Decision Support Systems in Water Resources Planning and Management: Stakeholder Participation and the Sustainable Path to Science-Based Decision Making - Efficient Decision Support Systems: Practice and Challenges from Current to Future - page 432

Mahmoud et al. (2009) is that SVP was developed and refined by planning practitioners that
needed to solve planning challenges in their professional life. Authorized by the US
Congress and motivated by the 1988 drought, the method initially appeared as the Drought
Preparedness Study (Werrick and Whipple, 1994) with the goal of finding better ways to
manage water during drought. The report is based on the joint effort of over 100
practitioners and researchers on how to approach water management issues in many case
studies across the country during drought. The report highlights that drought responses are
primarily behavioral and “ their success depends on people understanding their role, and knowing
how their actions fit in a larger response ”. It also states that planning will be much more
effective if it benefits from collaboration between government agencies and stakeholders.
This will provide easy access to insights and knowledge from the stakeholders (integrative
plans), they will learn about the broader picture (social learning, understanding), thus being
less vulnerable themselves, and will ensure public support for any potential water
management plans (credibility and trust). The Drought Preparedness Study presented a
methodology to set up a functional and integrated multi-stakeholder process to find
planning solutions in the face of droughts, but can be used in any water management issues.
The full report is available online at: http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/docs/iwrreports
/94nds8.pdf
Since its initial development, the method has been adopted by the US Army Corps of
Engineers in many conflict resolution efforts in US water management regional disputes,
and is commonly known now as Shared Vision Planning (SVP). SVP is based on three
principles: (1) traditional and time tested planning methods and techniques (such as
described in chapter 2); (2) structured public participation; and (3) use of computer models
collaboratively developed in order to support the participatory planning process (Cardwell
et al., 2009).
To efficiently benefit from stakeholder participation, SVP uses Circles of Influence as a way
to structure involvement and engage stakeholders depending on their role in the process. As
shown in Figure 1, participants can fall in Circles A, B, C or D, ideally representing the
following:
Circle A: Planners and model developers. Their task is to integrate the work of others to
develop planning alternatives and modeling tools to help decision-making. They form the
core planning team that facilitates communication across the different circles.
Circle B: Stakeholder representatives and technical experts. Sometimes organized around
working groups on specific issues, they provide information, insights and advice. They
validate the work of Circle A and can evaluate proposed plans.
Circle C: The general public, whose members should have representatives in Circle B. A
mechanism should exist to inform them and allow their feedback regarding the work of
Circles A and B.
Circle D: The decision makers. Those who will ultimately decide what decisions are taken
and what plans are implemented. They should be identified and actively engaged along the
planning process, so they can provide feedback and guidance to the process.
These circles of influence are relatively natural, and they can be well illustrated by the case
studies in the Rio Grande and the San Pedro basin, with slight differences. The Cooperative
Modeling Team in the Middle Rio Grande and the Technical Committee of the Upper San
Pedro Partnership would compose Circle A, the hands-on planners, in each basin. The
Middle Rio Grande Water Assembly and the Upper San Pedro Partnership as stakeholder