Evaluation of water basin plans: consensus on characteristics and action implementation stage

Avaliação de planos de bacias hidrográficas: consenso sobre estágio de características e de implementação de ações

Abstract

The work was carried out within the scope of the management of the hydrographic basins of the Quaraí and Pardo rivers, both in the State of Rio Grande do Sul, In view of the above, the objective of the present study was to analyze the characteristics, approach to environmental services and level of implementation of river basin plan actions in RS. The Delphi method was applied to 31 participants from two river basin committees, aiming to obtain consensus on the characterization and implementation stages of the respective river basin plans. It is concluded that it was possible to evaluate the river basin plans and identify flaws and insufficiencies in their characterizations and levels of action implementation.

Keywords:
Diagnosis; Self-assessment methodology; Water resources management

Resumo

O trabalho foi elaborado no âmbito da gestão das bacias hidrográficas dos rios Quaraí e Pardo, ambos no Estado do Rio Grande do Sul (RS). Os objetivos do artigo são: avaliar os planos de bacia hidrográfica dos referidos comitês, realizar um diagnóstico da implementação das ações e propor uma metodologia de autoavaliação do referido instrumento de gestão. Conclui-se que foi possível avaliar os planos de bacia hidrográfica e identificar falhas e insuficiências nas suas caracterizações e níveis de implementação das ações.

Palavras-chave:
Diagnóstico; Metodologia de autoavaliação; Gestão de recursos hídricos

INTRODUCTION

The most strategic instrument of the State Water Resources Policy of Rio Grande do Sul (RS) is the river basin plan (PBH). The PBH involves complex environmental assessments, resulting from its multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary bias, necessary for river basin management. In the state of Rio Grande do Sul, this complexity of analysis has been reflected in the difficulty of executing, in the territory of the river basins, the actions proposed in the PBH. After 28 years of the promulgation of Law No. 10,350 of 1994, of the 25 river basins in the State, 11 river basins have a complete PBH, 7 have an incomplete plan (with some of the phases prepared), and 6 without a plan (Rio Grande do Sul, 1994). The plans that have been completed present serious flaws in the implementation of their actions. In part, these have had precarious tools to support the implementation of proposed actions, as in the PBHs of Rio dos Sinos and Rio Pardo (Caramez, 2019; Cardoso, 2019). Others are innocuous and inert in the face of reality, such as the PBH of the Gravataí river, for example, where this basin often experiences serious water shortages, with impediments to water capture (Rio Grande do Sul, 2020a, 2020b).

The common and current structure used in all PBH is complex, involving many instances, entities and regions of the basin that need to be articulated. There is a poorly understood discrepancy between PBH content and basin management. Furthermore, this discrepancy is emphasized by legislation, such as § 2 of article 130, of State Law No. 15,434 of 2020, which establishes the compatibility of sanitation plans, director and other instruments with the provisions of the PBH (Rio Grande do Sul, 2020c).

An alternative to identifying the problem is the proposal of an evaluation method, together with the River Basin Committee (CBH), capable of generating a consensus that signals the status of the content of a river basin plan. The CBH is an important deliberative entity, because it represents civil society, water users and public authorities, as well as environmental aspects and processes. The representation of the CBH is holistic, because each person who is part of the CBH represents an entity, which encompasses many other people from civil society and/or water users (Figure 1).

Figure 1
Total sectors of society, represented on the River Basin Committee. Source: Prepared by the author.

To seek this consensus, the Delphi method can be used. Used in more than 20 different areas of knowledge, the Delphi method was created to generate consensus on difficult topics, and its use is very broad and varied in research (Bui et al., 2020; Ewaid et al., 2020; Gupta & Clarke, 1996; Hirschhorn, 2019; Ocampo et al., 2018). By applying this method, it would be possible to achieve a first step towards detecting flaws and insufficiencies in river basin plans together with their management committees. The results may indicate, through the perceptions of committee representatives, whether the content and structure are closer to local reality, and whether it would be possible to propose improvements. In view of the above, the objective of the present study was to analyze the characteristics, approach to environmental services and level of implementation of river basin plan actions in RS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The work was carried out within the scope of the management of the hydrographic basins of the Quaraí and Pardo rivers, both in RS. These are two distinct hydrographic regions, in which the Quaraí river basin is in the Uruguay hydrographic region, and the Pardo river basin is in the Guaíba hydrographic region. Firstly, these basins were chosen because they are located in different hydrographic regions and are in different phases of the Hydrographic Basin Plan in front of the SERH.

Secondly, the choice was made due to the different uses of water and soil, as well as the different representations in the Basin Committees, which can allow for greater scope in discussions.

The composition of representatives was 20% from public authorities, 40% from water users and 40% from civil society, with proven performance in the basin. Users are those who have rights to enjoy water resources, whether or not subject to a formal concession of the right of use. Representatives of the Public Power are part of entities linked to municipal and state governments. Finally, civil society representatives come from organizations that represent the general and diffuse interests of the local community. This is the pattern of composition in all committees, which brings together multiple interests and views in sectors such as: sanitation, tourism, agriculture, energy, mining, traditional communities, among others. Finally, these CBHs are active and communication with them was accessible, complementing the justification for choosing the basins.

To organize and better present the sequence of methodological procedures carried out by the researcher, a division into subchapters was carried out, regarding the way in which the proposed objective is intended to be achieved. Such care was taken so that the interpretations generated are not extrapolated to other instruments for water resources management actions, spheres larger than the work proposes and/or with different characteristics. The materials are presented below, that is, the sources of information used to develop the results.

The sources of information used to develop the work were information available to the general public, such as information contained in the management committee of the Quaraí and Pardo river basin; and Plans for the Quaraí and Pardo river basins. The data relating to the river basin committees were official documents peripheral to the plan and complementary to the work objective. Data explored in PBH were its components, programs or actions. Information from published scientific studies, as well as directive documents, such as National Water Resources Plans, State Water Resources Plans and legislation focused on the environment and water resources, were considered to discuss the results.

Computational resources were used for preparation, storage and statistical analysis. Also, access to the internet network and tools provided by Google were required, such as cloud storage and email. The summarized sequence of the methodological procedure followed the steps set out in Figure 2. Each step was further detailed below, in different subchapters.

Figure 2
Flowchart of methodological steps applied to achieve the proposed objective. Source: Prepared by the author.

Construction of the watershed plan assessment

The PBHs evaluated were those in the Quaraí and Pardo river basins, both in RS. To evaluate the River Basin Plans, we sought to develop a metric system, which would allow generating responses through numerical indication. This favored the organization of interpretations, as well as enabling the results to be more easily evaluated for planning, processes and actions. Thus, part of the methodology initially proposed by Cifuentes et al. (2000), adapted by Mota (2018). The authors developed a method with two types of indicators, one for characterization and the other for implementing actions. The two types were described below, as well as the adaptations made to achieve the proposed objective.

Hydrographic basin plan characterization stage indicators

The characterization indicators proposed by Cifuentes et al. (2000) were initially designed for the management of protected areas. Mota (2018) adapted them to evaluate absent or present constituents at different levels of Water Resources Planning and Management Units, interpreting them from the perspective of the implementation of Water Resources Master Plans. In both works mentioned, the characterization ranges were maintained, whose value varied from 0 to 1, although the characterization criteria were adapted (Table 1). The same occurred in the present work. In this case, the classification bands represent a quantitative perception of the characteristics of the river basin plan in different constituents of it.

Table 1
Characterization indicators.

Numerical classification of the indicator	Characterization range	Meaning
0	0 to 0.25	Terrible trait stage
0.25	0.26 to 0.50	Bad trait stage
0.5	0.51 to 0.70	Regular trait stage
0.75	0.71 to 0.90	Good trait stage
1	0.91 to 1.00	Optimal trait stage

• Source: Cifuentes et al. (2000); Mota (2018).

Characterization indicators were used to clarify the range of deficiencies, problems and distortions in the content and structure of PBHs. The null value means that the characterization is very precarious, while the unit value indicates an excellent assignment for the criterion. The aforementioned criteria followed 3 guidelines, usually existing in the terms of reference for creating river basin plans. They were as follows: I) Concepts and phases of conception and elaboration (Diagnosis); II) Process of articulation, mobilization and agreement (Prognosis); III) Actions and programs (Action plan). The process of articulation and mobilization is fundamental in all parts of the construction of the River Basin Plan. But in terms of prognosis, this is very important, since 13 of the 25 basins in the State of Rio Grande do Sul are still included in this prospective analysis. Therefore, this process is crucial for: stakeholder engagement; collecting data and information for future scenarios and informed decision making; awareness and education to the local community; legitimacy and acceptance of proposals; identification of joint solutions, ensuring a participatory and collective process.

Among the three guiding lines above, 24 characterizing criteria were used, also considered necessary components of the structure of a PBH. Each of the 24 criteria derived from water planning assumptions, adapted from CNRH (Brasil, 2012), Loucks & van Beek (2017) and World Bank (2018). Such assumptions by the aforementioned authors were starting points for water planning reasoning, which, in this work, served as support for assigning and consolidating the characterization indicators, as well as the subsequent quality of the interpretative approach. In the case of this study, it was adapted to what was proposed by the aforementioned authors, adding, for some criteria, aspects related to environmental services (Table 2). All this information was transformed into a free-choice questionnaire, later covered in the next subchapter, and is also present in the appendices. These contained the PBH components, characterizing criteria and numerical values to be assigned with simple demarcation. The questionnaires had a standard format, changing the informative text regarding each characterizing criterion.

Table 2
Guidelines containing a list of indicators characterizing the structure and content of the river basin plan, with characterizing criteria and class values.

Guiding line I: Concepts and phases of conception and elaboration	1. The plan's objectives reflect the basin's main problems.
	2. Strategy for the participatory and social mobilization process.
	3. Sufficient data (in quantity and quality).
	4. Consideration of climate change on water availability and environmental services.
	5. Consideration of extreme weather events in the basin.
	6. Definition of criteria for water allocation between different users.
	7. Definition of criteria and conditions for delivering water to the downstream basin.
	8. It presents guidelines for managing water demand and associated environmental processes.
	9. Presents a survey of environmental services in the river basin.
	10. Scenarioization considers the issue of water supply and environmental services.
	11. Water use priorities depending on a conflict scenario, multiple uses and water environmental services provided by the basin.
	12. Goals to be achieved.
	13. Existence of financial planning via traditional sources and/or focused on payment for environmental services.
	14. Different forms of resources to carry out the actions, or strategy/estimate of fundraising potential.
Guiding line II: Process of articulation, mobilization and agreement	1. Coordination with sectoral policies.
	2. Coordination with the State Water Resources Plan.
	3. Action of the basin committee in the stages of the plan.
	4. Participatory process.
	5. Implementation of prior institutional pacts.
Guiding line III: Actions and programs	1. Existence of a specific structure, methods or organization for implementing and monitoring the Plan.
	2. Definition of indicators for evaluating the implementation of the Plan.
	3. Existence of institutional mechanisms to guarantee the implementation of the plan, compliance requirements.
	4. Disclosure of the Plan for Society.
	5. Compliance with the action implementation schedule.

• Source: Adapted CNRH (Brasil 2012), Loucks & van Beek (2017).

Hydrographic basin plan action implementation indicators

The second part of the evaluation of PBHs referred to the level of implementation of their actions. Thus, the actions of the PBHs in the Quaraí and Pardo River basins were collected, which can be verified in Annexes A and B. Mota (2018) proposed analyzing the execution per action, linking it to an individual numerical indicator. The present work followed this form and the indicators were also proposed with evaluation results from 0 to 1. The null value means that compliance with the action was not initiated, while the unit value indicates full compliance with it (Table 3). The variation in responses regarding the meaning corresponding to the numerical classification of the indicator can be understood both in relation to the time horizon of implementation and completion, as well as problems and/or advances in its execution.

Table 3
Action implementation indicators with five classes.

Numerical classification of the indicator	Implementation Range	Meaning
0	0 to 0.25	Action not started
0.25	0.26 to 0.50	Action just started
0.5	0.51 to 0.70	Partially completed action
0.75	0.71 to 0.90	Action almost completed
1	0.91 to 1.00	Action completely completed

• Source: Adapted from Mota (2018).

The information existing in the PBH, referring to the actions, together with the indicators shown in Table 3, resulted in the second questionnaire. This questionnaire can be viewed in the Supplementary Material. It is known that in PBHs, each action can be included in a program, with a defined goal. However, as part of the objective of the research is the evaluation of the plan in terms of implementation of actions, the programs themselves and temporal goals did not need to be considered, as there are already assumptions about this in the form of the response. The questionnaires had a standard format, changing the informative text for each action.

Delphi method for analysis and consensus generation

To apply the questionnaires from the two previous subchapters, the Delphi method was used. There are three types of Delphi studies, conventional, normative and Policy Delphi (Marques & Freitas, 2018). For the present work, the Delphi method was used in the normative modality. This modality focuses on identifying and setting objectives and priorities, rather than speculation and predictions, which would be the priority of other modalities of the method. With the Delphi method in the normative modality, the aim is to generate consensus on a structure, project or certain subject, based on what is desirable and not what is likely to happen (Yousuf, 2007).

The application of the Delphi method was carried out in several stages. According to the reference consulted (Grisham, 2009; Kayo & Securato, 1997; Linstone & Turoff, 2002; Marques & Freitas, 2018; Serra et al., 2009; Silva & Tanaka, 1999; Yousuf, 2007), the application of the Delphi method is divided into ten steps: I) Choosing the group of experts; II) Construction of the questionnaire; III) First contact with experts and invitation to participate in the research; IV) Sending the questionnaire for the first time, characterizing the first round of the method; V) Receipt of responses relating to the first sending of the questionnaire; VI) Qualitative and quantitative analysis of the content of the responses; VII) Sending the second questionnaire with feedback, that is, synthesis of the analysis, characterizing the second round of the method; VIII) Receiving responses regarding the sending of the second questionnaire and analyzing whether there was consensus; IX) If there is no consensus, up to 4 rounds of questionnaires can be sent, interspersed with the respective analyses; X) End of the process and final writing (Figure 3).

Figure 3
Simple flowchart for applying the Delphi method, containing three rounds. Source: Marques & Freitas (2018).

Choice of participants

Choosing participants is the essential step to guarantee the breadth of knowledge representation in the Delphi method (Delbecq et al., 1975). At this stage, it was assumed that, for the research, knowledge and experience about CBH and the river basin as an environmental management unit were necessary. To identify participants, two conventional approaches were combined, as proposed by Hirschhorn (2019). According to the author, the first approach is sampling based on types of actors, according to their sectors, and the second is sampling called snowball. The first approach seeks representativeness in terms of perspectives, via sampling actors from different affiliations. In snowball sampling, the researcher chooses a small number of interested parties and then asks them to recommend other participants, in a pre-determined proportion. In the case of the present research, instead of naming individuals as participants, the term “participant” was used.

Given the above, one participant was chosen for each basin. Based on each of these, another twenty participants were recommended per basin. This number was stipulated as sufficient for this type of research, according to Atran et al. (2005), Creswell (1998) and Morse (1994). Therefore, a total of 40 participants in the two basins were invited to participate in the research methodology. Of all the invited participants, a total of 31 participants accepted the invitation, carried out the method and completed the questionnaire, 10 from the Quaraí River Basin Committee, and 21 from the Pardo River Basin Committee. The profile of participants in basin committees involves understanding the interconnection between different uses of water and ecosystems, awareness of the needs and challenges faced in the basin, representation of interests and concerns of their category, connection with the community, familiarity with legislation and regulations related to water. As one of the main characteristics of the Delphi method is anonymity, no invited participant could know about the participation of others. Therefore, no participant's name was exposed.

Regarding the types of participants, we sought those who had already carried out activities, preferably related to the Hydrographic Basin Committee. That is, they have or have had some form of prior experience with river basin committees. The variability of water user groups, civil society and public authorities was taken into account. However, participants were also considered to be individuals who were indirectly, in the past, involved with a basin committee, who could be working in: I) Non-governmental organization; II) Association and union of rural producers; III) Educational institutions; IV) Other participating bodies or similar entities; VI) Consultancies operating in the basin.

The composition of the total number of participants was not immediate. After trying to fill out the matrix for the first time, the first participants were asked to recommend other potential individuals (snowball sampling), in keeping with what was recommended by Hirschhorn (2019). When refusing to participate, new participants not previously listed were invited to the panel. Until the moment this study was carried out, the invited participants were or are, directly or indirectly, river basin participants (representatives of user groups or not), who have been assiduously involved over the years with water resources management and associated environmental processes.

It is also worth highlighting that, in integrated river basin management, there are individuals experienced in the subject who do not have academic training and/or are outside academic debates. There are various types of actors, professionals and residents in the basin who contribute to the management process, which is what makes it shared and participatory.

In this sense, it should be noted that the designation of such individuals as participants was also assumed, due to temporal experience both within river basin committees or in related entities, mentioned in the previous paragraph. It is reiterated that, in addition, some of the participants already had experiences in other river basins, other than those in this study.

Pilot test

A pilot test was carried out on this part of the methodology. This was done with the two invited participants to extend the research invitation to the others. This is a strategy that helps define the standard of research instruments designed, as it is done before contact with the subjects defined for the study (Danna, 2012). The pilot case study improves plans for information collection, whether via data content or the procedures to be followed (Yin, 2005). Given the above, the researcher participates in a test situation, designed with characteristics very close to those planned for the research (Danna, 2012). After applying the test, it became possible to verify whether or not the proposed research method was validated, or whether adjustments were needed in the methodological design.

Application of questionnaires

Once the piloting test was completed, the two questionnaires were submitted online, using the Google forms tool. This tool allowed us to collect responses and organize information for free. The questionnaires had an informative text on the first page, containing the objective of the research, as well as response guidelines. Before starting the evaluation, optionally, participants were invited to provide their name and the entity described, indicating, if so, its name. Participants were also properly instructed on the research context, deadlines, and that the questionnaire has an application methodology, containing the option of accepting or not participating in this method.

The questionnaires presented had, in their body, the following order: 1°) PBH characterization indicators; 2°) Indicators for implementing actions in PBH. The two questionnaires were sent together, in sequence, on the same Google form. Sending was simultaneous to all participants, constituting the first round of the Delphi method. This was via hidden email, so that it would not be known who the participants were. The subsequent questionnaire, that is, the same questionnaire corresponding to the second round, was only sent to each participant at the end of the period, followed by receipt and synthesis of all by the researcher. Each participant was given 15 calendar days to respond, completing a round of questions. Adding the period for analysis of responses by the researcher, which was 5 days, it took a total of 35 days to complete the two rounds. After this period, the responses to the questionnaires were evaluated, and the processes of generating results and discussion began.

It was from the generation of the synthesis of numerical responses, that is, the average, that the controlled feedback sent was carried out. It is noteworthy here that the Delphi method does not require or establish the need for equitable feedback on responses, but rather seeks consensus, which is why it is considered controlled. In this sense, it was up to the researcher to observe the trend of responses and provide feedback focused on generating consensus.

As the forms had numerical responses, they were less open to interpretation, facilitating the controlled feedback process. The results presented the sum and average of the responses of all participants who answered the questionnaire rounds. The average served to show the stage of characterization of the PBH and the implementation of actions. The sum was presented so that, together with the presentation of the variation in responses between rounds, it was possible to interpret whether the response (characterizing criterion or level of implementation) had extreme dissonance (very isolated positions). If the sum decreased from one round to another, the variation would be negative, indicating a reduction in understanding of the characterization stage or implementation level. If the sum increased from one round to another, the variation would be positive, indicating an increase in understanding of the characterization stage or implementation level. When extreme dissonance occurred, it was decided to eliminate them from the controlled feedback, since this is their objective in the method. Finally, positive or negative variations of up to one unit were considered satisfactory for reaching consensus.

Research ethics

This investigation was not submitted to the Ethics Council. This is because the research methodology is aimed at collecting public opinion in a broad sense, with unidentified participants, to statistically calculate data, according to guidelines contained in Resolution No. 510 (Brasil, 2016). The primary data was obtained from public and unrestricted sources. Nowhere during the research was there human interaction with observed individuals, nor any means of manipulating and/or recording identifiable personal data.

The questionnaires were administered without the obligation to identify the interviewee, anonymously and voluntarily. The research ensured the rights of the participating individuals, previously requesting their consent via invitation. There is, therefore, a voluntary nature of participation, possibility of withdrawal, guarantee of preservation of anonymity, and it is optional for the participant to voluntarily identify themselves.

All questions were impersonal and the information was stored in a database, without it being possible to identify the participants. This is in line with and in accordance with article 1, sole paragraph, items I to V of Resolution No. 510/2016 of the National Health Council (Brasil, 2016). Thus, national and international ethical and scientific foundations were met.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Initially, results were presented regarding the number of responses received from participants. This is because some of the participants did not complete the method, while some participants did not respond to the questionnaires within the set deadline, others only responded to the first round of the method. The aforementioned lack of completion of the method was attributed to lack of interest or forgetfulness of the deadlines set, once the invitation occurred and a pilot test was carried out to eliminate doubts and mismatches in the questionnaires. Even so, considering the literature on collection numbers and methods (Atran et al., 2005; Creswell, 1998; Morse, 1994) such as Delphi, the number of participants who completed the procedure was considered satisfactory. Especially given the need for simultaneous advancement among everyone and the anonymity that the method requires.

Despite the above, the Delphi method proved capable of indicating a consensus among participants in river basin committees regarding their understanding of water planning assumptions existing in river basin plans. Next, the results obtained were discussed.

Characterization of River Basin Plans

Watershed plans were evaluated. The discussion of the results obtained was divided into three subchapters, according to the three guiding lines that form a PBH: Concepts and phases of conception and elaboration; process of articulation, mobilization and agreement; actions and programs. They are presented below.

Guiding line I: concepts and phases of conception and elaboration

The results of applying the Delphi method are presented below (Table 4). It should be noted that the results relating to the variation between rounds represent a number of disagreements obtained. When negative, it means that there was a reduction in the understanding of the characterizing criterion as being adequate. When positive, it means that there was an increase in the understanding of the characterizing criterion as being appropriate. The variation in responses between rounds can also be understood as the influence of the average response on the participant, regarding each characterizing criterion. The above interpretations refer to the results of all guidelines.

Table 4
Results of the Delphi method for the criteria characterizing guideline III.

Characterizing criterion	Round	Sum of response values	Average responses	Variation of responses (Round 2 - Round 1)
Existence of a specific structure. methods or organization for implementing and monitoring the Plan	Round 1	14.25	0.68	0
	Round 2	14.25	0.68
Definition of indicators for evaluating the implementation of the Plan	Round 1	12.75	0.61	0
	Round 2	12.75	0.61
Existence of institutional mechanisms to guarantee the implementation of the plan. requirement for compliance	Round 1	14	0.67	0
	Round 2	14	0.67
Disclosure of the Plan for Society	Round 1	13.75	0.65	-0.5
	Round 2	13.25	0.63
Compliance with the action implementation schedule	Round 1	9	0.43	-0.25
	Round 2	9	0.43

• Source: Prepared by the author.

Initially, the characterizing criteria considered to be in bad stages were addressed. The characterizing criteria related to environmental services were consensually poor. This was expected, firstly because the PBH terms of reference do not include, for example, the conception of water environmental services in the basin. Furthermore, the basis of the ecological economy of ecosystem services was only consolidated a few years ago in the river basin, and most scientific studies are recent. However, the plan has a planning horizon of 20 years, the time provided for in the State of RS's terms of reference. Therefore, it is reasonable to mention that the needs for solutions in the basin do not tend to change during this period, as the planning carried out already seeks to anticipate problems and improve existing solutions. Furthermore, study participants tend to have been involved in plenary sessions of the plan's stages, maintaining or receiving memory of the importance of the characterizing criterion.

Observing the history of the formation of water resources management, it was in the river basin that it was consolidated, given the environmental impacts of human beings, and adverse effects on them. Additionally, scientific research helped to understand the environmental management unit in the river basin, corroborating the integrated management of water resources. In this sense, adding the concept of environmental services to the river basin would enable an integrated view of the elements and processes (soil, water, relief, flora, fauna, human interference, among others) that are articulated in this space (Ruffino & Santos, 2002; Meier & Mazzarino, 2020). This requires time to transpose and mature ideas arising from events that generate environmental impacts and eventualities, which could link environmental services at the planning level in the river basin.

A poor characteristic stage was obtained in the scenario criteria that considers the issue of water supply and environmental services. In the criterion on the existence of financial planning via traditional sources and/or focused on payment for environmental services, they were also considered bad, according to the proposed classification. There is a relationship between these results, where scenarioization and financial planning are interconnected, as both signal what and how we intend to provide future solutions to problems in the river basin. There are also two criteria that, in PBHs, allow the visualization of possibilities for different initiatives, anticipating potential adversities in the basin.

Is an important result, because it is from the scenarios and financial planning, combined with social actors, that targeted and tangible actions emerge. And it is the CBHs that encompass privileged spaces for governance in the process of public management of water resources, which requires public policies, institutions, resources and society, which ensure the process, guidance, continuity and legitimacy respectively (Machado, 2012; Tagliani & Asmus, 2011).

Even so, the result regarding the different forms of resources to carry out the actions, or strategy/estimate of fundraising potential, was considered average. This denotes that the participants recognize, in a mild way, that there are complementary means that can collaborate in the implementation of PBHs' actions.

The other characterizing criteria were consensually considered to be at medium stage. This included very basic criteria in the construction of a PBH, such as: I) Plan objectives reflect the main problems of the basin; II) Strategy for the participatory and social mobilization process; III) Sufficient data (in quantity and quality). The above result partially reflects the CBH facing challenges, such as the lack of a Hydrographic Region Agency for decision support and scarce financial resources. Such criteria would need to be better characterized, as it is in the river basin that, for example, the consequences of the forms of land use and occupation, and the use of the waters that converge there are reflected (Machado, 2012).

Guiding line II: process of articulation, mobilization and agreement

Guiding line II was marked by widespread consensus. There was no variation in responses, that is, change in the positioning of the participants. The overall average response was 0.68. This indicates an average stage of the characterizing criteria. The results can be seen in Table 5. Even without variation, it is noteworthy that the way in which the consensus is interpreted is the same as in guideline I.

Table 5
Results of guideline II.

Characterizing criterion	Round	Sum of response values	Average responses	Variation of responses (Round 2 - Round 1)
Coordination with sectoral policies	Round 1	14.25	0.68	0
	Round 2	14.25	0.68
Coordination with the State Water Resources Plan	Round 1	14.5	0.69	0
	Round 2	14.5	0.69
Action of the basin committee in the stages of the plan	Round 1	14.25	0.68	0
	Round 2	14.25	0.68
Participatory process	Round 1	14.25	0.68	0
	Round 2	14.25	0.68
Implementation of previous institutional pacts	Round 1	14.25	0.68	0
	Round 2	14.25	0.68

There was medium consensus on CBH's performance in the plan's stages. This is associated with the criterion of participatory processes, which was also considered average. In this sense, one aspect to be stated is that there is an understanding that the CBH's performance in the PBH is not, in its entirety, paired between its participants. One explanation for this understanding is that, in RS, for many years, the PBH were created by consultancies, through bidding notices, despite the terms of reference providing for the participation of the CBH in the preparation. Today, the Secretariat for the Environment and Infrastructure (SEMA) is making progress in carrying out plans that it considers strategic. Conduct, the aforementioned Secretariat, despite considerable efforts, has not been able to create all 24 river basin plans in the State.

Thus, despite appearing contrasting, there is a transition in understanding between these characterizing criteria, regarding who is the actor or entity considered the main actor in the creation of the PBH. In this sense, it is worth emphasizing that the technical bias of the PBH does not guarantee it as an instrument capable of expressing local reality. Only the participatory process via social mobilization is capable of sustaining this condition. Therefore, there may be a conflicting perception regarding the importance of social participation in the stages of the plan.

However, the evaluation regarding the articulation with sectoral policies, as well as with the State Water Resources Plan (PERH), was also average. Currently, PERH is being updated in RS, for a 20-year horizon. In this sense, the perception of these responses is that there tends to be less assertiveness on the part of PBH regarding PERH, which is State planning. Perhaps, such results are related to the important role assigned by the PNRH to basin committees, that is, as a consultative and even decision-making forum on water resources and associated environmental processes. In the case of PERH, it is a plan still constructed using traditional methods in the State. In other words, the responsibilities for its creation are more concentrated in state and federal administrations, where management organizations by river basin do not formally participate in decision-making (Machado, 2012). This may explain the average position obtained, as the CBHs do not properly deliberate on the PERH, in accordance with their mandate in Article 14 of Law 10,350 of 1994. The activation of the Technical Chamber of the State Water Resources Plan would be an alternative to monitor and deliberate better by PERH.

Guiding line III: actions and programs

This chapter presents the results and discussions on the criteria characterizing guideline III. This line is associated with phase C of the river basin plans.

Table 6 presents the sum, averages and variation of responses obtained by participants directly or indirectly involved with the river basin committee. There were small variations in the responses to the characterizing criteria. In other words, one or more participants changed their positions due to the influence of the average number of responses received.

Table 6
Results of sum, average and variation of responses.

Characterizing criterion	Round	Sum of bet amounts	Average responses	Variation of responses (Round 2 - Round 1)
Plan objectives reflect the basin's main problems	Round 1	14	0.67	-0.25
	Round 2	13.75	0.65
Strategy for the participatory and social mobilization process	Round 1	14	0.67	-0.25
	Round 2	13.75	0.65
Sufficient data (in quantity and quality)	Round 1	14	0.67	-0.25
	Round 2	13.75	0.65
Consideration of climate change on water availability and environmental services	Round 1	10.5	0.5	0
	Round 2	10.5	0.5
Consideration of extreme weather events in the basin	Round 1	13	0.62	0
	Round 2	13.75	0.65
Definition of criteria for water allocation between different users	Round 1	14.25	0.68	0
	Round 2	14.25	0.68
Definition of criteria and conditions for delivering water to the downstream basin.	Round 1	13.75	0.65	0
	Round 2	13.75	0.65
Presents guidelines for managing water demand and associated environmental processes	Round 1	11.5	0.55	0
	Round 2	11.5	0.55
Presents a survey of environmental services in the river basin	Round 1	5.5	0.26	0
	Round 2	5.5	0.26
Cenarization considers the issue of water supply and environmental services	Round 1	9.5	0.45	0
	Round 2	9.5	0.45
Water use priorities depending on a conflict scenario. multiple uses and water environmental services provided by the basin	Round 1	13.75	0.65	0
	Round 2	13.75	0.65
Goals to be achieved	Round 1	14	0.67	0
	Round 2	14	0.67
Existence of financial planning via traditional sources and/or focused on payment for environmental services	Round 1	9.5	0.45	0
	Round 2	9.5	0.45
Different forms of resources to carry out actions. or strategy/estimate of fundraising potential	Round 1	14	0.67	0
	Round 2	14	0.67

Clearly, one of the highlights of the responses is the low consensus regarding compliance with the implementation schedule. In particular, the average of 0.68 regarding the existence of a specific structure, methods or organization for implementing and monitoring the plan, denotes an extrapolated perception of the implementation process by the participants. This is because the time scale of implementation is low, because it is known that its practice is in reality CBHs, and is also very small. This is perceived by the average result attributed by participants to institutional mechanisms to guarantee the implementation of the plan, or demand compliance.

The aforementioned may also result from the lack of a mechanism that encourages or collaborates with this. This occurs because the relationship between the command and control concept and PBH, especially in phase C, is still very prominent. The SERH instruments (billing, framing, granting), provided for and used in the PBHs, were influenced by other instrument models from before 1994. The environmental functions performed by the basin (territory) are not seen in an integrated way, but rather discussed as isolated fragments, according to the interests of actors in a part of it. Oliveira & Brose (2021, p. 4) state that:

The pressure exerted by actors to have their interests observed helps shape the government agenda. There are several actors with the capacity to exert pressure, including legislators and the media. The territory, as an active element of the processes of power relations that develop within it, needs to be considered as a category of analysis, and not merely as a receptacle space or as a passive space. It is through the territory and its historical configuration that we can explain why certain decisions were taken and what role institutions, networks and actors played in this process.

In the current SERH instruments, there are no mechanisms that collaborate, encourage and/or encourage the implementation of integrated water resources management actions and the promotion of environmental conservation. One aspect to note in this is that postmodern science not only arises from the need for questions in a rapidly changing world, but also recognizes the fact that research must address urgent social issues (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1991, 1994).

The results did not show a low consensus on the ways CBHs have to evaluate action implementations. However, one of the biggest issues surrounding the implementation of actions is their financing. There is no evidence, for example, of assessments of the other paragraphs of item III, Article 27 of Law 10,350 of 1994, but only of the charge for water use. This is important because for the integrated management of water resources, it is also of interest that, in the medium and long term, a system is created capable of attracting users of natural resources to invest and improve the basin, consequently composing voluntary service of objectives and targets. However, many forms of financing actions are not yet perceived as an opportunity to improve the implementation of actions. Nor is there a list of essential themes in this sense in river basin plans. The presentation of forms of financing and execution of actions has still been very little detailed in the PBH, removing an essential part of the planning and attraction of new actors process.

Implementation of watershed plan actions

Together with participants from the river basins, the PBHs were assessed in terms of level of implementation of actions. Table 7 below shows the results for the Quaraí river basin plan. Only two rounds were needed to consolidate consensus among participants on the subject. The results demonstrated a wide variation between the implementation of actions, where many remained without beginning or slight initiation, and only one was considered almost completed.

Table 7
Level of implementation of actions in the Quaraí river basin plan.

Action name	Round	Sum of response values	Average responses	Variation of responses (Round 2 - Round 1)
Assembly of a compact network of water quality stations in the main leisure spots. close to the cities of Quaraí and Barra do Quaraí and in the main tributaries of the Quaraí river	Round 1	1.5	0.14	0
	Round 2	1.5	0.14
Discussion of the implementation of Municipal Basic Sanitation Plans	Round 1	5	0.45	0
	Round 2	5	0.45
Conservation and cleaning program for the banks of the Quaraí River	Round 1	3	0.27	0
	Round 2	3	0.27
Connection of components of the hydrological cycle in the Quaraí river basin	Round 1	0.25	0.02	0
	Round 2	0.25	0.02
Definition of draft project for private reservation in the basin	Round 1	2.25	0.2	0
	Round 2	2.25	0.2
Feasibility study for the construction of multiple-use reservoirs in the basin	Round 1	2.75	0.28	0
	Round 2	2.75	0.28
Discussion of binational interventions in the main channel of the Quaraí river and in the basin	Round 1	6.25	0.57	0
	Round 2	6.25	0.57
Disclosure of the basin water framing scenarios	Round 1	3.25	0.3	0
	Round 2	3.25	0.3
Feasibility study of structural measures to cope with floods	Round 1	1.75	0.16	0
	Round 2	1.75	0.16
Implementation of the flood warning system	Round 1	0	0	0
	Round 2	0	0
Implementation of an Environmental Education Working Group	Round 1	3.25	0.3	0
	Round 2	3.25	0.3
Discussion of Municipal Sanitation Plans	Round 1	7.25	0.66	0
	Round 2	7.25	0.66
Definition of the framework of the basin's watercourses	Round 1	1.5	0.14	0
	Round 2	1.5	0.14
Definition of priority and insignificant uses of water	Round 1	4.25	0.39	0.5
	Round 2	4.75	0.43
Defining the classification of water bodies into use classes	Round 1	2.25	0.2	0
	Round 2	2.25	0.2
Implementation of the permanent monitoring. monitoring and evaluation process of granting criteria	Round 1	10	0.91	0
	Round 2	10	0.91

Mota (2018) proposed a method to evaluate the degree of implementation of Water Resources Master Plans (PDRH), through the development of action implementation indicators and an index that allows comparing the degree of implementation between plans. The author applied it to the PDRH in the water resources planning and management units of Rio das Velhas, resulting, respectively, in a poor implementation condition and a good characterization condition. The author was able to seek correlations between the characteristics of the aforementioned river basin and the degree of implementation of the Water Resources Master Plan.

Similarly, to date, in the analysis of the Quaraí River PBH consensus, a similar result of implementation and characterization has been observed. A consensus in the second round, with ranges between the averages of the types of actions, reflects the clarity of the CBH participants about the flaws, insufficiencies and strengths of the PBH implementation. This is a result opposite to what would be, for example, more rounds needed for a consensus, the lack thereof, or a variation in the majority of answers close to or equal to 1.

In this sense, participants were engaged in understanding the level of implementation of actions, which can be effective in the planning process. However, it is noteworthy that the majority of these actions, due to the low consensus, greatly lack special technical and social attention. Next, the action with the highest level of implementation will be explained, and then some of the lower ones.

In the actions for the Quaraí river basin, the implementation of the process of monitoring, monitoring and evaluating the granting criteria was the action considered most completed. This answer most likely comes from the fact that the largest surface abstractions of raw water are from rural producers, for irrigating rice crops and watering animals from livestock farming. Most of the catchments come from the main river. To regularize such abstractions, it took several efforts on the part of the CBH, for years, to align a resolution with the National Water and Basic Sanitation Agency. These efforts culminated in Resolution 1,630 of November 10, 2014 (Brasil, 2014), which regularized the surface grant for 33 irrigators. This is monitored annually and irrigators need to submit the Annual Declaration of Use of Water Resources (DAURH).

There were consensually very low results that deserve to be highlighted, such as: implementation of the flood warning system; definition of the framework of the basin's water courses; connection of components of the hydrological cycle in the Quaraí river basin; and setting up water quality stations. These are actions arising from the planning process, that is, from phases A and B of the PBH. However, they are present in current legislation, namely: State Law No. 15,434 of 2020, which establishes the Environmental Code of Rio Grande do Sul; Federal Law No. 9,4333 of 1997, which deals with the National Water Resources Policy; and State Law No. 10,350 of 1994, which established the State Water Resources System.

One of the reasons, in this case, is the mix between the financing capacity of these actions and the difficulty of constantly maintaining a technical team at CBH during the implementation processes. For example, it is reported that the process of framing the watercourses of the Quaraí river basin was subject to several plenary sessions. These were focused on understanding social desires and demands regarding desirable water quality, as well as possible articulations in environmental territorial planning with actors who modify physical-chemical water attributes. At the time, there was agreement about the relationship between classes of classification required by society, and what was possible to obtain. With this, it was possible to move on to framing methods. However, the same did not happen for the reasons that began this paragraph. Furthermore, some plenary sessions related to the framing process were attended by representatives of the water concessionaire (from the municipalities of Santana do Livramento and Quaraí, which collected water from the main river), but there was no participation from municipal governments.

Below, in Table 8, the results of the consensus on the implementation of actions in the Pardo river basin are presented. It also took only two rounds to consolidate consensus among participants on the subject. The results showed little variation between the implementation of actions, where 4 were considered partially completed and the others had only begun.

Table 8
Level of implementation of actions in the Pardo river basin plan.

Action name	Round	Sum of response values	Average responses	Variation of responses (Round 2 - Round 1)
Encouraging the rational use of water in agriculture. human supply and industry	Round 1	4	0.4	0
	Round 2	4	0.4
Assessment of the use of alternative sources - wells and cisterns	Round 1	4.25	0.425	0
	Round 2	4.25	0.425
Aquifer zoning and protection of recharge areas	Round 1	2.5	0.25	0
	Round 2	2.5	0.25
Control of groundwater extraction	Round 1	2.5	0.25	0
	Round 2	2.5	0.25
Flood warning system	Round 1	2.5	0.25	0
	Round 2	2.5	0.25
Zoning the passage of floods in urban areas to define occupancy restrictions in urban development master plans	Round 1	2.75	0.275	0
	Round 2	2.75	0.275
Pardinho River revitalization project (integrated by cleaning or dredging of river channels and restoration of permanent protection areas)	Round 1	2.5	0.25	0
	Round 2	2.5	0.25
Recovery and conservation of natural resources in rural micro-basins of the Pardinho River sub-basin	Round 1	2.5	0.25	0
	Round 2	2.5	0.25
Verification of the effectiveness of licensing rules in relation to the objectives of the Basin Plan Insertion Plan in Urban Master Plans	Round 1	2.5	0.25	0
	Round 2	2.5	0.25
Biomonitoring of the Rio Pardinho sub-basin	Round 1	5.75	0.575	0
	Round 2	5.75	0.575
Formal environmental education	Round 1	5	0.5	0
	Round 2	5	0.5
Informal and non-formal environmental education	Round 1	5	0.5	0
	Round 2	5	0.5
Monitoring and monitoring the implementation of actions and the results obtained	Round 1	5	0.5	0
	Round 2	5	0.5

Cardoso (2019) evaluated the implementation of 37 existing actions in the Rio dos Sinos River Basin Plan, considering their goals and execution time horizon, through qualitative and quantitative approaches. As a result, the author found that most of the actions were initiated, and many of them reached the goal within the stipulated period. Furthermore, the author concluded that it is important to define monitoring and performance indicators, as well as adopt management tools and support the goals set out in the river basin plan.

Many actions were considered carried out only at the initial level of implementation and may be associated with the achievement of subsequent goals, or social, economic, legal or environmental obstacles. However, there is a sign, due to the lack of variation in the participants' positions, that the actions are progressing slowly, but robustly.

To complement the above, it is necessary to mention that, in the Rio Pardo River basin, more precisely in the Andréas stream, there has been a payment program for environmental services for around 10 years. This is called “Guardian of Waters”, in which owners of rural areas preserve springs and riparian areas on 68 properties on the banks of the aforementioned stream (Klamt et al., 2019; Vera Cruz, 2022). The aforementioned PES mechanism is carried out by the University of Santa Cruz and is financed privately (Vera Cruz, 2022), the latter of which seeks to offset the environmental impacts of its projects in the region. Furthermore, the PSA has the support of the Municipal Government and the Pardo River Basin Committee.

Here, it is possible to establish an improved notion between the function of river basin committees and the process of implementing actions by them. In view of the above, depending on what action it is, in the management sense, the CBH of Rio Pardo is assigned the support function in said program, and there is a relationship with the results observed from the implementation of actions. This is because it was not the committee that brought the PSA mechanism, it is not part of the PBH's actions. That is, those who implement this action are other entities, but the CBH is clearly present, exercising a supportive, participatory role, which inserts society into the debate through representatives, regarding the necessary environmental management in the basin. In this sense, the CBH is more functional as a parliament where differences are debated (governance), rather than as an executor of action.

All of these actions are more advanced than the others. Thus, the construction of a new mentality focused on environmental sustainability needs to redo the process of socioeconomic incentives that tend human beings towards environmental degradation, so that individuals are guided towards a sustainable lifestyle (Peralta, 2014). Above all, new models, which expose creative management solutions and enable community participation, demand design and representation of social participation, which stimulates economic independence (Hausmann & Rodrik, 2003; Poleto, 2010; Sen, 2000).

CONCLUSION

Given the scope of the study, the plans are strategic and essential to the integrated management of water resources, but they show clear signs of deficiency in several water planning assumptions. The consensus obtained mainly indicated reasonable implementation of actions from the Pardo River Basin Plan and considerably low implementation of the Quaraí River Basin Plan. Given that water is used by various classes of users and civil society, and given the length of time that the legislation that guides basin management has existed, it can be concluded that the implementation of actions is the fundamental obstacle to improving water resource management in the basins. It is concluded that, at the implementation levels, there is a consensus that the precarious indication of execution of actions is not just due to a lack of financing or organization. This may be related to the lack of methods that encourage actions to leave the theoretical field. Furthermore, this may be related to the amount of training provided to participants, technical experiences with practical actions and programs, adherence to the same old water resources policy instruments, as well as reluctance or disagreement with new ones.

The number of participants who completed the method satisfied the demand for consensus, as required in the Delphi method, being consistent with criteria from the scientific literature on diverse qualitative research and ethnoscience. Participants were able to reevaluate their own positions, and anonymously, reconsider, or not, previous answers, concluding that their positions were robust, whose consensus was always generated only with the succession of two rounds. Furthermore, the representation of members of river basin committees is broad, and the number of participants for this topic is satisfactory. Thus, the water planning assumptions exposed in the study can be used to, systemically, investigate and level the perception of committee members about the most strategic instrument of the State Water Resources System.

Supplementary Material

Supplementary material accompanies this paper.

APÊNDICE A

QUESTIONÁRIO APLICADO AOS MEMBROS ATUAIS OU ANTIGOS DO COMITÊ DE GERENCIAMENTO DA BACIA HIDROGRÁFICA DO RIO QUARAÍ

APÊNDICE B

QUESTIONÁRIO APLICADO AOS MEMBROS ATUAIS OU ANTIGOS DO COMITÊ DE GERENCIAMENTO DA BACIA HIDROGRÁFICA DO RIO PARDO

This material is available as part of the online article from https://doi.org/10.1590/2318-0331.302520240047

REFERENCES

• Atran, S., Medin, D. L., & Ross, N. O. (2005). The cultural mind: environmental decision making and cultural modeling within and across populations. Psychological Review, 112(4), 744-776. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.4.744.
• Brasil. Conselho Nacional de Recursos Hídricos – CNRH. (2012, 12 de dezembro). Resolução n° 145, de 12 de dezembro de 2012. Estabelece diretrizes para a elaboração de Planos de Recursos Hídricos de Bacias Hidrográficas e dá outras providências. Diário Oficial [da] República Federativa do Brasil, Brasília. Retrieved in 2021, November 16, from https://cnrh.mdr.gov.br/resolucoes/1720-resolucao-cnrh-145-revisao-17/file
  » https://cnrh.mdr.gov.br/resolucoes/1720-resolucao-cnrh-145-revisao-17/file
• Brasil. Agência Nacional de Águas e Saneamento Básico – ANA. (2014, 10 de novembro). Resolução 1.630 de 10 de novembro de 2014. Marco Regulatório do Rio Quaraí. Diário Oficial [da] República Federativa do Brasil, Brasília. Retrieved in 2021, June 16, from https://www.gov.br/ana/pt-br/assuntos/regulacao-e-fiscalizacao/outorga/outorgas-emitidas
  » https://www.gov.br/ana/pt-br/assuntos/regulacao-e-fiscalizacao/outorga/outorgas-emitidas
• Brasil. Conselho Nacional de Saúde. (2016, 7 de abril). Resolução nº 510, de 7 de abril de 2016. Dispõe sobre as normas aplicáveis a pesquisas em Ciências Humanas e Sociais. Diário Oficial [da] República Federativa do Brasil, Brasília. Retrieved in 2021, August 3, from http://conselho.saude.gov.br/resolucoes/2016/Reso510.pdf
  » http://conselho.saude.gov.br/resolucoes/2016/Reso510.pdf
• Bui, T. D., Tsai, F. M., Tseng, M.-L., & Ali, M. H. (2020). Identifying sustainable solid waste management barriers in practice using the fuzzy Delphi method. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 154, 104625.
• Caramez, J. C. (2019, 25 de abril). Comitê Pardo batalha para ações saírem do papel. Gazeta Grupo de Comunicações Retrieved in 2020, February 14, from http://www.gaz.com.br/conteudos/regional/2019/04/25/144517-comite_pardo_batalha_para_acoes_sairem_do_papel.html.php
  » http://www.gaz.com.br/conteudos/regional/2019/04/25/144517-comite_pardo_batalha_para_acoes_sairem_do_papel.html.php
• Cardoso, P. L. (2019). Avaliação do plano de bacia hidrográfica do rio dos Sinos (Master’s dissertation). Universidade La Salle, Canoas.
• Cifuentes, M. A., Izurieta, A. V., & Faria, H. H. (2000). Medición de la efectividad del manejo de areas protegidas. Turrialba: GTZ.
• Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five traditions Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Danna, C. L. (2012). O teste piloto: uma possibilidade metodológica e dialógica na pesquisa qualitativa em educação. In Anais do 1° Colóquio Nacional e VII Encontro do Núcleo de Estudos Linguísticos (NEL) da FURB Blumenau: FURB.
• Delbecq, A. L., van de Ven, A. H., & Gustafson, D. (1975). Group techniques for program planning: A guide to nominal group and delphi processes (174 p.). Scott: Foresman and Company.
• Ewaid, S. H., Abed, S. A., Al-Ansari, N., & Salih, R. M. (2020). Development and evaluation of a water quality index for the Iraqi rivers. Hydrology, 7(3), 67.
• Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1991). A new scientific methodology for global environmental issues. In R. Costanza (Ed.), Ecological economics: the science and management of sustainability (pp. 137-152). New York: Columbia University Press.
• Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1994). The worth of a songbird: ecological economics as a post-normal science. Ecological Economics, 10, 197-207.
• Grisham, T. (2009). The Delphi technique: a method for testing complex and multi-faceted topics. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 2(1), 112-130.
• Gupta, U. G., & Clarke, R. E. (1996). Theory and application of the Delphi technique: a bibliography (1975-1994). Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 53(2), 185-211. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1625(96)00094-7.
• Hausmann, R., & Rodrik, D. (2003). Development as self-discovery Retrieved in 2022, March 20, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.116.8525&rep=rep1&type=pdf
  » http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.116.8525&rep=rep1&type=pdf
• Hirschhorn, F. (2019). Reflections on the application of the Delphi method: lessons from a case in public transport research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 22(3), 309-322. http://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2018.1543841
  » http://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2018.1543841
• Kayo, E. K., & Securato, J. R. (1997). Método Delphi: fundamentos, críticas e vieses. Cadernos de Pesquisa em Administração, 1(4), 51-61.
• Klamt, R. A., Lobo, E. A., Costa, A. B., & Delevati, D. M. (2019). Evaluation of water resource preservation areas in the Hydrographical Basin of Andreas Stream, RS, Brazil, using environmental monitoring programs. Revista Ambiente & Água, 14(2), e2307. http://doi.org/10.4136/ambi-agua.2307.
• Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (2002). The Delphi method: techniques and applications (618 p.). New Jersey: New Jersey Institute of Technology.
• Loucks, D. P., & van Beek, E. (2017). Water resource systems planning and management: an introduction to methods, models, and applications New York: Springer. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44234-1.
• Machado, J. B. (2012). Análise da governança das águas da bacia hidrográfica da Lagoa Mirim, extremo sul do Brasil (Master’s dissertation). Universidade Federal do Rio Grande, Rio Grande.
• Marques, J. B. V., & Freitas, D. (2018). Método DELPHI: caracterização e potencialidades na pesquisa em Educação. Pro-Posições, 29(2), 389-415.
• Meier, M. A., & Mazzarino, J. M. (2020). Avaliação das propostas de educação ambiental voltadas às águas em bacias hidrográficas nas bases de dados EBSCO, DOAJ e SCIELO. Educação em Revista, 36, 1-36. http://doi.org/10.1590/0102-4698217885
  » http://doi.org/10.1590/0102-4698217885
• Morse, J. M. (1994). Designing funded qualitative research. In K. D. Norman, & S. L. Yvonna (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 220-235). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Mota, A. O. (2018). Proposição metodológica para avaliação da implementação de planos diretores de recursos hídricos (Dissertação de mestrado). Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte.
• Ocampo, L., Ebisa, J. A., Ombe, J., & Geen Escoto, M. (2018). Sustainable ecotourism indicators with fuzzy Delphi method – A Philippine perspective. Ecological Indicators, 93, 874-888. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.05.060
  » http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.05.060
• Oliveira, V. G. X., & Brose, M. E. (2021). A estiagem na agenda governamental dos prefeitos da bacia hidrográfica do rio Pardo/RS. In Anais do 10° Seminário Internacional sobre Desenvolvimento Regional, Santa Cruz do Sul, RS.
• Peralta, C. E. (2014). O pagamento por serviços ambientais como instrumento para orientar a sustentabilidade ambiental: a experiência da Costa Rica. In P. Lavratti & G. Tejeiro (Eds.), Direito e mudanças climáticas: pagamento por serviços ambientais, experiências locais e latino-americanas (Vol. 7, pp. 8-53). São Paulo: Instituto O Direito por um Planeta Verde.
• Poleto, C. (Ed.). (2010). Introdução ao gerenciamento ambiental Rio de Janeiro: Editora Interciência.
• Rio Grande do Sul. (1994, 1 de janeiro). Lei n° 10.350, de 30 de dezembro de 1994. Institui o Sistema Estadual de Recursos Hídricos, regulamentando o artigo 171 da Constituição do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul. Diário Oficial do Estado, Porto Alegre. Retrieved in 2020, February 12, from http://www.al.rs.gov.br/filerepository/repLegis/arquivos/10.350.pdf
  » http://www.al.rs.gov.br/filerepository/repLegis/arquivos/10.350.pdf
• Rio Grande do Sul. Secretaria de Meio Ambiente e Infraestrutra – SEMA. Departamento de Recursos Hídricos e Saneamento do Estado. (2020a). Relatório anual sobre a situação dos recursos hídricos no Estado Porto Alegre: Assessoria de Comunicação SEMA.
• Rio Grande do Sul. Secretaria de Meio Ambiente e Infraestrutra – SEMA. (2020b). Dados gerais das bacias hidrográficas Porto Alegre. Retrieved in 2020, September 10, from https://www.sema.rs.gov.br/bacias-hidrograficas
  » https://www.sema.rs.gov.br/bacias-hidrograficas
• Rio Grande do Sul. (2020c, 10 de janeiro). Lei n° 15.434, de 9 de janeiro de 2020. Institui o Código Estadual do Meio Ambiente do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul. Diário Oficial do Estado, Porto Alegre. Retrieved in 2020, February 15, from http://www.al.rs.gov.br/legis/M010/M0100099.ASP?Hid_Tipo=TEXTO&Hid_TodasNormas=65984&hTexto=&Hid_IDNorma=65984
  » http://www.al.rs.gov.br/legis/M010/M0100099.ASP?Hid_Tipo=TEXTO&Hid_TodasNormas=65984&hTexto=&Hid_IDNorma=65984
• Ruffino, P. H. P., & Santos, S. A. (2002). Utilização do conceito de bacia hidrográfica para capacitação de educadores. In A. Schiavetti, & A. F. M. Camargo. Conceitos de bacias hidrográficas: teorias e aplicações (pp. 111-123). Ilhéus: Editus.
• Sen, A. (2000). Desenvolvimento como liberdade São Paulo: Companhia das Letras.
• Serra, F. A. R., Locks, E. B. D., Martignago, G., Evangelista, S., & Palumbo, S. (2009). Pesquisa Delphi: o futuro do turismo de Santa Catarina: previsões entre 2007 e 2011. Revista Turismo em Análise, 20(1), 3-24. http://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1984-4867.v20i1p3-24.
• Silva, R. F., & Tanaka, O. Y. (1999). Técnica Delphi: identificando as competências gerais do médico e do enfermeiro que atuam em atenção primária de saúde. Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P., 33(3), 207-216. http://doi.org/10.1590/S0080-62341999000300001.
• Tagliani, P. R. A., & Asmus, M. L. (2011). O Programa de Manejo Integrado do Estuário da Lagoa dos Patos. In P. R. A. Tagliani, & M. L. Asmus (Eds.), Manejo integrado do Estuário da Lagoa dos Patos: uma experiência de Gerenciamento Costeiro no Sul do Brasil (pp. 27-38). Rio Grande: Editora da Furg.
• Vera Cruz. Prefeitura Municipal. (2022). Programa Protetor das Águas Retrieved in 2022, March 20, from https://www.veracruz.rs.gov.br/portal/secretarias-paginas/191/programa-protetor-das-aguas/
  » https://www.veracruz.rs.gov.br/portal/secretarias-paginas/191/programa-protetor-das-aguas/
• World Bank. (2018). Diálogos para aperfeiçoamento da política e do sistema de recursos hídricos no Brasil (Vol. IV - Tema 3: planos de recursos hídricos em bacias hidrográficas). Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group.
• Yin, R. K. (2005). Estudo de caso: planejamento e métodos (3. ed.). Porto Alegre: Bookman.
• Yousuf, M. I. (2007). Using experts’ opinions through Delphi technique. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 12(4), 1-9.

Edited by

• Editor in-Chief:
  Adilson Pinheiro

• Associated Editor:
  Priscilla Macedo Moura

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  21 Apr 2025
• Date of issue
  2025

History

• Received
  22 May 2024
• Reviewed
  22 Sept 2024
• Accepted
  15 Nov 2024