Participatory Design of Multi-Use Platforms at Sea
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Participatory Design
2.1. Theoretical Background
- define the role and relevance of systematic (scientifically derived) and idiosyncratic (derived from experience and familiarity with local conditions) knowledge for making choices that affect large populations;
- find the most appropriate way to deal with uncertainty in environmental decision-making and set efficient and fair trade-offs between potential over- and under-protection in the face of uncertain outcomes;
- address concerns of the affected people and the public at large.
- Knowledge sharing across different sectors and stakeholders;
- Different stakeholder attitudes towards multi-use platforms converging into a shared attitude;
- Shared and concrete ideas for MUPS development;
- Identification of obstacles and opportunities.
2.2. The Participatory Design Process in MERMAID
- (1)
- Identification of the views and needs of selected stakeholders in the first round (reported in [33]);
- (2)
- Discussion on preliminary MUPS design in the second round, bringing together selected stakeholders in a round table session (reported in [33]);
- (3)
- Evaluation of the final design by means of interviews and a session with selected stakeholders in the third round (reported in [34]).
3. Methodology for Evaluation
3.1. Interviews with Site Managers
3.2. Questionnaire to Stakeholders
- (1)
- What is the chance that multi-use offshore platforms will be in use in your region within five years? (please answer in %)
- (2)
- When will we see multi-use offshore platform in your region?
- (3)
- How great do you estimate the chances are that your organization will play a role in it? (please answer in %)
- (4)
- Will your organization play a role in the multi-use offshore platforms? If so, what role?
4. The Four Sites and the Design Based on the PDP
4.1. The North Sea Site
4.2. The Mediterranean Site
4.3. The Atlantic Site
4.4. The Baltic Site
5. Evaluation of the Participatory Design Process
5.1. Site Managers’ Reflections on the Participatory Design Process
5.1.1. The North Sea Site
On Participatory Processes
On Stakeholders
On the Outcomes
Evaluation of the PDP
5.1.2. The Mediterranean Site
On Participatory Processes
On Stakeholders
On the Outcomes
Evaluation of the PDP
5.1.3. The Atlantic Site
On Participatory Processes
On Stakeholders
On the Outcomes
Evaluation of the PDP
5.1.4 The Baltic Site
On Participatory Processes
On Stakeholders
On the Outcomes
Evaluation of the PDP
5.2. Stakeholders’ Perception of the Realization of MUPS
Total | Atlantic | Mediterranean | North Sea | Baltic | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number of respondents | Total | 68 | 17 | 16 | 24 | 11 |
1st round | 32 | 8 | 14 | 8 | 2 | |
2nd round | 25 | 9 | 1 | 11 | 4 | |
3rd round | 26 | 5 | 1 | 12 | 8 | |
Number of respondents to only one of the rounds | Total | 54 | 13 | 15 | 18 | 8 |
1st round | 25 | 6 | 13 | 4 | 2 | |
2nd round | 16 | 6 | 1 | 8 | 1 | |
3rd round | 13 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 5 | |
Number of respondents to only two of the rounds | Total | 12 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 3 |
Rounds 1 & 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Rounds 2 & 3 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 3 | |
Rounds 1 & 3 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | |
Number of respondents to all three rounds | Total | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
6. Discussion
6.1. Is Knowledge Shared across Different Sectors and Stakeholders?
6.2. Are Ideas Channeled into a Shared Understanding on the Most Promising Technological Trajectory?
6.3. Does the PDP Result in Shared and Concrete Ideas for MUPS Development?
6.4. Does the PDP Identify Obstacles and Opportunities?
7. Conclusions and Recommendations
7.1. Conclusions
7.2. Recommendations
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
NGO | non-governmental organization |
MUPS | Multi-Use Platform at Sea |
PDP | Participatory Design Process |
Appendix A
- How do you value the current/proposed model for the participatory design process?
- In your opinion, are the right actors involved in the process?
- Are the varying stakeholder views properly represented in the findings?
- Do the results represent the local situations?
- How can you use the provided information in development of MUPS?
- What could be improved in the current model for the participatory design process in MERMAID?
- In your opinion, what are the benefits of a participatory approach (participatory process is defined as a process in which stakeholders are involved in decision-making (in the broadest sense)) in general (not restricted to MERMAID)?
- What would you say is the main objective of the participatory process in MERMAID?
- What is your main objective for the participatory process as a site manager?
- Was the selection, presence of, and format for involving stakeholders appropriate to reach the objectives (as discussed above)? If not, what were the weaknesses in the selection, presence, and format for involvement?
- Have the stakeholders influenced and/or learned from each other? If yes: How? Can you give an example?
- Since the start of MERMAID, have there been changes in the stakeholders’ attitudes towards MUPS? If yes, what has changed?
- If there have been changes, do you think that MERMAID contributed to these changes? If yes, how? If not, what has been the main driving force for the changes?
- Is there a difference with regard to changes in attitudes between stakeholders that are MERMAID project participants and stakeholders that are not project participants?
- What information and results did you hope to gather from the second participatory round (the round table)?
- What information and lessons did the second participatory round (the round table) provide you with?
- How do the outcomes match the expected outcomes?
- Did the results from the round table impact or influence the design of MUPS?
- Was the format for this round table appropriate to reach your objectives?
- About the following round table: do you have suggestions on the format for this round table?
- In your opinion, how can the participatory process be improved?
- If you were asked to formulate a lesson for future project developers out of the experiences with the participatory approach, what would it be?
References
- Pinto, H.; Cruz, A.R.; Combe, C. Cooperation and the emergence of maritime clusters in the Atlantic: Analysis and implications of innovation and human capital for blue growth. Mar. Policy 2015, 57, 167–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jay, S.A. Built at sea : Marine management and the construction of marine spatial planning. Town Plan. Rev. 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacques, P.J. Are world fisheries a global panarchy? Mar. Policy 2015, 53, 165–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gall, S.C.; Thompson, R.C. The impact of debris on marine life. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2015, 92, 170–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hastings, E.; Potts, T. Marine litter: Progress in developing an integrated policy approach in Scotland. Mar. Policy 2013, 42, 49–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ritchie, H. Understanding emerging discourses of Marine Spatial Planning in the UK. Land Use Policy 2014, 38, 666–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lacroix, D.; Pioch, S. The multi-use in wind farm projects: more conflicts or a win-win opportunity? Aquat. Living Resour. 2011, 24, 129–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buck, B.H.; Krause, G.; Michler-Cieluch, T.; Brenner, M.; Buchholz, C.M.; Busch, J.A.; Fisch, R.; Geisen, M.; Zielinski, O. Meeting the quest for spatial efficiency: Progress and prospects of extensive aquaculture within offshore wind farms. Helgol. Mar. Res. 2008, 62, 269–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, W. Jacket-Cage: Dual-Use the Jacket Foundation of Offshore Wind Turbine for Aquaculture Farming. Wind Eng. 2015, 39, 311–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buck, B.H.; Ebeling, M.W.; Michler-Cieluch, T. Mussel cultivation as a co-use in offshore wind farms: Potential and economic feasibility. Aquac. Econ. Manag. 2010, 14, 255–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pérez-Collazo, C.; Greaves, D.; Iglesias, G. A review of combined wave and offshore wind energy. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 42, 141–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zanuttigh, B.; Angelelli, E.; Kortenhaus, A.; Koca, K.; Krontira, Y.; Koundouri, P. A methodology for multi-criteria design of multi-use offshore platforms for marine renewable energy harvesting. Renew. Energy 2016, 85, 1271–1289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wever, L.; Krause, G.; Buck, B.H. Lessons from stakeholder dialogues on marine aquaculture in offshore wind farms: Perceived potentials, constraints and research gaps. Mar. Policy 2015, 51, 251–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hooper, T.; Ashley, M.; Austen, M. Perceptions of fishers and developers on the co-location of offshore wind farms and decapod fisheries in the UK. Mar. Policy 2015, 61, 16–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Griffin, R.; Buck, B.H.; Krause, G. Private incentives for the emergence of co-production of offshore wind energy and mussel aquaculture. Aquaculture 2015, 436, 80–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van den Burg, S.W.K.; van Duijn, A.-P.; Bartelings, H.; van Krimpen, M.M.; Poelman, M. The economic feasibility of seaweed production in the North Sea. Aquac. Manag. Econ. 2016, in press. [Google Scholar]
- Christie, N.; Smyth, K.; Barnes, R.; Elliot, M. Co-location of activities and designations: A means of solving or creating problems in marine spatial planning? Mar. Policy 2014, 43, 254–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benassai, G.; Mariani, P.; Stenberg, C.; Christoffersen, M. A Sustainability Index of potential co-location of offshore wind farms and open water aquaculture. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2014, 95, 213–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Röckmann, C.; van Leeuwen, J.; Goldsborough, D.; Kraan, M.; Piet, G. The interaction triangle as a tool for understanding stakeholder interactions in marine ecosystem based management. Mar. Policy 2015, 52, 155–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pomeroy, R.; Douvere, F. The engagement of stakeholders in the marine spatial planning process. Mar. Policy 2008, 32, 816–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wesselink, A.; Paavola, J.; Fritsch, O.; Renn, O. Rationales for public participation in environmental policy and governance: Practitioners’ perspectives. Environ. Plan. A 2011, 43, 2688–2704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berghöfer, A.; Wittmer, H.; Rauschmayer, F. Stakeholder participation in ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries management: A synthesis from European research projects. Mar. Policy 2008, 32, 243–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pilemalm, S.; Timpka, T. Third generation participatory design in health informatics—making user participation applicable to large-scale information system projects. J. Biomed. Inform. 2008, 41, 327–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wilkinson, C.R.; de Angeli, A. Applying user centred and participatory design approaches to commercial product development. Design Stud. 2014, 35, 614–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murgue, C.; Therond, O.; Leenhardt, D. Toward integrated water and agricultural land management: Participatory design of agricultural landscapes. Land Use Policy 2015, 45, 52–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simonsen, J.; Robertson, T. Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design; Routledge: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Bjögvinsson, E.; Ehn, P.; Hillgren, P.A. Design things and design thinking: Contemporary participatory design challenges. Des. Issues 2012, 28, 101–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gibbons, M.; Limoges, C.; Nowotny, H.; Schwartzman, S.; Scott, P.; Trow, M. The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies; SAGE: London, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Rip, A. Fashions, lock-ins and the heterogeneity of knowledge production. In The Future of Knowledge Production in the Academy; Jacob, M., Hellstrom, T., Eds.; SRHE and Open University press: Buckingham, UK, 2000; pp. 28–39. [Google Scholar]
- Bandura, A. Social Learning Theory. 2013. Available online: http://www.esludwig.com/uploads/2/6/1/0/26105457/bandura_sociallearningtheory.pdf (accessed on 25 December 2013).
- Wenger, E. Communities of Practice, Learning, Meaning and Identity; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Nelson, R.; Winter, S. In search for a useful theory of innovation. Res. Policy 1977, 6, 36–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rasenberg, M.; Stuiver, M.; van den Burg, S.; Norrman, J.; Söderqvist, T. Stakeholder Views 2. 2014. Available online: http://www.mermaidproject.eu/sharepoint/Documents/Deliverables/D2.3-Stakeholder-views-2---PU/ (accessed on 25 January 2016).
- Röckmann, C.; Stuiver, M.; van den Burg, S.; Zanuttigh, B.; Zagonari, F.; Airoldi, L.; Angelelli, E.; Suffredini, R.; Franceschi, G.; Bellotti, G.; et al. Platform Solutions. 2015. Available online: http://www.mermaidproject.eu/sharepoint/Documents/Deliverables/D2.4-Platform-solutions-incl.-Annexes---DLO/ (accessed on 25 January 2016).
- Zanuttigh, B.; Schouten, J.J.; Guanche, R.; Petersen, O. Site Specific Conditions. 2013. Available online: http://www.mermaidproject.eu/sharepoint/Documents/Deliverables/D7.1-Site-SpecificConditions---PU/ (accessed on 25 January 2016).
- Gemini Offshore Windpark. Available online: http://geminiwindpark.nl (accessed on 25 November 2015).
- Giannouli, A. Socio-economic Analysis of Baltic site. 2015. Availabel online: www.mermaidproject.eu (accessed on 24 January 2016).
© 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons by Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Van den Burg, S.; Stuiver, M.; Norrman, J.; Garção, R.; Söderqvist, T.; Röckmann, C.; Schouten, J.-J.; Petersen, O.; García, R.G.; Diaz-Simal, P.; et al. Participatory Design of Multi-Use Platforms at Sea. Sustainability 2016, 8, 127. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8020127
Van den Burg S, Stuiver M, Norrman J, Garção R, Söderqvist T, Röckmann C, Schouten J-J, Petersen O, García RG, Diaz-Simal P, et al. Participatory Design of Multi-Use Platforms at Sea. Sustainability. 2016; 8(2):127. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8020127
Chicago/Turabian StyleVan den Burg, Sander, Marian Stuiver, Jenny Norrman, Rita Garção, Tore Söderqvist, Christine Röckmann, Jan-Joost Schouten, Ole Petersen, Raul Guanche García, Pedro Diaz-Simal, and et al. 2016. "Participatory Design of Multi-Use Platforms at Sea" Sustainability 8, no. 2: 127. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8020127