 Good morning, good afternoon or good evening from wherever you are in the world and welcome to this third masterclass in the online masterclass series, Urbanizing Deltas of the World, the State of the Art of Water Research in South and Southeast Asia. In this masterclass series, we have invited PhD and postdoc researchers from various projects of the NWO, Urbanizing Deltas of the World Program, who are presenting their research work and discuss their lessons learned from their research activities with you. Welcome, my name is Jaap Evers and I'm a lecturer at IHE Delft. Today's topic of our masterclass is adapting and innovating for managing and developing Deltas and we have invited two speakers. Our first speaker is Ume Koulsen and her topic is supporting adaptive delta management with systematic exploration of community livelihood adaptation as uncertainty. And our second speaker is Dr. Voti Muin Wang and her topic is the roles of innovation in the Vietnamese delta planning processes. Our setup and schedule of today is similar like in the previous weeks, so we start with Ume Koulsen and her presentation lasts for about 30 minutes. While she is presenting, you can leave your questions in the comment box, either on YouTube or Facebook, from where you are watching this and joining this masterclass. We, the organizing team, that's myself, Shanua Hassan and Leon Hermans, are collecting in the back your questions and we are writing those down. And we are going to make sure that we forward your questions in our Q&A session and our Q&A session is after our second speaker, who also is going to present her work for about 13 minutes and then, please, also put your comments on her research work in the comment box. After both presentations, as mentioned, we have the Q&A session and we are going to discuss your questions with Ume and Huan. That's the schedule for today and let me then introduce you, our first speaker, Dr. Voti Muin Wang. Our next speaker, who is Ume Koulsen, and Ume Koulsen is in the process of finishing her PhD. Her PhD defense is scheduled in exactly two weeks from now on the 13th of October and she did her PhD research at the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands and the Institute of Water and Flood Management in Bangladesh and she did that work in the NWO, Urbanizing Deltas of the World Project, Adaptive Delta Management, Development, Culturation and Dissemination in Bangladesh and Indonesia. The research topic of Ume was supporting adaptive delta management and that's also what her presentation will be about. Currently, she has joined the FAO as National Climate Change and Risk Management Expert in community-based climate resilience fisheries and agricultural development in Bangladesh project. With that having been said, I give the floor to you, Ume, and I'm very much looking forward to your presentation. Thank you very much. Thank you, yeah. Welcome all of you to my presentation. My presentation is on supporting adaptive delta management and that's, I am waiting for the presentation to upload. Yes. Yes, it's now we can see. What we see, we see a breeze under construction. A breeze is about connecting people of both sides. So my research is also about connecting people of both sides. That means the community people and the policy people. So my research is about supporting adaptive delta management with systematic exploration of community livelihood adaptation as uncertainty. I am, as Yap introduced me, that I'm a PhD candidate in the Faculty of Technology Policy Management in the Delft University of Technology and Institute of Water and Flood Management in Bangladesh, University of Engineering and Technology under the Adaptive Delta Management Project. My promoter is Professor Will Thiessen and Professor Shalom Khan and also Dr. E.S. E.O. Stimmerman's. Next slide please. The presentation of today's discussion is basically the rationale of this research, research objective, research approach and I'm presenting motor based approach and reflection and scope of the contribution. Next, rationale of this research is basically our sustainable delta management in recent years is challenged with uncertain change in social economy and climate. To deal with these uncertainties, Bangladesh is one of the countries moving towards adaptive delta management in its Bangladesh Delta Plan 2100. The BDP 2100 strategic planning approach combines stakeholder engagement however, the uncertain nature of adaptation decision making of local community, specifically under uncertain changing condition remains unexplored. Historical evidence we see here from 1960 to 2500 shows that livelihood adaptation of local community in response to policy implementation can be at an uncertain direction. It's not always what policy maker plan. Here in this plan that was the rise, the policy plan or policy emphasis was rise but historically also shrinker contribution was raised in different region. So that in this evident we see that next slide please. In that there is a necessity to understand and explore how the community people particularly farmers in the primary production sector make adaptation decision under changing conditions in their own social ecological system. So for that we need an approach. What approach that approach can capture the nature of the decision making of relevant actors and also that how that decision making we can take account as uncertainty into the adaptive planning and implementation. Next. Therefore, my research objective is to develop an approach that can support adaptive delta management by systematic exploration of community livelihood adaptation as uncertainty for sustainable delta management. Let's discuss three key concept at the research objective in brief. The key concept is uncertainty, community livelihood adaptation and adaptive delta management. Then we will discuss the research approach. Uncertainty is a situation of inadequate information that can be due to lack of or in perfect knowledge variability inherent to the system of interest or ambiguity or plurality in framing the same problem decision problem in hand by multiple stakeholders. In my in this research community livelihood adaptation is explored with an uncertainty perspective. Then what we consider community livelihood adaptation. Community livelihood adaptation is the adjustment in livelihood activities to mitigate harm or exploit benefits from changing conditions by a group of individuals or households that share material and non material resources based on their differentiated capacity. And last one is the adaptive delta management that is accept that the future is deeply uncertain. And that uncertainty can be due to climate change due to socioeconomic development due to urbanization vulnerability even for social norms and acceptance. Instead of making a best prediction and developing a plan for the future, ADM asked what could happen in the future and what we can do now to achieve our goal regardless of how the future unfolds. So for this research objective, my research approach was basically a journey of discovery based on interdisciplinary concepts. So in my research approach I have three main phase. In phase one, I wanted to explore is community livelihood adaptation is uncertainty or not. So that's why I explored historical importance. And then I found we found that yes community livelihood adaptation can be uncertain. And then we go for developing approach approach design testing case and illustration with policy. Then we go for evaluation and conclusion. In our discussion today, we will focus on the motor based frame scenario approach, multi method adaptive approach. In this approach, we used frame scenario method motor framework as rational decision or action model, adaptation pathway, specifically to present our result and adaptive policy. We collected data from scenario workshop and interview. We have four simple methodological steps of this approach. First two approach is for conceptual model development and the last two is for conceptual model application. So in the first step, we elicit knowledge then that we interpreted data and model specified. We illustrate the model with policy implementation and at the last stage we identified livelihood and policy adaptation pathway. Motor framework, next please. We used motor framework in this motor framework of CETAL 2015 that introduced the integrated relationship of motivation, ability and trigger for action. This framework uses Fox behavioral model to enrich concepts from existing actor models for public policy analysis also. Let's introduce the motor framework, how community livelihood adaptation can fit into the motor framework. Because it describes the choice of the community livelihood adaptation action as the causal consequence of triggers, motivation and ability. Triggers are the event and our factors that cause actors to perceive opportunities or threats. In terms of how a situation is contributing to achieve their aims or outcomes. The perceived opportunities or threats in turn influence the motivation of actors for specific livelihood adaptation actions. Their outcome is the result of chosen action. So with this exercise we found that community livelihood adaptation can fit very well in the motor framework to develop further it for our model. Then we for our model development and case application we use rice and integrated farmers in folder 30 of southwest coastal region of Bangladesh. For data collection we specifically use the next slide please. Use the scenario development workshop and interviews in the scenario development workshop to identify uncertain situations for the scenario. We define it like that to the farmers here you can see the farmers we are sitting together to develop our scenarios. But we ask what factors, conditions or trends are not in your control or are not in control of your hand but important for your agricultural decision making. Then farmers come up with a list of many number, a list of issues. Then they really prioritize two factors. Then I ask if we say that two factors, what factors you will choose. They identify two factors. We placed them into X and Y axis for the story lines developed from that scenario. And then finally they also suggested adaptation plan for each scenario. We use finally they identified the key motivation and ability for adaptation decision. So when they identified the adaptation plan then they identified what motivation and ability behind that one. So then we utilize that data for this conceptual model of MOTA framework based on MOTA framework. You see that the triggers they identified external triggers, irrigation, water availability, water balance, agriculture, technology, market system. So total four groups, two groups for integrated farmers and the rice farmers they use these external triggers. And then they also identify internal triggers, net benefit or loss. So we also put them here. And they also identify passive opportunity as prospects of income, food for new crop or livelihood. And they think if it is low motivation is low high and then they go for the actions. So they identified different actions on which main or alternative crop livelihood. Adaptation of technologies or varieties and transformation of crop or livelihood. So their actions are basically in these three categories. And also their abilities is outlined their investment capacity, physical and ecological resources, technical knowledge and experience, scope of livelihood and access to formal non-formal institutions. And as livelihood it was livelihood sustainability or family food or income. So now we got the MOTA model with a scenario and adaptation pathway for ready for the adaptation pathway and scenario. Then we use this model with policy illustration. So we use policy implementation as an illustrative way. The policy was diminished. This policy was basically one policy from Bangladesh Delta Plan 2100. And that policy was diminished and drainage congestion with restoration of rural river canals and improved livelihood for that. Government has a basic plan to wreak scavenged rivers, canals, renovate gates, increase, repair the embankment, promote a salient resident early variety and a new variety of roving crops. Then we asked what would be the livelihood adaptation pathway and policy adaptation pathway. Then our result shows that livelihood adaptation pathway is really specific to specific conditions. So if the triggering condition is favorable for their rice cultivation, they usually go for rice cultivation. If that favorable for shrimp farming, they go for shrimp farming and integrated farming is they found it. This cultivation is really favorable for all situations. They usually try to be adhered with the low-tech, low-cost technologies if they have enough resources. But if the condition is favorable for them, that means if they have enough water, enough market facility and everything, they don't usually go for shifting or adaptation to a new one. Even they went, they said that tidal river management and raising care embankment. They will try to cope with raising care embankment as long as the situation is not so difficult or hard for them. So you see here as symbolic conditions. After seven, they go for tidal river management and also farmers' cooperation is always feasible. These farmers' cooperatives move to the advocacy government for support if the situation or condition becomes unfavorable. And if we see the policy adaptation pathway, if we want to follow the adaptability of the adaptation pathway, next slide. Yes, this is the policy adaptation pathway. If we really want to follow the farmers' adaptation pathway, then the policy adaptation pathway could be like this. That in a very favorable condition, the policy should promote the existing cropping or support. Land use change or stream farming is not very supportive where the situation is very suitable for rice cultivation. And also, off-form livelihood support is always feasible and support agri-business that is also suitable. And also, as like as earlier one, raising and excavation is, for example, is always suitable at the lower stage. But the tidal river management is really not accepted by the farmers or community if they have enough favorable conditions for their existing livelihood. And also the high-tech or high-tech or high-cost irrigation is not adapted by farmers if they have irrigation facilities at low cost or just ground irrigation. So that's the result of this conceptual one. Then we extended our MOTA-based approach, conceptual approach to a computational model. So that was exploration how the MOTA framework can be extended to the computational model so that it can be a model to generate a quantifiable result. So for that part, the case of rice and shrimp farmers in polder 31 of southwest coastal region of Bangladesh is explored. And we try to compute MOTA score for a livelihood action of an actor community at a scenario. So this is, this computation is very specific to one scenario. So we have four scenarios, but scenario can be many ways. Here we compute our motivation score and ability score, motivation score. We found it as a function of triggering factors, triggering factors how the perceived opportunity and the perceived opportunities normalized. And then we calculated the motivation score as triggering factors and then the ability factors. So in the ability factors we calculate ability score and this ability score is also a function of ability factors or perceived ability and perceived ability was normalized and then the ability score. Then we calculated MOTA score. There is two threshold motivation and ability because as per framework it shows that there is a threshold motivation and threshold ability for a specific action to be accepted by them. That's why we put a threshold level. Then we can see the computational flow diagram of livelihood. Next one please. The computational flow diagram of livelihood adaptation decision was under a given scenario. So in a given scenario the computational flow diagram of decision like this. We can get a score from triggering factors to the for livelihood decision through MOTA score. And there is an ability score to be calculated and if it meets the minimum ability score then it can go to the MOTA score. So MOTA score is calculated as a motivation and ability score. And highest MOTA that got the highest MOTA that can be preferred livelihood adaptation action. And if that doesn't exceed the minimum level or threshold level then it can be the non-preferred or maybe possible non-preferred adaptation action. Let's see the next stage. It was scenario. We use scenario developed by shrimp farmers. So for shrimp, from shrimp one we use the shrimp farmers one. So that was the triggering factor irrigation water, saline water, agrotechnology, market system, industries. For this five the four scenario they have alternate developed the alternate scenarios for flourish and water connoisseur, market connoisseur and stagnant. So we use these for calculate our triggering factors. So we calculated motivation score of shrimp farmers for shrimp farming under water connoisseur scenario. So this is calculated like this. So here the irrigation if the availability is low then it can be perceived as for a shrimp farmer it would be perceived as good. Because this is an opportunity for his shrimp farmer. So then we put a value and then it calculated like this and we got a motivation score here upon a normalized one. And then we calculated the ability score similarly from six ability factors as a function of six ability factors. And then we calculated motorized score from here and for Polder 31. So the motorized score is as it is water connoisseur situation. They calculated the preferred for shrimp, the shrimp farmers preferred for shrimp. The different scenario here is basically four scenario water connoisseur scenario, flourish scenario, flourish scenario mean everything is available. The farmers need irrigation water that is available, saline water that is available, agrotechnology that is available. Market system industries all are really good conditions. They called it flourish situations. And what if the water is low then water connoisseur situation then market connoisseur situation and stagnant situations that we defined this four scenario scenario scenario. Then for livelihood. Next one please after ability score. So we calculated ability score from their interview data for the specific persons and then we summarize for this. So then ability factors is calculated and then we go for motorized score. Next please motorized score calculation. So in 4-1 we tested it for five actions that is rice farming, roby crops, shrimp, industrial job, fellow. So how this responds then we saw that in this water connoisseur scenario they still go for shrimp. This is for shrimp farmers and we can see the result for four scenario in the next slide. In this slide we can see the result of shrimp farmers for the four scenarios. Specifically in the four scenarios the fish farmers result is that they will basically go for shrimp, fellow. If the situation is very difficult then they can go for fellow and also the rice farming in some cases at the stagnant scenario. But all three scenarios they can choose the shrimp for any situation. But this is really different for rice cultivation. If we see the next one, next one please yes this is for rice farmers. So in this rice farmers model the motorized score is really different for young and elder. We calculated as an example that yes if the motorized score can capture also the age differences, difference perception of age or other social strata or not. For that we differentiated young and elder decision making in rice farming. If we see that the orange one is for young and the green one is for elder. We see differences in even in similar scenario. Even the external condition is similar. The decision can be different for even the rice farmers if they are young or elder. And that can be different based on different factors of their ability and motivation. So this can show that water-constrained agro-scenario they usually the young rice farmers they tend to go for shrimp or industrial job. If we see the first one water-constrained agro-scenario but the elder one they don't really want to move to the shrimp or industrial job. Because they don't think their ability is that they are not motivated. They are very much motivated to stick together rice farming or roby crops. But in water available agro-scenario we see that still there are water available, available water for all the young rice farmers they want to move industrial job also. But the elder they really want to stick together to the rice farming or roby crops. And water-constrained industrial scenario where the water is very constrained but industrial opportunity is very good. Then also it's different. Rice young want to shift to shrimp or cello or industrial job. But the elder one they want to try to rice farming or cello or industrial job if sorry or cello and industrial job yes. And what are available in industrial scenario in that scenario the elder farmer is really want to industrial job roby crops and rice farming. So this is how it shows that's the MOTA approach that is based on motivation and ability framework. This really can be used as a decision-making model for one. So if we reflect on the process we reflect on the one. This approach can systematically explore community livelihood adaptation as uncertainty which is applied in limited cases in our study. But it can assess further with wide set of communities with different characteristics. And next please this approach is more suitable for all livelihood domain. That means if you want to see all of the livelihood domain available for the farmers and what factors or how farmers choose livelihood adaptation. How farmers go to the livelihood adaptation. Then it's a very good approach to understand and to realize. So future work can use the variation of methods for example data collection method forward looking scenarios for this. And the next one few level of detail in modeling the farmers decision-making logic is explored. So as this was a very specific case and we use very few level of decision-making logic. And also the uncertainty analysis was limited to uncertainties and triggers. But the impact of uncertainties in the model also need to be added which is not in this. And even the purpose and context the future work can find the most appropriate level of aggregation. So depending on our purpose and context it can be decided which is really true for all model. As in base model the motor based logical relations can be transferred to the as in base model. In this study there is a number of logical relation is built with the equations and score calculations and also conceptualize. So that can be used as a as in base model that simulates the interaction between different actors. So that's a scope also and for meta model it could contribute to analyze the interactions of the socio-economic and human system. With the physical system in an integrated way. If we see that triggering factors most are external and that is can come from physical system can come from human system. And also they have ability factors and other. So that can integrate in an integrated meta model. So that's that's the and also any other related model like delta dynamic integrated model. Next please. And I would like to reflect on the motivation and ability framework that I already said. We applied motivation and ability from framework as decision model as a causal consequence of triggers motivation and abilities. First this is the first application in Bangladesh confirms that what is suitable in combination with adaptive approaches and ready to apply in combination with other approaches in policy design and implementability assessment. Next one developing future oriented scenarios and adaptation responses together with actor. In our cases the farmers suggest a serious game setting for awareness co-design of adaptive policy strategy co-creation of possible solutions over time. It was a really very good exercise when we say farmers that you can imagine anything because we don't know how future will unfold. So then they they really there was no bound so they imagine different scenarios of these will happen that will happen. So so that that was really make them allow them to think beyond the box and they really identified many many different things. And that's really make them aware that yes the future is uncertain. We don't know anything can happen. So we need to prepare for that uncertain situations and we need to prepare for that. So so that's really make them open to for co-creation of possible solutions. So that's a really good can be a good serious game. Next one please. Yes. And I think this is the last one. Practical application is highly recommended of this approach which specifically require an adaptive perspective. This is really very hard adaptive perspective of policy maker planner and implementing agencies. If we can switch to the adaptive perspective, yes, the future is uncertain and we need to be adaptive. We need our policy our planning and implementing agents implementation need to be adaptive. That's the key things and key message from from this at the last. So thank you. Next one is yes. So thank you all for for your passion. Yes. Thank you for your interesting presentation. There are already several questions in the comment box and let me invite the audience to continue to share your questions with us, which you have with women. There are already some questions that are relating to the formulation of the policy adaptation pathways. And maybe you could already start thinking about also how this is useful for the cooperation between local governments and communities in well developing sustainable livelihoods or sustainable systems to be adaptive maybe to a changing environment in in the delta. So thank you very much. Oh, that was very interesting. Our next speaker is already on your screen is Dr. for team in one. And she successfully defended her thesis which I actually have here and which is a very interesting read she defended her thesis the roles of innovation in strengthening strategic delta planning processes at Wageningen University last June. The topic of her presentation is roles innovation in the Vietnamese delta planning process and her research was done in the NWO organizing deltas of the world project strengthening strategic delta planning processes in Bangladesh, the Netherlands, Vietnam and beyond. I was myself also part of that project. So it's very nice to see you here now again. I'm online to for you to be able to present your work. So, how I researched the role of innovations in delta planning. And the Mekong Delta plan developed in 2013 introduced several new ways for land and water use, including innovation such as adaptive livelihoods and inter provincial coordination. Innovation aspects for nature based livelihoods have been studied for livelihoods in different agro ecological region regions of the Mekong Delta. The upper region in the coastal region and one of those examples flood based floating rice and coastal based McRove shrimps. And one made some observations from her local response respondents on those livelihood models. And what their preferences are one of those innovations is Lotus farming, for example, which is a potential alternative for triple rice in the flood plains in the Mekong Delta. And it's an interesting innovation regarded by many groups in the delta. That's one of the things that I think one is going to talk about in her presentation. As mentioned, if you have still have questions for Uma on her work, please share them in the comments. And of course, if you have questions for Juan, also share those in the comments boxes. Then I give now the floor to Juan. Thank you for being here. And the floor is yours. Okay, good morning, everyone. Thanks a lot for very kind introduction and especially on the support of the whole team behind the computer. Shanur, Laura, Leon's and many others. I have been very much enjoying watching on previous master class series sessions since the beginning. Today, I and Uma will take our turn to present our work to you. And as you already mentioned with you, today I am talking about my content, the content of my research would focus on the role of innovation in strengthening the delta planning process. The case studies is in Vietnamese Mekong Delta. So, actually, my promoter is Dr. Dr. Peter Helgers. My supervisor is Dr. Gerardo Van Hansen. And of course, we cannot have done this without their, of course, the whole heart of support. So let me take you firstly to my overview of the presentation. I will talk, I will introduce to you the research site, the Vietnamese Mekong Delta. Next, I will bring up the key component of my analytical research framework, strategic delta planning approach. Innovation is one of the main input for my analysis. Next, I will talk about research methodology, the process of master planning in the Mekong Delta. And as Yap already said, lotus farming is an alternative for triple rice. And in here is technological innovation, and I will wrap up by some key conclusions. Then, for this, I will briefly go through the introduction of the case study, the Vietnamese Mekong Delta. I believe that many of you have been familiar with the name Mekong Delta, because it has received extensive attention for many research recently. So as you may know, the Vietnamese Mekong Delta will be located downstream of the Mekong River. So for this location, it possesses both advantages and disadvantages. And for the strength, it is considered as unique in its biophysical dynamic entity. It is rich in ecosystem, water, and natural resources. So this strength has made the Mekong Delta as a top second exporter of rice all over the world, and also a rice ball of the hun country contributes 52% in the total rice production. And as such, it's played a role of a pillar of the country's food security. In contrast, the location downstream of the Mekong River also brought to the Mekong Delta many challenges. For example, the upstream activities like dams construction, hydropower development, et cetera, and together with the expansion in agriculture and aquaculture has exacerbated the vulnerability of the Mekong Delta to climate change. And we have known about this in our previous sessions of this matter class series. Also in recent publications and reports for, you know, about the land subsidence of the Mekong Delta, which is very serious, groundwater problems and also some unpredictable occurrence of extreme climatic events, such as saline intrusion, the soil erosion, drought, annual floods, and or even the sea level rise. In facing these challenges, the Mekong Delta manager and government has called for more adaptive strategies and they themselves have also to bear responsibility of doing things differently, like would have to be different than what have been done before in the past because those were proven as ineffective to the challenges and not sufficient to respond to those challenges. So in line with these changes in thinking and in ways of doing things, or let's say the reorientation of planning, we take a look at the strategic planning approach from now on I will improve quality on SDP, which was used as a main analytical theoretical foundation in my PhD research. For me, it is a promising planning approach to develop strategic plans. Those plans are annexed to link to actions and means for implementation in the long term frame, like 50 to 100 years instead of 5 to 10 years, like our conventional master planning cycle has been done so far. As defined by Cycle, one of our project fellows, also one of the pioneers in initiating the uses of our class framework as you can see in the slide, the SDP process is a public led sector with a process through which a long term vision, actions and means for implementation are produced as shape and frame what a sustainable Delta is or may become. But the SDP process is not a linear process, it is actually a discontinuous process with many stops and starts. It is different from the conventional planning approach, which according to some scholars are described as fragmented sectoral targeted detection, lack of integration, etc. This SDP is actually integrated as it enrich many sectors and involve many stakeholders. It covers many domains from social, institutional and financial issues as well. So the aim of the SDP is to influence and guide future development towards sustainable Delta development by making strategic choices and decision. So take a look at our class framework. This framework was used to visualize the strategic Delta planning process as it can differentiate the three phases of the SDP process, including the first phase is a genocidal phase where people put on the table their interests or the problem needs to be solved and also including some innovative solutions or I call it innovations in my study. And those innovations are expected to gain a consent during the negotiation process in the second phase, and if those innovations already successfully pass through these two phases, and this can be solved at a frame for future projects or programs action plans in the implementation phase. So then we have to note here that these phases in reality are not explicitly distinguished and not linear as we can see in the picture. The red circle is showing the innovation component in this SDP process. So what is innovation? Theoretically innovations according to the world, it is an idea, practice or material artifact that is perceived as new by the unit that adopted. They are proposed in many countries to support the changes towards a more secure future. In terms of the degree of newness, we have two types of innovations. The first one radical is mean it is a revolutionary change or incremental one is making a minor improvement on current technology. Although innovative ideas may belong to an individual activity, the inventing and implementing them is actually a collective treatment. So in this sense, innovation process is in fact a core evolution process stemming from the alignment of technical, social, institutional and also organizational dimensions. In this thesis, we focus on a radical technological innovation in strategic data planning process because those are required to enable the changes that are deviated from the past planning practices. The innovations that were selected for my analysis are basically proposed by the MDP. For example, the introduction of something new that is ordered by something already established. In my case, for example, the floating rice or lotus farming or the innovation and tell new idea or way of doing something new that has not been practiced yet before in Vietnam. This is a sample room for the river and all practice a long time ago and now become the subject of renewed interest. In my case, it's a swim-monger of integration model. As such, we set out our hypothesis that innovation can engender consent among stakeholders as long as they are multifunctional and thus can attract different interests of various stakeholders. So to push the knowledge gaps in existing literature, here in this thesis, we try to explore the roles of innovations that was mentioned in the first phase of the outclass. How they will travel through all three phases of the STP and after all how important it is inviting the stakeholders, which is in reality is hard to achieve. And if so, withdrawal of the innovation can maintain this consent among stakeholders over time. To achieve the research objective and ask the research questions, we applied some key methodologies. So you see here on the right, the structure of my thesis. This is the key methodologies. So we already applied like literature review, interview with some key informants who sit at high position in the Vietnamese political system. And for analyzing the conversions or diversions of the agendas, we adopted the multiple stream approach. The case study was used to analyze soft implementation of the STP and also for analyzing for specific innovations. We also use stated preference as the only quantitative method throughout the entire research to see how the community, including residents and non-residents, prefer the innovations. The fighting will be like qualitatively confirmed by the millennium assessment framework to evaluate the multifunctionalities of the innovations according to the combination of services. They provide for the society. Finally, we use historical approach via social construction of technology lens to see the development journey of innovation. Let's say in here, we take out lotus farming as an example for this case. And also it represents a technological artifact, like according to Scott. For the master planning process in the Mekong Delta, over the past 40 years, the Vietnamese government has prioritized agricultural development with a focus on intensive rise production in the Delta to ensure full security for the home country. So around 1975, the time of renovation or in Vietnamese we call the Doi Mai period. The planning was mostly to spur agricultural production, the planning was development targeted and for five years planning oriented. However, short focus was no longer like sufficiently responding to the economic goals of local community. Neither does this address the challenges of climate change and the pressures of human intervention. That's why the NATO master plan in 1993 was developed to boost economic development. It was more integrated than with more than 100 projects mostly in water sector and irrigation system. And now the arrival of the Mekong Delta plan, which I already mentioned as my main input for the whole analysis. Now we talk about the implementing the Mekong Delta plan. The Mekong Delta plan, as remarked by Hassan, also one of our project fellows, that the concept of innovation in the Delta plan knowledge travel well to Vietnam, under making way with process, a process of trial and error adopting and adopting. As such, the MDP can be considered as a paradigm shift for policy makers, governmental entities and the Delta managers in Vietnam. From now I will call Mekong Delta plan in brief MDP. In fact, it is not a master plan as we could normally think of. Instead, it is a vision for a long term farm horizon as I already mentioned is 50 to 100 years. It is an instant of the SDP as it's introduced new ways of thinking of planning and different from the conventional way, sectoral and industrial and lack of integration and so on and so forth. Initially, the Mekong Delta plan was originated from the Delta planning, it was developed and tailored to the Vietnamese context with support of the Dutch expert and then also Vietnamese expert. It includes some scenarios for a sustainable development of the Mekong Delta and those scenarios including, for example, our business and sustainable liveness that I already used for all of my innovation selection, for example the flood based livelihoods. So now I'm taking an example of this flood based livelihood which is lotus farming and in our case it is an innovation. Here in this figure I am telling you a story about the development of lotus farming in Thap Mui district, Dong Thap province. You see in the figure before 1975, the region was like other regions suffer from the negative consequences of the long lasting war. At that time everything was like being recovered. The soil condition then was really bad, very sulphide-acid and not suitable for growing rice. So local farmers then already spontaneously planted lotus for collecting seeds, but the use then was low. And then after 1980 to 1990, Taiwanese people came to the area and initiated like commercial lotus market with the intention of expanding it to the international oriented market. Then they invested with both seed sources and finance like money to raise up the quality of lotus products. However, this sponsor did not last long because they set out a very high standard for the lotus seed quality that a local condition could not meet or satisfy. Then what happened? The Taiwanese actor left. After this actor stepped out of the game, the local farmers like was inspired by what had been done. They tried to maintain the lotus model and actually new actors already stepped in. As you can see in the figure, 1994, local farmers and external traders, which are only like individuals in 2000, more actors come in like Shachi, Vietnamese company and a group of Vietnamese students from Ho Chi Minh City who contributed to diversify the tops of conducting lotus. So they're not only intensive lotus, but we have seen more than that, like lotus rice, lotus fish, and most importantly lotus ecotourism. We see next the important actor joining like the local authorities, scientists from Cung Thu University, international development partner like Ayusean, who under the sponsor of Coca Cola Foundation have been like coming for many support to pilot what we call it like sustainable livelihoods to adapt to climate change. So the more interventions from other actors into the arena, the diverse perceptions to redesign the lotus technologies was found. Actually, many difficulties was also detected that made up serious hurdles to multiply or replicate the model. Those hurdles include like undefined disease, you know, those are like strange disease that for a long time people could not find what is the cause or how to, you know, solve this. And the unstable market and price and we have lack of labor sources and the uncertain will and hope from local farmers. They are already tired of these difficulties and already switched back to rice, so on and so forth. But we have observed a potential development of lotus farming as an innovation. So we see the stabilization among some social relevant relevant groups. For example, the authorities, they, they have a very nice perceptions of framing for lotus farming. So we see with new interventions of the new actors who step into the games. The lotus technology was again re negotiated, redesigned and remodified so that the meanings of lotus farming could be adapted and satisfied these new interests of the new actors. Some key messages from the case analysis of the lotus farming. First, lotus farming was like locally initiated with the starting point for development as to resolve the soil problems. But since the more actors involved, the perceptions of stakeholders for lotus farming became more diverse. For example, if local farmers has their interest on lotus farming as bringing a better income, the authorities tried their effort in protecting lotus as a simple beauty of the region. They also have the name for this beauty, it's Sheng Hong Dong Thap. Then it is like Ping Lotus in Dong Thap. The scientists in another side, they look at lotus farming as a way to cope with flood. And at UCM, differently, they look at lotus farming as a sustainable alternative for livelihoods instead of intensive rice, like triple rice, etc. But in the arena, we found a missing of private sector, which is inter-quase. But most important actors was found as the international partners as I have talked about at UCM, local officials and scientists who bring up the motivation for local farmers to continue to maintain the lotus models by either this way or that way to support. Then for some key conclusions of my entire thesis. The first finding is about conversions or diversions of the political agendas. We found, first of all, that the interview data provided strong evidences for conversions between the agendas by the MDP and the Vietnamese policy actors, although a slight divergence was also found. Further evidence to support the conversion is provided by of course the prime ministers, formal endorsements of the decision like 593 and the resolution 120, which contain many ideas of the MDP. And since the conversions occurred due to the negotiation of the consent for the MDP, the diversion occurred due to the negotiation of the regional consent. We found here the crucial role belong to the policy entrepreneurs who already like mentioned in the previous slide, including scientists from CTU, the contiguousity, international development partner, also some important ministries, including Montgrain Mark and the most important one already like Appalach, the South Steering Committee. Those are the main advocates to push up the implementation of the MDP. They narrow down the divergence of agendas over time by, you know, constantly taking actions over all stages of the political process. And thus they tried to merge or the three political streams and in order to achieve the conversions. And for the SDP, we found that although the SDP process takes time, in our case at least four to five years from 2013 to 2017 and not yet a finished process. In fact, it's probably well too in Indian now by generating prospects for change in data management and offering new ways of thinking about what a sustainable data is. We have changed the mindset of Vietnamese political actors and this fighting is very important in the sense that in order to get a new strategic ideas or, you know, innovation enter a hard implementation. It's had to first enter the soft changes in thinking, we call it soft implementation. For example, in order to implement like new strategies at the livelihood level, or in agricultural practice or in flood control, these new ways of doing things need to be accepted and appreciated by the policymakers and also the practitioners. So here we emphasize that soft aspect of implementation cannot be overlooked, especially in the rigid and top down political system like in Vietnam. It means if we look at the outclass framework, the proposed innovation in the first phase in order to be translated into project in the third phase like implementation phase. It needs to pass through the second phase which is plan formulation. In other words, it has to be convinced and approved and appreciated by involved stakeholders around this phase. We call it slain negotiation phase. Without the shape of thinking a hard implementation will be very difficult to begin. So in a close connection to this, we then found a usefulness of the outclass framework because it is not only can visualize the SDP like three phases of the SDP process. It can also include the invisible aspects such as the soft implementation, which is very pivotal in this whole process. So now I am talking about the innovation itself. First, we found that innovation plays a perfect role as a consent builder as it could bite a broad spectrum of stakeholders to agree on a specific choices. This can be seen in the case of floating rice and also the lotus farm. More importantly, the appreciate appreciation was found mostly widely among grassroots stakeholders like farmers and local authorities. These are direct or indirect beneficiaries and the end users of the outcome of strategic choices. The voice and aspiration do matter. In the case of floating rice and lotus farming, also in the case of floating rice and room for the river, we found that the multifunctionality emerged as a cultural characteristic for the uptake of innovation. Then in the case of the analysis of lotus farming as a technological artifact via the Scotland, we have found that innovations are socially constructed. This is not a fixed artifact, but rather it is modified in redesign and is renegotiated, adopted in order to meet the new request or new demand of the development process and of the society as the new players will step into the game. So the modification in the technology design should be changed accordingly to satisfy them. So we conclude that innovation is co-evolved with the planning process. Some requires more integrated conceptualizations, finding many domains. For example, the room for the river has to span from, for example, spatial planning, livelihood, water management, flood control, so on and so forth. Then I would like to end up my presentation here. Thank you very much for listening and thank you for the later on the comments. I will try to address them in my ability. Thank you, Juan. Thank you for your presentation. I enjoyed it very much. Then we are also continuing to our question and answer session. What I find interesting of both your and Uma for a presentation, and I learned that Uma is now only in audio with us to save some bandwidth in her internet connection, is that adaptation and innovation is both a bottom-up and a top-down process and they interlink. And what is also interesting I think is that innovation and adaptation, the artifact, the technology or the way of working itself is also influential to that process. I would like to first go back to one of the questions that were posed to Uma in relation to how you did formulate those adaptation pathways. And it might relate also to one of the questions that popped up in the comment boxes. If the research and what is research is actually in the need of the farmers or is it in the interest of the researcher? So maybe Uma, could you give a little bit further insight on how these adaptation pathways were developed and how useful it actually is in the practice of adaptation? That's really good to focus on in depth. The adaptation, when we specifically at the first of my research, when we investigated for historical adaptation in that region, we found that many adaptation strategy is basically selected by farmers. And they have their own choice and when a policymaker or any interventions go with adaptation strategy, that adaptation strategy as for example, sweet corn cultivation. That can be one of many options in front of farmers. So when a policymaker come with adaptation strategy, that's not really the only one option for farmers. So that's how in my model development and also a further model exploration, we use that perspective. Yes, if there is a 10 choice for farmers, then how they select, what factors influence them to select which adaptation strategy they will choose. Then based on this theme, that model was prepared and that was the study. And that the researcher, as a researcher, this interest is gross basically from the farmers interest. So there is the alignment of farmers interest and researcher interest. And so we find a gap many ways. That's when the policymaker make a design of adaptation strategy that might not be feasible or suitable in which conditions farmers are at this moment. So that's from that perspective, we first we develop the farmers adaptation pathway from the farmers interview and farmers data. And then our policy development, policy development pathway or policy adaptation pathway is basically the exercise from the farmers livelihood adaptation pathway. So that is really shows how policy that policy need to be adapted based on the conditions and based on the farmers need or priority over time over conditions. So I think that's answer the question. Yes, thank you very much. And this is then a question I think for the both of you, but that first give one opportunity to answer. How is then based on your research, what kind of recommendations would you then give to local government to actually support either the implementation of the innovation or adaptation pathway. You asked me, yeah. Yes, please. Okay. I also slightly mentioned a little bit in my talk that we miss. We miss one important actors in the winner with his private sector or enterprise. So I think the local government or authorities should take some initiation to attract them into to involve them into the game by some, some kind of like official or formal scheme based on our level framework. For example, they can have subsidies or, you know, tax reduction, or kind of having support like easier in administrative, you know, activities or something. So then the involvement of the potential actors can be easy to be done. Instead of getting too many hurdles in making, you know, papers work or something, you know, now in Vietnam, this is really troublesome when if you want to have a paper or something to initiate some kind of official business or something. So that's what I can have in mind, but I don't know if it's practical or not because it's, you know, Vietnamese political system is, is still top down and really rigid. And it's mostly we cannot change it in, you know, one night or some shot time. Yes. Thank you for your insights. Juan, could you further explore your recommendations? So what would you advise to local authorities? Yeah, first and my final recommendation was in my presentation is the is for adaptive perspective for our policymaker. The main constraint in adaptation is that we are in our future is uncertain and we can't stick to one strategy or one adaptation or one activity for a for each and every farmer in one region. So that's need to be understand by the our policymakers and policy recommendations should be that's the we need adaptive perspective that in different farmers can be in different situations. They can be their factors, their priority, their situations can be different. So we need to take into account that they are adaptation priority and their livelihood priority in our policymaking in adaptive delta planning or adaptive delta management. Specifically, we are really very focused on the physical system uncertainty. So yes, there is climate change, there is other other physical phenomenon. So how we can model that how we can make a good make scenarios of that. But this is also our society is also in social response is also uncertain. So my recommendation to policy is that we need to further explore that if we want to make our farmers more adaptive and make our adaptation initiative successful. Thank you. In your presentation you also mentioned and you have analyzed that a difference between the the elderly farmers and the younger farmers and that there is a higher interest also among young farms to actually go for industrial jobs or at least jobs outside of outside of agriculture. Yes. And I wouldn't be surprised if you might have find also similar kinds of observations in the field one in the Vietnam in the Mekong Delta. What would that actually then mean for sustainable development and adaptation and innovations either one might say okay younger people are more into innovations and doing something differently maybe then their than their parents, differently might also be outside of farming and what does that then mean for sustainable development. Yes. That's, that's really true. Younger are more, more prone to go for innovation and for the industries. But in one of my other observation they say it if we have the modern technology for agriculture that also we can do that. They are really thinking of innovations and thinking of new, new areas where they in the agriculture sector also they say that yes at this moment the rice cultivation and agriculture activities is as a traditional system is not really viable for us. We that's it's not profitable due to different disaster and other problems. But if we have it is if we have more skill, we can gain more skill for industries and other other areas. So that's that's one issue. And another issue is that the elder are more prone to rise because they thought this is their traditional one. And as they don't know any other team, this is, this is the, this is what they can do. So yes. Yes. Do you want to contribute? In my case, I thought a gap between elderly people and younger people because I mean like, okay, the elderly people, the old people who have traditional knowledge as you also one of the questioners mentioned. And those are really valuable because they accumulate those experiences from practice and in reality and they already innovate themselves in every daily practice for agriculture or also apaculture activities. And those knowledge are, I think it should be really good to take them into account when we have some ideas for innovations or something. But those knowledge is hardly found in the younger people. I think now the young generation are, they have the newer motivation for them to, I'll say, to make up their career instead of attaching themselves into the traditional agricultural activities from ancestors or from even from the previous generation. And you also know about the issues of, of migration in the Mekong Delta. And most of the young people already, you know, move out of their hometown and move to industrial developing provinces or cities like Ho Chi Minh City or Binh Yung province where industry sector is really developed. And they, I think they found themselves there more than adhering to agriculture activities in the hometown. So I think it's also a problem. Okay, thanks. Final question, because we are almost reaching the end of our master class. Adaptation pathways and adaptive thinking of course is also introduced to be able to already respond to expected climate change and rather than to wait for climate change to happen that we are already in advance adapted. We are looking at many research also, especially around accelerated climate change. Basically, we see that we are still running behind the facts. So in order to realize our objectives for 2030 in relation to the Sustainable Development Goals, etc. Based on your research, do you see that local communities either in the, in the older 30 or in the, in the Anjang where the, in the Mekong Delta, are they running behind facts or are they running on time? Or are they already adapted towards changing world or is this something out of the, their scope in changing? Oh, because you mentioned about Anjang province, so I think I will take my turn to answer this question. I think because you know, there is intervention of scientists into a local level already. So they met up some kind of the courses or trainings. They raise awareness for farmers community. So I think now farmers are no longer only interested in income and the short term benefit. They already expand themselves into more like aware of the impact of climate change and also how to deal with the, you know, flood, the unpredictable occurrence of flood. And they know how to employ the knowledge into their. Okay, I thought I am lost. So I think they already have improved in their knowledge and they already know how to, you know, incorporate the adaptation concept into their agricultural activities. I don't know why my screen always. Some final words for you. It's me. Yes. So, yes, in Polar 30 and Polar 31, as the farmers are observing changes over years, they have gained some knowledge and they have gained, they have developed their own strategy and also many organizations and government has has many interventions, adaptation interventions in that area. That in certain levels they are in progress. But the reality is that the environment and the changes sometimes in some places are so abrupt, it might not be sufficient for next years or next some years. Maybe they need to rethink, but yes, they have indigenous knowledge. They already are developing how they can go to the integrated farming. They can save their own hairs or own waste at a certain level, a certain height of the water level or certain increase of temperature change. Then what they will do. That need to really rethink and work together by the policy because Bangladesh government has some policies in the Bangladesh Delta plan that need to find how that can meet the farmers need of now and future. Then we can say that's the climate, we are climate resilient and we are ready for our uncertain future. So that's, that's the final. Thank you, and thank you for both your presentation and sharing your knowledge and research work with our audience. Based on the questions I see that it's much appreciated. So thank you. Feel free to also give maybe some more replies or connect to people in this in the audience to to further discuss your work with them. Then I'm closing this masterclass of today. And I would like to pay attention to the next week's masterclass. So maybe also that can be put on screen. Next week's masterclasses are last one in this short series. And the topic of the masterclass is rethinking delta knowledge and moving forward with, as usual, we have two speakers, which is Dr. Dr. We're going to share their knowledge with them. And with you. And we are, of course, starting at 6 October at the same time as we are have also started today. If you would like to have more information on this masterclass series, go to your go to our website and maybe you can do that via your favorite search engine. And then search for UDW masterclass series and add IHE Delft to it. And then you are there. I'm going to thank you very much for having joined us and I'm looking forward to seeing you back online and next week. Thank you very much.