Governance scenarios for addressing water conflicts and climate change impacts

Governance scenarios for addressing waterconflicts and climate change impacts

Christopher Kuzdas a,b,*, Arnim Wiek a

a School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USAb Latin American Chair of Environmental Decisions for Global Change, Tropical Agricultural Research and Higher

Education Center (CATIE), Turrialba, Costa Rica

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 8 1 – 1 9 6

a r t i c l e i n f o

Keywords:

Scenario planning

Water governance

Alternatives

Participation

Conflict mitigation

Latin America

a b s t r a c t

Scenarios that portray alternative governance regimes may help support positive change in

regions that face persistent water problems. Here, we explore this proposition using the case

of Guanacaste, Costa Rica – a region that faces water conflicts and climate change impacts.

We developed five alternative scenarios using a formative and participatory approach with

system, consistency, and diversity analyses, and visualization. In one scenario, water

conflicts surfaced due to opaque governance not accounting for communities that opposed

suspect alliances of agencies and developers. In another, challenging contexts over-

whelmed fragmented governance causing dissent; which contrasted with another scenario

where engaged and vertically accountable governance schemes fit the unique dry tropical

regional context and collectively mitigate problems. Governance though, in a return to

historical precedent, could alternatively function through top-down schemes to safeguard

rural lifestyles; or, operate minimalist schemes that fill only technical roles. The scenario

building process facilitated diverse stakeholders to collaboratively explore and articulate

alternative water governance schemes. The practical value of the scenarios, however, we

found to depend on efforts before and after the study and the successful integration of the

scenarios with those efforts. Previous water governance research in the region facilitated

partnerships, trust, and active participation in the scenario building process. Timely follow-

up demonstrated the real-time application of the scenarios as reference points to help craft

strategies that aim to transition current governance toward sustainable alternatives. Gov-

ernance scenarios, if integrated with a broader transformational planning process, can be a

constructive step toward articulating and implementing sustainable water governance

schemes. In Guanacaste they helped revitalize coordination and encouraged experimenta-

tion through new water governance efforts in the region.

# 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci

1. Introduction

Complex water problems are often attributed to deficiencies in

how governance regimes are designed and implemented

* Corresponding author at: PO Box 875502, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA. TelE-mail address: [email protected] (C. Kuzdas).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.06.0071462-9011/# 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

(Uhlendahl et al., 2011; Biggs et al., 2013). ‘Governance’ refers

to the set of collective actions that steer socio-ecological

systems toward shared goals and are coordinated among

diverse actors (Wiek and Larson, 2012). Successful steering

requires, among other things, the anticipation of future

.: +1 602 478 9548/506 8543 3082; fax: +1 480 965 8087.

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 8 1 – 1 9 6182

developments, problems, and opportunities (Nelson et al.,

2007; Fuerth, 2009). Research often proposes such an antici-

patory approach to effectively confront complex water

challenges (Schneider and Homewood, 2013), and scenarios

are often proposed as practical tools to aid these efforts (Quay,

2010). Governance scenarios depict alternatives to current

governance regimes and aim to inform people how they

could govern water differently. Accordingly, governance

scenarios make underlying social-governing systems explicit.

Governance scenarios explore alternatives on how to act and

govern water in ways that are meaningful to people and

beyond the status quo (Wangel, 2011; Fernandez et al., 2014).

This difference is critical considering status-quo water

governance often fails to resolve, and even drives, complex

water problems (Pahl-Wostl et al., 2010; Kuzdas et al., 2014).

Governance scenarios that are implemented within transfor-

mational planning processes ultimately aim to support

people’s actions working toward sustainable alternatives

(Wiek, 2012). To be effective at this, scenarios must be well

integrated within real-time governing processes (Wiek and

Walter, 2009; Reed et al., 2013). Yet, there are few comprehen-

sive examples to learn how, and to what extent, governance

scenarios can support people in their actions to govern water

sustainably (Wiek et al., 2006; Hulme and Dessai, 2008).

In this study, we examine such an example from the water-

contested dry tropics of Guanacaste, Costa Rica. Scenario

building here was integrated into a broader transformational

research and planning process and, accordingly, was built on

previous water governance research that had established

interest and momentum with partners and stakeholders to

tackle currently inadequate water governance regimes (Kuz-

das et al., in press). This afforded a research opportunity to

address how to optimally develop governance scenarios in a

way that can actively support change efforts. The guiding

research questions were: What are consistent and alternative

scenarios of the water governance regime in Guanacaste? And,

Fig. 1 – Guanacaste Pro

to what extent can scenarios support the re-design of

currently unsustainable water governance schemes?

This study offers insights into designing and implementing

meaningful anticipatory research and planning approaches in

regions such as the Central American dry tropics that face

water conflict, climate threats, and current governance

regimes that fail to resolve challenges. In doing so, we

demonstrate how people in such regions can employ gover-

nance scenarios as a constructive step toward realizing

sustainable water governance regimes. The study advances

design concepts of scenarios that challenge users to engage

with governing alternatives beyond the status quo (Wangel,

2011). And, the study implements the scenarios within an

integrated research effort that included pre and post scenario-

building research components. In doing so, this study

advances scenario-building designs and processes that can

best support people taking collective action to address

complex water challenges (Reed et al., 2013).

2. Study context

Like other areas in the Central American dry tropics,

Guanacaste (Fig. 1) is a rural region that experiences a 6-

month annual dry season. About 325,000 people lived in

Guanacaste in 2011, which is about a five-fold increase from

1950 (INEC, 2011). Starting in the 1950s, the Costa Rican public

sector substantially increased in order to meet citizen needs

(Booth et al., 2010). For example, Edelman (1999, p.70) notes

that the number of public agricultural organizations nearly

tripled over a 30-year period. During this time, many public

organizations important for water resources were formed

such as the Environment, Energy, and Telecommunications

Ministry (Ministerio de Ambiente, Energıa, y Telecomunicaciones,

MINAET) that generally oversees water resources in the

country. Growing populations in rural areas tested the ability

vince, Costa Rica.

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 8 1 – 1 9 6 183

of the national water utility – the Costa Rican Institute of Pipes

and Sewers (Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarilla-

dos, AyA) – to meet its responsibility to deliver potable water to

citizens. As a result, rural communities increasingly organized

in the water sector. Now, over a thousand independently

managed rural community-run drinking water associations

(ASADAs) are operating (Madrigal et al., 2011). Two primary

pieces of legislation provide the substance current water

management frameworks. Article 50 of the Constitution

guarantees healthy and clean environments for citizens,

and the 1942 Water Law prohibits private ownership of water

resources.

Decades of State-led neoliberal economic reform helped

facilitate a real estate boom in Guanacaste from 2000 to 2008.

This boom stressed increasingly fragmented water gover-

nance regimes that were already struggling to meaningfully

involve sub-provincial actors and rural water users. In

contrast to other Latin American countries that mostly

decentralized their water sectors, the authority to govern

water in Costa Rica and in most other Central American

countries has largely remained with state agencies (Rogers,

2002). Consequently, water governance in rural areas like

Guanacaste, operates via a centrally administered institution-

al scheme that increasingly fragments (in terms of coordina-

tion, cooperation, and resource distribution) below the

national-level with highly variable technical and administra-

tive capacities among actors (i.e., agency offices and ASADAs)

in different places. As a result of the weakening of governing

systems, Edelman (1999) found widespread feelings of

disengagement and disappointment with agencies in rural

areas. In the past, many communities viewed the state as a

supporter of rural lifestyles. This shift in citizen’s attitudes,

Edelman (1999) notes, was an important driver of historical

organized farmer resistance toward the state. Much of this

resistance originated in Guanacaste, with the Municipality of

Nicoya (2011 population: 51,000) being a stronghold. Across

rural regions in Central America, including Guanacaste,

agriculture and tourism have continued to expand in contexts

that increasingly include social inequalities and unjust water

access schemes (Booth et al., 2010). Ramırez-Cover (2007)

identified, on average, one water conflict occurred every

month and a half days over a recent 10-year period in

Guanacaste. Kuzdas et al. (2014) found that the most intense

water conflicts resulted from factors such as unmediated

friction between disconnected local and national governance

schemes and poor collective knowledge of water systems

combined with social distrust. To potentially make matters

worse, much of Central America faces drier and hotter

climatic conditions in the near future (Anderson et al.,

2008). Accordingly, many water administrators consider

mitigating water conflicts and climate change impacts to be

a priority. Guanacaste offers a unique learning proxy for the

critically challenged Central American dry tropics and for

other similarly challenged regions.

Despite the inadequacies of current water governance,

many individuals are active in the Guanacaste water sector.

Like past eras of organized rural resistance, Nicoya remains a

hub for collective efforts that aim to govern water more

sustainably (Kuzdas et al., 2013). Many of these efforts are

undertaken or supported by the Nicoya-based Commission for

the Management of the Potrero-Caimital Watersheds (Comi-

sion para el Manejo de las Cuencas Potrero-Caimital, PC Commis-

sion). Because of Nicoya’s historical and cultural importance,

and the research team’s quality record of collaborating with

Nicoya-based stakeholders, it was selected as the primary

location for the scenario building process.

3. Scenario method

We used formative scenario analysis, which emphasizes

building comprehensive alternatives to defined systems as

opposed to only addressing the differences of some aspects,

e.g., climate, supply, demand, etc. (Tietje, 2005; Girod et al.,

2009). In this approach, scenarios are ‘formed’ using a

participatory process fitted to system analysis and other

formal steps (that we outline below) (Scholz and Tietje, 2002;

Wiek et al., 2009). Formative scenario analysis offers a

structured procedure for building systemically different scenari-

os and promotes a process that encourages interaction and

collaboration among researchers and stakeholders (Wiek

et al., 2006). Accordingly, we selected the formative approach,

outlined in the steps below, to build scenarios that portray

alternative, consistent, and compelling water governance

regimes.

1. Selecting system variables and performing system analysis.

Researchers and partners from public agencies, local

governments, civil society, and businesses selected final

variables and identified the impact relationships among all

pairs of variables in both directions (e.g., A-to-B and B-to-A)

using a matrix approach in two facilitated meetings in

March and May 2012. In the meetings, we used evidence

from a completed water governance assessment in the

region as the basis to select variables and assign impact

relationships. Results from the assessment, which most

participants had been involved with (i.e., Kuzdas et al., in

press), were used to ensure that the impact relationships

were assigned using a shared ‘framing’ of regional water

governance (i.e., participants knew what the water gover-

nance regime was, its boundaries, and how it currently

works). In these meetings, impact relationships were

defined on a scale from 0 (no impact) to 2 (strong impact)

(Wiek et al., 2008). We then performed a system analysis

using Systaim software with 17 final variables. The analysis

mathematically evaluated the impact relationships, their

direction, and the strength of those relationships. It

afforded insight into underlying scenario structures, which

helped ensure the final scenarios were systemically

different from each other.

2. Defining future projections and consistency analysis. We then

initially determined a range of future projections for each

variable in consultation with previous research (Kuzdas

et al., in press). Consistency analysis evaluates the prospect

that a pair of future projections could occur simultaneously

and it helps identify those scenarios that are without

contradictions or more plausible than others (Wiek et al.,

2013). We used a matrix approach to describe consistency

relations between all pairs of future projections (Scholz and

Tietje, 2002) based on pre-defined range of standard

Table 1 – Spread of defined consistency values in the filled in consistency matrix.

Relation-type Consistency value and description # of occurrences % of occurrences

Conditional 2 – The occurrence of one projection would require or cause the

occurrence of another

34 6

Supportive 1 – The occurrence of one projection would support the occurrence of

another

159 28

Independent 0 – The occurrence of one projection would not affect the occurrence of

another

307 53

Obstructive �1 – The occurrence of one projection would hinder or block the

occurrence of another

76 13

Total 576 100

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 8 1 – 1 9 6184

consistency values (e.g., Wiek et al., 2009) (Table 1) in a

meeting with the PC Commission in April 2012. PC

Commission members represent agencies, municipal gov-

ernments, rural drinking water-user associations, and

businesses. It offered a representative and manageable

group that could efficiently contribute to the consistency

analysis. The filled-in consistency matrix was analyzed

using consistency analysis software to help identify the

most internally consistent scenarios (Tietje, 2005). The

software produced consistency-indices for all potential

scenarios by counting the obstructive or contradictory

relationships found in each scenario and adding, and then

multiplying, all consistency values of the matrix in order to

assign consistency values for each possible scenario (Scholz

and Tietje, 2002).

3. Diversity analysis. We then statistically grouped all scenarios

that were either completely consistent or that contained

only one inconsistent relation in order to select the most

distinctive ones. We performed a cluster analysis procedure

in SPSS software up to the point where an additional

‘clustering’ of scenarios no longer significantly differenti-

ated from the previous ones. We then calculated diversity

values (e.g., number of differing projections divided by

overall number of projections) to ensure representative

scenarios from each cluster were significantly distinctive

(Wiek et al., 2009).

4. Scenario selection. We selected final scenarios based on the

following technical criteria:

� Few obstructive relations. Considering the complexity of water

governance, we allowed for one obstructive relation in

eligible scenarios.

� Sufficiently high consistency. We defined the cut off for eligible

scenarios to have a consistency value of greater than two

thirds of the highest consistency value present in the set of

scenarios (i.e., Consistency value >72, with the highest being

Consistency value = 108). The defined cut off value is

consistent, and in some case more selective, than what is

typically proposed in the literature (i.e., Wiek et al., 2009).

� Sufficiently high diversity. We defined the diversity value of an

eligible scenario to be more than one third of future

projections differing from other scenarios.

5. Scenario interpretation and validation. Interpretation and

visualization help communicate scenarios to different groups

(Shaw et al., 2009). Scenario interpretation included a

stakeholder workshop held in March 2013 at the Universidad

Nacional de Costa Rica in Nicoya. In preparation, we named the

scenarios, elaborated themes, developed descriptions, created

newspaper front pages (dated March 2037) using the logo (with

permission) of a local newspaper, crafted day-in-the-life-of

stories for people working in government, community groups,

and businesses, and located illustrative photographs. The

research team initially formulated the stories for each

scenario, which were then vetted and revised by members

of the PC Commission in a series of meetings.

Forty-six individuals from eighteen Guanacaste communi-

ties participated in the workshop. These individuals repre-

sented eleven rural water administrators (ASADAs), six public

agencies (from across regional and national offices), regional

governments (Municipalities and irrigation district managers),

tourism, agriculture, community groups, environmental

groups, and the media. Participants were invited in order to

ensure adequate representation from across water-use sec-

tors, from across the public water management sector, and

from organizations that have been in tension over water

issues in the past. Workshop participants engaged with five

scenario exhibits (e.g., Fig. 2) in order to help interpret and to

validate the scenarios- and to prepare for workshop activities

later in the day. At each scenario exhibit, a team member

guided and documented discussions. Prior to the scenario

exhibit exercise, the research team provided prep material and

gave an introduction to the group. For the scenario exhibits,

each scenario was presented on 2 � 0.8 m freestanding posters

(see Supplementary Material for a diagram with poster

components). Participants placed sticky notes on designated

white boards near each poster to answer prompting questions:

what is missing from this scenario? And, what would make

this scenario more tangible? The questions aimed to spur

thought and discussion of what would improve the adequacy

of the scenarios and their meaningfulness to people. Partici-

pants were also prompted to comment, critique, and add

information to the scenario components using sticky notes

and whiteboards in each exhibit. Participants were free read

and comment on each other’s notes.

6. Post scenario-building and follow-up research efforts. Post-

scenario interpretation and validation, workshop participants

engaged in a series of subsequent activities that included:

formally evaluating the sustainability of the scenarios;

developing strategies that would help transition current water

governance toward more sustainable alternatives; and,

engaging in facilitated discussions to evaluate the overall

workshop process, focusing on the utility (i.e., ‘what worked?’)

of the different components (Kuzdas et al., 2013). In addition,

researchers observed and documented how participants

Fig. 2 – Workshop participants contributed to the scenarios in an interactive station format.

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 8 1 – 1 9 6 185

interacted with each other and with the workshop material,

which provided further evaluative insight. From March to

April 2013, the research team vetted the workshop results,

including the brief evaluation of the workshop process, in a

series of three structured meetings with the PC Commission.

Follow-up monthly meetings with the PC Commission and

interviews with agencies, local governments, and ASADAs

(which largely focused on how governing actions and

strategies were implemented and lessons learned) began in

August 2013. These later efforts offered additional evaluative

insight into the longer-term utility of the scenarios and the

overall research process (Table 2).

4. Results

4.1. Selected system variables, identified variableprojections, and system analysis

The final variables, their descriptions, and their future

projections are in Table 3. The system analysis grouped the

variables as governance drivers (4 variables), governance

mediators (4 variables), governing context features (5 vari-

ables), and passive governing features (4 variables) (Figs. 3–7).

4.2. Selected scenarios

Of the 196,698 possible scenarios, 45 contained no obstructive

consistency relationships and 69 contained one obstructive

relationship (Table 4). Out of these 114 (45 + 69) potential

scenarios, the cluster analysis identified five statistically

different clusters. From these clusters, representative scenar-

ios were chosen based on the selection criteria with some

justified exceptions (Table 4). Scenario #4 contains one

obstructive consistency relationship; yet contains unique

features that were deemed important in working groups for

a scenario featuring citizen apathy. For Scenario #5, we

accepted two lower diversity values to include a scenario

featuring a hacienda-oriented economy that is contextually

relevant.

4.3. Interpreted scenarios: key systemic features of thescenarios

The underlying ‘variable skeletons’ of each selected scenario

can be found in this article’s online Supplementary Material.

Figs. 3–7 illustrate the systemic differences of each alternative

governance regime portrayed in the scenarios and offers a

brief description of the conflict outcomes pictured in each

scenario (e.g., ‘‘water conflict?’’ box). Bolded-gray boxes and

solid arrows (which indicate direction of variable impacts in a

given alternative) highlight the key systemic relationships

and/or aspects that were focused on in the scenario

interpretation step (i.e., to craft stories, etc.). Dotted lines in

Figs. 3–7 represent systemic relationships that are less

relevant in a given alternative.

Scenario #1: ‘‘Mandated to prepare’’ shows centrally con-

trolled water governance that aims to secure rural community

well-being in the face of scarcity – although important

feedbacks coming from the governing context (outcome

Table 2 – Summary of participatory components throughout the scenario building process.

Step Participatory component # of participants Participating organizations

0. Current-state

assessment

Current-state assessment

results finalized and distributeda

March–April 2012

5 PC Commission

1. System analysis Facilitated meetings March,

May 2012

14 Environment Ministry branches, Environmental

NGOs, PC Commission, Agriculture Associations,

Universidad Nacional,

ASADAs, Timber Business

2. Consistency analysis Small working group

April 2012

5 PC Commission

3. Diversity analysis Fall 2012 – Research team only

4. Scenario selection Fall 2012 – Research team only

Meeting, January 2013 5 PC Commission

5. Interpretation and

validation

Initial meetings

January–March 2013

5 PC Commission

Workshop March 2013 46 PC Commission, 6 agencies (Environment

Ministry, Health Ministry, Agriculture

Ministry, AyA, Irrigation (SENARA-Canas/

SENARA-San Jose), Education Ministry),

ASADAs (11), universities, tourism associations,

agriculture associations, municipal governments,

community groups, environmental groups

6. Post scenario-building

activities, evaluation,

and follow-up

Workshopb March 2013 46 Same as above

Meetings April 2013/August

2013–February 2014 (monthly)

5 PC Commission

Interviews

August 2013–February 2014

10 ASADAs, Environment Ministry, Community

development associations, AyA, Environmental

NGOs, PC Commission

a See Kuzdas et al. (in press) for details on the participatory current-state assessment that occurred from 2010–2012b See Kuzdas et al. (2013) for a summary of workshop activities post-scenario building

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 8 1 – 1 9 6186

distributions, water quality, competition, etc.) on to the

decision making processes and other drivers are missing (in

contrast to Scenario #3, for example (Fig. 3). While this missing

linkage potentially allows conflict risks by limiting the

responsiveness of dispute resolution mechanisms (which

we see in Scenario #2 and #5), no conflict occurs in Scenario #1.

With people trusting government (i.e., high legitimacy) and

little visible scarcity or water access issues to confront,

governance schemes are able to successfully avoid harmful

conflicts. Scenario #1 allowed for weaving of stories that hailed

back to the early years of Costa Rican progressive democracy

(prior to the 1980s). These years saw a far-reaching presence of

a legitimate state that sought to support rural, smallholder

farmer lifestyles through top–down mandates.

In Scenario #2: ‘‘Closed-door alliances’’, inadequate water

governance primarily drives (as opposed to challenging

contexts) conflict, environmental decline, and unfair water

access. These issues negatively reinforce unresponsive water

governance schemes (Fig. 4). The systemic nature of Scenario

#2 is similar to Scenario #3, but with features and outcomes

that are negatively, rather than positively, reinforced. In

contrast to Scenario #5, conflict here stems from the

governance regime itself, which takes actions against the

interest of rural communities. Consequently, Scenario #2

allowed for storylines of actors that deal with ‘closed-door

alliances’ of agencies, developers, and investors - reminiscent

of recent Guanacaste water conflicts.

Responsive civil democracy, active regional leadership, and

open decision-making processes were most effective (in terms

of producing positive governance outcomes) when mutually

reinforced by each other and by established dispute resolution

mechanisms. In Scenario #3: ‘‘Responsive and engaged’’, these

drivers positively reinforce each other while also supporting

institutional legitimacy (e.g., people trust governance) that, in

turn, helps facilitate active leaders and vertical accountability,

which are conducive for improved collective water system

knowledge and groundwater security (Fig. 5). This distin-

guished system of positively reinforcing impact relationships

in Scenario #3 allows for effective conflict mitigation in spite of

challenging contexts.

Scenario #4: ‘‘Unnoticed in the background’’ demonstrates

how a prominence of mediation through very efficient water

infrastructure, combined with low water-allocation priorities

for natural systems, allows for rapid economic development

and growth. Like Scenario #1, many important systemic

feedbacks are missing which allows for conflict risk due to

low responsiveness and less accountability of the governance

regime to stakeholders. The governance scheme in Scenario#4

is similar to Scenario #5 – but with key differences being

population growth (in contrast to decline), well-maintained

water infrastructure, and accessible quality water, which

allows for a more economically prosperous scenario that

features a decline of natural systems and a less active or more

apathetic role for civil society organizations (Fig. 6).

Table 3 – Selected variables, current state values, and future projections of variables.

Variable Description Summary of current state(2010–2013)

Future projections

1. Precipitation Average annual rainfall in

the region

Average rainfall per year in the

Province is about 1000–1300 mm

(MINAET, 2008).

a. More abundant rainfall, higher

mean precipitation

b. Less abundant rainfall, lower mean

precipitation

c. Rainfall patterns are highly variable

2. Forest cover Area of land in the region

covered by natural forest

About 45% of the Province is

considered ‘‘forested’’. Although, it is

not clear to what extent monoculture

tree plantations are counted in official

estimates (Calvo-Alvarado et al.,

2009).

a. Healthy, natural forests are

widespread, covering more than 45%

of the Province

b. Natural forests cover less than 45%

of the Province

3. Resource

competition

State of competition over

water resources

Many new water development

and infrastructure projects are

contested; competition is high

(Ramırez-Cover, 2007).

a. Competition over water resources

is high

b. Competition over water resources

is mild or low

4. Dispute resolution

mechanisms

Fair and clear institutional

procedures are in place to

resolve water disputes

Although several dispute resolution

procedures exist, most are resolved

through ad hoc procedures on a case-

by-case basis (Kuzdas et al., 2014).

a. Clear, effective, and fair resolution

mechanisms exist

b. Disputes resolution procedures are

confusing, ad hoc, and/or unfair

5. Civil democracy Level of effective public

engagement and

responsiveness of

government to citizens

In some cases, agencies will make

concerted efforts to engage the public

after a dispute manifests. Historically,

government has been keen to public

needs, although in recent decades

public engagement and government

responsiveness has sharply

decreased in rural areas (Edelman,

1999).

a. Government is responsive and

regularly engages the public

b. Government often disregards

public needs and desires and is

generally not responsive nor engaging

6. Groundwater

security

The stability of groundwater

resources

Permitted groundwater allocations

exceed dry season carrying capacities

in some basins. In 2012, more water

was allocated in the Tempisque than

was available (although not all

allocations were taken).

a. Sustainable yield is achieved in

many groundwater basins in the

Province/groundwater reserves are

stable

b. Sustainable yield is not achieved in

many groundwater basins in the

Province/groundwater reserves are

not stable

7. Regional

integration

The presence of effective

regional level actors or

institutions that mediate

between governing scales

The regional-scale of water

governance is poorly funded and

often ineffective; regional roles in

water governance are most often

filled by agency branch offices with

some exceptions (Calvo, 1990; Kuzdas

et al., 2014).

a. Regional-scale actors/institutions

are active/high vertical accountability

b. Regional-scale actors/institutions

are inactive/low vertical

accountability in governing

institutions

8. Irrigated

agriculture

Extent of irrigated

agriculture in the Province

Irrigated agriculture covers roughly

+40,000 working hectares in the

Province. Construction of planned

canals for 8000 additional hectares

began in 2014.

a. The amount of working irrigated

hectares increases

b. The amount of working irrigated

hectares decreases

9. Water quality Availability and accessibility

of clean, safe water for

health and sanitation

purposes

Over 95% of residents have access to

sufficient supplies of clean water;

contamination though is a fairly

common concern (MINAET, 2008).

a. All residents have access to

sufficient and clean water

b. Fewer residents have access to

sufficient and clean water

10. Water system

knowledge

Extent of shared knowledge

of regional water system

quality, limits, and outcomes

A significant lack of knowledge

regarding river basin and

groundwater carrying capacities and

the water needs of water users and

environments is a major issue

(Ballestero et al., 2007).

a. Improved collective knowledge of

water systems

b. Less collective knowledge of water

systems

11. Policy

innovation

The modification of existing

water-related policy by

actors

Modifying water policy is difficult.

Most significant pieces of water-

related legislation dates back half a

century (Calvo, 1990; Rogers, 2002).

a. Basin-scale, community, and

national actors modify water-related

policies as required (possible)

b. Excessive bureaucracy prevents the

modification of water-related policies

(difficult)

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 8 1 – 1 9 6 187

Table 3 (Continued )

Variable Description Summary of current state(2010–2013)

Future projections

12. Population growth The change in the number of

people residing in the region

from year to year

As of the 2011 census, about 325,000

people reside in Guanacaste and

the population grows every year

(INEC, 2011).

a. The population is decreasing every

year

b. The population is increasing every

year

13. Leadership Role of civil society leaders in

regional water governance

Leaders from civil society are active in

the region, and some play important

roles in water governance (Kuzdas

et al., in press)

a. Civil society leaders are active in

water governance

b. Civil society leaders are weak and/

or not active

14. Decision-making

process

The open, transparent, and

accessible quality of decision

making processes

Many decisions regarding water

resources are made behind closed

doors although this varies within the

Province (Kuzdas et al., 2014)

a. Decisions are made through

transparent and open processes

b. Decisions are made in closed

processes

15. Outcome

distribution

The distribution of benefits,

risks, and costs associated

with water resources

Firms often buy locally owned

farm businesses; real estate

developers and investors receive

or attempt to obtain controversial

water rights (Ramırez-Cover, 2007).

a. Benefits, risks and costs of water

resources are fairly distributed

b. A few benefit while many share

disproportionate risks and/or costs

16. Institutional

legitimacy

Level of citizen satisfaction

and trust in government

agencies and institutions

Continuing from the early 1990s,

citizen trust and satisfaction in

government agencies and political

institutions has declined steadily

(Booth et al., 2010).

a. Citizens are satisfied with and trust

government

b. Citizens are dissatisfied with and

suspicious of government

17. Water

infrastructure

The efficiency and quality of

water storage, delivery,

treatment, water-use, and

post-use infrastructure

Infrastructure is mostly kept up;

however at increasing costs. In 2010,

the national water agency took out a

large loan to cover infrastructure

costs. The capacity of rural water-

user associations to fund and

maintain infrastructure varies

(Madrigal et al., 2011).

a. Water infrastructure is maintained

for efficiency and minimum waste

b. Water infrastructure falls into

disrepair and water is often wasted

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 8 1 – 1 9 6188

In Scenario #5: Overwhelmed and out of touch, the governing

context (poor water quality, dry conditions, etc.) overwhelms

weak governance schemes that are unaccountable, that take

decisions in closed processes, and that are unresponsive

(Fig. 7). This overwhelmed situation that features drier

climates and unfair water access curbs population growth.

Governance that is overwhelmed by the challenging contexts

that it faces is the distinguishing feature of Scenario #5.

Summaries of the integrated scenario descriptions, includ-

ing the storylines developed, are in the Supplementary

Material.

4.4. Validated scenarios

The newspaper front page in Scenario #1: ‘‘Mandated to

prepare’’ told the story of a new central office for water

management opening in the Capitol being the last step in the

centralization of water governance. Other stories told of the

high numbers of Guanacastecos that trust government and of a

member of an ASADA doing a training rotation in the Capitol.

Most participants generally commented that, although seem-

ingly possible, it was a difficult scenario to imagine due to

recent histories of disengagement between communities and

agencies. On the other hand, some participants related well to

this scenario as a potentially disheartening example of

confusing current bureaucratic systems that were a challenge

for water managers – especially in terms of securing financial,

technical, and administrative resources. Overall, a centralized

yet benevolent governance system was something that

participants generally found to be suspicious. Other partici-

pants pointed out that the current governance regime

struggles to develop policies fit to the unique dry tropical

context in Guanacaste, and that a more extremely centralized

regime like the one portrayed in Scenario #1 would likely also

struggle with this. Relatively few notes (16% of 191 total)

placed and discussion involved Scenario #1.

Scenario #2: ‘‘Closed-door alliances’’ (combined with Scenar-

io #5) accounted for nearly half (48%) of all notes placed and

much discussion among participants. Both scenarios extend

prominent historical and current events into the future. The

newspaper headlines in Scenario #2 told the story of ASADAs

organizing large protests over the allocation of water,

reminiscent of recent conflicts in the region. Participants

generally commented that this scenario seemed very real and

that the idea of ‘secret agreements’ and ‘closed decision-

making’ resonated strongly with their current experience.

Similar to Scenario #5, participants were interested in building

connections between the Scenario content to their personal

experiences. Many participants wanted to contribute ideas to

help specify why this governance regime in Scenario #2 led to

conflict. For example, an agency representative noted how the

current lack of collective goals for development in the region

might factor into such a scenario. Some participants were

uncomfortable with Scenario #2, but many found it to be the

most identifiable and some considered it eerily similar to the

current state of water governance.

Fig. 3 – Systemic representation of Scenario #1: ‘‘Mandated preparation’’.

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 8 1 – 1 9 6 189

In contrast to Scenarios #2 and #5, Scenario #3: ‘‘Responsive

and engaged’’ evoked fewer (16% of notes placed) but much

more positive responses from participants. The headline told

the story of international leaders coming to Guanacaste to

observe and take lessons from its responsive, accountable,

and collaborative water governance model. The day-in-the-

life of stories related vignettes of citizens from different

sectors and their involvement in the water governance

regime. Participants generally commented that more infor-

mation would be helpful in this scenario – especially regarding

how change in the governance regime came about through

time. Many participants were interested in exploring more

about the reconciliation between communities and govern-

ment agencies that would be required in such a scenario.

Other participants were interested in seeing more details on

the decision-making process and laying out how it works, who

is involved, and at what stage. Overall, participants were

enthusiastic about Scenario #3, but wanted to see more about

the roles that communities (e.g., ASADAs, community groups)

and other actors would play in helping bring such a

governance regime about over time.

Some participants considered Scenario #4: ‘‘Unnoticed in the

background’’ to lack information on where the water required

for the rapid development portrayed in the scenario would

come from. The front-page headline in Scenario #4 told the

story of controversy resulting from water agencies that

suggested lowering water consumption in the region. Histori-

cally, Guanacasteco communities are environmentally active

and well organized. Considering this, participants expressed

interest in seeing more detail regarding the ‘taming’ of these

communities in the scenario, specifically how a change from

being active currently to being complacent came about. Some

thought this scenario would fit well with a water privatization

storyline, since privatization recently occurred in the energy

and communications industries in Costa Rica. Yet, others

countered that, under current constitutional laws, water

privatization was unlikely and would make the scenario seem

less real. Some participants saw this as a potential scenario if

water education, conservation, and demand management

activities were to subside, and they commented that making a

link between (poor) education and the outcomes in the

scenario would improve the scenario’s effectiveness.

Scenario #5: ‘‘Overwhelmed and out of touch’’, along with

Scenario #2, was one of the most discussed scenarios at the

workshop. The newspaper headline told of an expanding

sugar cane empire in the Guanacaste lowlands and the

growing social inequalities that resulted from unjust water

distributions in the face of challenging climate and environ-

mental contexts. Participants commented that, although the

outcomes in this scenario were extreme, the politics, corrup-

tion, and disconnectedness within the governance regime

were reminiscent of current politics. Some participants noted

that the Latifundio doesn’t need to necessarily return, because

it still exists today in disguise in the Capitol (San Jose) where it

is about vying for political power. Other participants thought

this scenario would be a good place to describe superficial

Fig. 4 – Systemic representation of Scenario #2: ‘‘Closed-door alliances’’.

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 8 1 – 1 9 6190

national-level political processes that fail to make decisions

on water reform issues – which is often the case currently.

Overall, the failed politics described in Scenario #5 struck a

chord with participants – many of which (often with a sense of

humor) linked the scenario to current politics. Table 5

summarizes key differences across the scenarios.

5. Discussion

5.1. Scenario content: How the scenarios measure up tothe water governance literature

Scenario #3: ‘‘Responsive and engaged’’ would be a new

governance regime for Central America (Rogers, 2002) and

could offer the ‘business unusual’ approach to water gover-

nance that Biswas et al. (2009) call for in Latin America.

Scenario #3 could be seen, on the one hand, as an approach to

governance described in Meinzen-Dick (2007) where authority

and financial responsibilities are shared (e.g., co-managed)

across groups. On the other hand, the scenario could be

viewed as a polycentric approach to water governance – where

governing authority is distributed across nested actors and

scales (i.e., Huitema et al., 2009; Ostrom, 2010). In theory,

polycentric governance schemes are often prescribed to more

adequately cope with uncertainty and change (Pahl-Wostl and

Kranz, 2010). Scenario #4: ‘‘Unnoticed in the background’’

portrayed a traditional scheme, focusing on infrastructure

and technological development, that was approaching its limit

to coping with such challenges. As captured in Scenario #4,

these traditional schemes allow for risks when confronting

complex problems and fail to account for demand manage-

ment options to mitigate this risk (Brooks and Holtz, 2009).

Despite such shortcomings of traditional schemes, there

remains less scientific understanding how alternative propo-

sitions – such as the polycentric-type water governance

scheme outlined in Scenario #3 – could be successfully

implemented across diverse contexts to meet problems (Neef,

2009). Accordingly, since here we did not focus on how the

governance regimes in each scenario came about, the

challenge in creating content for Scenario #3 was to allude

to a reasonably believable implementation path of such a new

governance regime. We did this through highlighting the

challenges faced over the years of implementation (for

example, decreased foreign real estate investment and some

commercial farms moving out initially) and the role that

ASADAs and existing leaders (i.e., the PC Commission) played.

We were moderately successful. Relatively little discussion

involved Scenario #3 and some participants thought the

scenario was difficult to imagine in relation to the current

state (mainly those from national agency offices). But, not all

participants found Scenario #3 difficult to picture. For

example, a group of ASADA representatives identified with

Scenario #3 because they had previously discussed the need

Fig. 5 – Systemic representation of Scenario #3: ‘‘Responsive and engaged’’.

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 8 1 – 1 9 6 191

for a regional – type of ASADA leadership organization. They

viewed Scenario #3 as a useful platform that helped them

articulate such an effort, which they then attempted to

implement post-workshop. Accordingly, these post-work-

shop actions would indicate some positive cognitive benefits

of the scenario building process for a limited number of

participants (i.e., Meissner and Wulf, 2013). However, parti-

cipants generally most identified with the content in the

scenarios that more closely aligned with the critically

challenged current-state of water governance. In this case,

such cognitive benefits, in terms of supporting people to move

beyond and/or change status quo governance, would be

limited if planning activities were to include only building

scenarios without follow-up application or use/integration in

governing processes.

Scenario #3 did not directly delve into the political and

power asymmetries (which played out in the form of

corrupted alliances, protests, and marginalized communi-

ties) that are apparent in Scenario #2: ‘‘Closed-door alliances’’

and Scenario #5: ‘‘Overwhelmed and out of touch’’. Another

major governance challenge portrayed in Scenario #2 and #5

was the lack of Guanacaste-specific water governance

mechanisms that account for the unique water challenges

found in dry tropical regions. Participants indicated that this

was a shortcoming of the benevolent and centralized

governance regime depicted in Scenario #1: ‘‘Mandated to

prepare’’. The scenario content that highlighted these politi-

cal challenges felt the most real to participants. It was also

the most concerning to them. For Scenario #2 in particular,

many locally based participants commented that it had

closely articulated how they personally felt (in a negative

way) about current water governance. Many examples from

the literature illustrate that water governance, which does

not account for political power, problem contexts, and

distributional asymmetries (like the water governance

regimes in Scenario #2 and #5), will not successfully mitigate

complex problems and achieve just outcomes (Swatuk, 2008;

Giordano and Shah, 2014). This has important implications

here: in order to make progress toward a more sustainable

water governance regime that resembles Scenario #3,

realities (that feel very real to people) reminiscent of

Scenarios #2 and #5 will need to be overcome. The scenario

exercises in themselves did not address this need. It could be

argued, looking at recent water governance assessments

(Kuzdas et al., in press) that this need was not newly

discovered via the scenarios. However, the scenario building

process did offer a contribution: it facilitated a large and

diverse group of stakeholders to collectively articulate and

validate the need for new, more sustainable water gover-

nance regimes in an understandable and fun way, and it

encouraged and challenged stakeholders to boost their

collective efforts to address this need.

Fig. 6 – Systemic representation of Scenario #4: ‘‘Unnoticed in the background’’.

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 8 1 – 1 9 6192

5.2. Strengths and limitations of the formative scenariomethodology

The flexibility of the formative scenario methodology allowed

the scenarios to be tailored to the needs of a rural, developing

region. Importantly, it allowed the scenarios to represent local

context, challenges, and alternative governance regimes in

ways that evoked meaningful responses from diverse stake-

holders without costly, unavailable computerized simula-

tions. Flexibility also allowed scenario building and the

communication of scenarios to be tailored to those involved.

For example, the research team and PC Commission negotiat-

ed the contents of the scenario posters and agreed to not

include scenario system diagrams for workshop participants

since most had not previously worked within such models.

Additionally, pre-testing revealed the diagrams were most

effective in communicating differences across the scenarios if

compared directly and immediately, which the large exhibit-

style event did not allow for. However, the exhibit-style event

did effectively involve many diverse stakeholders who

typically do not collaborate and who are typically not involved

with planning processes beyond their local area. The system

diagrams though did help to ensure logically comparable

storylines across the scenarios that fit the underlying scenario

structures.

Compared to the workshop, relatively few people

participated in the system and consistency analyses steps

– which is typical in these more expert-driven steps (Walz

et al., 2013). In Guanacaste, we aimed for these early steps to

reflect more the real-time governance system (i.e., using

evidence from water governance assessment research)

rather than placing more emphasis on how people judged

the system to operate (i.e., von Wirth et al., 2013). In

contexts like Guanacaste with heterogeneous stakeholder

groups, highly variable capacity across groups, and signifi-

cant power imbalances, this slightly modified approach to

the early steps of the formative approach was effective

because stakeholders already trusted the results of the

water governance assessment that was relied on in these

early steps. Accordingly, engaged current-state research

offered benefits for scenario building: it solidified trust

among researchers and stakeholders (prior to scenario

building) and it organized a legitimate body of current-state

knowledge that had already been applied to current

governing processes and that we could draw on for these

early scenario building steps (Kuzdas et al., in press).

Partners and participants commented (during the large

workshop and in follow-up activities) that engaged and

impactful current state research efforts were a major factor

that boosted the legitimacy of the scenario study, supported

the willingness and enthusiasm of people to participate, and

helped people trust that scenario building activities and

results would be applied and used in a meaningful way in

the governing system.

Fig. 7 – Systemic representation of Scenario #5: ‘‘Overwhelmed and out of touch’’.

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 8 1 – 1 9 6 193

Having a small but diverse stakeholder group – the PC

Commission – central in the scenario building process was

key. The PC Commission is highly respected, and positioning

them as the primary users of the scenarios also helped avoid

legitimacy issues with the scenarios. Accordingly, stake-

holders were open to engaging with controversial scenario

content. A benefit of this was the willingness of the PC

Commission to be a named actor in each scenario. Seeing and

comparing the PC Commission’s different roles and activities

(along with other actors) in the scenarios was an effective way

to communicate key differences across the alternative

Table 4 – Scenario selection results and criteria values from m

Scenario 1(#199)

Scenario 2(#196,410)

No. of inconsistencies 0 0

Diversity index value 0.59 0.43

Diversity index relative to

other selected scenarios

Sc2 (0.88) Sc1 (0.88)

Sc3 (0.18)a Sc3 (0.94)

Sc4 (0.71) Sc4 (0.35)

Sc5 (1.00) Sc5 (0.18)a

Additive consistency 98 102

No. (%) of other scenarios

in cluster

25 (17%) 5 (4%)

a Indicates non-compliance with selection criteria.

governance regimes. We received many comments regarding

the PC Commission in the scenarios. In Guanacaste, an

optimal participation scheme in the scenario building process

was an initially limited, but well-managed (and importantly

legitimate) participation scheme during the early scenario

building steps then followed by a very open participation

scheme to validate and interpret scenarios.

We did not use the method to explore development

pathways – how different scenarios could come about – which

was noted by participants. Scenarios, in themselves, cannot

adequately support necessary change processes and activities.

ethodological steps described in Section 3.

Scenario 3(#12)

Scenario 4(#95,040)

Scenario 5(#196,409)

0 1 0

0.59 0.40 0.43

Sc1 (0.19)a Sc1 (0.71) Sc1 (1.00)

Sc2 (0.94) Sc2 (0.35) Sc2 (0.18)a

Sc4 (0.71) Sc3 (0.71) Sc3 (0.88)

Sc5 (0.24) Sc5 (0.24)a Sc4 (0.24)a

88 81 107

16 (14%) 46 (40%) 22 (19%)

Table 5 – Summary of key differences across the scenarios.

Scenario #1 Scenario #2 Scenario #3 Scenario #4 Scenario #5

Quick title Mandated to prepare Closed-door alliances Responsive and

engaged

Unnoticed in the

background

Overwhelmed and

out of touch

Theme Cautious Deception Innovation Apathy Disconnection

How water

governance

operates

Agency-led and top-

down implemented

mandate to prepare

for water scarcity

and secure rural,

potentially vulnerable

communities

Governance is

dominated by closed

and unaccountable

alliances and back-

door dealings

Responsive governance

emphasizes autonomy,

coordination, and

regional-fit

Governance

weathers apathy and

environmental risk

while staying out of

the way of economic

prosperity

Overwhelmed

governance is out of

touch with regional

challenges while

elites multiply

landholdings

Distinguishing

systemic

features

A highly controlled

governance scheme

that has the trust of

local communities

avoids conflicts

due to more

accommodating

contexts where

scarcity, water access,

and competition are

not prevalent

Negative reinforcing

feedback loops among

governance drivers

and mediating

features allow for

governance schemes

that cater to interest-

based alliances that

circumvent due

processes

Positive reinforcing

feedback loops between

governance drivers and

mediating features in

spite of challenging

contexts

Efficient water

management buffers

potential risks while

less active leadership

allows governance to

operate without public

interest

Challenging

governing contexts

overwhelm

governance schemes

that are poorly

adapted to regional

contexts and

disconnected from

local constituencies

Interpreted

scenario

components

The ever present

nature of central

government

Organized community

opposition, resistance

Problem-solving,

confidence, trying

new ideas

Progress, technical

water management,

failed demand

management

The return of the

Latifundio, power

imbalances, power

politics

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 8 1 – 1 9 6194

To do this, they must be incorporated into subsequent

activities and governing efforts in order to have practical

relevance for stakeholders (i.e., Wiek et al., 2006). Accordingly,

we found the quick demonstration of scenario application in

later workshop activities with stakeholders to be important.

These activities included deliberating what alternatives were

desirable (or not), developing governance transition strategies

that would help achieve sustainable alternatives, and evalu-

ating the workshop/research processes (Kuzdas, 2014). Con-

sidering that many participants most identified with scenarios

that closely portrayed the challenged current-state of water

governance (as opposed to more effective and just alter-

natives), these timely follow-up activities were critical in

supporting participants to not only think about sustainable

alternatives beyond the status quo, but to critically engage

(both cognitively and collectively) with how current water

governance can be fundamentally changed in order to achieve

those alternatives (i.e., Wangel, 2011). These subsequent

efforts funneled stakeholder energy and learning that was

formed during scenario-building directly into applications

that dealt with how to address current governance failures

and make progress toward the identified sustainable alter-

natives.

These integrated post scenario-building efforts confirmed

the critical need of follow efforts up with stakeholders in order

to promote scenario utility and aid real-time actions aimed at

addressing problems (Reed et al., 2013). We add that these

types of timely and well designed follow-up efforts, especially in

regions featuring critically challenged water governance

regimes such as Guanacaste, are key to realizing the cognitive

benefits of scenario planning (i.e., Meissner and Wulf, 2013)

and for efforts that ‘move beyond scenario development’ to

facilitate action (i.e., Reed et al., 2013). In addition, addressing

the ‘who changes what and how’ aspects (i.e., Wangel, 2011) in

these follow up activities, e.g., through the structured

development of governance transition strategies (see Kuzdas

et al., 2013), was a valuable follow up effort. The scenarios

presented here were designed to directly and immediately

feed into these subsequent applications. The scenario-

building process was then an effective motivator and primer

for subsequent applications. The lesson here is that stake-

holder engagement, commitment over a sufficient period of

time, and trust matter; methods and study designs can be

adapted in transparent ways to fit problems and contexts; and

that in water contested-regions like Guanacaste, there is

significant opportunity for research that does these things to

make positive impacts. For scenarios specifically, a timely

demonstration of their real-time application – especially via

subsequent applications designed to address the ‘who

changes what and how’ questions, i.e., governance transition

strategies – can maximize positive impacts.

5.3. Practical use of scenarios in follow-up activities

After the scenario building process and during the latter part

of the workshop, participants, many of whom had not worked

together before, exchanged contact information, deliberated

new ideas, and offered to share resources and data with

others. Many collaborative invitations were extended, includ-

ing one to join a new coordination platform in Nicoya. After

the workshop, several new efforts aimed to improve gover-

nance cooperation within the region. Emphasis is now placed

on leadership development in Nicoya, with the PC Commis-

sion assuming an important role. Several ASADAs, who have

experienced conflict in a shared river basin, implemented a

new series of meetings to address how to better coordinate, to

share resources and to potentially consolidate their organiza-

tions. These ASADAs started emphasizing internal human

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 8 1 – 1 9 6 195

resources development, which is a significant paradigm shift

for organizations that are traditionally only concerned with

meeting water demands with supplies.

The final scenarios were important reference points,

especially in terms of strategy building, for stakeholders

around Nicoya in the months that followed the workshop.

These efforts though encountered barriers. Political corrup-

tion, lack of transportation, low investment in communica-

tions infrastructure, and imbalances in decision-making

authority are a few examples. But, recognizing and locating

those barriers has been beneficial. It has allowed leaders to

plan how to collectively overcome barriers. As local leadership

has grown, as new actions have been taken, and barriers

identified and addressed, there is less operational reliance on

the scenarios (i.e., being referenced in planning meetings) and

more governing emphasis on the process emulated in the

transformational planning approach that the scenarios were

embedded in (i.e., defining objectives, identifying alternatives,

developing strategies to meet goals, implementing actions,

learning, and adjusting). For example, actors in Nicoya have

organized to employ this approach on a number of fronts,

including in their efforts to address local groundwater issues

in partnership with a variety of actors. This new partnership

involves a current-state assessment of groundwater reserves,

planning that uses alternatives and goals, and developing and

testing strategies to better use gained knowledge of ground-

water reserves in decision-making to achieve goals. In this

sense, the scenario building process played a part in helping

revitalize regional organization and coordination around

Nicoya to the point where such new efforts could be executed

more effectively via improved coordination. The jump-start

that the governance scenarios provided–through their appli-

cation within an embedded planning process - to improve the

organization of a very fragmented water governance regime

was their most valuable application.

6. Conclusion

In Guanacaste, scenario building provided an opportunity for

people to contribute perspectives, to connect with each other,

and to collectively explore alternative ways of governing water

to address water conflicts and climate change impacts.

Although the scenarios alone did not inform people how to

take actions that would change currently failing water

governance regimes, they did allow diverse actors to collec-

tively articulate what alternatives to the current water

governance could be. In Guanacaste, a legitimate process of

articulating alternatives was a powerful precursor for revital-

ized water governance efforts when directly applied to

subsequent applications that identified the most sustainable

alternatives and developed governance transition strategies to

achieve it. Ultimately, governing efforts that aim to resolve

complex problems, and water governance research that is

relevant for those efforts, must address how to collectively

implement, test, and modify new governance schemes in

order to achieve more sustainable alternatives. In Guanacaste

– an urgent context experiencing water conflict and climate

change impacts – governance scenarios were an effective step

in this direction.

Acknowledgements

We thank our excellent project partners: Mariel Yglesias,

Benjamin Warner, Raffaele Vignola, and members of the PC

Commission. A grant from the U.S. National Science Founda-

tion (Award #1227305) and a U.S. Fulbright fellowship

(awarded to Christopher Kuzdas to work and study in

Guanacaste, Costa Rica 2013–14) supported this work. Any

opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations

expressed in this material are those of the authors and do

not reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or

other project sponsors.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data associated with this article can be

found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

j.envsci.2014.06.007.

r e f e r e n c e s

Anderson, E.R., Cherrington, E.A., Flores, A.I., et al., 2008.Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Biodiversity inCentral America, Mexico, and the Dominican Republic.CATHALAC/USAID, Panama City, 105.

Ballestero, M., Reyes, V., Astorga, Y., 2007. Groundwater inCentral America: its importance, development and use, withparticular reference to its role in irrigated agriculture. In: TheAgricultural Groundwater Revolution: Opportunities andThreats to Development. CABI International, Wallingford,UK, 100–128.

Biggs, E.M., Duncan, J.M., Atkinson, P.M., Dash, J., 2013. Plenty ofwater, not enough strategy. Environ. Sci. Pol. 33, 388–394,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.07.004.

Biswas, A.K., Rached, E., Tortajada, C. (Eds.), 2009. IntegratedWater Resources Management in Latin America, Routledge,New York.

Booth, J.A., Wade, C.J., Walker, T.W., 2010. UnderstandingCentral America: Global Forces, Rebellion, and Change,5th edition. Westview, Boulder.

Brooks, D.B., Holtz, S., 2009. Water soft path analysis:from principles to practice. Water Int. 34 (2) 158–169, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02508060902839940.

Calvo, J.C., 1990. Water resources development in Costa Rica1970–2000. Hydrol. Sci. – J. Sci. Hydrol. 35 (2) 185–196.

Calvo-Alvarado, J., McLennan, B., Sanchez-Azofeifa, A., Garvin,T., 2009. Deforestation and forest restoration in Guanacaste,Costa Rica: putting conservation policies in context. For.Ecol. Manage. 258, 931–940, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2008.10.035.

Edelman, M., 1999. Peasants against Globalization: Rural SocialMovements in Costa Rica. Stanford University Press,Stanford, CA.

Fernandez, S., Bouleau, G., Treyer, S., 2014. Bringing politicsback into water planning scenarios in Europe. J. Hydrol.,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.01.010.

Fuerth, L.S., 2009. Foresight and anticipatory governance.Foresight 11 (4) 14–32, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14636680910982412.

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 4 2 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 8 1 – 1 9 6196

Giordano, M., Shah, T., 2014. From IWRM back to integratedwater resources management. Int. J. Water Res. Dev., http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2013.851521.

Girod, B., Wiek, A., Mieg, H., Hulme, M., 2009. The evolutionof the IPCC’s emissions scenarios. Environ. Sci. Pol. 12 (2)103–118, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2008.12.006.

Huitema, D., Mostert, E., Egas, W., et al., 2009. Adaptive watergovernance: assessing the institutional prescriptions ofadaptive (co-) management from a governance perspectiveand defining a research agenda. Ecol. Soc. 14 (1) http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art26/

Hulme, M., Dessai, S., 2008. Negotiating future climates forpublic policy: a critical assessment of the development ofclimate scenarios for the UK. Environ. Sci. Pol. 11 (1) 54–70,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2007.09.003.

INEC, 2011. Costa Rica Census. Instituto Nacional de Estadısticay Censos de Costa Rica..

Kuzdas, C., 2014. Toward Sustainable Governance of WaterResources – The Case of Guanacaste, Costa Rica.(Dissertation)Arizona State University, 450.

Kuzdas, C., Wiek, A., Warner, B., Vignola, R., Morataya, R., inpress. Sustainability appraisal of water governance regimes– the case of Guanacaste, Costa Rica. Environ. Manage.,http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0292-0 (in press).

Kuzdas, C., Warner, B., Wiek, A., Ygelsias, M., Vignola, R., Cover-Ramırez, A., 2014. Identifying the potential of governanceregimes to aggravate or mitigate water conflicts in regionsthreatened by climate change. School of Sustainabilityworking paper. Arizona State University.

Kuzdas, C., Ygelsias, M., Warner, B., 2013. Governing CostaRica’s Water Resources. Solutions J. 4 (4) 31–36 http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/23918.

Madrigal, R., Alpızar, F., Schluter, A., 2011. Determinants ofperformance of community-based drinking waterorganizations. World Dev. 39 (9) 1663–1675, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2011.02.011.

Meinzen-Dick, R., 2007. Beyond panaceas in water institutions.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 104 (39) 15200–15205, http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702296104.

Meissner, P., Wulf, T., 2013. Cognitive benefits of scenarioplanning: its impact on biases and decision quality. Technol.Forecast. Soc. Change 80, 801–814, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.09.011.

MINAET, 2008. Plan Nacional de Gestion Integrada de losRecursos Hıdricos. MINAET, San Jose, Costa Rica.

Neef, A., 2009. Transforming rural water governance: towardsdeliberative and polycentric models. Water Alternatives 2 (1)53–60.

Nelson, D.R., Adger, W.N., Brown, K., 2007. Adaptation toenvironmental change: contributions of a resilienceframework. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 32 (1) 395–419,http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.32.051807.090348.

Ostrom, E., 2010. Polycentric systems for coping with collectiveaction and global environmental change. Global Environ.Change 20 (4) 550–557, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.004.

Pahl-Wostl, C., Kranz, N., 2010. Water governance in times ofchange. Environ. Sci. Pol. 13 (7) 567–570, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.09.004.

Pahl-Wostl, C., Holtz, G., Kastens, B., Knieper, C., 2010.Analyzing complex water governance regimes: themanagement and transition framework. Environ. Sci. Pol. 13(7) 571–581, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.08.006.

Quay, R., 2010. Anticipatory governance. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 76(4) 496–511, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2010.508428.

Ramırez-Cover, A., 2007. Conflictos socioambientales y recursoshıdricos en guanacaste; una descripcion desde el cambio enel estilo de desarrollo (1997–2006). Anuario De EstudiosCentroamericanos 359–385.

Reed, M.S., Kenter, J., Bonn, A., et al., 2013. Participatoryscenario development for environmental management: amethodological framework illustrated with experience fromthe UK uplands. J. Environ. Manage. 128, 345–362, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.05.016.

Rogers, P., 2002. Water governance in Latin America and theCaribbean. In: Presentation for Inter-American DevelopmentBank, Fortaleza, Brazil, March 7.

Schneider, F., Homewood, C., 2013. Exploring water governancearrangements in the swiss alps from the perspective ofadaptive capacity. Mountain Res. Dev. 33 (3) 225–233, http://dx.doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-13-00004.1.

Scholz, R.W., Tietje, O., 2002. Embedded Case Study Methods:Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Knowledge. Sage,Thousand Oaks.

Shaw, A., Sheppard, S., Burch, S., et al., 2009. Making localfutures tangible—synthesizing, downscaling, and visualizingclimate change scenarios for participatory capacity building.Global Environ. Change 19 (4) 447–463, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.04.002.

Swatuk, L.A., 2008. A political economy of water in SouthernAfrica. Water Alternatives 1 (1) 24–47.

Tietje, O., 2005. Identification of a small reliable and efficient setof consistent scenarios. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 162 (2) 418–432,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2003.08.054.

Uhlendahl, T., Salian, P., Casarotto, C., Doetsch, J., 2011. Goodwater governance and IWRM in Zambia: challenges andchances. Water Pol. 13 (6) 845, http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wp.2011.155.

von Wirth, T., Hayek, U.W., Kunze, A., et al., 2013. Identifyingurban transformation dynamics: functional use of scenariotechniques to integrate knowledge from science andpractice. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.08.030.

Walz, A., Braendle, J.M., Lang, D.J., et al., 2013. Experience fromdownscaling IPCC-SRES scenarios to specific national-levelfocus scenarios for ecosystem service management.Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.08.014.

Wangel, J., 2011. Exploring social structures and agency inbackcasting studies for sustainable development. Technol.Forecast. Soc. Change 78, 872–882, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2011.03.007.

Wiek, A., (2012). Transformational Research and Planning forSustainability. Working Paper. Sustainability Transition andIntervention Research Lab, School of Sustainability, ArizonaState University.

Wiek, A., Walter, A.I., 2009. A transdisciplinary approach forformalized integrated planning and decision-making incomplex systems. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 197 (1) 360–370, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2008.06.013.

Wiek, A., Larson, K.L., 2012. Water, people, and sustainability—asystems framework for analyzing and assessing watergovernance regimes. Water Res. Manage. 26 (11) 3153–3171,http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11269-012-0065-6.

Wiek, A., Binder, C., Scholz, R.W., 2006. Functions of scenarios intransition processes. Futures 38 (7) 740–766, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2005.12.003.

Wiek, A., Lang, D.J., Siegrist, M., 2008. Qualitative systemanalysis as a means for sustainable governance of emergingtechnologies: the case of nanotechnology. J. Cleaner Prod. 16(8) 988–999, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.04.009.

Wiek, A., Gasser, L., Siegrist, M., 2009. Systemic scenarios ofnanotechnology: sustainable governance of emergingtechnologies. Futures 41 (5) 284–300, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2008.11.016.

Wiek, A., Keeler, L.W., Schweizer, V., Lang, D.J., 2013. Plausibilityindications in future scenarios. Int. J. Foresight Innovat. Pol.9, 133–147, http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJFIP. 2013.0586.