IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i21p5931-d280512.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Integrated and Participatory Design of Sustainable Development Strategies on Multiple Governance Levels

Author

Listed:
  • Fabian Heitmann

    (Institute of Environmental Systems Research, Osnabrück University, Barbarastr. 12, 49076 Osnabrück, Germany)

  • Johannes Halbe

    (Institute of Environmental Systems Research, Osnabrück University, Barbarastr. 12, 49076 Osnabrück, Germany)

  • Claudia Pahl-Wostl

    (Institute of Environmental Systems Research, Osnabrück University, Barbarastr. 12, 49076 Osnabrück, Germany)

Abstract

An increasing number of sustainable development strategies (SDS) is being developed for cities, municipalities and countries. The design of such strategies is inherently complex. This is a result from intricate relationships between different SDS on different levels, and a large number of requirements that need to be addressed in strategy implementation. A particular challenge is the integration of strategies across different governance levels (e.g., city, federal, and national levels). Methodologies are currently lacking to systematically design SDS which take the full complexity of the dependencies of the strategies into account. In this article, we propose a participatory requirements analyses approach to support strategy building across governance levels. Experience from systems engineering (SE) has shown, that requirements are the basis for designing systems or strategies. We elicit requirements by applying a participatory modeling approach with causal-loop diagrams in an individual interview setting. To illustrate our approach, we test the developed design approach and focus on the interdependencies between SDS at the city level (i.e., the cities of Berlin and Hamburg) and the German national SDS. The design process reveals critical factors which are needed for the overall success of the strategies. The resulting causal models reveal that despite coordination activities of the regional objectives with the national targets, trade-offs exist between the strategies regarding the underlying conditions for their implementation (e.g., national law, federal and state law). In addition, the level of detail of requirements for certain objectives at the national level and across sectors is too general. This hinders the emergence of system-wide co-benefits of possible solution strategies. Requirements analysis can highlight interdependencies, such as trade-offs and synergies, between strategies at multiple governance levels and, based upon this, can support a more coherent strategy design.

Suggested Citation

  • Fabian Heitmann & Johannes Halbe & Claudia Pahl-Wostl, 2019. "Integrated and Participatory Design of Sustainable Development Strategies on Multiple Governance Levels," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-27, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:21:p:5931-:d:280512
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/21/5931/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/21/5931/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Amira Sharon & Olivier L. de Weck & Dov Dori, 2011. "Project management vs. systems engineering management: A practitioners' view on integrating the project and product domains," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(4), pages 427-440, December.
    2. D. Marc Kilgour & Keith W. Hipel, 2005. "The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution: Past, Present, and Future," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 14(6), pages 441-460, November.
    3. Fabian Heitmann & Claudia Pahl-Wostl & Stefanie Engel, 2019. "Requirements Based Design of Environmental System of Systems: Development and Application of a Nexus Design Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-22, June.
    4. Miriam Müller & Oscar Reutter, 2017. "Vision Development towards a Sustainable North Rhine-Westphalia 2030 in a Science-Practice-Dialogue," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-27, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Margherita Pillan & Fiammetta Costa & Valentina Caiola, 2023. "How Could People and Communities Contribute to the Energy Transition? Conceptual Maps to Inform, Orient, and Inspire Design Actions and Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-31, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. M. Nassereddine & M. A. Ellakkis & A. Azar & M. D. Nayeri, 2021. "Developing a Multi-methodology for Conflict Resolution: Case of Yemen’s Humanitarian Crisis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 301-320, April.
    2. John Wood & Shahram Sarkani & Thomas Mazzuchi & Timothy Eveleigh, 2013. "A framework for capturing the hidden stakeholder system," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(3), pages 251-266, September.
    3. Nannan Wu & Yejun Xu & D. Marc Kilgour, 2019. "Water allocation analysis of the Zhanghe River basin using the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution with incomplete fuzzy preferences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-17, February.
    4. Augusto Getirana & Valéria de Fátima Malta, 2010. "Investigating Strategies of an Irrigation Conflict," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 24(12), pages 2893-2916, September.
    5. Kristina Vaičiūtė & Aušra Katinienė & Gintautas Bureika, 2022. "The Synergy between Technological Development and Logistic Cooperation of Road Transport Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-22, November.
    6. Felipe Costa Araujo & Alexandre Bevilacqua Leoneti, 2020. "Evaluating the Stability of the Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Regulatory Framework in Brazil," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 143-156, February.
    7. He, Shawei & Marc Kilgour, D. & Hipel, Keith W., 2017. "A general hierarchical graph model for conflict resolution with application to greenhouse gas emission disputes between USA and China," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(3), pages 919-932.
    8. Amir H. Aghmashhadi & Samaneh Zahedi & Azadeh Kazemi & Christine Fürst & Giuseppe T. Cirella, 2022. "Conflict Analysis of Physical Industrial Land Development Policy Using Game Theory and Graph Model for Conflict Resolution in Markazi Province," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-18, March.
    9. Mengjie Yang & Kai Yang & Yue Che & Shiqiang Lu & Fengyun Sun & Ying Chen & Mengting Li, 2021. "Resolving Transboundary Water Conflicts: Dynamic Evolutionary Analysis Using an Improved GMCR Model," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 35(10), pages 3321-3338, August.
    10. M. Abul Bashar & Keith W. Hipel & D. Marc Kilgour & Amer Obeidi, 2018. "Interval fuzzy preferences in the graph model for conflict resolution," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 287-315, September.
    11. Majid Sheikhmohammady & Keith W. Hipel & D. Marc Kilgour, 2012. "Formal Analysis of Multilateral Negotiations Over the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 305-329, May.
    12. Qingye Han & Yuming Zhu & Ginger Y. Ke & Hongli Lin, 2019. "A Two-Stage Decision Framework for Resolving Brownfield Conflicts," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-19, March.
    13. Ricardo Lopes Andrade & Maísa Mendonça Silva & Leandro Chaves Rêgo, 2023. "A Scientometric and Social Network Analysis of the Literature on the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(5), pages 1061-1082, October.
    14. Leandro Chaves Rêgo & Giannini Italino Alves Vieira, 2020. "Alternative Generalized Metarationalities for Multiple Decision-Maker Conflicts," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 461-490, June.
    15. Leandro Chaves Rêgo & France E. G. Oliveira, 2023. "An Extension of Higher-Order Sequential Stabilities for Multilateral Conflicts and for Coalitional Analysis in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(5), pages 1117-1141, October.
    16. Leandro Chaves Rêgo & Giannini Italino Alves Vieira, 2019. "Probabilistic Option Prioritizing in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(6), pages 1149-1165, December.
    17. Amira Sharon & Dov Dori, 2017. "Model‐Based Project‐Product Lifecycle Management and Gantt Chart Models: A Comparative Study," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(5), pages 447-466, September.
    18. Meraj Sohrabi & Zeynab Banoo Ahani Amineh & Mohammad Hossein Niksokhan & Hossein Zanjanian, 2023. "A framework for optimal water allocation considering water value, strategic management and conflict resolution," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 1582-1613, February.
    19. Amira Sharon & Olivier L. de Weck & Dov Dori, 2013. "Improving Project–Product Lifecycle Management with Model–Based Design Structure Matrix: A joint project management and systems engineering approach," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 413-426, December.
    20. Izack Cohen & Michal Iluz & Avraham Shtub, 2014. "A Simulation‐Based Approach in Support of Project Management Training for Systems Engineers," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(1), pages 26-36, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:21:p:5931-:d:280512. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.