another to reflect on it). This original posture, combined with the focus on capabilities redistribution, shapes the line of innovation and provides the operational value of this research. For further scientific contextualization, we’ll refer also to education and management sciences (group decision making, group capacity building), and we’ll relate the various domains where the capabilities theory is used (poverty, gender, common pool resources, regional economic development), including the emerging field of social life cycle assessment (where the neighbor unit ELSA is active: Macombe & al, 2011). Methodology
In short, we propose to use the empirical results of some observation of participation processes and include specific inquiries on learning and capabilities redistribution (induced by various forms of participation, not in the scope) to design, adapt and qualify a new assessment protocol based on a simple and fast social experiment, a controlled role playing gam
me, with its o
own attache
ed indicatorrs informing
g about the same groupp learning and capa
abilities.
It will bee attached tto the proje
ect “Zone Attelier Bassin du Rhône ‐‐ Apprendree la rareté de l’eau sur un territoire,, pour aujjourd’hui eet demain » funded by Agencee de l’Eau
u Rhône Méditerrranée Corsse (decision
n sept 16, 22014), whicch aims at: “testing thhe assumpttion of a possiblee transform
mation of the t
behavi oral rules considered
d to be “faair and eq
quitable” through
h social learrning, during participattory processses. It shou
uld qualify tthe effects of some particip
patory proceesses on paarticipants’ capabilitiess, and local knowledgee about man
n‐nature relation
nships, sociaal cognition, norms andd justice priinciples.”
The casse study grroups will be selectedd within th
he ZABR‐AE
ERMC projeect. Two arreas are identifieed, where stakeholde
ers are alreeady engagged: the “SSAGE Drôm
me” and th
he SAGE « Molassse – Mioccène du Bas B Dauphi né ». Alterrnatives exxist in the ZABR casse study area. D
Diverse conditions are shown be tween urbaan and rura
al areas, w
with productive and domestic uses.
The tentative proto
ocol include
es three maain stages:
1. Modeling transformattion : gatheering a desccriptive model of the impact on learning aand capabiilities of so
ome partici patory pro
ocesses, bassed on thee literature and on aadditional o
observation
n or real casses (esp. forr capabilities, which aree less investtigated); 2. Designing experiment
e
tal evaluati on : inventing, testing and cateegorizing a specific ssmall‐scale rapid sociaal experime nt (controlled role playying game) which wou
uld make measurablee these sam
me types of iimpacts for the group;; 3. C
Control : Co
omparing re
esults for coontrol casess and (if time conditionns comply) cchecking ttransferability. More deetails on the methodology are avaailable on re
equest.
Expected results and outcomes
This main outcome should be a unique fast experimental protocol used as an integrative "meter" for participation and its impacts, especially in terms of learning and (re‐)distribution of capabilities. Such process will be validated for its measurement capacity, its feasibility, its evaluation capacity, its repeatability and transferability, and the comparability of the results. The results are threefold:
‐ Participatory Water Management : by improving participation assessment, it should improve participatory methods and their adoption, especially in the context of the case studies. Ultimately it may contribute to the crucial challenge of qualifying the various methods.
‐ Evaluation Methodology : testing the use of small scale experiments as an evaluation protocol, and assessing the epistemological position required about them as participatory protocols used to measure another one. Referring to capabilities theory in the evaluation of participation.
‐ Social justice : considering capabilities redistribution as an impact of learning and participation.
Schedule In a pre‐phase (2014‐2015) with the ZABR project, a MSc2 internship starts working on the topic with the local stakeholders. Stage 1
M1 – M6 : ‐ Bibliography : literature on participatory process, evaluation, social learning and capabilities, grey literature ‐ experts consultation M3‐M9: ‐ Selection of Field cases groups. Observation ‐ Classic methods of evaluation; observation of the participative workshops. Qualitative and quantitative interviews.
M7‐M10 : proposal and local test of a categorical model
Stage 2
M8 – M14: Design and pre‐test of the experimental method
M12 (option) : ex‐ante assessment in a different isolated case
M15 – M20 : Field work : implementing experiments with participants. Other classical evaluation in parallel.
M20 (option) ex‐post assessment in the pre‐assessed case
M 18 – M 24 : Data analysis.
Stage 3
M21 ‐ M 26 : Control case(s) incl. (option) a transfer case study M 26 – M 36 : Processing and writing of the Phd.
Conditions
Phdsupervision
Nils Ferrand, UMR G‐EAU, IRSTEA Contact : [email protected] / mob. +33/(0)673993693
Co‐supervisor
Patrice Garin, UMR G‐EAU Montpellier
UMR G‐EAU, Groupe ANEXPE Analyse expérimentale des dynamiques et des régulations socio‐
hydrologiques (Dir. S. Farolfi) ‐ Irstea, 361 rue Jean‐François Breton, BP5095, 34196 Montpellier
DoctoralSchool
ABIES (AgroParisTech)
Partnership



ZABR AERMC « : Apprendre la rareté de l’eau sur un territoire, pour aujourd’hui et demain » + UMR 5600 EVS CNRS + IRSTEA DTM Existing UMR G‐EAU research group on participation (PAGE) with leadership on Wat‐A‐
Game toolkits avec ANEXPE & social experiments (ANEXPE). Links with LEEM (Economie Expérimentale Montpellier) Other partnerships relevant for this phd : o Groupe Commod Companion Modeling o GIS Démocratie & Participation o Institut de la Concertation o GDR DIPP Décision Indicateurs Politiques Publiques o GDR PARCS Recherche Action Participative et Sciences Citoyennes o Arizona State University o Unité PACT‐ELSA Phdcommittee
Phd committee including supervision group & request to external international experts Location
The phd location will be at Irstea in Montpellier France, with regular missions in France and potentially in developing countries outside Europe. Participation to international conferences. Requirementsfromcandidates*




A MSc (M2) in environmental sciences, water sciences, economics, management sciences, geography, agronomy, education sciences. F & EN speaking, reading, writing Preferred experience (internships) with field survey, working with farmers, public participation. Good capacity to interact with groups. Expected : knowledge of social justice theories, and / or social experiments 

Autonomy and creativity – synthetic and analytical capacity (demonstrated in the MSc report) Valid driving licence in Europe References
Abelson, J., & Gauvin, F. P. (2006). Assessing the impacts of public participation: Concepts, evidence
and policy implications. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks.
Alkire, S. (2002), Valuing Freedoms: Sen's Capability Approach and Poverty Reduction, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Alkire, S. (2010). Instrumental freedoms and human capabilities. Esquith, Stephen L.; Gifford (eds.):
Capabilities, Power, and Institutions. Towards a More Critical Development Ethics, The Pennsylvania
State University Press, Pennsylvania Park, 18-32.
Alexander, J. M. (2008). Capabilities and social justice: The political philosophy of Amartya Sen and
Martha Nussbaum. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd..
Alkire, S., & Foster, J. (2011). Counting and multidimensional poverty measurement. Journal of
public economics, 95(7), 476-487.
Anderies, J. M., Janssen, M. A., Bousquet, F., Cardenas, J. C., Castillo, D., Lopez, M. C., ... &
Wutich, A. (2011). The challenge of understanding decisions in experimental studies of common pool
resource governance.Ecological Economics, 70(9), 1571-1579.
Arnstein, S. R. (1975). A working model for public participation. Public administration review, 70-73.
Barnaud, C. Et Al. Dispositifs participatifs et asymétries de pouvoir. Montpellier, 2010, 19 p.
Barreteau, O. (2003). Our companion modelling approach. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social
Simulation, 6(2).
Campbell, D. T. (1979). Assessing the impact of planned social change.Evaluation and program
planning, 2(1), 67-90.
Carpenter, J. P., Harrison, G. W., & List, J. A. (Eds.). (2005). Field experiments in economics.
Elsevier JAI.
Clayton, S. (2000). New ways of thinking about environmentalism: Models of justice in the
environmental debate. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 459-474.
Deneulin, S. (2011). Recovering Nussbaum's Aristotelian Roots. Revista Cultura Económica, 29.
Desquinabo, N., Ferrand, N. & Marlier, J. (2009) “E-participation benefits for local planning : an
experimental study”, in : E. Tambouris & A. Macintosh (Eds.) Electronic Participation, Proceedings of
ePart 2009, 1st International Conference, Linz, Austria, September 1-3, 2009, pp. 176-185
Ferrand, N., Nancarrow, B., Johnston, C., & Syme, G. (2005). Simulation and role-playing games for
social justice research. CABM Human Ecosystems Modeling with Agents - Systèmes Multi-Agents pour
la Gestion de l’Environnement et des Territoires, Bourg St-Maurice. Clermont-Ferrand : Cemagref.
Ferrand, N., 2008, Designing Two – Levels – Experiments for Water Policy Design and
Implementation. In Actes des Journées de Rochebrune 2008 sur les Systèmes Complexes Naturels et
Artificiels. Paris : ENST Editions.
Ferrand, N., Abrami, G., Hassenforder, E, Daniell, K., 2013, JUST-A-GRID, when people co-model
fair resource allocation. Resilience 2014 Conference : resilience and development: mobilizing for
transformation. Montpellier : CIRAD. (http://resilience2014.sciencesconf.org/file/76580)
Ferrand, N., Hassenforder, E., Ducrot, R., Barreteau, O., & Abrami, G. (2013). How agency models
inspire large scale participatory planning and its evaluation. In 20th International Congress on
Modelling and Simulation - Adelaide : MSSANZ.
Fleurbaey, M. (2006). Capabilities, functionings and refined functionings.Journal of Human
development, 7(3), 299-310.
Greenberg, D. H., & Shroder, M. (2004). The digest of social experiments. The Urban Institute.
Guérin-Schneider, L., Dionnet, M., Abrami, G. et Von Korff, Y. (2010). Comment évaluer les effets
de la modélisation participative dans l'émergence d'une gouvernance territoriale Communication
présentée à: Actes du Colloque OPDE « Aide à la décision et gouvernance ».
Farvaque, Nicolas. 2005. “L’approche Alternative d’Amartya Sen : Réponse à Emmanuelle
Bénicourt.” L’Économie Politique 27 (3): 38. doi:10.3917/leco.027.0038.
Hampton, G. (1999). Environmental equity and public participation. Policy Sciences, 32(2), 163-174.
Halvorsen, K. (2001). Assesing public participation techniques for confort, convenience, satisfaction
and deliberation. Environnemental management, 28 (2), 179-186.
Herrero, C. (1996). Capabilities and utilities. Economic Design, 2(1), 69-88.
Johansson-Stenman, O., Konow, J.. (2010). “Fair Air: Distributive Justice and Environmental
Economics.” Environmental and Resource Economics 46 (2): 147–66. doi:10.1007/s10640-010-93567
Jones, N. A., Perez, P., Measham, T. G., Kelly, G. J., d’Aquino, P., Daniell, K. A., Ferrand, N. (2009).
Evaluating participatory modeling: developing a framework for cross-case analysis. Environmental
Management, 44(6), 1180-1195.
Loubet, F., Dissart, J. C., & Lallau, B. (2011). Contribution de l'approche par les capacités à
l'évaluation du développement territorial. Revue d’Économie Régionale & Urbaine, (4), 681-703.
Macombe, C., Feschet, P., Garrabé, M., & Loeillet, D. (2011). 2nd International Seminar in Social
Life Cycle Assessment—recent developments in assessing the social impacts of product life cycles.
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 16(9), 940-943.
Maurel, P., Craps, M., Cernesson, F., Raymond, R., Valkering, P., & Ferrand, N. (2007). Concepts and
methods for analysing the role of Information and Communication tools (IC-tools) in Social Learning
processes for River Basin Management. Environmental Modelling & Software, 22(5), 630-639.
Moreau, C., Garin, P., & Rinaudo, J. D. (2013). Justice sociale et allocation initiale des eaux
souterraines. Actes des 7èmes Journées de Recherches en Sciences Sociales. Société Française
d’Economie Rurale. Angers.
Moreau, C., Garin, P., Rinaudo, J.D. (2014). La justice sociale dans la construction du jugement
d'acceptabilité. Analyse de la perception de différentes règles de partage de l’eau souterraine par les
agriculteurs. Economie Rurale (accepté).
Nussbaum, M. (2002). Capabilities and social justice. International Studies Review, 4(2), 123-135.
Nussbaum, M. (2003). Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. Feminist
economics, 9(2-3), 33-59.
Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., & Walker, J. (1994). Rules, games, and common-pool resources. University
of Michigan Press.
Perez, P., Aubert, S., Daré, W., Ducrot, R., Jones, N., Queste, J., et al. (2010). Évaluation et suivi des
effets de la démarche. . In E. Quae (Ed.), La modélisation d’accompagnement: une démarche
participative en appui au développement durable. Paris pp. 153-181.
Renn, O., Webler, T., & Wiedemann, P. M. (Eds.). (1995). Fairness and competence in citizen
participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse (Vol. 10). Springer.
Robeyns, I. (2005). The capability approach: a theoretical survey. Journal of human development,
6(1), 93-117.
Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science,
technology & human values, 25(1), 3-29.
Sen, A. (1984). Development : which way now ? . In A. Sen (Ed.), In "Resources, Values, and
Development". Cambridge, Massachussets Harvard University Press pp. 485-508.
Sen, A. (1990). Justice: means versus freedoms. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 111-121.
Sen, A. (2000). Social justice and the distribution of income. Handbook of income distribution, 1, 5985.
Sen, A. (2010). The place of capability in a theory of justice. Measuring Justice: Primary Goods and
Capabilities, 239-253.
Sen, A. (2013). The ends and means of sustainability. Journal of Human Development and
Capabilities, 14(1), 6-20.
Sewell, W. R. (1979). Models for evaluation of public participation programmes. Nat. Resources
J., 19, 337.
Steyaert, P., Barzman, M., Billaud, J. P., Brives, H., Hubert, B., Ollivier, G., et al. (2007). The role of
knowledge and research in facilitating social learning among stakeholders in natural resources
management in the French Atlantic coastal wetlands. Environmental Science & Policy, 10 (6), 537550.
Steyaert, P. et Jiggins, J. (2007). Governance of complex environmental situations through social
learning: a synthesis of SLIM's lessons for research, policy and practice. Environmental Science &
Policy, 10 (6), 575-586.
Syme, G. J. et Nancarrow, B. E. (2001). Social justice and environmental management: An
introduction. Social Justice Research, 14 (4), 343-347.
Syme, G. J., & Sadler, B. S. (1994). Evaluation of Public Involvement in Water Resources Planning A
Researcher-Practitioner Dialogue. Evaluation Review,18(5), 523-542.
UNDP, 2006, A toolkit for strengthening partnerships – New-York : UNDP CSOD BRSP.
Van den hove, S. (2000). Approches participatives pour la gouvernance en matière de développement
durable : une analyse en terme d'effets. les cahiers du C3ED, 00-04, 38. www.c3ed.uvsq.fr
Van Parijs, P., & Arnsperger, C. (2002). Éthique économique et sociale. La Découverte. Quelques
ouvrages de référence.
Webler, T., Tuler, S., & Krueger, R. O. B. (2001). What is a good public participation process? Five
perspectives from the public. Environmental management, 27(3), 435-450.
Wesselink, A., Paavola, J., Fritsch, O., & Renn, O. (2011). Rationales for public participation in
environmental policy and governance: practitioners’ perspectives. Environment and Planning-Part
A, 43(11), 2688.