Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Combining backcasting and exploratory scenarios to develop robust water strategies in face of uncertain futures

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Water management strategies in times of global change need to be developed within a complex and uncertain environment. Scenarios are often used to deal with uncertainty. A novel backcasting methodology has been tested in which a normative objective (e.g. adaptive water management) is backcasted within the context of exploratory scenarios that sketch four different plausible futures (Economy First, Policy Rules, Fortress Europe, and Sustainability Eventually). The main advantage of combining exploratory and normative scenarios is in the identification of robust actions: actions that are effective in the different socio-environmental contexts sketched in the exploratory scenarios. This paper has three objectives: (1) to present the methodology, focussing on its novel aspects (2) to test the methodology and evaluate its perceived success by analysing organiser and stakeholder feedback and (3) to analyse and evaluate the results, in order to study the impact of the exploratory scenarios on the backcasting results and the added value of robust actions. The methodology was successfully tested in 9 local and one regional case study in a water project water scenarios for Europe and for Neighbouring States (SCENES). Results showed that the exploratory scenarios influenced the content of the backcasts, thus making the identification of robust strategies possible. The list of robust strategies includes both technological and social/organisational strategies, highlighting the need for an integrated approach. The approach shows high potential, but as the methodology is in its infancy more research is needed, particularly in methods to facilitate and monitor information flow between exploratory scenarios and backcasts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This includes all ‘post-its’ from the ten case studies. Detailed information was not available for all case studies, therefore other numbers will appear in other parts of this paper where detailed information was needed for the analysis.

References

  • Alcamo J (2008) The SAS approach: combining qualitative and quantitative knowledge in environmental scenarios. In: Alcamo J (ed) Environmental futures: the practice of environmental scenario analysis. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 123–150

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Alcamo J, Henrichs T, Rösch T (2000) Global modeling and scenario analysis for the World Commission on Water for the 21st Century, vol 2. Center for Environmental Systems Research, University of Kassel, Kassel

    Google Scholar 

  • Alcamo J, Döll P, Henrichs T, Kaspar F, Lehner B, Rösch T et al (2003) Development and testing of the WaterGAP 2 global model of water use and availability. Hydrol Sci J 48:317–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkel DB, Verburg PH (2012) Combining exploratory scenarios and participatory backcasting: using an agent-based model in participatory policy design for a multi-functional landscape. Landscape Ecol 27:641–658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs R, Raudsepp-Hearne C, Atkinson-Palombo C, Bohensky E, Boyd E, Cundill G et al (2007) Linking futures across scales: a dialog on multiscale scenarios. Ecol Soc 12, art. 17

    Google Scholar 

  • Börjeson L, Höjer M, Dreborg K-H, Ekvall T, Finnveden G (2006) Scenario types and techniques: towards a user’s guide. Futures 38:723–739

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryman A, Teevan JT (2005) Social research methods. Oxford University Press, Don Mills

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlsen H, Dreborg KH, Wikman-Svahn P (2012) Tailor-made scenario planning for local adaptation to climate change. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang: 1–17. doi:10.1007/s11027-012-9419-x

  • Carlsson-Kanyama A, Dreborg KH, Moll HC, Padovan D (2008) Participative backcasting: a tool for involving stakeholders in local sustainability planning. Futures 40:34–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen SJ, Sheppard S, Shaw A, Flanders D, Burch S, Taylor B et al (2011) Downscaling and visioning of mountain snow packs and other climate change implications in North Vancouver, British Columbia. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 17:25–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Vries BJM, Petersen AC (2009) Conceptualizing sustainable development: an assessment methodology connecting values, knowledge, worldviews and scenarios. Ecol Econ 68:1006–1019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dong C, Schoups G, van de Giesen N (2013) Scenario development for water resource planning and management: a review. Technol Forecast Soc 80:749–761

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dreborg KH (1996) Essence of backcasting. Futures 28:813–828

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Environmental Agency (2006) PRospective Environmental analysis of Land Use Development in Europe (PRELUDE). Land use scenarios for Europe—modelling at the European scale. Background report. EEA, Copenhagen, Denmark

  • Franco LA, Meadows M, Armstrong SJ (2013) Exploring individual differences in scenario planning workshops: a cognitive style framework. Technol Forecast Soc 80:723–734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ganderton PT (2005) ‘Benefit–cost analysis’ of disaster mitigation: application as a policy and decision-making tool. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 10:445–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geurs K, van Wee B (2004) Backcasting as a tool for sustainable transport policy making: the environmentally sustainable transport study in the Netherlands. Eur J Transp Infra Res 4:47–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Giurco D, Cohen B, Langham E, Warnken M (2011) Backcasting energy futures using industrial ecology. Technol Forecast Soc 78:797–818

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomi K, Ochi Y, Matsuoka Y (2011) A systematic quantitative backcasting on low-carbon society policy in case of Kyoto city. Technol Forecast Soc 78:852–871

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haasnoot M, Kwakkel JH, Walker WE, ter Maat J (2013) Dynamic adaptive policy pathways: a method for crafting robust decisions for a deeply uncertain world. Global Environ Chang 23:485–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallegatte S (2009) Strategies to adapt to an uncertain climate change. Global Environ Chang 19:240–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Höjer M, Mattsson L-G (2000) Determinism and backcasting in future studies. Futures 32:613–634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahan JP, Botterman M, Cave J, Robinson N, Shoob R, Thomson R et al (2004) Cyber trust and crime prevention: gaining insight from three different futures, Prepared for Foresight Directorate. Vol., Office of Science and Technology, UK

  • Kaljonen M, Varjopuro R, Giełczewski M, Iital A (2012) Seeking policy-relevant knowledge: a comparative study of the contextualisation of participatory scenarios for the Narew River and Lake Peipsi. Environ Sci Policy 15:72–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kämäri J, Alcamo J, Bärlund I, Duel H, Farquharson F, Flörke M et al (2008) Envisioning the future of water in Europe—the SCENES project. E-WAter: 1–28

  • Khadra R, D’Agostino DR, Scardigno A, Lamaddalena N (2011) Down-scaling pan-European water scenarios to local visions in the Mediterranean: the Candelaro Basin case study in Italy. J Water Clim Chang 2:180–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kok K, van Vliet M (2011) Using a participatory scenario development toolbox: added values and impact on quality of scenarios. J Water Clim Chang 2:87–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kok K, Rothman DS, Patel N (2006) Multi-scale narratives from an IA perspective: Part I. European and Mediterranean scenario development. Futures 38:261–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kok K, van Vliet M, Barlund I, Dubel A, Sendzimir J (2011) Combining participative backcasting and exploratory scenario development: experiences from the SCENES project. Technol Forecast Soc 78:835–851

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leary NA (1999) A framework for benefit-cost analysis of adaptation to climate change and climate variability. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 4:307–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March H, Therond O, Leenhardt D (2012) Water futures: reviewing water-scenario analyses through an original interpretative framework. Ecol Econ 82:126–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer R (2007) Comparison of scenarios on futures of European food chains. Trends Food Sci Tech 18:540–545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessments. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems & human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Moel H, Vliet M, Aerts JCJH (2013) Evaluating the effect of flood damage-reducing measures: a case study of the unembanked area of Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Reg Env Chang (in press) doi:10.1007/s10113-013-0420-z

  • Nowack M, Endrikat J, Guenther E (2011) Review of Delphi-based scenario studies: quality and design considerations. Technol Forecast Soc 78:1603–1615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Partidario PJ, Vergragt PJ (2002) Planning of strategic innovation aimed at environmental sustainability: actor-networks, scenario acceptance and backcasting analysis within a polymeric coating chain. Futures 34:841–861

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patel M, Kok K, Rothman D (2007) Participatory scenario construction in land use analysis. An insight into the experiences created by stakeholder involvement in the Northern Mediterranean. Land Use Policy 24:546–561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson GD, Cumming GS, Carpenter SR (2003) Scenario planning: a tool for conservation in an uncertain world. Conserv Biol 17:358–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quist J, Vergragt P (2006) Past and future of backcasting: the shift to stakeholder participation and a proposal for a methodological framework. Futures 38:1027–1045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quist J, Thissen W, Vergragt PJ (2011) The impact and spin-off of participatory backcasting: from vision to niche. Technol Forecast Soc 78:883–897

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson J (1982) Energy backcasting—a proposed method of policy analysis. Energ Policy 10:337–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson J (1988) Unlearning and backcasting—rethinking some of the questions we ask about the future. Technol Forecast Soc 33:325–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson J (1990) Futures under glass, a recipe for people who hate to predict. Futures 22:820–842

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson J (2003) Future subjunctive: backcasting as social learning. Futures 35:839–856

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson J, Burch S, Talwar S, O’Shea M, Walsh M (2011) Envisioning sustainability: recent progress in the use of participatory backcasting approaches for sustainability research. Technol Forecast Soc 78:756–768

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rotmans J, van Asselt M, Anastasi C, Greeuw S, Mellors J, Peters S et al (2000) Visions for a sustainable Europe. Futures 32:809–831

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaldach R, Koch J, Beek TAD, Kynast E, Florke M (2012) Current and future irrigation water requirements in pan-Europe: an integrated analysis of socio-economic and climate scenarios. Global Planet Chang 94–95:33–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoemaker PJH (1991) When and how to use scenario planning—a Heuristic approach with illustration. J Forecasting 10:549–564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoemaker PJH (1993) Multiple scenario development—its conceptual and behavioral foundation. Strat Manag J 14:193–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shearer AW (2005) Approaching scenario-based studies: three perceptions about the future and considerations for landscape planning. Environ Plann B 32:67–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stalpers SIP, Amstel AR, Dellink RB, Mulder I, Werners SE, Kroeze C (2007) Lessons learnt from a participatory integrated assessment of greenhouse gas emission reduction options in firms. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 13:359–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svenfelt A, Engstrom R, Hojer M (2010) Use of explorative scenarios in environmental policy-making-Evaluation of policy instruments for management of land, water and the built environment. Futures 42:1166–1175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svenfelt A, Engstrom R, Svane O (2011) Decreasing energy use in buildings by 50% by 2050—a backcasting study using stakeholder groups. Technol Forecast Soc 78:785–796

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNEP (2002) Global Environment Outlook-3: past, present and future perspectives. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Heijden K (1996) Scenarios: the art of strategic conversation. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Heijden K (2000) Scenarios and forecasting: two perspectives. Technol Forecast Soc 65:31–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Kerkhof M (2006) A dialogue approach to enhance learning for sustainability—a Dutch experiment with two participatory methods in the field of climate change. Integr Assess J 6:7–34

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Kerkhof M, Wieczorek A (2005) Learning and stakeholder participation in transition processes towards sustainability: methodological considerations. Technol Forecast Soc 72:733–747

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Voorn T, Pahl-Wostl C, Quist J (2012) Combining backcasting and adaptive management for climate adaptation in coastal regions: a methodology and a South African case study. Futures 44:346–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Notten PWF, Rotmans J, Van Asselt MBA, Rothman DS (2003) An updated scenario typology. Futures 35:423–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Vliet M (2011) Bridging gaps in the scenario world—linking stakeholders, modellers and decision makers. Dissertation, Wageningen University

  • van Vliet M, Kok K, Veldkamp T, Sarkki S (2012) Structure in creativity; effects of structuring tools on results of participatory scenario development workshops. Futures 44:746–760

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van’t Klooster SA, van Asselt MBA (2006) Practising the scenario-axes technique. Futures 38:15–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van’t Klooster SA, van Asselt M (2011) Accommodating or compromising change? A story about ambitions and historic deterministic scenarios. Futures 43:86–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • vanVuuren DP, Kok MTJ, Girod B, Lucas PL, de Vries BJM (2012) Scenarios in global environmental assessments: key characteristics and lessons for future use. Glob Environ Chang 22:884–895

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodrum E (1984) “Mainstreaming” content analysis in social science: methodological advantages, obstacles, and solutions. Soc Sci Res 13:1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by SCENES (EC-funded FP6, Contract number 036822) and Knowledge for Climate (Theme 7). We wish to thank our colleagues within SCENES for numerous valuable scientific discussions that led to the insights reported here. Particularly valuable were discussions with Jan Sendzimir, Ilona Bärlund, Ania Dubel and Zsuzsanna Flachner. We also acknowledge the helpful comments of four anonymous reviewers. We further want to thank all the people who worked on the local, regional and pan-European panel workshops. Without them, the combined methodology could not have been tested on such a large scale, thus giving our results extra strength. Last but not least, we want to thank all the stakeholders who took part in the workshops; without them there would be no results.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Public Administration and Policy group, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 8130, 6700 EW, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    Mathijs van Vliet

  2. Soil Geography and Landscape Group, Wageningen University, P.O. box 47, 6700 AA, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    Kasper Kok

Authors
  1. Mathijs van Vliet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kasper Kok
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mathijs van Vliet.

Appendices

Appendix 1. Summaries of explorative scenarios and backcasts

1.1 Economy First (EcF)

The economy develops towards globalisation and liberalisation with rapidly spreading innovations. Yet income inequality, immigration and urban sprawl cause social tensions. Water use increases because of, among others, slow adoption of waterefficient technologies and low water-saving consciousness. Water ecosystems providing ecological goods and services for economies and society are preserved and improved. Thus, the WFD changes its conceptual focus from a good ecological status to preserving socio-economically valuable ecological services. Towards the 2040s, a number of (pollution) incidents catch the interest of media and public, resulting in a social upheaval. By 2050, governments have started to work with non-governmental organisations (NGOs), industries and other representatives of civil society to safeguard economic prosperity while making ground for social coherence.

1.2 Fortress Europe (FoE)

The world becomes increasingly unstable due to a number of crises, which causes instability and an increase in terrorism across Europe. In turn, this gives rise to an increased (perceived) need for more security, as a result of which Europe starts closing its borders. An aim for self-sufficiency and market protectionism eventually spreads over all sectors. This leads to an increased exploitation and strict management of domestic natural resources, paying less attention to environmental consequences, for example through the institutionalisation of the Water Security Framework. Towards 2030, climate change becomes an issue, triggering new sets of conflicts. These are resolved by strong EU leadership and the newly formed border police, or otherwise neutralised by the fear of individual countries to be excluded from the EU. By 2050, resources are strictly managed and profits are spread over the EU. The gap between the rich and poor countries widens, yet the EU survives.

1.3 Policy Rules (PoR)

Efforts to strengthen coordination of policies at EU level, are slowed by regional pursuit of economic self-interest. Policies become slowly more ineffective, and ecosystem services begin to deteriorate very significantly. Until 2030, the EC is increasingly disappointed in level of water framework directive (WFD) compliance, particularly because of emerging and increasing pressures on water resources. After 2030, climate change hits hard, which replaces public apathy towards environmental issues with enthusiastic support that drives more innovative governance (public/private partnerships). This leads to WFD compliance that is higher than ever. Simultaneously, by 2030 public participation is increased which leads to a strong local government support for action. By 2050, Europe is at the forefront of a new socio-economic paradigm of public/private partnerships and is leading a global shift in this direction

1.4 Sustainability Eventually (SuE)

The main long-term changes towards 2050 include a transition towards environmental sustainability, in which the landscape has become the basic unit. The overall focus is on quality of life rather than economic indicators through local diversity which is governed by local networks. This transition to local sustainability is the result of a long-term process that starts with a set of strong top-down measures that is kick-started by a series of extreme events and which is later accompanied by behavioural change and a new governance structure. Because of the severity of the problem, measures are taken quicker and more effectively in water-poor countries, which results in a split with water-rich countries. Initially, a water pricing system is key in regulating water demand. By 2050, behavioural change structurally lowers water consumption, which in turn increases water quality and decreases water stress.

Complete storylines can be found in: Kok K, Bärlund I, Dubel A, Flörke M, Magnuszewski P, Sendzimir J et al. (2011) Lessons Learnt: summary of scenarios: multi-scale stories, conceptual models and policy actions. SCENES Deliverable 2.12. Wageningen University, Wageningen.

Appendix 2. Main opportunities, obstacles and strategies per scenario

2.1 Opportunities

2.1.1 Economy First

  • Technological development: possibility to reduce pollution loads and water consumption, improve purification processes.

  • Population decrease: will lead to overall reduction of pressures on the environment.

  • Nuclear power plant: possibility to substitute water related energy production (hydropower plants, thermal power plants)

  • Public awareness: significant tool to improve society’s knowledge about environment related issues.

  • EU Funds: still useful tool for financing of water improving measures, especially at the beginning of the scenario period.

  • Private investments: with the increase of private capital

  • Innovative financing mechanisms

  • La Mancha Plain water pipe

  • Water transfer Tagus-Segura

  • Forest activity potential

  • Reduced energy costs

  • Technical development in rain fed agriculture

  • Hunting potencial

2.1.2 Sustainability Eventually

  • Decreased agricultural pollution loads (after 2010): due to reduction in agricultural production.

  • Ecological farming (after 2010): less water polluting.

  • Lower costs of technologies (after 2020).

  • Lower municipal pollution loads (after 2010): less people produce less pollution; higher connectivity to sewage systems.

  • Lower industrial pollution.

  • Integration of Water Framework Directive with other policies (after 2010, raised effectiveness in 2020): integration in local scale and spatial planning policies.

  • Development of ecotourism (2010–2017): provides additional income, partly returning for the environment improvement.

  • Active NGOs (after 2020).

  • Growing awareness of the society: in environmental values and being a part of the catchment (started but could speed up after achieving higher welfare level)

  • Environmental taxes and charges (after 2025): bring more financing in longer perspective.

  • Agriculture is the driver for economic development

  • Agriculture maintains population in UG

  • Regional government gives daily advice for crop watering

  • Environment as opportunity for rural development

  • Added value compared to products from elsewhere

  • Local markets and organic production

  • Subsidy elimination, technical farmer

  • Shift in social values (post-modern)

  • Farmer as rural environment keeper

2.1.3 Fortress Europe

  • Water as a valuable resource: other countries would be interested to keep that clean.

  • Common laws and standards: easier to adopt

  • Single pollution control institution.

  • Tourism development: a driver to keep good water status and improve water awareness.

  • Use of solar and wind energy: use of alternative energy resources will reduce pressure on water resources.

  • Organic farming (only till 2015).

2.1.4 Policy Rules

  • New taxes

  • Export market for organic agriculture (2030)

  • Land use changes

  • EU subsidies (after 2030)

  • Ecotourism

  • Awareness raising programmes (EU funded)

  • Decrease in population

  • Building water treatment plants

  • New technologies (e.g., at homes)

  • Field experimentation for the re-use of waste water

  • Agricultural planning

2.2 Obstacles

2.2.1 Economy First

  • Emerging pollutant technologies (2020): development of new technologies may lead to new types of water pollutants (e.g. nanotechnologies).

  • Consumer lifestyle (2030): increased incomes and wealth of the society lead to increased consumption of different products and increased resource use and pollution,

  • Population decrease (2010): wastewater collection and treatment facilities are built for certain population number; population decrease may lead to underexploitation of those facilities and less payments for wastewater services; in the Baltic States, the problem is already relevant.

  • Nuclear power plant (2020): building nuclear power plants in Lithuania and Poland (potentially also Estonia) may lead to thermal pollution problems raised by cooling waters.

  • Mass tourism development (2025): raised income levels can lead to higher willingness to travel and to increased pressures to some areas resulting in degradation of aquatic ecosystems.

  • Urban sprawl (2010): increased wellbeing level usually stimulates people to move to individual houses that increases pressure on water.

  • Insufficient governance capacity

  • Insufficient governance capacity

  • Division of water resources between the countries

  • Foreign land-use.

  • Drainage of wetlands.

  • Old pollution of the lake.

  • Reed at the coasts and increasing use of herbicides to handle the problem.

  • Unsatisfactory condition of irrigation system, Lack of qualified staff, climate change

  • Overproduction, Lack of regulatory policy in production, business competition

  • Lack of financial support

  • Lack of means, assets

  • Disunion of offices/institutions

  • Instable situation, no land market

  • European legislation

  • Laws

  • Global economic crisis

  • Political instability

  • Deterioration of geopolitical situation, trans-boundary rivers management issues

  • Development of water transport, lack of special technical means of collection and utilization of waste waters from vessels.

  • Lack of effective control means

  • Ineffective monitoring system

  • Lack of free access to monitoring data

  • Intensification of industry

  • Corruption

  • Lack of financing, unfavourable economic situation

  • Thermo-solar energy production

  • Public Deficit

  • Political Instability

  • Diffuse pollution

  • Depopulation of rural areas

  • Rural population with different values

2.2.2 Sustainability Eventually

  • Lack of funding (2010–2030): less financing water improvement measures.

  • Lack of will to implement environmentally friendly practices (2010–2025): especially problematic in agriculture; the awareness of farmers is lower and attitude more negative.

  • Long recovery from pollution: especially big problem in large water bodies (lakes); recovery may take longer time than available in the scenario.

  • Maintenance of hydropower plants: renewable energy is important in the scenario; existing small hydropower plants will continue to cause problems for aquatic environment.

  • Environmental taxes and charges: additional tax burdens slow down economies, especially at the beginning of the scenario period.

  • Inner load of the lake.

  • Impact of climate change.

  • Increased mineralisation due to forestry activities.

  • More intensive agriculture in Russia.

  • Over-fishing in the lake (Russian side)

  • Increased support to agricultural producers.

  • Russia does not fulfil environmental obligations

  • Increased load from the catchment.

  • Increasing economic pressure to the environment.

  • Lack of civil society

  • Lack of political support to special plan for the upper Guadiana (SPUG)

  • Situation of economy

  • Globalization as challenge for agriculture

  • Farmers have not invested in marketing

  • Irrigation efficiency has room for improvement in Middel-Guadiana (MG)

  • High water consumption in MG

  • Bad design of agricultural policies

  • Over-production in agriculture (wine…)

  • Quality of products not rewarded, only quantity is

  • Lack of interest and goodwill of Administrations responsible for water governance

  • Support to unsustainable market agriculture

  • Political clientelism, lack of willingness of application

  • Lack of investment and system rigidity

  • Lack of indicators for agricultural and multifunctional sustainability

  • Lack of NGOs capacity

  • Insufficient human capacity and funding to finance the investments

  • Rent seeking behavior

  • Rent seeking behavior

  • Conflict in centralization & participatory processes

2.2.3 Fortress Europe

  • Difficulties to change people’s habits (2015)

  • Lack of understanding of water importance (2030): people tend not to understand problems if no serious problems arise.

  • Lack of involvement of public stakeholders (till 2030).

  • Transboundary waters shared with outside fortress (till 2050).

  • Competition between sectors for water (2015–2030).

  • Pressure to produce agricultural products (2015–2030)

  • Need to use hydroenergy (till 2050)

  • Need to use wind energy (in coastal waters), cutting peat, draining wetlands (till 2050)

  • Use of certain sort of bioenergy plants (rape) (2015–2030)

  • Lack of funding for water monitoring and management (till 2015–2030).

  • Overheads for high technical level support

  • Misbalance in pricing policy of different regions

  • Disunity in sectors priorities

  • Local climate change

  • Technical problems

  • Conflict of interests

  • Lack of touristic infrastructure

  • Bureaucracy

  • +Disunity in sector priorities

  • Reliability of information

  • Lack of law enforcement mechanisms

  • No land market

  • Political instability

  • Bad technical condition (deterioration) of infrastructure

  • Monopole of the energy market

  • Employment in water sector is not prestigious

  • Conflict of interests and offices

  • Failure to comply with laws

  • Lack of material and financial background

  • Lack of vision, social perspectives

  • Epidemiological hazards, increase of social tension, system ecological and political crisis.

  • Structural organization of the agricultural sector

  • Extension of the consortium governance model to the other water resources

  • Identification of stakeholders and involvement of stakeholders

2.2.4 Policy Rules

  • Industrial pollution (2025)

  • No clear indicators available(2015)

  • Lobby groups against rules (2045)

  • Agricultural pollution (2030)

  • Land use (2025)

  • EU subsidies (till 2030)

  • Hydropower plants (from 2010)

  • Mass tourism (before 2020)

  • Polluted sediments (after 2030)

  • Increase share of land used for agriculture and accompanied pressure

  • Possible development of pulp and paper industry in the area.

  • Insufficient governance capacity

  • Lack of markets on food production

  • Unstable political situation

  • Lack of coordination of water and land users

  • Lack of financing for research and development (RD) program

  • Lack of investors

  • Lack of government guarantees for investors

  • Lack of material and technical provisions

  • Lack of knowledge and experiences in new policy implementation

  • Food quality does not correspond to international standards

  • Lack of legislation for decartelized integrated water resources management (IWRM)

  • Lack of incentives of food producers

  • Lack of land bank and market

  • Shortage of state budget

  • Problems of watershed / river basin

  • Outdated technologies

  • Low priority of agriculture

  • Corruption

  • Passivity of thinking

  • Economic difficulties

  • Binding limits for the re-use of waste water

  • Increasing of water demand for the growing population

  • Inefficiency of the authority in the control of the distribution of agricultural surfaces

2.3 Strategies

2.3.1 Economy First

  • Cross-border projects

  • Cross-border private incentives

  • Exchange of technologies

  • Infrastructure planning

  • Property taxes

  • Spatial planning

  • Pollution taxes and charges

  • Environmentally friendly technologies

  • Social policies

  • Legislation act on temperature of cooling waters to be released into natural waters

  • Installation of artificial basins for cooling waters

  • Development of alternative cooling technologies

  • Information on products and labels

  • Financial instruments

  • Education measures

  • Social equity

  • Good status of water ecosystems

  • Agricultural sustainability and multi-functionality—

  • Economic development

  • Energy

  • Management and Policy

  • Water consumption decrease

  • First part follows MaF assumptions, second part is very similar to SuF

  • Whole environmental and water quality infrastructure is built for the Tisza-valley

  • Actions focused more on improvement of infrastructure and technologies

  • Pushed from the private sector towards the government to

  • Create more favorable conditions for investments

  • Gradually improve water management system by

  • Implementation of new technologies,

  • Stimulation of environment friendly technologies use economical and regulatory means and

  • Overcoming of economical and administrative obstacles by

  • Implementation of improved water resources governance system and

  • State support of proper business

2.3.2 Sustainability Eventually

  • Establishment of coherent legal system

  • Change in ecological awareness

  • Reduction of pollution

  • Innovative technologies

  • Appearing of charismatic leader

  • Environmental monitoring

  • Sufficient financial support

  • People’s approach is a key issue, can be followed through the whole system

  • Campaigns for raising awareness

  • Economic instrument (public sector) implemented

  • Economic instrument (voluntary) implemented

  • Technical measures

  • Setting specific criteria for “good water status”

  • WFD implemented

  • Water quality upstream

  • Water quality in Danube Delta (DD)

  • Fisheries

  • Ecotourism

  • Navigation

  • For legal actions more control from society is added and

  • Water user’s association start to play a role in operation and maintenance of irrigation systems

  • Public participation

  • Policy implementation

  • Agricultural production

  • Water savings

  • Land use diversification

  • Policies lead to legislative actions

  • Determining necessary education and finally

  • The construction of the required infrastructure

  • Policies to increase the capacity of water related NGOs

  • Followed by treatment of water saving within agricultural subsidies

2.3.3 Fortress Europe

  • Establishing one EU institution

  • Monitoring system

  • Rules for water storage

  • Rules for distribution of water

  • Subsidies at the beginning

  • Infrastructure

  • Planning

  • Education

  • Promotion

  • Promoting markets

  • Innovations in technologies

  • Fish support (spawning ground)

  • Research

  • Educated farmers

  • The same right for all countries

  • Education at schools

  • Competition&award

  • Infrastructure

  • Supporting subsidies

  • Consumer education

  • New technologies

  • Promoting (eco) fishing

  • Forbidding straightening rivers

  • Creating artificial lakes

  • Polluter pays principle

  • Cooperation

  • Infrastructure development

  • Aim was in some kind of contradiction with the Fortress Europe approach

  • Provide stronger regional policy

  • Actions for policy implementation with stricter control from the society

  • Introduction of a strong dictatorship

  • Closed societies of rich spend money on new technologies for themselves and to some extent for poor classes

  • Can be achieved only via strong control of the labor class and

  • Good education for the reigning class

  • Optimization of water use

  • Decrease w demand

  • Increase awareness

  • Increase water availability

  • Research on nuclear waste

2.3.4 Policy Rules

  • More legal and institutional building character

  • Upgrading and research for irrigation

  • Re-use of waste water

  • Better control

  • EU support returns several times, this is more about administrative and professional support than financial

  • EU panel on water quality

  • Polluter pays principle implementation

  • Property taxes

  • Awareness raising on tourism impact

  • EU subsidies

  • CAP reform stimulates less polluting technologies

  • Lower direct payment increases agro-environmental schemes

  • Land use plans

  • New industry standards

  • Creating set of indicators

  • EU pollution guidelines

  • National pollution law changes

  • Transboundary agreements

  • Monitoring new technologies

  • Buffer zone regulations

  • New technologies at home

  • Control of pollution from private houses

  • Taxes for sewage amount

  • Increased connection to sewage treatment system

  • Involvement of Russian side

  • Improving management capacity

  • Changing demographic policy

  • Implementation of new technologies

  • Improvement of legislation

  • State support of environment-friendly businesses

  • Environmental education

  • Major driving forces: administrative (legislative and executive powers)

Appendix 3. Overview of robust strategies

The list below contains the robust strategies developed in the different case studies, and thus contains similar strategies.

  • Keep water framework directive

  • Stricter legal framework

  • Improvement of legal frame

  • Improvement of legislation

  • Improvement of governance capacity

  • Promotion of specific legislation,

  • Improvement and development of legislation, government and regional programs and regulations;

  • Institutional development and capacity building

  • Improvement of water governance and management in organizations

  • Development of government and public control on policy implementation

  • Efficient control of policy compliance

  • Development of government and public control on policy implementation

  • Institutional development and capacity building

  • Implementation and compliance of regulations

  • Integration of sectoral policies

  • Support of rural development

  • Development of tourism sector

  • Development of local markets

  • Incentives for tourism development compatible with the environment

  • Provide funds for implementation of current policies

  • Development and implementation of new financial mechanisms

  • Investment programs

  • Taxes

  • Payments for environmental services

  • Subsidies

  • More efficient implementation of legal acts in practice

  • Water treatment at 100 %

  • Decrease pollution load water treatment at 100 %

  • Implementation of the WFD,

  • Implementation of best environmental practices (BEP) at the local level,

  • Provision with waste water treatment plant sewerage and water supply network

  • Infrastructure must be updated

  • Technical assistance

  • Development and modernization of infrastructures

  • Waste water treatment and reuse

  • Measures for improving marketing

  • Modernization and rehabilitation of water infrastructure

  • Introduction and implementation of new technologies

  • Encourage rain-fed agriculture

  • Increase resource use efficiency

  • Implementation of new technologies

  • Technology development

  • New technologies

  • Development and modernization of infrastructures

  • Awareness raising

  • Provide information

  • Stakeholder panels

  • Education

  • Charismatic leader

  • Increase awareness

  • Development of (environmental) education

  • Environmental education

  • Improvement of environmental awareness

  • Provision of information for society and rising of awareness on all levels

  • Increase of the awareness, through information and education campaigns

  • Provision of information for society and rising of awareness on all levels

  • Establishment and compliance with environmental flows

  • Monitoring

  • Monitoring programs

  • Territorial monitoring and control

  • Development and implementation of ecological monitoring

  • Cross border cooperation

  • Improved cooperation with Russia

  • Cooperation between sectors and stakeholders

  • Reduction of load from russian part of the catchment

  • Sharing of water resources

  • Cross-border water commission

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

van Vliet, M., Kok, K. Combining backcasting and exploratory scenarios to develop robust water strategies in face of uncertain futures. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 20, 43–74 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-013-9479-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-013-9479-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation