Article | Kulturstudier i Sverige. Nationell forskarkonferens | Participatory Modelling: (how) can computer generated information affect the ”room of action” of local stakeholders?

Title:
Participatory Modelling: (how) can computer generated information affect the ”room of action” of local stakeholders?
Author:
Anna Jonsson: Department of Thematic Studies, Linköping University, Sweden Johanna Alkan Olsson: LUCSUS, Lund University, Sweden
Download:
Full text (pdf)
Year:
2005
Conference:
Kulturstudier i Sverige. Nationell forskarkonferens
Issue:
015
Article no.:
041
Pages:
507-526
No. of pages:
20
Publication type:
Abstract and Fulltext
Published:
2005-12-30
Series:
Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings
ISSN (print):
1650-3686
ISSN (online):
1650-3740
Publisher:
Linköping University Electronic Press; Linköpings universitet


Export in BibTex, RIS or text

Today; the demand for increased public participation in the management of natural resources and implementation of remedies to come to grips with environmental problems within the environmental field is growing. Increased participation is held to contribute to better; more legitimate and cost-efficient solutions. Local actors’ knowledge about the functioning of ecosystems may also increase the quality of proposed solutions. At the same time the use of highly aggregated computer generated scientific information as a basis for decisions and negotiations both at national and international levels has become more and more recurrent. The computer models enable the integration of large quantities of information about environmental causes and effects at various scales in time and space.

This paper discusses what may happen; when computer generated information meets local water stakeholders. The combination of remedies that computer based models suggest are for example not always possible to implement within the limited “room of action” in which local stakeholders are forced to act. May a process of participatory modelling make model generated information more adapted to this “room of action”? Or the other way around is a participatory modelling process a way to affect the size and character of this room? And can this type of method/process be a way forward for creating a critically intervening research?

The paper builds on experiences from two Swedish case studies; one recently terminated; and one just started. Both cases focus on the problem of eutrophication and local stakeholders include farmers; municipal environmental officers; outdoor interests and representatives from other point- and diffuse sources of nitrogen and phosphorous. Results show that this type of participatory modelling may be a good tool for creating a general consensus around the causes; type and possible solutions of certain types of environmental problems. Simultaneously; computer generated information is not always adapted to the complex network of institutions that define the room of action of local stakeholders.

Kulturstudier i Sverige. Nationell forskarkonferens

Author:
Anna Jonsson, Johanna Alkan Olsson
Title:
Participatory Modelling: (how) can computer generated information affect the ”room of action” of local stakeholders?
References:

Alkan Olsson; J.; Berg; K.; 2005; Local stakeholders’ acceptance of model-generated data used as a communication tool in Water Management – The Rönneå Study; Ambio; (submitted)


Andersson; L.; 2004. Experiences of use of riverine nutrient models in stakeholder dialogues. International Journal of Water Resources Development 20; 399–413.


Andersson; L.; Bonell; M. and Moody; D. W. 2004. Foreword to Special Thematic Issue: Hydrology for the Environment; Life and Policy (HELP) Programme. Water Resources Development 20; 267–274.


Andersson; L.; Carstensson; R.; Hallgren; D. and Löwgren; M. 2002. Struggles over nutrient emissions. An attempt to use models for nutrient transports as a tool for communication between researchers and stakeholders with the purpose of preparing the implementation of the EU WFD in Upper Svartå catchment. Final report of the project Improved water environment in the upper Svartå valley. Department of Geography; Linköping University; pp 50. (in Swedish)


Arnstein; S. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners; 4:216–224.


Beierle; T. C. 1998. Public Participation in Environmental Decisions: An Evaluation Framework using Social Goals. Discussion Paper 99–06; Resources for the Future; Washington; D.C.; pp 31.


Blomqvist; A. 2004. How can Stakeholder Participation Improve European Watershed Management? The Water Framework Directive; Watercourse groups and Swedish contributions to Baltic Sea eutrophication. Water Policy 6; 39–52.


Collentine; D.; Forsman; Å; Galaz; V.; Kallner Bastviken; S. and Ståhl-Delbanco; A. 2002. CATCH: decision support for stakeholders in catchment areas. Water Policy 4; 447–463.


Collentine; D.; Galaz; V.; Kallner Bastviken; S. and Ståhl-Delbanco; A. 2005. CATCH – a method for structured discussions and a tool for decision support. AMBIO 7; (accepted).


Creighton; J. L.; Dunning; C. M.; Priscolli; J. D. and Ayres; D. B. 1998. Public Involvement and Dispute Resolution. A Reader on the Second Decade of Experience at the Institute for Water Resources. U.S. Corps of Engineers; Alexandria. IWR Report 82-R-5; pp 471.


Eckerberg; K. and Brundin; P. 2002. Local Agenda 21 – A study of 10 Swedish Municipalitites. Stockholm:Kommentus Förlag. (in Swedish)


Edstam; A. K. 2004. Designing a participatory multi-stakeholder methodology for sustainable water planning at the local level – the Rönneå catchment dialogues. Masters Thesis. Department of Thematic Studies; Linköping University; Sweden


Edström; C. and Eckerberg; K. 2002. Inför Johannesburg. Svenska kommuners arbete med Agenda 21 – en jämförelse över tid. Nationalkommittén för Agenda 21 och Habitat. Statsvetenskapliga Institutionen; Umeå Universitet.


Forsberg; B. 2002. Lokal Agenda 21 för hållbar utveckling. En studie av miljöfrågan i tillväxtsamhället. Umeå Universitet: Statsvetenskapliga Institutionen.


Gooch; G. D. and Jansson; G. 2003. River Dialogues – A Story of Information Communication and Public Participation in Estonia; The Netherlands and Sweden. Focus Group Methodology in water basin management. www.riverdialogues.org


Hanchey; J. R. 1998. The Objectives of Public Participation. In Public Involvement Techniques: A Reader of Ten Years Experience at the Institute for Water Resources. J. L. Creighton; J. D. Priscolli and C. M. Dunning (eds.); U.S. Corps of Engineers; Alexandria. IWR Research Report 82-R-1; pp 21–30.


Irwin; A and Wynne; B. (eds.). 1996. Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge.


Irwin; A. 1995. Citizens Science: A Study of People; Expertise and Sustainable Development. Routledge; London.


Irwin; A.; Dale; A. and Smith; D 1996. Science and Hell’s Kitchen: The Local Understanding of Hazard Issues In: Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Irwin; A and Wynne; B (eds) Cambridge University Press; Cambridge. pp 47–64.


Johnson; N.; Munk Ravnborg; H.; Westerman; O. and Probst; K. 2001. User participation in watershed management and research. Water Policy 3; 507–520.


Jonsson; A; Danielsson I. and Jöborn J. 2005 Designing a multi purpose methodology for strategic environmental research – the Rönneå catchment dialogues; Ambio 7 (submitted).


Jöborn; A. and Danielsson; I. 2005. Multidisciplinary research efforts necessary to find solutions to the eutrophication problem – The Rönneå case study. Ambio 7. (submitted)


Kasemir B.; Jäger J.; Jaeger C. C. and Gardner M. T. (eds.); 2003a; Public Participation in Sustainability Science A Handbook; Cambridge University Press; Cambridge.


Lauber; T. B. and Knuth; B. A. 2000. Citizen participation in Natural Resource Management: A Synthesis of HDRU Research. HDRU Series No 00–7. Department of Natural Resources; Human Dimensions Research Unit; Cornell University; Ithaca; USA; pp 32.


Liedberg Jönsson; B. 2004. Stakeholder Participation as a Tool for Sustainable Development in the Em River Basin. Water Resources Development 20; 345–352.


Lundqvist; L (ed) 2004. Sustainable Water Management. Organisation; Participation; Influence; Economy. VASTRA Report No. 5. (in Swedish)


Lundqvist; L. 2001. Games that real farmers play …


Marshall; G. R. (1999) Economics of Incorporating Public Participation in Efforts to Redress Degradation of Agricultural Land. 43rd Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society and the 6th Annual Conference of the New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society; Christchurch; New Zealand; 20–22 January; 1999.


Mc Granahan; G. and Gerger; Å.; 1999; Participation and environmental assessment in northern and southern cities; with examples form Stockholm and Jakarta; Int; J. Environ. Pollut.; 11; 373–394.


Ministry of Environment 1997. A new administration of water. Water is life! Committee on Catchment Districts. SOU 1997:99 Government of Sweden; Fritzes; Stockholm (in Swedish) Ministry of Environment 1997. Collaboration in water management. Final report of the Committee on Catchment Districts. SOU 1997:155 Government of Sweden; Fritzes; Stockholm. (in Swedish)


Ministry of Environment 2000. The future environment – our common responsibility. Final report of the Committee on Environmental Objectives; SOU 2000:52. Government of Sweden; Fritzes; Stockholm. (in Swedish; English summary)


Ministry of Environment 2002. Clear as Water. Final report of the Committee on Swedish Water Administration; SOU 2002:105. Government of Sweden; Fritzes; Stockholm. (in Swedish; English summary)


Montin; S.; 1998. Local Experiments of Democracy: examples and analysis. Fritzes; Stockholm. (in Swedish)


Munch; P. 1998. Benefits and costs of the public involvement program Sanibel Island. In Public Involvement Techniques: A Reader of Ten Years Experience at the Institute for Water Resources. J. L. Creighton; J. D. Priscolli and C. M. Dunning (eds); U.S. Corps of Engineers; Alexandria. IWR Research Report 82-R-1; pp 407–418.


North; D; 1990. Institutions; institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press.


Olsson; J. and Montin; S. (eds); 1999. Democracy as Experiment: endeavour and renewal in Swedish Municipalities. Novemus; Ă–rebro. (in Swedish)


Ostrom; E. 1990. Governing of the Commons – The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge.
Ostrom; E.; Schroeder; L. and Wynne; S. 1993. Institutional Incentives and Sustainable Development.


Pahl-Wostl; C.; Schlumpf; C.; Büssenshütt; M. and Schönborn; A.; 2000; Models at the inter-face between science and society: impacts and options; Integr. Assess.; 1; pp 267–280.


Priscolli; J. D. 1998. Public Involvement; Conflict Management; and Dispute Resolution in Water Resources and Environmental Decision Making. In Public Involvement and Dispute Resolution. A Reader on the Second Decade of Experience at the Institute for Water Resources Creighton; J. L.; Dunning; C. M.; Priscolli; J. D. and Ayres; D. B.; U.S. Corps of Engineers; Alexandria. IWR Report 82-R-5; pp 41–58.


Ravetz; J.; 2003; Models as Metaphors; in; Kasemir B.; Jäger J.; Jaeger C. C. and Gardner M. T. (eds.); Public Participation in Sustainability Science A Handbook; Cambridge University Press; Cambridge.


Sarewitz; D.; Pielke; R.A.; and Radford; B. (eds.) 2000. Prediction Science; Decision Making and the Future of Nature. Island Press; Washington; D.C.


Shackley; S.; 1997. Trust in Models? The Mediating and Transformative Role of Computer Models in Environmental Discourse; in; Redclift; M. And Woodgate; G. (eds.); The Inter-national Handbook of Environmental Sociology; Edward Elgar; Cheltenham Glos.; pp. 237–260.


Star; L.; Susan and James R.; Greisemer (1989). Institutional Ecology; "Translations" and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology; 1907–39. Social Studies of Science 19(3): 387–420.


Strengers Isabelle; 1999 For en demokratisering av vitenskaperna. Spartacus Forlag AS; Oslo.


Swallow; B. M.; Johnson; N. and Meinzen-Dick; R. S. (eds.) 2001. Working with people for watershed management. Water Policy 3; 449–455.


Söderqvist; T. 2001. Varför dra sitt strå till stacken? En kartläggning av skånska lantbrukares motiv att delta i ett kommunalt miljöprojekt. Kommunal ekonomi och politik 5:29–55.


Van der Sluijs; J.; van Eijndhoven; J. Schackley; S. And Wynne; B.; 1998; Anchoring Devises in Science for Policy The case of consensus around Climate sensitivity. Social Studies of Science 28 (2) ; 291–323.


Wide; J.; Gustavsson; g. and Lundström; L. (eds) 2001. Local democracy in change – Citizen and council initiatives under new conditions. Stockholm: Svenska Kommunförbundet; Àjour nr. 6. (in Swedish)


Wittgren; H.-B.; Castensson; R.; Gipperth.; L.; Joelsson; A.; Jonasson; J.; Pettersson; A.; Thunvik; R. and Torstensson; G. 2005. An Actor Game on Implementation of Environmental Quality Standards for Nitrogen in a Swedish Agricultrual Catchment. AMBIO (accepted).


Wittgren; H.-B.; Westerlund; S. and Castensson; R. 2000. Genevadsåstudien – Ett aktörsspel om genomförandet av miljökvalitetsnormer för kväve I ett avrinningsområde. Linköping: Tema Vatten/VASTRA.


Wynne; B. 1992; Misunderstood Misunderstanding: Social Identities and Public Uptake of Science. Public Understanding of Science 1; 281–394.


Yearley; S. 1999. What do We Mean by “Science” in the Public Understanding of Science. In: Between Understanding and Trust: The Public; Science and Technology. Dierkes; M. and von Gröte; C. (eds.). Harwood Academic; Reading.


Yearley; S. 2005; Making Sense of Science; Understanding the social study of Science; Sage Publications; London.

Kulturstudier i Sverige. Nationell forskarkonferens

Author:
Anna Jonsson, Johanna Alkan Olsson
Title:
Participatory Modelling: (how) can computer generated information affect the ”room of action” of local stakeholders?
Note: the following are taken directly from CrossRef
Citations:
No citations available at the moment