Integrating Problem Structuring Methods And Concept-Knowledge Theory For An Advanced Policy Design: Lessons From A Case Study In Cyprus

Abstract

Evidence suggests that policies frequently fail due, on the one side, to a simplification of the uncertainty and complexity associated with stakeholders’ problem-understanding and, on the other side, due to the lack of methodologies for innovative generation of policy alternatives. This work describes a methodology based on the integration of Problem Structuring Methods and Concept-Knowledge Theory as a mean to transform ambiguity in problem-framing from a barrier to an enabling factor in collaborative settings. This methodology supports the generative design process for innovative and consensual policies. The methodology was implemented for a case of designing water management policy in the Republic of Cyprus.

Keywords:

• policy analysis
• multi-stakeholder decision making
• policy analytics
• design
• theory
• policy co-design
• fuzzy cognitive maps

1. Introduction

Policy design is an intricate challenge for policy makers as future policy outcomes are inherently uncertain (Nair and Howlett 2016). From a decision-aiding perspective (see Tsoukiàs 2007), policy design can be considered the result of a collective decision-making process involving multiple stakeholders for the generation of a set of policy alternatives (Pluchinotta et al. 2019a). Alternatives tend to be few and similar when the policy design process is constrained (Alexander 1982). In contrast, a decision-aiding process can bring novelty through the expansion of the set of solutions (Colorni and Tsoukiàs 2018).

Especially the presence of ambiguity in problem framing among different decision makers, as one type of uncertainty, indicates confusion regarding the problems for which the policy is expected to be designed (Weick 1995). Ambiguity reflects the multiplicity of interpretations that different actors bring to a collective process (Giordano et al. 2017). Ambiguity, which can be considered as a form of uncertainty and indeterminacy (Brugnach and Ingram 2012; Van den Hoek et al. 2012) is ineradicable in complex decision-making processes (Jasanoff 2007).

The set of alternatives can also be expanded through the evolution (or integration) of problem formulations, such that stakeholders may enrich their perspectives, and establish reciprocity (Ferretti et al. 2019), recognizing the presence of ambiguity. It has been suggested that divergent frames can still yield organized collective action when the interaction frames are sufficiently aligned (Brugnach and Ingram 2012; Dewulf and Bouwen 2012). Through interaction mechanisms, different decision actors tend to align their problem frames, overcoming the barriers that stem from the presence of ambiguity.

The problem of an advanced policy design process is shared by several research fields (i.e. policy studies, design theory, decision theory and operational research), although their intersection has not been properly investigated (see Ferretti et al. 2019). Some preliminary attempts have been proposed. For instance, Pluchinotta et al. (2019a) experimentally used a Design Theory methodology to support a formal process for the design of policy alternatives. The pilot case study created new insights and evidence regarding the issues at stake, bringing together stakeholders, experts, institutional and non-institutional actors.

The present paper proposes an upgraded methodology, integrating Design Theory, specifically Concept-Knowledge (C-K) theory, and Problem-Structuring Methods (PSMs) for an advanced design of policy alternatives. PSMs (Rosenhead and Mingers 2001) build individual models of situations (Franco 2013), where a model is an integrated representation of a situation that supports negotiation or develops new understanding (Smith and Shaw 2019). PSMs contribute to shape shared understanding and commitment across stakeholders (Ackermann 2012) through facilitation (Franco and Montibeller 2010), participation (Rosenhead 1996) and stimulating dialogue (Mingers and White 2010).

C-K theory, in turn, defines the design process as the co-evolution of two expandable spaces, a space of Concepts (C-space) and a space of Knowledge (K-space) (see Hatchuel and Weil 2003; Agogué and Kazakçi 2014b; Le Masson et al. 2017). Within a given design process, every C-space has a strong dependency on the related K-space, i.e. every element in the C-space relies on the structure and content of the knowledge base (Hatchuel and Weil 2007). In multi-stakeholder settings, developing the K-space starting from different, often conflictual, problem framings is challenging. Therefore, PSMs can support the analysis of ambiguities in problem framing, detecting similarities and differences, and therefore enhance the effectiveness of C-K theory in policy design. When integrating PSMs and C-K theory, PSMs need to be adapted to the design of policy alternatives, a field of application they have not originally been developed for, and C-K theory-driven tools need improved knowledge elicitation and structuring methods to account for the complexity of the K-space in policy-making situations (e.g. De Marchi et al. 2016) and the ambiguity in problem framing arising in multi-stakeholder settings (Giordano et al. 2017).

Such an integrated and participatory policy design tool was implemented for the design of environmental policies for groundwater protection in the Kokkinochoria area (Republic of Cyprus). PSMs, specifically Fuzzy Cognitive Maps (FCM), were implemented to elicit and structure individual problem understandings in the area, detecting and analysing differences in stakeholder concerns and interests. The C-K theory-driven tool was then used to align the different problem understandings and available knowledge and enable creative development of innovative and consensual environmental policies. Building on a previous application of the C-K theory framework by Pluchinotta et al. (2019a), in the present work, the K-space expansion phase was enhanced by making decision makers aware of the main reasons of ambiguity, while the C-space expansion was realized by accounting for the alternatives that could be implemented in order to overcome the main differences in problem framing (Giordano et al. 2020a).

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 reviews the concept of policy design. Section 3 describes the case study, while section 4 describes and discusses the methodology and its application. Lastly, section 5 discusses lessons learned.

2. Policy Design

Policy design is a specific form of policy formulation based on the gathering and application of knowledge about policy tools for the development and implementation of strategies aimed at the attainment of policy ambitions (Howlett 2011). At a time when policy makers are tasked with developing innovative solutions to increasingly complex policy problems, the need for intelligent design of policies and a better understanding of the policy formulation processes they involve has never been greater.

The concept of policy design is controversial. Some academics suggest that policies cannot be “designed” as one would design a physical object (DeLeon 1988; Dryzek and Ripley 1988). Other scholars state that policies are designed and can be systematically studied and improved, similar to the way one would improve urban planning or product creation (e.g. Schon 1992; Howlett 2011). Research on policy design often responded to 1970s implementation studies that held institutional systems responsible for policy failures (Sidney 2007). This involved answering a set of key questions such as: determining what constitutes a design process, what makes one successful, and what makes one design better than another (Howlett 2014). However, a design-oriented policy formulation contributes to the awareness of the “boundaries” of rationality (Simon 1947) in the policy-making process, in order to expand the set of policy alternatives, hoping to improve the outcome (Pluchinotta et al. 2019a).

Fields such as political science, economics, decision analysis and operational research have developed methods addressing policy design, e.g. best practice analysis, consensus-building activities (Bailey and Lloyd 2016), ex ante and ex post evaluation (Dollery and Worthington 1996), public sector operational research (e.g. Larson and Odoni 1981; Pollock et al. 1994; Keeney 1996), problem-structuring methods (e.g. Eden 2004; Rosenhead 2006), soft system methodologies (Checkland 2000), group facilitation and participatory modelling (e.g. Vennix 1996; Voinov et al. 2016; Pagano et al. 2019), system thinking (Sterman 2000) and multi-criteria decision analysis for the public sector (Belton and Stewart 2002; Marttunen et al. 2013; for further details see Ferretti et al. 2019). However, the existing formal methodologies of policy design were not originally conceived for this task (Ferretti et al. 2019; Pluchinotta et al. 2019a). Researchers and practitioners use adapted methodologies without considering the emerging problems connected to the design of policy alternatives.

Firstly, policy design is context-based, and policy transfer does not always provide satisfying outcomes. Policy design takes place within a specific historical and institutional framework that largely determines its content (e.g. May 2003). The exact processes through which policies are articulated vary by domain and reflect the differences between forms of government as well as the particular configuration of issues, actors and problems (Ingraham 1987; Howlett 2009). For instance, Bobrow and Dryzek (1987) advocate for contextual designs that explicitly incorporate values, and Weimer (1992) points out that developing truly innovative policy alternatives involves crafting designs that reflect substantive, organizational and political contexts.

Secondly, policy design is not a linear practice. Some policies emerge from processes such as logrolling (i.e. the practice of exchanging favours), patronage or bargaining and cannot be thought of as having been formally “designed” (Howlett 2011). In some circumstances, policy design outcomes will seem highly contingent and “less rational”, driven by situational logics and opportunism rather than careful deliberation and assessment (e.g. Cohen 1979; Dryzek 1983; Kingdon 1984).

Lastly, Linder and Peters (1984) argued that the abstract concept of policy design can be separated from the practical process of decision making, in the same way as abstract architectural concept can be separated from its final spatial embodiment. In this view, policy design involves a systematic development of a set of policy alternatives by using knowledge about policy means gained from experience, and reason. This is followed by the development and adoption of a possible set of actions that are likely to succeed in attaining the predetermined policy goals (Bobrow 2006). Such a distinction allowed for orientating policy studies towards policy design, by arguing that policies can be conceptually separated from the process of policy design. Central to the policy design perspective is the notion that public policy contains a design framework of ideas and instruments to be identified and analysed (Sidney 2007).

Thus, the design orientation of policy studies allows us to explore how policy design can improve policy-making practice and to support the analysts. Specifically, policy scholars seek to reduce “randomness” of policy making by structuring the process. For example, Alexander (1982) recommended a “deliberate design stage” in which policy analysts search for policy alternatives in order to improve policy outcomes. He argued that the systematic design of policy alternatives involves creativity, in addition to rational processes of search and discovery. Linder and Peters (1984) proposed a framework that policy analysts can use to generate, compare and match policy alternatives, resulting in a less random process of policy design. Bobrow and Dryzek (1987) proposed to search for alternatives from a wide range of policy designs (e.g. welfare economics, public choice, political philosophy), while Fischer and Forester (1993) suggested that looking at policy dialogue could unlock policy innovation and creativity. As such, the inclusion of marginalized populations and local knowledge in the design process could potentially play an important role in policy improvement.

In conclusion, the existing mainstream literature on policy making seems to underestimate the potential for solving policy problems through policy design (Ferretti et al. 2019) and, instead, focuses on design as part of the political process, something that happens in a black box (e.g. Birkland 2011), experimenting and transferring approaches derived, for example, from best practice analysis, participation and consensus-building activities (Bailey and Lloyd 2016). Nevertheless, Dryzek (1983) argues that public policy’s capacity to respond effectively to complex social problems could be significantly enriched by a shift in policy analysis from an assessment of pre-ordained and well-defined policy alternatives towards formal policy design (Considine et al. 2014).

This idea encourages reflection on the role of Design Theory as a new approach for the definition of innovative policy alternatives (Pluchinotta et al. 2019a). In recent years there has been a growing interest in Design Theory by governments seeking to innovate policy practices (Bailey and Lloyd 2016; Kimbell 2016). Exemplary attempts made in public policy context within design-based approaches are detectable in “policy labs” appearing in past years: the New York Public Design Commission,¹ the European Policy Lab,² the UNESCO Inclusive Policy Lab,³ the Dutch Mind Lab,⁴ the PoliMi DESIS Lab⁵ supporting design-driven innovation. Furthermore, the UK Policy Lab⁶ is an example of collaborative space where innovative policy-making processes are experimented with. It claims to bring new policy tools and techniques to UK government departments, helping design policies around people’s experience, using data analytics and new digital tools (i.e. Open Policy Making Toolkit⁷). Lastly, the European funding campaign Design for Europe⁸ introduced design thinking concepts to explore policy solutions. Several projects have been developed, such as the Design Policy Lab in partnership with Deep Initiative,⁹ promoting European innovation policies.

However, the identified processes of policy design lack a formal approach, which limits the process of generating sets of policy alternatives. In lack of a formal description, the complex processes of building policy alternatives remain obscure. Within this context, we are interested in exploring how Design Theory can be combined with a Decision Aiding approach in order to assist the innovative design of public policies.

3. The Case Study

The participative multi-methodology was implemented for supporting the design of environmental policies for groundwater (GW) protection in the Kokkinochoria area (Republic of Cyprus).

3.1 The Context

Similarly to all Mediterranean countries, GW resources play a major role in the water economy of Cyprus and constitute the main supply for all applications (MED-EUWI 2007). Although in recent years the introduction of non-conventional resources has considerably reduced the GW pressure (MED-EUWI 2007), Cyprus remains the most water-scarce country in Europe (EEA 2007).Water is essential not only for sustaining the agricultural sector (accounting for ca. 70 per cent of total water demand) but also for the booming tourism sector (according to some estimations 10 per cent of total water consumption).

The study region Kokkinochoria is situated at the south-eastern tip of the island and mostly coincides with the Kokkinochoria aquifer (Zikos et al., 2015). The aquifer crosses all four self-administrative entities of Cyprus (the Republic, the occupied North Cyprus, the British Sovereign Territory and the UN Buffer Zone), which complicates the management of GW (Zikos and Roggero 2012).

The aquifer is the most degraded of the island in terms of both quantity and quality of water due to over-abstraction and seawater intrusion (Figure 1). During the last decades and despite the rapidly diminishing water resources, there has been an increasing demand for water for tourism (the study area is the most popular tourist destination on the island) and for agriculture. The region mostly produces potatoes.

Figure 1. Kokkinochoria (CY_1) Aquifer

Notice that the area north of the UN’s Green Line is not under the control of the Republic of Cyprus.Source: Water Development Department.

Alternative water sources, namely water transfer from the western part of the island, desalination and re-use of treated wastewater, have addressed the problem of overexploitation to some extent, but without resolving it completely. As a result, the remaining GW is so saline in most localities in Kokkinochoria that it cannot be used directly for irrigation. Instead it is mixed with the water provided by the South Water Conveyor or it is first treated by illegal small mobile desalination plants.

A number of socio-technical measures have specifically aimed at halting the overuse of GW, but with limited success. Specifically, the South Water Conveyor, the largest ever water development project undertaken by the Government of Cyprus, aims at collecting and storing surplus water from the most water-privileged regions of the island and conveying it to areas of demand for both domestic supply and irrigation.

Kokkinochoria receives the lion’s share of the transferred water for irrigation. The project was expected to minimize GW use, a hope that gradually faded as the demand exceeded the supply. One of our interviewees explained the situation using a metaphor:

“the conveyor is like a bus. When it started, it was meant to have 50 seats, and the area of Kokkinochoria needed 30. What I mean to say is, the pipe network was more than sufficient. With the passage of time however, the demands increased but the supply remained the same. Right now, the bus passengers are sitting on the roof.”

Additional measures were specifically targeted at another problem characteristic of Kokkinochoria: the high number of unlicensed (illegal) boreholes. An integrative step-wise approach was adopted by the Water Development Department (WDD) aiming at first registering existing boreholes, then installing water meters and in parallel stopping the issuing of new licences. Although island-wide this effort was largely a success, the situation only had minimal impact on Kokkinochoria. The number of unlicensed boreholes remained excessively high and therefore the installation of water metres and the “no-new-licences” policy largely failed. Table 1 summarizes the key policy elements of the case study.

Table 1. Key policy elements of the case study

Policy goals	Provide sufficient water in both quantitative and qualitative terms for domestic and agricultural use Protect GW quantity and quality in the Kokkinochoria aquifer
Policy means	Water transfer via the South Conveyor Halt excessive water abstraction by: (i) registering boreholes, (ii) installing water meters, (iii) stopping the issuing of new licences
Policy failures	Limited capacity (outdated project, increase in demand) Problematic water distribution between users (not significantly taking into account differences between users and uses of water) Failure to register the vast majority of boreholes (largely due to lack of trust in institutions), leading to minimum impact of water metering and the no-new-licences policy
Time framing	From several years to decades
Stakeholders	Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment via its National and Regional Departments (most notably the Water Development Department), Farmers, Agricultural Associations

3.2 The Stakeholders

Several actors are involved in decision-making processes regarding GW use in Kokkinochoria. However, at both national and regional levels the exclusive responsibility for the management of water belongs to the WDD, with several other governmental agencies holding a consulting role. The key national and regional governmental agencies operating in the study area are:

1. The WDD under the Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment (MANRE) has exclusive responsibility, according to the current legislation, for all water management on the island and according to the official mandate for “the protection and the rational and sustainable development and management of the country’s water resources within the framework of the Government of Cyprus’s water policy”. The regional office of the WDD deals with more technical aspects like recording the level of the water table, the network of deep drill wells and the falling level of groundwater. They are also responsible for measuring the quality and salinity of the water and for issuing permissions for water extraction, specifying who can pump water and how much.

2. The Department of Agriculture, under MANRE, holds a consulting role and works closely with both farmers and the WDD at all levels. In a way, the department also mediates between the WDD and farmers, by estimating the water needs for cultivation, or monitoring the water use for irrigation, and advising the WDD on these needs. The process and advisory role are facilitated with the operation of regional offices.

3. The Department of Environment, under MANRE, together with its regional offices, advises the government on environmental policy and the coordination of environmental programmes. The department also supervises the adoption and implementation of European policies and national legislation on the environment. Moreover, the department promotes the enforcement of laws relating to water pollution and management of waste and encourages environmental awareness and information. However, their practical role in GW management is rather minimal, if existing at all.

The stakeholders representing the agricultural sector are the farmers and the agricultural associations. Cyprus has a long history and a considerable number of very active farmers’ associations that exercise considerable influence on governmental decisions. Broadly speaking, the associations (each representing a different political party) have the shared goal of developing the agricultural economy, improving the labour conditions and livelihoods of farmers, supporting social and technological innovation in the agricultural sector and protecting the environment. Agricultural associations lobby the government for solutions in irrigation and water supply.

The farmers in the region can be categorized into two types: large farmers, usually farming enterprises, and small family farms. These two categories may be further distinguished in terms of full-time (either large or small farmers) and part-time farmers (usually small or very small landowners). The latter can be further distinguished into two subcategories: part-time farmers that are basically professional farmers but need to complement their income by a second profession (often in the tourism sector), and non-professional farmers exercising farming for pleasure (often without any profit from the activities).

Large farmers are often exporting their products. There is a recent trend to utilize – illegal – mobile desalination plants to treat the abstracted groundwater so it can be used for irrigation. These farmers are facing increasing costs for energy (pumping of groundwater) and their demand is rarely, if ever, satisfied by the available water from the South Conveyor. Smaller farmers, either full- or part-time, are struggling to meet the demand for water for their crops and they strongly prefer water coming from the South Conveyor, although this is complemented by abstracted GW. These farmers increasingly quit agriculture or are forced to find a second or seasonal job. Family farms contribute significantly to regional production and to the income of the family.

Small farmers were criticized in most of the interviews, whether conducted with governmental agencies, associations or other farmers, as the most unsustainable users of water. The share of water they receive from the South Conveyor is also regarded by many as a complete waste of a precious resource. According to a governmental interviewee:

“[this category] I call gardens of Eden, especially in areas with access to the water network or a drill well. They plant, for example, 50 citrus trees, for domestic consumption supposedly, although two trees would provide more than enough for a household. They might also have olive trees, or a holiday house. These cases I consider wasteful, because they end up serving non-productive needs, such as entertainment or relaxation. […] This also creates conflicts around conveyors and the network about access and the quantity available.”<<quote ends>>

4. The Methodology for Advanced Policy Design and Its Application to the Case

This section briefly describes the integrated methodology used for the innovative design of policy alternatives within a Design Theory framework (Pluchinotta et al. 2019a for details). A C-K theory-based tool, namely Policy-KCP (P-KCP) was improved and applied in order to overcome the barriers due to ambiguity in problem frames, and the creation of the shared concern as a starting point for the generation of policy alternatives. For the sake of brevity, the case study activity is used for describing the different steps of the adopted methodology.

4.1 The K-Space Building Phase

The aim of this phase is to build a shared base of knowledge (K-space) by combining and aligning the individual stakeholders’ knowledge – i.e. the K-spaces – in order to support the subsequent generative phase (Policy C phase or P-C phase). The construction of this shared knowledge space needs to be consensual. Thus, the P-K phase intends to: (i) elicit and structure the different stakeholders’ problem understandings; (ii) support the identification ofcommon knowledge on the GW protection and water management problem; and (iii) detect and analyse potential conflicts among decision makers.

The stakeholder involvement process for building the K-space is structured in three phases:

1. Elicitation and structuring of individual stakeholders’ perceptions of the main issues and concerns related to GW protection and management through individual semi-structured interviews and individual Fuzzy Cognitive Maps (FCM).

2. Analysis of the main differences in problem understanding (ambiguity analysis) through comparison of individual FCM. To this end, two elements were accounted for: the most central elements in the FCM and the expected dynamic evolution according to the FCM simulation.

3. Development of the overall K-space combining the individual stakeholders’ K-spaces and aligning the different perceptions. The final aim is to reach consensus over a shared concern and a common knowledge between each viewpoint.

Generally, the K-phase aims to gather missing information and build a comprehensive summary of current knowledge about the issue under consideration. In this work, it combines the stakeholders’ knowledge – obtained through FCM analysis and scenario simulations – with scientific literature studies, the available data, emerging technologies, best practices, etc. As described further in the text, the overall K-space is developed by combining and aligning the individual stakeholders’ K-spaces.

Firstly, individual semi-structured interviews were carried out aiming to understand how different decision makers (institutional and not) perceive the same problem. During this step, stakeholders’ roles, objectives and values were elicited. To this end, the interviews were based on 10 questions for institutional actors and 14 questions for farmers grouped according to three main issues: (i) stakeholders’ previous experience with water management issues; (ii) stakeholders’ knowledge on the main drivers influencing the problems pointed out and impacts, both direct and indirect; (iii) stakeholders’ knowledge regarding strategies used for dealing with these problems. The interviews were carried out involving institutional decision makers and farmers (with slight differentiations in the guiding questions, see Supplementary Material for the original questionnaire). Concerning the latter, a sample of farmers was interviewed. In order to guarantee heterogeneity, the sample was created by considering the different characteristics of farms, i.e. size, crop patterns, part- or full-time. The farmers’ FCM was developed by aggregating the individual sub-FCM. The process of individual sub-model aggregation ended when no new concepts and/or relationships emerged after a number of interviews (e.g. Özesmi and Özesmi 2004; Pluchinotta et al. 2018). For the selection of the stakeholders to be involved in the knowledge elicitation process, “snowballing” or “referral sampling” (Reed et al. 2009) was implemented. Specifically, the selection process started with the actors mentioned in the official documents and, during the interviews, each stakeholder suggested the involvement of other stakeholders considering their role and expertise.

In total 20 interviews were conducted on several occasions between April and June 2017 (see Table 2). The average duration of the interviews was 60 minutes, varying however from 15 minutes to 3 hours.

Table 2. Interviews conducted with Cypriot stakeholders

Group	Sub-group	Notes	No. interviews
Administration	National	Water Development Department, Department of Agriculture (Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment)	2
	Regional	Regional Departments of Agriculture, of Water and of Environment	3
Associations	–	Agricultural associations	2
Farmers	–	Large	3
		Small	4
		Non-professional	3
Others	–	Other water users (not used in the model)	3

Secondly, the information derived from the semi-structured interviews was processed in order to build individual FCM, allowing investigation into how people perceive a given system and comparing the perceptions of different groups of stakeholders (e.g. Kosko 1986; Eden 2004). Each FCM variable represents an item related to water management according to the stakeholder’s conceptual model, while the weighted and directional arcs symbolize causal relationships between items. The interconnection weights are in the interval [−1, 1] and denote the strength of the connection between items on the map (Aguilar 2005). The weights were assigned by the stakeholder during the semi-structured interviews. For instance, the individual FCM (Figure 2) shows that, following the WDD’s conceptual model, the overuse of GW for irrigation purposes will lead to a decrease in the water quality, an increase in the seawater intrusion and a consequent reduction in the agricultural production, due to the decrease of GW quality. Afterwards, the weights were used for developing adjacency matrices.

Figure 2. Water Development Department’s FCM

For each variable of the FCM, the centrality degree was measured, summing the incoming and outgoing cumulative strength of the connections entering/exiting the variable (Eden 1992). The higher the centrality degree, the more important is the concept in the stakeholder’s problem understanding (see Santoro et al. 2019; Giordano et al. 2020b for more details on the methodology). The centrality degree is a number within [0, 1]. In order to be used in the assessment of importance degree, the values were translated into fuzzy linguistic assessment (Zimmermann, 1991). Figure 3 shows the fuzzy linguistic function for the centrality degree. The x-axis represents the numerical value of the centrality degree. Three different fuzzy sets were defined, i.e. “Low”, “Medium” and “High”. The y-axis represents the membership degree of the numerical value to the fuzzy linguistic set (e.g. Giordano et al. 2020b).

Figure 3. Fuzzy linguistic function for the centrality degree

Source: Giordano et al. (2020b).

Afterwards, related FCM qualitative scenarios (e.g. Kok 2009; Borri et al. 2015; Pluchinotta et al. 2019b) were simulated to investigate the expected evolution of the variables’ states according to the stakeholders’ problem understandings. Two different scenarios were simulated in this work, i.e. the business-as-usual (BAU) scenario and the GW stress scenario. Following Kok (2009), the FCM scenarios were simulated by changing the values of the variables in the initial state vector. That is, the GW stress scenario was simulated by activating the climate variables in the FCM initial state vector. Figure 4 shows the stakeholder Agricultural Department's FCM and and Figure 5 displays the comparison between the two aforementioned scenarios.

Figure 4. Agricultural Department’s FCM

Figure 5. Scenario comparison for the Agricultural Department

The FCM scenarios allowed the dynamic evolution of the system, as perceived by the stakeholders, to be simulated, and the key elements affecting the GW exploitation and the main impacts to be identified. The impact degree was assessed, accounting for the change of the state of the variables in the two scenarios – specifically, the comparison between the two scenarios allowed to assess the impact degree, as shown in Table 3. Table 3 shows the main variables for the different stakeholders.

Table 3. Identification of the most important elements in the stakeholders’ problem understanding for the Cyprus case study

Stakeholder	Variable	Centrality degree	Impacts degree	Importance degree
Water Development Department	Infrastructure effectiveness	High	Weakly negative	Medium
	Reuse of treated wastewater	Medium	Negative	High
	Farmers’ behaviour	Medium	Negative	High
	GW quality	High	Highly negative	High
	Territory control	Medium	Weakly negative	Medium
Farmers’ association	Agricultural productivity	High	Negative	High
	GW quality	High	Negative	High
	Energy costs for GW use	Medium	Negative	High
	Farmers’ behaviour	Medium	Weakly positive	Medium
	Infrastructure effectiveness	Low	Positive	Medium
Regional agricultural department	Regional livelihood	High	Negative	High
	Agricultural productivity	High	Negative	High
	Salinization process	Medium	Negative	High
	Infrastructure effectiveness	Medium	Weakly negative	Medium
Department of Agriculture	Agricultural productivity	High	Negative	High
	Optimization of water distribution	Medium	Negative	High
	Social sustainability	Low	Highly negative	High
	Innovation adoption in irrigation	Low	Negative	Medium
	Territory control	Medium	Weakly negative	Medium
Farmers	Farmers income	High	Positive	High
	Agricultural productivity	High	Weakly positive	Medium
	Energy costs for irrigation	Medium	Weakly negative	Medium
	Irrigation infrastructure eff.	Medium	Weakly positive	Medium
	Innovation adoption in irrigation	Medium	Weakly positive	Medium
Regional branch of the WDD	Seawater intrusion	High	Negative	High
	Illegal drills	High	Negative	High
	Agricultural productivity	Medium	Weakly negative	Medium
	Territory control	Medium	Weakly negative	Medium

The impact degree represents the difference in the state of each variable in the considered scenarios, identifying a ranking of the different variables influencing the stakeholders’ problem understanding. Fuzzy if … then rules were implemented in order to aggregate the centrality degree and the impact degree to assess the importance degree for the FCM variables.

The rules are shown in the following:

IF centrality degree is HIGH AND impact degree is HIGH THEN importance degree is HIGH

IF centrality degree is HIGH AND impact degree is MEDIUM THEN importance degree is HIGH

IF centrality degree is HIGH AND impact degree is LOW THEN importance degree is MEDIUM

IF centrality degree is MEDIUM AND impact degree is HIGH THEN importance degree is HIGH

IF centrality degree is MEDIUM AND impact degree is MEDIUM THEN importance degree is MEDIUM

IF centrality degree is MEDIUM AND impact degree is LOW THEN importance degree is LOW

IF centrality degree is LOW AND impact degree is HIGH THEN importance degree is MEDIUM

IF centrality degree is LOW AND impact degree is MEDIUM THEN importance degree is LOW

IF centrality degree is LOW AND impact degree is LOW THEN importance degree is LOW

Finally, this analysis supported the K-space expansion and the identification of the shared concern, namely a shared representation and formulation of a “problem” which in reality serves as a representation or “recall” of the different concerns and stakes carried by the different stakeholders (see Ostanello and Tsoukias 1993; Pluchinotta et al. 2019a), representing the starting point for group discussions leading to the generation of policy alternatives.

4.2 The C-Space

Following the expansion of the K-space and identification of the shared concern, a one-day stakeholder workshop (Figure 5) was aimed at innovatively generating policy alternatives for the Kokkinochoria GW management using a C-K theory framework.

Within the P-C phase, stakeholders evaluate the dominant design (i.e. traditional policy alternatives) and propose innovative ones through the expansion of the C-space. The C-space allows illustrating various alternatives as concepts connected to the “initial design task” thanks to the tree-like structure (Agogué et al. 2014a). It represents the map of all identified possibilities, highlighting the dominant design and improving the search for new alternatives.

Firstly, the individual K-spaces and the shared concern are discussed in order to build a common knowledge ground, representing the starting points for the generative workshop. Secondly, the traditional policy alternatives derived from the semi-structured interviews and the P-K phase (i.e. dominant design) are described to all the participants. Stakeholders were asked to collectively discuss and rank the traditional policy alternatives (i.e. the ranking represents the initial importance that participants give to the proposed solutions as key action to resolve the problem under consideration). The traditional solutions are (from most important to be considered to the least important): pricing strategy depending on water uses; improvement of water distribution infrastructure (conveyor); raising of the farmers’ and communities’ environmental awareness; alternative sources of water (desalination and reuse); improvement of GW monitoring and metering; agricultural subsidies (changing crops); increased control of the territory; improvement of the irrigation techniques; centralized systems for irrigation; reduction of irrigated areas; central system for desalination; use rainwater and surface water; changing habits and mentality.

Thereafter, the participants were asked to suggest possible expansions of the C-tree, following the C-K theory framework. The discussion led to the generation of different design paths within the expansion of the C-space. The outcome was a portfolio of policy alternatives shared with all the stakeholders which also included the introduction of a few innovative policy alternatives. Lastly, a general discussion of the group activities concludes the generative workshop. The generative workshop (Figure 6) represented a learning process since the participants tend to learn beyond their actual knowledge according to the principles of K- and C-space expansion (see Pluchinotta et al. 2019a for details).

The C-tree showing the policy alternatives generated for the problem of GW protection and water management for the agricultural sector of the Kokkinochoria area is shown in Figure 7 and Supplementary Material. Using a colour code, the C-tree is divided as follows: (i) the branches with known policy alternatives are coloured in black (dominant design), (ii) the ones in blue indicate policy alternatives generated using existing knowledge or a combination of K-space subsets (i.e. policy alternatives used in best practices of comparable case studies), and (iii) the paths in green represent new path for innovative policy alternatives. Both the alternatives in blue and green represent the C-space expansion, obtained thanks to the co-evolution of the K- and C- spaces.

Figure 6. The P-KCP one-day generative workshop hosted by WDD

Figure 7. The C-space showing all the policy alternatives generated – dominant design (black), known alternative (blue), unknown alternative (green)

5. Discussion and Conclusions

This paper develops and tests an upgraded methodology for policy design based on an integration of PSMs, for building and expanding the K-space, and a C-K theory-based tool, for supporting the generative C-phase. The results of the activities carried out in the Cyprus case study allow us to demonstrate that the P-KCP, an integrated and participatory tool generation of policy alternatives, could be considered as a suitable approach for supporting policy design, accounting for the main differences in problem framings among the different decision makers and stakeholders. Generally, the P-KCP is a methodology formalizing the policy design process based on C-K theory. It supports the generation of innovative alternatives thanks to the co-evolution of the K- and C-spaces. It connects local and expert knowledge within the design process thanks to the construction of a collective problem understanding. The contribution of PSMs in eliciting and structuring stakeholders’ knowledge is a key element for ensuring an inclusive K-space. The difference between the proposed method and other participatory and/or brainstorming procedures is that the collection of new ideas and suggestions is structured by the C-tree where the explicit presence of attributes (characterizing any new design) are expected to be relevant for given stakeholders. The tree-like structure allows pinpointing how the problem and the possible solutions are seen by the stakeholders collectively. In other terms, a C-K theory-based tool for the design of policy alternative aims not only to collect ideas, but also to structure values that matter for designing and deciding. Specifically, PSMs are shown to be suitable to support the elicitation of the different viewpoints involved in the collective decision-making process. As demonstrated in the literature, differences in problem framings could enhance the effectiveness of the collective process by improving creativity. Nevertheless, the polarization of the participants’ opinions, with consequent difficulties in finding a common base for discussion and for creating innovative policies, is a risk that needs to be dealt with in collective decision-making processes. The Cyprus case study demonstrated that structured methods for collecting different problem understandings, and detecting and analysing differences/similarities, greatly facilitated the discussion on the development of the C-space. More specifically, different views and conflicting interests converged under the recognition of similar threats related to water resources. During the discussion, the actors have reached compromising representations of reality and have largely understood the rationale of each other’s views. It is interesting to note that a key decision maker from the administration participating in the process was initially astounded especially by the farmers’ position as a response to his presentation of the dire situation of the waters based on hard evidence. He came to realize, however, that the important role and value of agriculture and especially of the Cypriot potato in terms of (i) preservation of culture, (ii) element of national identity and pride, (iii) food security, (iv) job security and (v) an “absorber of shocks” or “insurance”, is not just a national “myth” but rather an everyday reality for the local farmers. This special role legitimizes “sacrifices to sustain the sector” (shared view to a different degree between actors). In this frame a lively discussion was sparked on potential solutions to overcome the obstacles. A surprising outcome of this discussion, however, was that the European directives and policies were viewed rather as a barrier for the implementation of locally devised solutions (e.g. subsidies for water, agricultural policies) with high potential in terms of legitimacy and acceptance. This has further implications for the role of EU policy making vis-à-vis the particularities of insular European territories.

It is worth mentioning that the collection and integration of individual problem understanding allowed to build the policy design process attributing equal importance to the different pieces of knowledge gathered through the stakeholders’ engagement. The risks associated with power relationswere constrained by thestructure of the C-K expansion process and the dichotomy between expert and local knowledge, characterizing the traditional policy design approaches.

The construction of the C-space is strictly dependent on the enhanced K-space, as explained by the C-K theory framework. The coevolution of the two spaces re-establishes communication between stakeholders by unfixing the group from the dominant design, i.e. traditional and known policy alternatives. Fixation phenomena within the policy design process bring policy makers and stakeholders into conflicting and unsustainable situations. Furthermore, the one-day generative workshop for the C-space expansion led antagonistic stakeholders to discuss their collected knowledge. The new knowledge injections represented the starting point for stimulating discussions during the generative mechanism for the C-space exploration. For instance, initially, the discussions were driven by conflicting situations due to knowledge limitations and fixation phenomena, while after the injection of new knowledge and the alignment of problem frames, participants were more willing to cooperate in constructive and operative debates. This had positive effects on the workshop results, namely unfixed participants proposed non-traditional solutions or integrated known alternatives in a different perspective.

The experiences described in this work also showed some limitations of the implemented approach. Firstly, capturing and processing stakeholders’ knowledge starting from individual inputs is time-consuming and requires substantial efforts by skilled analysts for post-processing the information collected during the individual interviews. Secondly, the selection of the stakeholders is a key step in making the process successful. The knowledge elicited by interacting with them is the basis of the whole process. Therefore, their representativeness needs to be accounted for during the selection of the stakeholders to be involved. Moreover, the process described in this work is quite lengthy and requires the stakeholders to go through different phases of individual inputs and group discussions. Thus, the stakeholders’ selection should also account for their willingness to commit themselves to the whole process. Thirdly, the use of FCM for simulated qualitative scenarios was questioned by some of the participants. The participants seemed inclined to prefer quantitative evaluation, rather than qualitative results. Efforts for combining the FCM with a more quantitative modelling approach are already being performed.

In conclusion, although some improvements are still needed, the integrated approach described in this work could be a valuable method for enhancing the policy design process.

Acknowledgements

The research activities described in this work were supported by Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, specifically the Integrative Research Institute on Transformations of Human-Environment Systems (IRI THESys), which received funding from the German Excellence Initiative. We would like to thank the project team for their kind cooperation, and the institutional and non-institutional stakeholders who provided their knowledge and expertise as the basis of this work.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Irene Pluchinotta

Irene Pluchinotta is a research fellow at University College London. She is currently working on the innovative design of Public Policies. She is an environmental engineer using operational research to support decision-making processes for environmental policies and resilient cities. Based on a double PhD in environmental engineering and computer science, her work provides formal approaches to decision makers and structured stakeholders’ engagement activities.

Raffaele Giordano

Raffaele Giordano has been a research scientist at the Water Research Institute (CNR) since 2005. His main research field concerns the integration of scientific and stakeholders’ knowledge to develop decision support tools for drought risk assessment and water management. His current research activities involve dealing with participatory modelling for conflict analysis in drought management.

Dimitrios Zikos

Dimitrios Zikos is Professor at HTW Berlin, Department of Economics. He completed an MBA on Environmental Management at the University of Liverpool, and a PhD at the Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences. His research focuses on the implicit study of conflict and cooperation on natural resources from an institutionalist perspective.

Tobias Krueger

Tobias Krueger is Junior Professor at the Integrative Research Institute on Transformations of Human–Environment Systems (IRI THESys) of Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. His research interests include transdisciplinary water research, statistical modelling and uncertainty analysis. Tobias holds a PhD in Environmental Science from Lancaster University and spent five years as a postdoc at the University of East Anglia.

Alexis Tsoukiàs

Alexis Tsoukiàs is a research director at LAMSADE-CNRS (Laboratory for Analysis and Modelling Systems for Aid to Decision - National Research Council), PSL (Paris Sciences et Lettres) University, Université Paris Dauphine. He was Director of the LAMSADE until 2018 and is national coordinator of the Policy Analytics Research Network (https://www.gdr3720.fr). His research interests are multi-criteria decision analysis, non-conventional preference modelling, policy analytics, non-classical logics, mathematical programming, AI and decision theory.

Notes

1. http://www1.nyc.gov/site/designcommission/index.page

2. https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/eupolicylab/about-us/

3. http://en.unesco.org/inclusivepolicylab/

4. http://mind-lab.dk/en/

5. http://www.desisnetwork.org/

6. https://openpolicy.blog.gov.uk/category/policy-lab/

7. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/open-policy-making-toolkit

8. http://www.designforeurope.eu/

9. http://www.designpolicy.eu/ and http://www.deepinitiative.eu/