Position Paper
Modelling with stakeholders – Next generation

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.11.016Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Participatory modelling has become mainstream in resource and environmental management.

  • We review recent contributions to participatory environmental modelling to identify the tools, methods and processes applied.

  • Global internet connectivity, social media and crowdsourcing create opportunities for participatory modelling.

  • We suggest structured mechanisms to examine and account for human biases and beliefs in participatory modelling.

  • Advanced visualization tools, gaming, and virtual environments improve communication with stakeholders.

Abstract

This paper updates and builds on ‘Modelling with Stakeholders’ Voinov and Bousquet, 2010 which demonstrated the importance of, and demand for, stakeholder participation in resource and environmental modelling. This position paper returns to the concepts of that publication and reviews the progress made since 2010. A new development is the wide introduction and acceptance of social media and web applications, which dramatically changes the context and scale of stakeholder interactions and participation. Technology advances make it easier to incorporate information in interactive formats via visualization and games to augment participatory experiences. Citizens as stakeholders are increasingly demanding to be engaged in planning decisions that affect them and their communities, at scales from local to global. How people interact with and access models and data is rapidly evolving. In turn, this requires changes in how models are built, packaged, and disseminated: citizens are less in awe of experts and external authorities, and they are increasingly aware of their own capabilities to provide inputs to planning processes, including models. The continued acceleration of environmental degradation and natural resource depletion accompanies these societal changes, even as there is a growing acceptance of the need to transition to alternative, possibly very different, life styles. Substantive transitions cannot occur without significant changes in human behaviour and perceptions. The important and diverse roles that models can play in guiding human behaviour, and in disseminating and increasing societal knowledge, are a feature of stakeholder processes today.

Introduction

Since Voinov and Bousquet (2010), over 200 papers have been published in Environmental Modelling and Software (EMS) that refer to stakeholder involvement. In preparing this Virtual Thematic Issue (VTI) Modelling with Stakeholders II, we reviewed articles published in EMS and selected papers that we considered most important in the field. For this position paper, we also considered papers in other journals that advanced the field of participatory modelling (PM) and developed innovative approaches.

Many studies have stressed the benefits, as well as the challenges, of stakeholder participation in environmental modelling (e.g., Carmona et al., 2013, Rockmann et al., 2012, Videira et al., 2009). Experiences with participatory model development have been well documented. However, overview articles and guidance for practitioners are still lacking, particularly regarding the tools, methods, and processes that can be used to meet the challenges of participatory environmental modelling (Videira et al., 2009). This current lack of guidance is, in part, the result of our highly diverse human society that retains a heterogeneous distribution of knowledge and highly localized belief systems. It is also the result of the expanding multiplicity of opportunities (and accompanying stresses) created by rapid technological developments in an increasingly hyper-connected world. Indeed, participatory modelling and stakeholder engagement are facilitated by innovative communication media and new data acquisition, and processing tools that can be used for local applications, but that are also increasingly provided to a greater, global, community. Concomitantly, planners and policy-makers struggle to reconcile, or arbitrate, increasingly vociferous activist positions: reaching acceptable consensus, or justifiable decisions, is more difficult than ever. Decision-making was perhaps less contested in a more top-down, less transparent, past when the public generally deferred to the authoritative voices of professionals and political leaders.

The human dimensions of PM are why we still believe, just as Voinov and Bousquet (2010) did, that there can be no unique guidance for PM. Instead, PM needs to emphasize a smart adaptability of processes, based on active knowledge of local project specificities, including the identification of appropriate rewards or compensations that enable the meaningful engagement of all needed participants.

The majority of the articles reviewed for this paper describe case studies that involved stakeholders in resource management and environmental planning. Systems involving environmental/natural resource management are inherently complex. They involve multiple sectors, issues and stakeholders. They include a diversity of human-material interactions and they frequently cross administrative boundaries. The complex problems associated with environmental management typically call for an integrated PM approach (Von Korff et al., 2012).

The growing popularity of PM is exemplified by the marked increase in the number of papers published on the topic in recent years (Seidl, 2015). Stakeholder participation in research and decision-making can be traced back to at least the late 1970s and 1980s (Greene, 1987, White, 1979). It derives from (1) a universal drive towards greater decentralisation and ‘people's participation’ (Cohn, 2008, Haklay, 2012, McCall et al., 2015, Silvertown, 2009); (2) a growing ‘grassroots’ demand for public engagement in environmental planning and decision support (e.g., Delgado-Galván et al., 2014, Fulton et al., 2015); (3) a realization by decision-makers that new management or policy recommendations are less likely to be acted on if stakeholders are excluded from the policy development process; (4) a realization by modellers that the public can provide considerable knowledge, labor, and skills, and may even help mobilise funding (Leenhardt et al., 2012, Blackstock et al., 2012); and (5) the fast-growing and easy access to technical capacities that enable quicker and broader public involvement, notably through the internet and Web 2.0.

Distinctions need to be drawn between (a) general citizen involvement or participation – i.e. public involvement in asking or declaring needs, opinions, preferences, constraints, prejudices, etc.; and (b) the involvement of people in the pursuit of technical or scientific knowledge, termed Citizen Science (Cohn, 2008, Silvertown, 2009). For us, public participation in producing knowledge means that people are not just used as passive sensors, but are instead active participants in checking, assessing, or commenting on scientific observations – in addition to declaring their specific interests as citizens. This makes PM a form of Citizen Science because PM engages stakeholders in developing new knowledge, even as it solicits – and carefully examines – public needs, opinions, preferences, and constraints. Many forms of stakeholder and public knowledge can contribute, including so-called “indigenous knowledge”, “traditional ecological knowledge”, or “local spatial knowledge” (Agrawal, 1995, Berkes et al., 2000, Emery, 2000, Raymond et al., 2010).

Amongst some practitioners and modellers, an idealised view appears to exist that stakeholders can, or should, be engaged in most stages of environmental modelling. However, the degree to which stakeholders are engaged in environmental modelling can vary. In the literature on participation there are many examples of “participation ladders” or “levels of engagement”, which purport to distinguish between intensities or depths of participation (Arnstein, 1969, De Kraker et al., 2011, Jankowski, 2009, Lynam et al., 2007, McCall and Peters-Guarin, 2012, Shirk et al., 2012, Voinov and Bousquet, 2010). The most passive participatory process is simply to inform people, which does not involve true engagement of stakeholders. The next level of participation is when local stakeholders (in this case better termed as ‘local experts’) provide data to be used by modellers – this is called “extractive use”. Increasing levels of participation involve the collaboration of stakeholders in various aspects and stages of the modelling activities, such as advising on key indicators or appropriate measurement techniques (IAP2, 2006). The most intense participation occurs when local stakeholders – that is, those affected by the use and outcomes of the model - actually initiate the PM process and are engaged in all its stages: from identification of the problem(s), to model design, parameter selection, data collection, data validation, etc. up to application of the model and to decisions about ‘ownership’ – both ownership of the data inputs (especially confidential or culturally-sensitive material), and ownership of the final products and outputs of the modelling activities. In this ultimate situation, local stakeholders are involved in performing the analyses and modelling as well as the decision-making processes.

A game-changer has been the expansion of the Internet in terms of coverage and functionality. The Internet has become part of mobile telephone services with almost global coverage. This has transformed the ways that people are connected – to each other, to sources of information, and to learning opportunities. However, this connectivity does not resolve the uncertainty in our lives and in the local and societal decisions that have to be made. In many cases, the excess of information and connectedness may even increase the level of uncertainty.

This position paper starts with a review (section 1) of the papers on PM that have been included in the VTI, and also examines trends in the vast literature on PM that we find indicative and promising for the future. After discussing new web services and crowdsourcing tools and methods that can help PM to move forward (Section 2), we look at how uncertainties are treated in participatory research (Section 3). We then examine possibilities to go beyond current practice in PM, focusing on visualization and communication tools (Section 4). In Section 5 we argue that participants' recognition of their own and other stakeholders’ values and biases is an important element in the applications of modelling in policies and projects aiming at a higher degree of participation. Building on the need to identify biases and beliefs to better inform societal decisions and actions, we propose a new framework for organizing PM processes and for making progress on a participatory research and action agenda. We conclude the paper by making some additional suggestions and discussing some principles that we believe will help advance the practice and usefulness of PM.

Section snippets

A classification of components and approaches for participatory modelling

Based on our review of the VTI and other literature on modelling with stakeholders, as well as more general documentation about the design and structure of modelling processes (Chen and Pollino, 2012, Jakeman et al., 2006, Kragt et al., 2013, Robson et al., 2008, Welsh, 2008), we identify seven general domains or “components”1 in the modelling

Internet, web services, and crowdsourcing

The promise of using the Internet to facilitate management and decision-making is not new (e.g., Voinov and Costanza, 1999). However, this concept has only recently been implemented and operationalized in some functional applications (Hämäläinen et al., 2010, Latre et al., 2013). Various web applications and web services are available to interact with models (Walker and Chapra, 2014), to visualize model output (Brooking and Hunter, 2013) and to provide other functionality that can be useful in

Treatment of uncertainties in participatory modelling

The variability and randomness that exist in availability and pricing of resources, data and information for the parameterization of scientific components of models, policies, resource demands, markets, expert and stakeholder opinions and beliefs are referred to as uncertainties. These uncertainties are further exacerbated by subjective decisions on the assumptions, simplifications and interpretations that are used when designing the model. All these factors affect model performance, and need

Digital and visual media for participatory modelling

The use of various media and formats for communicating in participatory contexts is expanding rapidly. Environmental problems that are often the focal point for convening PM processes tend to require the synthesis of diverse knowledge, data, methods and perspectives resulting in the need to communicate across multiple facets of problems and modelled representations (Hamilton et al., 2015). Graphic and visual media are frequently a core element in communication processes for groups (Gill et al.,

Participatory judgements, decisions, and informed actions

As discussed above, communications and engagement of stakeholders (including professionals) is affected by human perceptions. In turn, human perceptions, beliefs, and biases (of individuals and groups) influence what projects are chosen, who engages or is engaged, how models are put together, how models are applied, and what decisions and actions are consequently drawn. Our human characteristics and limitations affect all our judgements and decisions. This section presents some of the essential

PM creates value in many different ways

It engages participants in a greater understanding of the trade-offs between resources needed and the impacts of extraction of those resources. It fosters their cognitive development and, potentially, their acquisition of new tools or capabilities that may be useful to them outside of the modelling effort. If the modelling effort is successful, the results will be translated into better, and more informed management actions and policy decisions. It would be a shame to lose track of the advances

Acknowledgements

This paper itself can be seen as an example of web based participatory research. It was entirely written on Google Docs with all co-authors contributing on a more or less regular basis. The authors are grateful to the five anonymous journal reviewers and to Jack Eggleston and Kevin Breen of the USGS for helping clarify and improve this manuscript.

A. Voinov was supported by the EU-FP7-308601 COMPLEX project. N. Kolagani and P. Ramu were supported by the 5-4/2010-TE project of Department of Land

References (210)

  • G. Carmona et al.

    Supporting decision making under uncertainty: development of a participatory integrated model for water management in the middle guadiana river basin

    Environ. Model. Softw.

    (2013)
  • A. Castelletti et al.

    A general framework for dynamic emulation modelling in environmental problems

    Environ. Model. Softw.

    (2012)
  • M. Catenacci et al.

    Integrated assessment of sea-level rise adaptation strategies using a Bayesian decision network approach

    Environ. Model. Softw.

    (2013)
  • S.H. Chen et al.

    Good practice in Bayesian network modelling

    Environ. Model. Softw.

    (2012)
  • Y. Chen et al.

    The spatial framework for weight sensitivity analysis in AHP-based multi-criteria decision making

    Environ. Model. Softw.

    (2013)
  • T.E. Chow et al.

    The consensus of local stakeholders and outside experts in suitability modeling for future camp development

    Landsc. Urban Plan.

    (2010)
  • A.N. Cobb et al.

    Climate change scenario planning: a model for the integration of science and management in environmental decision-making

    Environ. Model. Softw.

    (2012)
  • M. Debolini et al.

    Mapping local spatial knowledge in the assessment of agricultural systems: a case study on the provision of agricultural services

    Appl. Geogr.

    (2013)
  • X. Delgado-Galván et al.

    Joint stakeholder decision-making on the management of the Silao–Romita aquifer using AHP

    Environ. Model. Softw.

    (2014)
  • S. Elsawah et al.

    A methodology for eliciting, representing, and analysing stakeholder knowledge for decision making on complex socio-ecological systems: from cognitive maps to agent-based models

    J. Environ. Manage

    (2015)
  • R. Fagin et al.

    Belief, awareness, and limited reasoning

    Artif. Intell.

    (1987)
  • R. Fisher et al.

    A software tool for elicitation of expert knowledge about species richness or similar counts

    Environ. Model. Softw.

    (2012)
  • A. Foster et al.

    Volunteered geographic information, urban forests, & environmental justice

    Comput. Environ. Urban Syst.

    (2015)
  • P. Fraternali et al.

    Putting humans in the loop: social computing for water resources Management

    Environ. Model. Softw.

    (2012)
  • S. Fritz et al.

    Geo-Wiki: an online platform for improving global land cover

    Environ. Model. Softw.

    (2012)
  • E.A. Fulton et al.

    A multi-model approach to engaging stakeholder and modellers in complex environmental problems

    Environ. Sci. Policy

    (2015)
  • E.J.B. Gaddis et al.

    Effectiveness of a participatory modeling effort to identify and advance community water resource goals in St. Albans, Vermont

    Environ. Model. Softw

    (2010)
  • J.C. Gaillard et al.

    Participatory 3-dimension mapping: a tool for encouraging multi-caste collaboration to climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction

    Appl. Geogr.

    (2013)
  • R. Giordano et al.

    A fuzzy GIS-based system to integrate local and technical knowledge in soil salinity monitoring

    Environ. Model. Softw.

    (2012)
  • C. Giupponi et al.

    Innovative approaches to integrated global change modelling

    Environ. Model. Softw.

    (2013)
  • S. Gray et al.

    Modeling the integration of stakeholder knowledge in social–ecological decision-making: benefits and limitations to knowledge diversity

    Ecol. Modell.

    (2012)
  • J.C. Greene

    Stakeholder participation in evaluation design: Is it worth the effort?

    Eval. Program Plann

    (1987)
  • R. Greiner et al.

    Scenario modelling to support industry strategic planning and decision making

    Environ. Model. Softw.

    (2014)
  • E.A. Groen et al.

    Methods for uncertainty propagation in life cycle assessment

    Environ. Model. Softw.

    (2014)
  • J. Halbrendt et al.

    Differences in farmer and expert beliefs and the perceived impacts of conservation agriculture

    Glob. Environ. Chang.

    (2014)
  • D.M. Hall et al.

    Strategies for communicating systems models

    Environ. Model. Softw.

    (2014)
  • R.P. Hämäläinen

    Behavioural issues in environmental modelling - the missing perspective

    Environ. Model. Softw

    (2015)
  • S.H. Hamilton et al.

    Integrated assessment and modelling: overview and synthesis of salient dimensions

    Environ. Model. Softw.

    (2015)
  • M. Hanzl

    Information technology as a tool for public participation in urban planning: a review of experiments and potentials

    Des. Stud.

    (2007)
  • R. Hewitt et al.

    Participatory land use modelling, pathways to an integrated approach

    Environ. Model. Softw.

    (2014)
  • A.L. Hojberg et al.

    Stakeholder driven update and improvement of a national water resources model

    Environ. Model. Softw.

    (2013)
  • R. Hoppe et al.

    Comparing the role of boundary organizations in the governance of climate change in three EU member states

    Environ. Sci. Policy

    (2014)
  • L. Hossard et al.

    A participatory approach to design spatial scenarios of cropping systems and assess their effects on phoma stem canker management at a regional scale

    Environ. Model. Softw.

    (2013)
  • A.J. Jakeman et al.

    Ten iterative steps in development and evaluation of environmental models

    Environ. Model. Softw.

    (2006)
  • A. Adla et al.

    A proposal of toolkit for GDSS facilitators

    Gr. Decis. Negot.

    (2011)
  • A. Agrawal

    Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge

    Dev. Chang.

    (1995)
  • C.A. Anderson et al.

    Perseverance of social theories: the role of explanation in the persistence of discredited information

    J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.

    (1980)
  • R.M. Argent

    Components of adaptive management

  • D. Ariely

    Predictably Irrational: the Hidden Forces that Shape Our Decisions

    (2010)
  • S.R. Arnstein

    A ladder of citizen participation

    J. Am. Inst. Plann

    (1969)
  • Cited by (0)

    The position paper was initiated at a workshop on ‘Modeling With Stakeholders’ during IEMSS 2014. Order of authors is the three workshop organizers followed by alphabetical listing of remaining authors. Introductory Articles/Position papers are freely accessible.

    View full text