Formalised and Non-Formalised Methods in Resource ... - CiteSeerX

Formalised and Non-Formalised Methods in Resource Management, Knowledge and Learning in Participatory Processes. An Introduction Jens Newig,1 Helmut Haberl,2 Claudia Pahl-Wostl,3 Dale S. Rothman4 1

Institute of Environmental and Sustainability Communication, Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Scharnhorststr. 1, 21335 Lüneburg, Germany. 2

Institute of Social Ecology, IFF Vienna, Klagenfurt University, Austria.

3

Institute of Environmental Systems Research, University of Osnabrück, Germany.

4

International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg, Canada.

Email address of corresponding author: [email protected]

Key words: Information, communication, public and stakeholder involvement, transdisciplinary research, collective learning, uncertainty, complexity, modelling, land-use planning, water management, system dynamics, conflicts of interest.

Published as: Newig, Jens, Helmut Haberl, Claudia Pahl-Wostl, Dale Rothman, 2008. Formalised and NonFormalised Methods in Resource Management, Knowledge and Learning in Participatory Processes. An Introduction. Systemic Practice and Action Research 21(6), 381-387. Doi: 10.1007/s11213-008-9112-x The original publication is available at http://www.springerlink.com/content/4k5231717870854l/

-2-

Abstract The participation of non-state actors in public decision-making and transdisciplinary research is increasingly regarded as an effective means to cope with growing uncertainties and complexities in human-nature interactions. The management of natural resources is expected to profit from a broader knowledge base and processes of social learning, thus allowing for potentially more informed and creative decision-making. Communication is a key element of transmitting knowledge and fostering social learning. This article introduces the special issue, which assembles contributions that discuss different methods, instruments, tools, and models that have been developed in order to facilitate the transmission of information as well its selection and aggregation. Each of the contributions is briefly reviewed. The approaches discussed here and in the individual papers aim to foster learning in participatory processes. We argue that a key aspect is the degree to which methods are formalised. Formalisation refers to the extent to which information is channelled in a certain way, leaving more or less scope for open communication. Depending on the goals and context, more or less formalised methods can be employed. We conclude by highlighting the context-dependency of participatory processes in natural resource management and indicate some directions for future research.

1. Aims and scope of the special issue The management of natural resources increasingly relies on the participation and collaboration of policy makers, ‘experts’ and ‘lay persons’. This is the case in environmental governance (policy and administrative decisions) as well as in transdisciplinary research. Both challenge users and other stakeholders to play an active role in shaping research agendas and to provide and apply different kinds of knowledge, often in situations in which more or less apparent conflicts of interest exist between different social groups or actors (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1993; Scholz and Tietje 2002). Different forms of involvement have been established, providing for varying degrees of interaction, e.g. focus groups, citizens’ juries, consensusconferences, and stakeholder platforms, to name but a few (Beierle and Cayford 2002; Rowe and Frewer 2005; Renn 2006). Within the past decades, the spatial and functional scope of human environmental impacts has intensified considerably, contributing to an increase in complexity for modern environmental governance (Young et al. 2006; Pahl-Wostl 2007; Newig et al. 2008). In an attempt to respond to the challenges brought about by increasing socio-ecological complexities (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1993), growing global sustainability problems (Costanza et al., 2007) involving more and more normative and factual uncertainties (Pellizzoni 2003; Newig et al. 2005), participation is being touted as an effective remedy (Heinelt 2002). Against this background, one main reason to involve non-state actors in public decisions is to incorporate different sources of knowledge and to foster social learning, thus allowing for potentially better, i.e. more informed and creative, decision-making (Pahl-Wostl 2002a; Pahl-

Published as: Newig, Jens, Helmut Haberl, Claudia Pahl-Wostl, Dale Rothman, 2008. Formalised and NonFormalised Methods in Resource Management, Knowledge and Learning in Participatory Processes. An Introduction. Systemic Practice and Action Research 21(6), 381-387. Doi: 10.1007/s11213-008-9112-x

-3Wostl and Hare 2004). This has been stressed by proponents of ‘soft systems theory’ (Checkland 1993; Checkland and Scholes 1990). Communication is a key element of participation. Different methods have been developed in order to facilitate both the transmission of information as well as the selection and aggregation of information. Selection defines what is relevant in a given context and what is not, and thus constitutes meaning. Information is typically most meaningful when it is neither too scarce nor too abundant (Atmanspacher 2006). A range of methods, instruments, tools, and models is available to structure information flows and foster (collective) learning in these participatory processes. Depending on the respective goals and context, more or less formalised methods can be employed. Formalisation refers to the extent to which information is channelled in a certain way, leaving more or less scope for open communication. The more formalised a method, the more it functions as a filter, allowing only information of a particular nature to pass while excluding others (see Rowe and Frewer 2005). Methods to structure communication in participatory processes have different goals and can therefore be more or less formalized: 

Methods to elicit knowledge and perceptions of individuals range from qualitative interviews (non-formalised) to cognitive mapping as likewise qualitative, but strongly formalised method (Vennix and Gubbels 2000; Sterman and Ford 1998; Ackermann and Eden 2005).



Scenario building exercises range from an emphasis on non-formalised, narrative story lines to formalised computer modelling (van Notten et al. 2003).



Role playing games range from informal discussions to formalised game settings and may even be implemented on digital computers, for example as agent-based models (D'Acquino et al. 2003; Barreteau et al. 2001).



Evaluation methods range from informal discussions to formalised procedures such as Multi-Criteria Analysis (Mendoza and Martins 2006; Rauschmayer and Wittmer 2006; Constanza et al. 2007).

Methods used in participatory processes to structure communication can span the whole range of stages from the initial selection of participants (Prell et al., in this volume; Sauer, in this volume) to the implementation of measures (Stauffacher et al., in this volume). Generally, knowledge and information can be represented and conveyed either in an informal, narrative way, or with the aid of formal, often computer-based tools such as Decision Support Systems including Geographic Information Systems. In recent years one observes increased efforts to combine informal and formal approaches (Pahl-Wostl 2002b; Pahl-Wostl 2007). Most of the formalised methods involve some kind of modelling in order to derive generalisations from particular facts or situations, and to separate ‘relevant’ from less ‘relevant’ information.

Published as: Newig, Jens, Helmut Haberl, Claudia Pahl-Wostl, Dale Rothman, 2008. Formalised and NonFormalised Methods in Resource Management, Knowledge and Learning in Participatory Processes. An Introduction. Systemic Practice and Action Research 21(6), 381-387. Doi: 10.1007/s11213-008-9112-x

-4While more formalised methods have the advantage of eliciting, handling and delivering focused, clear and unambiguous information (or at least of making uncertainties and ambiguities transparent), their use also involves important challenges: 

The process of formalisation is usually more laborious, requires more time and specific expertise, or trained personnel, and often technical equipment, and is thus often more costly.



Stakeholders may have difficulties to accept some more formalised methods as they might not comprehend all modelling steps and thus distrust certain model implications, or simply dread the required efforts.

The aim of this special issue of Systemic Practice and Action Research is to address the above mentioned challenges from the perspective of different disciplines and case studies, drawing mainly on examples from the areas of land-use planning and water management. Papers in this collection discuss: 

the strengths and weaknesses of formalised and non-formalised methods in participatory resource management, with special attention to the conditions under which formalised, or non-formalised methods, respectively, are most appropriate;



how the choice of methods depends on the goals and context of the process as well as on the particular individuals involved in the process;



possible trade-offs between the degree of formalisation of methods and the degree of participation;



the integration of formal and informal approaches;



the relationships between method-driven participatory processes and policy implementation.

The contributions in this special issue of Systemic Practice and Action Research were selected from papers read at the international workshop on “Formalised and Non-Formalised Methods in Resource Management. Knowledge and Learning in Participatory Processes” held on 21-22 September 2006 in Osnabrück, Germany, organised in the framework of the German-Austrian research project PartizipA1 and of the EU Concerted Action Harmoni-CA2. All papers were reviewed by the team of guest editors as well as an external reviewer. In the following, we provide a brief overview of each contribution to this special issue.

1

The project „PartizipA – Participative Modelling, Actor and Ecosystem Analysis in Regions of Intensive Agriculture“ (10 / 2003 – 03 / 2007) was funded by the German Ministry of Education and Research under grant no. 07 VPS 10) and by the Austrian Ministry of Science within the research programme “Cultural Landscapes Research”. See www.partizipa.net.

2

The European Concerted Action Harmoni-CA – Harmonised Modelling Tools for Integrated River Basin Management was funded by the European Union under grant no. EVK1-CT1-2002-00192; 10 / 2002 – 09 / 2007. See www.harmoni-ca.info.

Published as: Newig, Jens, Helmut Haberl, Claudia Pahl-Wostl, Dale Rothman, 2008. Formalised and NonFormalised Methods in Resource Management, Knowledge and Learning in Participatory Processes. An Introduction. Systemic Practice and Action Research 21(6), 381-387. Doi: 10.1007/s11213-008-9112-x

-5-

2. Overview of the articles in the special issue The paper of Bots and van Dalen contributes to strengthening the conceptual foundations and to improving the comparability of participatory modeling by proposing a framework to link model types with model purposes and modes of stakeholder participation. The framework can assist analysts/modellers in their reflection on the requirements for a participatory modelling exercise in natural resource management. Classifications of different model types and different modes of stakeholder participations and their implication for model construction and use are introduced to better integrate model building and stakeholder participation processes. The application of the framework is illustrated by putting forward six different purposes for a modelling exercise and highlighting conditions that affect the appropriateness of stakeholder participation for each purpose. The framework supports a systematic reflection and guidance for making choices in designing a modelling exercise instead of providing simplistic recipes for the selection of participatory modelling methods. In this way it takes into account the context dependence and complexity of such participatory exercises. Stauffacher et al. introduce a more generally applicable framework for collaboration and illustrate its usefulness with their experience on an elaborate case study in Switzerland. They argue that appropriate and tailored techniques should be selected and integrated to provide the prerequisites for inclusive stakeholder involvement depending on the issue, type, goals and phase of the decision process in question, i.e., an analytic, systematic and dynamic approach to collaboration. In their transdisciplinary case study design they integrate diverse analytical methods with the goal of facilitating a process of mutual learning between science and people from outside academia. This poses considerable challenges for managing exchange across the boundaries. They use a dynamic approach to track the degree of formalisation and participation over the stages of the project development, which supports ongoing process evaluation and improvement. They conclude that the analytic and dynamic approach in addressing both the involvement of stakeholders or public and the societal decision process is crucial for the design of a successful trans-disciplinary process. Newig et al. reflect upon lessons learned from case studies on resource management in Austria and Germany under the ‘PartizipA’ project (Participative Modelling, Actor and Ecosystem Analysis in Regions with Intensive Agriculture). They compare a range of methods according to their: intentions; context; degree of participation, defined as the level and direction of information flow, as well as the potential influence of participants; degree of formalisation, defined as the openness towards participants’ response modes and the level of structure of information aggregation; and effectiveness, generalisability, and acceptance by stakeholders. Their main conclusion is that a careful composition and succession of single methods is key for successful participatory processes in resource management. They also note the value of moving from more open, i.e. less formal, methods in the initial phases of a project to more formal approaches in the latter stages. As with many of the other papers in this special issue, they emphasize the importance of empowering the stakeholders as being decisive for gaining their acceptance for the methods used.

Published as: Newig, Jens, Helmut Haberl, Claudia Pahl-Wostl, Dale Rothman, 2008. Formalised and NonFormalised Methods in Resource Management, Knowledge and Learning in Participatory Processes. An Introduction. Systemic Practice and Action Research 21(6), 381-387. Doi: 10.1007/s11213-008-9112-x

-6The paper by Prell et al. focuses on the potentials and limits to the application of Social Network Analysis (SNA) in resource management. It is based on a case study of a transdisciplinary research project aimed at resolving, or at least better understanding and thereby mitigating, social conflicts around land-management issues in the Peak District National Park (PDNP) in Sheffield, UK. Unlike many other National Parks, the Peak District National Park is inhabited by a significant population (c. 38.000 people), which means that successful management requires the ability to integrate the interests of different social groups, including conservationists, farmers, tourists and recreationists, water managers and many more. Prell et al. show that Social Network Analysis, a technique to analyze social structures based on a mapping of communicative relations between different groups of actors or even individuals, can be helpful in identifying key stakeholders to be included in a participatory process. They conclude that Social Network Analysis can also support processes of social learning when it is used as part of individual or group reflection with stakeholders and, when used sensibly, can help to meet the needs of both stakeholders and researchers involved in transdisciplinary projects. Volkery et al. draw on their experiences in the PRELUDE project – PRospective Environmental analysis of Land Use Development in Europe – to reflect upon the integration of qualitative and quantitative analysis in scenario development. The PRELUDE project placed great emphasis on stakeholder participation, giving them “full responsibility to develop long-term alternative land use scenarios in cooperation with experts and modellers”. This required significant time to be spent on selecting stakeholders “who were knowledgeable, could abstract from their institutional context and would commit to a creative process with an uncertain, open ending”. The stakeholders met three times for three-day events within a year, where they developed the storylines. They also interacted with land-use modellers to guide the development of quantitative results for the storylines, emphasizing shifts in landscape patterns and land use intensity. While noting the oftentimes cumbersome development process, the authors highlight the advantages of a broad participatory process, particularly with respect to ensuring the salience and legitimacy of the scenarios. They also point to the need for continued work to improve the integration of qualitative storyline development and quantitative modelling in scenario development. In his paper, Gottschick proposes a method he calls “participatory Sustainability Impact Assessment” (pSIA), which aims to support processes of social learning at the science-policy interface through a facilitation of informed and structured debate. Gottschick developed this method in order to support actors from governments, NGOs and the scientific community in discussing Economic Partnership Agreements – that is, trade agreements focused on the reduction of tariffs and trade liberalization, mainly in the agricultural and service sectors – between the European Union (EU) and the Eastern and Southern Africa (ESA) region. Such negotiations of course involve massive conflicts of interests, both between the involved regions as well as between social, economic and environmental targets. The method involves a series of workshops with political as well as academic actors in which participants are given the task to jointly construct a series of conceptual models with different modelling methods such as System Dynamics, Value Chain Analysis and Morphological Analysis. Gottschick concludes that pSIA was helpful in various ways, including an improved appreciation of the findings of

Published as: Newig, Jens, Helmut Haberl, Claudia Pahl-Wostl, Dale Rothman, 2008. Formalised and NonFormalised Methods in Resource Management, Knowledge and Learning in Participatory Processes. An Introduction. Systemic Practice and Action Research 21(6), 381-387. Doi: 10.1007/s11213-008-9112-x

-7the available scientific information, but also of its limits and uncertainties, the development of a better understanding of the complex problem situation and of the mutual interdependencies and perspectives at hand and the promotion of self-reflection of participants with respect to their own perspective and position. A structured method to analysing actors and conflicts to prepare for a participatory process is presented by Sauer. Drawing on conceptual approaches from group psychology, commons theory (Institutional Analysis and Development approach), and political science (ActorCentred Institutionalism, Advocacy Coalition Framework), several key attributes for the proposed method of “Conflict Pattern Analysis” (CPA) are derived, such as actor types, actor resources and orientations, and conflict types, which are aggregated into different conflict patterns. The crucial benefit of this procedure stressed by Sauer is to draw conclusions for the design of (participatory) decision processes and political steering approaches: If, for instance, the CPA reveals distributional conflicts, then participatory methods to enhance knowledge and acceptance might be appropriate, whereas methods to foster learning are more suitable in situations with value conflicts. The proposed method is illustrated by decision processes in implementing the Habitats Directive. The author argues that CPA is best applied in public decision procedures that favour formalised proceedings. In case of rather complex decision issues with an unclear scope, a formalised approach such as CPA might, however, be less suitable. Reflecting on the use of CPA in overall regulatory processes, Sauer concludes that the structured information on actors and conflicts gained in a CPA can be used to choose efficient regulatory instruments.

3. Concluding remarks While this collection of papers presents a wealth of conceptual thoughts and empirical insights that are in themselves informative, they also lead to a number of more general conclusions. Almost all contributors highlight the importance of the context for the choice of methods and their ‘success’. Methods should therefore match the goals and purposes of participatory processes as much as the attributes of stakeholders and participants. Specifically, context characteristics can change in the course of a longer participatory process, such that it may be suitable to employ more formalised methods at certain stages and less formalised methods at other stages. The strong context-dependency of methods has several important implications for research and practice. First, participatory processes ought not to be ‘method driven’ – as is often the case in research projects. Rather, methods should be chosen according to the goals and ‘needs’ and the dynamics of the process. This, of course, poses high demands regarding the required flexibility and diversity of methodological skills of project organisers. Second, in order to provide reliable knowledge on which methods work best in what contexts, systematic cross-case comparative research ought to be undertaken. This could involve the use of metaanalyses of case studies. To this end, conceptual frameworks and more systematic approaches are needed to compare the specific potentials and limitations of methods. Finally, most of the methods discussed in this special issue originated or were applied in a ‘Western’ cultural con-

Published as: Newig, Jens, Helmut Haberl, Claudia Pahl-Wostl, Dale Rothman, 2008. Formalised and NonFormalised Methods in Resource Management, Knowledge and Learning in Participatory Processes. An Introduction. Systemic Practice and Action Research 21(6), 381-387. Doi: 10.1007/s11213-008-9112-x

-8text. A particular challenge will therefore be to examine, whether and how the choice, dynamics and success of methods also applies to resource management issues in other cultures and fundamentally different socio-ecological settings, as for example in developing countries.

References Ackermann, F. and C. Eden (2005) 'Using Causal Mapping with Group Support Systems to Elicit an Understanding of Failure in Complex Projects: Some Implications for Organizational Research.' Group Decision and Negotiation 14 (5): 355–76. Atmanspacher, H. (2006) A semiotic approach to complex systems, in Aspects of Automatic Text Analysis, eds. A. Mehler and R. Köhler. Berlin: Springer: 79-91. Barreteau, O., F. Bousquet and J.-M. Attonaty (2001) 'Role-playing games for opening the black box of multi-agent systems: method and lessons of ist application to Senegal River Valley irrigated systems.' Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 4 (2). Beierle, T.C. and J. Cayford (2002) Democracy in Practice. Public Participation in Environmental Decisions (Washington, DC: Resources for the Future). Checkland, P. and J. Scholes (1990) Soft systems methodology in action (New York: Wiley). Checkland, P.B. (1993) Systems thinking, systems practice (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons). Constanza, R., L.J. Graumlich and W. Steffen, eds. (2007) Sustainability or Collapse? An Integrated History and Future of People on Earth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. D'Acquino, P., C. Le Page, F. Bousquet and A. Bah (2003) 'Using Self-Designed Role-Playing Games and a Multi-Agent System to Empower a Local Decision-Making Process for Land Use Management: The SelfCormas Experiment in Senegal.' Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 6 (3). Funtowicz, S.O. and J.R. Ravetz (1993) 'Science for the post-normal age.' Futures 25 (7): 739-55. Heinelt, H. (2002) Achieving Sustainable and Innovative Policies through Participatory Governance in a Multi-level Context: Theoretical Issues, in Participatory governance in multi-level Context. Concepts and experience, eds. H. Heinelt, P. Getimis, G. Kafkalas, R. Smith and E. Swyngedouw. Opladen: Leske + Budrich: 17-32. Mendoza, G.A. and H. Martins (2006) 'Multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resource management: A critical review of methods and new modelling paradigms.' Forest Ecology and Management 230: 1-22. Newig, J., C. Pahl-Wostl and K. Sigel (2005) 'The Role of Public Participation in Managing Uncertainty in the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive.' European Environment 15 (6): 333-43. Newig, J., J.-P. Voß and J. Monstadt, eds. (2008) Governance for Sustainable Development: Steering in Contexts of Ambivalence, Uncertainty and Distributed Power. London: Routledge. van Notten, P.W.F., J. Rotmans, M.B.A. van Asselt and D.S. Rothman (2003) 'An updated scenario typology.' Futures 35 (5): 423-43. Pahl-Wostl, C. (2002a) 'Participative and Stakeholder-Based Policy Design, Evaluation and Modeling Processes.' Integrated Assessment 3 (1): 3-14. Pahl-Wostl, C. (2002b) 'Towards sustainability in the water sector - The importance of human actors and processes of social learning.' Aquatic Sciences 64: 394–411.

Published as: Newig, Jens, Helmut Haberl, Claudia Pahl-Wostl, Dale Rothman, 2008. Formalised and NonFormalised Methods in Resource Management, Knowledge and Learning in Participatory Processes. An Introduction. Systemic Practice and Action Research 21(6), 381-387. Doi: 10.1007/s11213-008-9112-x

-9Pahl-Wostl, C. (2007) 'The implications of complexity for integrated resources management.' Environmental Modelling & Software 22: 561-69. Pahl-Wostl, C. and M. Hare (2004) 'Processes of Social Learning in Integrated Resources Management.' Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 14 (3): 193-206. Pellizzoni, L. (2003) 'Uncertainty and Participatory Democracy.' Environmental Values 12 (2): 195224. Rauschmayer, F. and H. Wittmer (2006) 'Evaluating deliberative and analytical methods for the resolution of environmental conflicts.' Land Use Policy 23: 108-22. Renn, O. (2006) Participatory Processes for Natural Resource Management, in Stakeholder Dialogues in Natural Resources Management. Theory and Practice, eds. S. Stoll-Kleemann and M. Welp. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer: 3-15. Rowe, G. and L.J. Frewer (2005) 'A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms.' Science, Technology, & Human Values 30 (2): 251-90. Scholz, R.W. and O. Tietje (2002) Embedded Case Study Method: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Knowledge (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage). Sterman, J.D. and D.V. Ford (1998) 'Expert Knowledge Elicitation to Improve Mental and Formal Models.' System Dynamics Review 14 (4): 309–40. Vennix, J.A.M. and J.W. Gubbels (2000) Knowledge Elicitation in Conceptual Model Building: A Case Study in Modeling a Regional Dutch Health Care System, in Modeling for Learning Organizations, eds. J.D.W. Morecroft and J.D. Sterman. New York: Productivity Press: 121-45. Young, O.R., F. Berkhout, G.C. Gallopin, M.A. Janssen, E. Ostrom and S. van der Leeuw (2006) 'The globalization of socio-ecological systems: An agenda for scientific research.' Global Environmental Change 16: 304-16.

Published as: Newig, Jens, Helmut Haberl, Claudia Pahl-Wostl, Dale Rothman, 2008. Formalised and NonFormalised Methods in Resource Management, Knowledge and Learning in Participatory Processes. An Introduction. Systemic Practice and Action Research 21(6), 381-387. Doi: 10.1007/s11213-008-9112-x