Position PaperModelling with stakeholders – Next generation
Graphical abstract
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)
Abstract and concrete data in the perseverance of social theories: when weak data lead to unshakeable beliefs
J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.
(1983)- et al.
Effectiveness of collaborative map-based decision support tools: results of an experiment
Environ. Model. Softw.
(2013) Procedural knowledge for integrated modelling: towards the modelling Playground
Environ. Model. Softw.
(2013)Constructing model credibility in the context of policy appraisal
Environ. Model. Softw.
(2011)- et al.
Spatial representations are not neutral: lessons from a participatory agent-based modelling process in a land-use conflict
Environ. Model. Softw.
(2013) - et al.
Managing uncertainty in integrated environmental modelling: the UncertWeb framework
Environ. Model. Softw.
(2013) - et al.
Linking process to outcomes—internal and external criteria for a stakeholder involvement in river basin management planning
Ecol. Econ.
(2012) - et al.
Providing online access to hydrological model simulations through interactive geospatial animations
Environ. Model. Softw.
(2013) - et al.
Identifying parametric controls and dependencies in integrated assessment models using global sensitivity analysis
Environ. Model. Softw.
(2014) - et al.
Modelling with stakeholders within a development project
Environ. Model. Softw.
(2010)
Supporting decision making under uncertainty: development of a participatory integrated model for water management in the middle guadiana river basin
Environ. Model. Softw.
A general framework for dynamic emulation modelling in environmental problems
Environ. Model. Softw.
Integrated assessment of sea-level rise adaptation strategies using a Bayesian decision network approach
Environ. Model. Softw.
Good practice in Bayesian network modelling
Environ. Model. Softw.
The spatial framework for weight sensitivity analysis in AHP-based multi-criteria decision making
Environ. Model. Softw.
The consensus of local stakeholders and outside experts in suitability modeling for future camp development
Landsc. Urban Plan.
Climate change scenario planning: a model for the integration of science and management in environmental decision-making
Environ. Model. Softw.
Mapping local spatial knowledge in the assessment of agricultural systems: a case study on the provision of agricultural services
Appl. Geogr.
Joint stakeholder decision-making on the management of the Silao–Romita aquifer using AHP
Environ. Model. Softw.
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
Belief, awareness, and limited reasoning
Artif. Intell.
A software tool for elicitation of expert knowledge about species richness or similar counts
Environ. Model. Softw.
Volunteered geographic information, urban forests, & environmental justice
Comput. Environ. Urban Syst.
Putting humans in the loop: social computing for water resources Management
Environ. Model. Softw.
Geo-Wiki: an online platform for improving global land cover
Environ. Model. Softw.
A multi-model approach to engaging stakeholder and modellers in complex environmental problems
Environ. Sci. Policy
Effectiveness of a participatory modeling effort to identify and advance community water resource goals in St. Albans, Vermont
Environ. Model. Softw
Participatory 3-dimension mapping: a tool for encouraging multi-caste collaboration to climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction
Appl. Geogr.
A fuzzy GIS-based system to integrate local and technical knowledge in soil salinity monitoring
Environ. Model. Softw.
Innovative approaches to integrated global change modelling
Environ. Model. Softw.
Modeling the integration of stakeholder knowledge in social–ecological decision-making: benefits and limitations to knowledge diversity
Ecol. Modell.
Stakeholder participation in evaluation design: Is it worth the effort?
Eval. Program Plann
Scenario modelling to support industry strategic planning and decision making
Environ. Model. Softw.
Methods for uncertainty propagation in life cycle assessment
Environ. Model. Softw.
Differences in farmer and expert beliefs and the perceived impacts of conservation agriculture
Glob. Environ. Chang.
Strategies for communicating systems models
Environ. Model. Softw.
Behavioural issues in environmental modelling - the missing perspective
Environ. Model. Softw
Integrated assessment and modelling: overview and synthesis of salient dimensions
Environ. Model. Softw.
Information technology as a tool for public participation in urban planning: a review of experiments and potentials
Des. Stud.
Participatory land use modelling, pathways to an integrated approach
Environ. Model. Softw.
Stakeholder driven update and improvement of a national water resources model
Environ. Model. Softw.
Comparing the role of boundary organizations in the governance of climate change in three EU member states
Environ. Sci. Policy
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.
Ten iterative steps in development and evaluation of environmental models
Environ. Model. Softw.
A proposal of toolkit for GDSS facilitators
Gr. Decis. Negot.
Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge
Dev. Chang.
Perseverance of social theories: the role of explanation in the persistence of discredited information
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
Components of adaptive management
Predictably Irrational: the Hidden Forces that Shape Our Decisions
A ladder of citizen participation
J. Am. Inst. Plann
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.