Systems Approach
Framework†
(SAF) |
Adaptive
management‡ |
Barcelona case
study
(How the SAF was applied) |
Comments
(Deviation
from recommended steps and difficulties encountered) |
|
The aim is to improve ecological sustainability, economic
efficiency, and social equity – similar to “passive” adaptive
management |
Can be either “active” or “passive”
adaptive management |
|
|
| | |
|
Steps |
Tasks |
Procedural components |
| |
|
System design |
Identify stakeholders; identify
issues; define “virtual” system,
structure, and functions; set
boundaries; conceptual modeling |
Inclusion of all relevant
stakeholders; creation and maintenance of political
openness; social and scientific
process |
Following stakeholder mapping (Table 1), invitations were
sent to the administrative bodies from the three main scales of responsibility
over the Barcelona beaches (local, regional, and national).The first meeting was
held on 11 October 2007. An issue was agreed upon between the five stakeholders
and the ICM-CSIC§ research team involved in SPICOSA|: “the effects of
changes in water quality on the aesthetic and recreational services of the
Barcelona beaches”, and a first draft of the conceptual model was
constructed. |
Following an agreement between the research team, the
stakeholders were selected to maximize representativeness and minimize the
likelihood of conflicts. The SAF recommends including a greater representation
of stakeholders. |
|
System formulation and system appraisal |
Construct mathematical
model, scenarios; parameterize; validate; choose
indicators; assess relevance for stakeholders;
interpret results |
Consideration of appropriate temporal and spatial
scales; use of computer models to build synthesis and
an embodied ecological consensus |
A hierarchical model which included ecological,
social, and economic variables was constructed, and the key indicators were water clarity,
bacteria concentration, beach user frequentation, and market and non-market
valuation of aesthetic and recreational services. A second stakeholder meeting
was held on 26 February 2009. The primary scenarios identified as relevant for
stakeholders were related to changes in stormwater collector capacity and
functioning. Additional scenarios included changes in wastewater treatment plant
operational states, river flows and concentrations of bacteria and suspended matter, precipitation, and flushing
rates of the beaches. |
We were unable to obtain key data and information necessary
to construct and validate the mathematical model to a rigorous standard. Future
iterations of the SAF might yield the time, resources, and cooperation necessary
to address these deficiencies. |
|
System output |
Present results to
stakeholders; organize information; deliberate |
Use of embodied ecological consensus to evaluate strategic
alternatives; use of computer models to build synthesis
and an embodied ecological consensus; communication of
alternatives to political arena for
negotiation; inclusion of all relevant
stakeholders; creation and maintenance of political
openness; social and scientific
process |
Results were presented twice, first in a private meeting
held on 10 March 2010 with the Catalan Water Agency. Shortly afterwards on 23
March 2010, the results and conclusions were presented to the Commission of
Coastal Affairs (a pre-existing forum where coastal issues are discussed at the
regional level). There was no time for deliberation, but a few stakeholders
approached us afterwards regarding the conclusion of the
model.Additionally, the key stakeholder who had
declined to attend our previous meetings (but was present here) was now keen to
share their time, data, and expertise with us, given that the model produced
results that were contrary to their economics interests. |
The forum of the Commission of Coastal Affairs was
discovered late in the application of the SAF, and the fact that it was not identified earlier should be considered a failure
of the scientific team. Given the social capital
already invested in this commission, it would have been preferable to apply the SAF here
rather than creating ad hoc meetings as we did. |
|
|
|
Encourage the formation of new institutions and
strategies; enhancement of institutional
flexibility |
|
The SAF can provide policy strategies as options but does
not explicitly recommend these components of adaptive management. |