How the WB3 / WP3.3 methodology was used
Table 2 gives an overview on how the different study sites used the WP3.3 methodology.
Table 2: Overview on how the WP 3.3 methodology was used
|
Study site |
How was WB3 methodology used? |
Comments |
1
|
Spain
|
- According to guidelines; minor adaptations
|
|
2
|
Portugal, Maçao / Góis
|
- According to guidelines; minor adaptations
|
|
3
|
Italy
|
- Own approach of stakeholder consultations used
|
Not considered for synthesis
|
4
|
Greece, Crete
|
- According to guidelines; minor adaptations
|
|
5
|
Greece, Nestos Basin
|
- Own methodology (training seminar), partly with elements from the guidelines
|
Only partly considered for synthesis
|
6
|
Turkey, Karapinar
|
- According to guidelines; minor adaptations
|
|
7
|
Turkey, Eskisehir
|
- According to guidelines; minor adaptations
|
|
8
|
Morocco
|
- According to guidelines, some adaptations:
- 1 day WS
- Didn't use Facilitator Software in the workshop
- Skipped step 8
|
|
9
|
Tunisia
|
- According to guidelines; minor adaptations
|
|
10
|
Russia, Djanybek
|
- According to guidelines; minor adaptations
|
|
11
|
Russia, NovySaratov
|
- According to guidelines; minor adaptations
|
|
12
|
China
|
- According to guidelines; some adaptations:
- Started reviewing the cycles etc. as many participants were new (but came from the same organisation)
- WS duration 4 days
|
|
13
|
Botswana
|
- According to guidelines; minor adaptations
- Combined step 3 and 5 (selection and ranking of criteria)
|
|
14
|
Mexico
|
|
Not considered for synthesis
|
15
|
Chile
|
- According to guidelines, some adaptations:
- 1 day WS
- Didn't use Facilitator Software
|
|
16
|
Cape Verde
|
- According to guidelines; minor adaptations
|
|