Position Paper
Modelling with stakeholders

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.03.007Get rights and content

Abstract

Stakeholder engagement, collaboration, or participation, shared learning or fact-finding, have become buzz words and hardly any environmental assessment or modelling effort today can be presented without some kind of reference to stakeholders and their involvement in the process. This is clearly a positive development, but in far too many cases stakeholders have merely been paid lip service and their engagement has consequentially been quite nominal. Nevertheless, it is generally agreed that better decisions are implemented with less conflict and more success when they are driven by stakeholders, that is by those who will be bearing their consequences. Participatory modelling, with its various types and clones, has emerged as a powerful tool that can (a) enhance the stakeholders knowledge and understanding of a system and its dynamics under various conditions, as in collaborative learning, and (b) identify and clarify the impacts of solutions to a given problem, usually related to supporting decision making, policy, regulation or management. In this overview paper we first look at the different types of stakeholder modelling, and compare participatory modelling to other frameworks that involve stakeholder participation. Based on that and on the experience of the projects reported in this issue and elsewhere, we draw some lessons and generalisations. We conclude with an outline of some future directions.

Introduction

Stakeholder engagement, collaboration, participation, shared learning and fact-finding have become buzz words in many management-oriented areas of science. Hardly any environmental assessment or modelling effort today can be presented without some kind of reference to stakeholders and their involvement in the process. In the 1970s the US Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) pioneered with efforts based on stakeholder participation in environmental decision making and assessment (Wagner and Ortolando, 1975, Wagner and Ortolando, 1976). Even earlier than that Forrester, when creating the system dynamics approach, sought to involve clients in the process of model construction. Forrester, 1961, Forrester, 1985, Forrester, 1994 emphasised the need to access the mental database of managers in order to be able to construct system dynamics models of strategic problems in business. In the 1970s this role of client involvement in the implementation of model results was more broadly recognised (Greenberger et al., 1976) as models started to enter the policy making arena. Modellers started working with individual clients and interest groups in all sort of ways. Not coincidentally it was also in the 1970s when the so-called “Sunshine Laws” were adopted by the US federal and state governments, requiring meetings, decisions and records of the regulatory authorities to be made available to the public. In some states public meetings were mandated to discuss a variety of decisions, one major example being timber sales in the Northwest. It was also at that time that the ACE called for the broad participation of stakeholders.

For decades prior, scientists had been carrying out their studies among themselves, modellers analysed the systems that were of interest to them, and software developers produced algorithms and programs that they believed would do the best job. Indeed, they were the experts; they knew better how the systems work, and tended not to question why somebody else should decide what was needed to solve important problems. Through the intervening years stakeholder involvement has become almost a “must”. This is clearly a positive development, but in far too many cases stakeholders have merely been paid lip service and their engagement has consequentially been quite nominal.

It is one thing to bring managers and clients into a joint process of problem solving, where the ultimate goal of optimising a firm’s performance, say, is a relatively simple one that can be shared by all the players. It is much harder to achieve success in natural resource management, however, when stakeholders may represent local, federal, private and public organisations, as well as individual citizens and interest groups, which have very different, oftentimes conflicting interests. Furthermore, in a company or an organisation the boundaries of the system are well known, while in natural resource management systems the definition of the spatial, social and ecological boundaries are all part of the problem. Nevertheless, it is generally agreed that better decisions are implemented with less conflict and more success when they are driven by stakeholders, that is by those who will be bearing their consequences. The bottom-up approach, when the stakeholders play a role in the decision-making process, offers a lot of promise, especially in democratic societies, where unpopular decisions are hard to implement in a top-bottom scheme of events, when all the decisions come from the governmental institutions.

It does not follow though that public involvement does necessarily or automatically lead to legitimacy and support of policies (Korfmacher, 2001). On the one hand the efficiency of the participatory process depends on social relations between the stakeholders, their ability to communicate and exchange information and knowledge, and the skills and methods that can assist them in doing that. On the other hand there is a clear need for technical, analytical and modelling tools and software that can be used in this process (Mendoza and Prabhu, 2006). Over the last decade progress has been made both on the social and technical aspects, and this thematic issue aims at presenting some of these achievements. Different groups of researchers have advanced in parallel, developing and applying specific methodologies, which are based on the same principles but focus on different parts of the process. While we have seen several recent reviews of participatory methods in decision making (e.g. Reed, 2008), in this overview paper we focus on participatory modelling. We first look at the different types of stakeholder modelling that we have encountered, and compare participatory modelling to other frameworks that involve stakeholder participation. Based on that and on the experience of the projects reported in this issue, we draw some lessons and generalisations. We conclude with an outline of some future directions.

Section snippets

Definitions and typologies

There has been a proliferation of various clones of stakeholder engagement in modelling, or, rather, of the use of modelling in support of a decision-making process that involves stakeholders. In many cases the differences are quite subtle and it may seem that various agencies or groups come up with a new term to serve as a recognised trademark for their efforts. In essence they tend to be doing more or less the same things. Some authors (Lynam et al., 2007, Daniell, 2008, Renger et al., 2008)

Objectives and type of participation

There is usually a mix of two main objectives that drive the participatory modelling process:

  • increase and share knowledge and understanding of a system and its dynamics under various conditions, as in collaborative learning (Lynam et al., 2010, Souchere et al., 2010, Campo et al., 2010);

  • identify and clarify the impacts of solutions to a given problem, usually related to supporting decision making, policy, regulation or management (Lagabrielle et al., 2010, Simon and Etienne, 2010; Anselme,

Lessons learned

We consider two categories of lessons drawn from various experiences conducted over the last decade: the lessons on the interactions among actors involved in the modelling process (social lessons) and the methodological modelling lessons.

Conclusions. From participatory modelling to collaborative decision making and adaptive modelling

Conclusions can be drawn in three directions: social, instrumental, and methodological.

Acknowledgements

The paper has been offered for open review as an EMS Position Paper. This process invites the Editorial Board and other invited reviewers to submit their comments and additions to the paper. We are very grateful to Michel Etienne, John Norton and Mark Borsuk, who have provided very useful critique and suggestions for improving the paper. Our thanks are also due to Tony Jakeman who has reviewed an earlier version of the paper and gave valuable comments on various aspects of the paper. We

References (117)

  • H.J. Henriksen et al.

    Public participation modelling using Bayesian networks in management of groundwater contamination

    Environmental Modelling & Software

    (2007)
  • A.J. Jakeman et al.

    Ten iterative steps in development and evaluation of environmental models

    Environmental Modelling & Software

    (2006)
  • E. Lagabrielle et al.

    Modelling with stakeholders to integrate biodiversity conservation with regional land-use planning – lessons learned in Réunion Island

    Environmental Modelling & Software

    (2010)
  • S. Lautenbach et al.

    Scenario analysis and management options for sustainable river basin management: application of the Elbe DSS

    Environmental Modelling & Software

    (2009)
  • T. Lynam et al.

    Adaptive modelling for adaptive water quality management in the Great Barrier Reef region, Australia

    Environmental Modelling & Software

    (2010)
  • M. Mahmoud et al.

    A formal framework for scenario development in support of environmental decision-making

    Environmental Modelling & Software

    (2009)
  • P. Martinez-Santos et al.

    Comparative reflections on the use of modelling tools in conflictive water management settings: the Mancha Occidental aquifer, Spain

    Environmental Modelling & Software

    (2010)
  • G. Mendoza et al.

    Participatory modelling and analysis for sustainable forest management: overview of soft system dynamics models and applications

    Forest Policy and Economics

    (2006)
  • S.S. Metcalf et al.

    Sharing the floodplain: mediated modelling for environmental management

    Environmental Modelling & Software

    (2010)
  • J. Mysiak et al.

    Environmental policy aid under uncertainty

  • U. Özesmi et al.

    Ecological models based on people’s knowledge: a multi-step fuzzy cognitive mapping approach

    Ecological Modelling

    (2004)
  • J.N. Pretty

    Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture

    World Development

    (1995)
  • K. Ramsey

    GIS, modelling, and politics: on the tensions of collaborative decision support

    Journal of Environmental Management

    (2009)
  • M. Reed

    Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review

    Biological Conservation

    (2008)
  • J. Refsgaard et al.

    Uncertainty in the environmental modelling process – a framework and guidance

    Environmental Modelling & Software

    (2007)
  • M. Rouan et al.

    A co-modelling process of social and natural dynamics on the isle of Ouessant: sheep, turf and bikes

    Environmental Modelling & Software

    (2010)
  • C. Simon et al.

    Modelling for stakeholders: a companion modelling approach applied to forest management planning with the Société Civile des Terres du Larzac

    Environmental Modelling & Software

    (2010)
  • V. Souchere et al.

    Co-constructing with stakeholders a role-playing game to initiate collective management of erosive runoff risks at the watershed scale

    Environmental Modelling & Software

    (2010)
  • J.L. Ticehurst et al.

    A Bayesian network approach to assess the sustainability of coastal lakes

    Environmental Modelling & Software

    (2007)
  • W. Ulrich

    Critical heuristics of social systems design

    Europ. J. of Operational Research

    (1987)
  • J. Abbot et al.

    Participatory GIS: opportunity or oxymoron?

    PLA Notes

    (1998)
  • Ahrweiler et al.

    ‘Caffè Nero: the Evaluation of Social Simulation’

    Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation

    (2005)
  • S. Arnstein

    A ladder of citizen participation

    Journal of the American Planning Association

    (1969)
  • AML
  • D.F. Andersen et al.

    Group model-building: adding more science to the craft

    System Dynamics Review

    (1997)
  • D.F. Andersen et al.

    Scripts for group model building

    System Dynamics Review

    (1997)
  • D.F. Andersen et al.

    Group model building: problem structuring, policy simulation, and decision support

    Journal of Operational Research

    (2006)
  • P. Aquino (d’) et al.

    A novel mediating participatory modelling: the ‘self-design’ process to accompany collective decision making

    International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology

    (2002)
  • C. Barnaud et al.

    Area study prior to companion modelling to integrate multiple interests in upper watershed management of Northern Thailand

    Southeast Asian Studies

    (2008)
  • O. Barreteau et al.

    Contribution of simulation and gaming to natural resource management issues: an introduction

    Simulation & Gaming

    (2007)
  • J. Becker et al.

    A framework for epistemological perspectives on simulation

    Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation

    (2005)
  • N. Becu et al.

    A methodology for eliciting and modelling stakeholders’ representations with agent-based modelling

  • T.C. Beirele et al.

    Democracy in practice: public participation in environmental decisions

    (2002)
  • F. Bousquet et al.

    An environmental modelling approach. The use of multi-agents simulations

  • D.S. Carr et al.

    An evaluation of three democratic, community-based approaches to citizen participation: surveys, conservations with community groups, and community dinners

    Soc. Nat. Resour

    (2001)
  • J.C. Castella et al.

    Participatory simulation of land-use changes in the northern mountains of Vietnam: the combined use of an agent-based model, a role-playing game, and a geographic information system

    Ecology and Society

    (2005)
  • R. Chambers

    Participatory mapping and geographic information systems: whose maps? Who is empowered and who is disempowered? Who gains and who loses?

    The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries

    (2006)
  • P. Checkland

    Systems Thinking, Systems Practice

    (1981)
  • J.L. Creighton

    The Public Participation Handbook: Making Better Decisions Through Citizen Involvement

    (2005)
  • Cited by (0)

    Position papers aim to synthesise some key aspect of the knowledge platform for environmental modelling and software issues. The review process is twofold - a normal external review process followed by extensive review by EMS Board members. See the Editorial in Volume 21 (2006).

    View full text