Main authors: Frode Sundnes, Cors van den Brink, Morten Graversgaard
FAIRWAYiS editor: Jane Brandt
Source document: »Sundnes, F. et al. (2020) Advancing MAPs as vehicles for resolving issues on drinking water pollution from agriculture. FAIRWAY Project Deliverable 2.5R, 56 pp


Contents table
1. Survey methodology
2. Survey results

1. Survey methodology

In 2019 all MAPs carried out either a survey or a set of interviews to provide input to the FAIRWAY's MAP analyses. The aim of this exercise was to get feedback from MAP participants on the performance and functioning of the MAPs, and to enable the harvesting of lessons and best practice. A set of questions relating to the chosen framework for dimensions of engagement was developed and shared with all MAPs to form the basis for this exercise (Table 1).

Table 1: MAP survey questions

No. Question
1 Who do you represent through your participation in [the MAP]
2 For how long have you taken part in [the MAP]?
3 Give a brief description of the establishment of [the MAP] as you know it.
4 What is the main issue that [the MAP] is set up to resolve?
5 To what extent do you consider [the MAP] to be successful in addressing this issue?
5x Additional comments to 5.
6 What new insights about this issue have you gained through the participation in [the MAP]?
7 What changes have you observed as a result of the activities of [the MAP]?
8 Are all actors relevant for resolving the issue involved in [the MAP]?
8x If "no" on last question, explain who are missing.
9 To what extent do the participants in [the MAP] have a shared understanding of the issue?
10 Do you feel you are able to influence the priorities of [the MAP]?
11 What are the most important trust-building factors for the work in [the MAP]?
12 Has anything contributed to weakening the trust in the [the MAP]?
12x if yes, explain…
13 How are conflicting priorities and differences of opinion solved within [the MAP]?
14 List some important "lessons learned" from your engagement in [the MAP]
15 To what extent do you consider [the MAP] to be a successful platform for engagement?
15x Additional comments to 15.
16 What are the limiting factors for the long-term sustainability of [the MAP]?
17 Any other reflections about [the MAP]

Each case study was free to tailor these questions to their respective context for either surveys or interviews.

2. Survey results

Three of the FAIRWAY cases - Romania, Greece and France - are not included in these preliminary analyses of engagement processes of the FAIRWAY MAPs. For Romania and Greece, there was no engagement platform prior to the project. Hence, their respective multi-actor platforms were at such an early stage that it would impair the engagement efforts if the participants were to evaluate their emerging platforms. For the French case, there were unforeseen staff changes that made it impossible to participate when the data collection for this work was carried out.

For the remaining 10 case studies, preliminary analyses of the engagement processes in the MAPs is structured under the following headings and according to the typology described in »Multi-actor engagement.

  1. Description of the MAP as an engagement platform,
  2. Problem identification and shared understanding,
  3. Achievements,
  4. Engagement process and participation,
  5. Trust,
  6. Conflicts,
  7. Future sustainability of the MAP, and lastly
  8. Lessons learned.

»Island Tunø, DK: multi-actor platform engagement
»Aalborg, DK: multi-actor platform engagement
»Anglian Region, UK: multi-actor platform engagement
»Lower Saxony, DE: multi-actor platform engagement
»Derg catchment, UK: multi-actor platform engagement
»Overijssel, NL: multi-actor platform engagement
»Noord-Brabant, NL: multi-actor platform engagement
»Vansjø, NO: multi-actor platform engagement
»Baixo Mondego, PT: multi-actor platform engagement
»Dravsko Polje, SI: multi-actor platform engagement


Note: For full references to papers quoted in this article see


Go To Top