Participatory Methods in Environmental
System Dynamics Projects
Ines Winz, Gary Brierley
School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science
University of Auckland
Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand
Tel. +64 (0)9 373 7599 ext. 88956, Fax. +64 (0)9 373 7434
iwinz@auckland.ac.nz, g.brierley@auckland.ac.nz
Abstract
Today there is widespread agreement that participatory methods are use-
ful if not legally required to understand and effectively address environmental
management problems. What participatory methods should be used in which
situations and particularly how they should be applied are still insufficiently
addressed questions. There is limited understanding about the interconnec-
tions between project purpose, participatory methods and their application.
Participatory methods are often selected on the basis of familiarity or cost
considerations. We argue that these trade-offs may compromise the potential
outcomes and effectiveness of a project. To address these shortcomings we
summarise current knowledge and understanding in the public participation
literature.
System dynamics projects can benefit substantially from public participation
particularly through participative modelling. Much research effort focuses
on group model building. For projects where group model building is not a
prudent choice, we suggest and discuss alternatives.
1 Introduction
Involving stakeholders in environmental decision making processes has be-
come increasingly popular over the last few decades. Reasons are manifold.
Some authors suggest that there is a democratic deficit that has developed
because people increasingly distrust organisations that aggregate opinions,
are disappointed with the lack of transparency and ineffective deci
ing in public institutions and expect a better quality in the services
by these institutions. As a result, public managers attempt to increase their
ion mak-
delivered
legitimacy through public participation (Bishop and Davis, 2002). Further-
more, benefits of participation may now be more widely known. In addition
to benefits associated with higher quality decisions (Beierle, 2002), participa-
tion also supports capacity building (Fitzpatrick and Sinclair, 2003; Ford and
Sterman, 1998; Yearley et al., 2003), promotes social learning (Kelsey, 2003;
Pahl-Wostl, 2006; Pahl-Wostl and Hare, 2004), helps to resolve conflict and
build consensus (Walkerden, 2006; Wilson and Howarth, 2002), and creates
networking opportunities (Roux et al., 2006).
Opponents of participatory practice may point out that laypersons lack
an understanding of concepts such as uncertainty and the scientific process,
have insufficient knowledge and reasoning skills, and are susceptible to irra-
tionality (Beierle, 2002). Proponents counter that value judgements must be
made at all stages of the decision making process (Gregory, 2000), that expert
knowledge is similarly limited, and that even experts are often in disagreement
or argue irrationally. Besides, proper knowledge dissemination, fair choice of
participants and effective structuring of the process can circumvent many of
the issues that opponents set out (Beierle, 2002; Laurian, 2003). System dy-
namics practitioners may also be aware that in order to address environmental
problems systemically, all actors that are part of the system need to be a part
of the decision making process.
However, in the public participation literature many questions are insuffi-
ciently addressed (Kapoor, 2001; Rouwette and Vennix, 2006; Rouwette et al.,
2002; Rowe and Frewer, 2005; Smith et al., 1997). How (methods), when (tim-
ing) and to what extent (intensity) should stakeholders be involved? How
should one best enact involvement? What makes a participatory method
effective? What are the links between problem situation and participatory
method? Are some methods better suited for different stages of an interven-
tion? Participation is not an end in itself, but rather a means to an end.
As such the participation process is qualitative — even a proven participatory
method will fail when applied in the wrong situation and in an ineffective
way. This paper has the modest goal of teasing out some of these issues by
examining current knowledge and understanding. The review is by no means
exhaustive but should be understood as an initial inquiry.
A definition of terms may guide the reader. We adopt the definition of
the term stakeholder by Glicken (2000), see also Hare and Pahl-Wostl (2002):
“A stakeholder is any individual or group influenced by ~ and with an ability
to significantly impact (either directly or indirectly) — the topical area of
interest.” This strong definition of stakeholder compares to weaker definitions
stakeholders as anyone affected by a decision (Mitchell et al.,
1997). Public participation then encompasses a set of methods (or processes)
designed to involve stakeholders in the agenda setting, decision-making and
policy-forming activities of organizations/institutions responsible for policy
which classi
development (Rowe and Frewer, 2000, 2005). In essence, public participation!
addresses the political dimension of decision making through some form of
deliberative process.
We start our paper with a broad overview of theoretical developments in
the public participation literature as well as some developments in the field of
environmental decision making in general and environmental system dynamics
in particular.
2 Literature Review
General Observations
The field of literature addressing the theory of public participation appears
unbounded and complex. Participation as a research method is commonplace
in areas as diverse as political science, policy analysis, anthropology, sociology,
psychology, philosophy, social geography and business (van Asselt-Marjolein
and Rijkens-Klomp, 2002). Many authors address public participation from
a deliberative democracy point of view (Abelson et al., 2003; Arnstein, 1969;
Fiorino, 1990; Hendriks, 2002; Mansbridge et al., 2006; Pratchett, 1999; van
Tatenhove and Leroy, 2003) while other focus on contributions to manage-
ment decision making in social-environmental systems (Stringer et al., 2006;
Vennix, 1996). There do not appear to be any established journals purely
dedicated to the subject?. Journal of Public Policy, Public Administration
Review, Public Administration and Journal of Policy Analysis and Manage-
ment all contain many discussions and suggested frameworks. This list is by
no means exhaustive. Articles on applications can be found in almost any
environmentally focused journal. For instance, Environment and Planning B
has a special issue on participation based on geographical information systems
(Vol. 28(6), 2001). A number of books have been published on this subject
over the years, a short selection being Pateman (1970), Clayton et al. (1998),
Keen et al. (2005) and Kasemir et al. (2003).
Benefits and Costs of Participation
In an analysis of 239 case studies, Beierle (2002, p. 740) concludes that stake-
holder processes result in higher quality decisions:
' Public participation and stakeholder involvement are here used interchangeably although we
are aware that some authors may view the latter as a more intense form of the former (Hare and
Pahl-Wostl, 2002).
2The Journal of Public Participation published by the International Association of Public Par-
ticipation (http: //www.iap2.org) was discontinued in 1998 after two years. The Journal of Public
Deliberation (http: //services.bepress.com/jpd/) has so far published two issues since 2005.
“The majority of cases contain evidence that stakeholders are mak-
ing better decisions, contributing new information and ideas, uti-
lizing technical resources in their decision processes. Interestingly
more intense stakeholder processes are more likely to produce high-
quality decisions than traditional public participation processes.”
Similarly, Burby (2003) shows, by drawing on evidence from 60 plan-making
processes, that with greater stakeholder involvement comprehensive plans are
stronger and proposals are more likely to be implemented.
Drawing on this evidence there is currently widespread agreement that
effective participation of stakeholders benefits the outcome of any environ-
mental management project. Apart from legal requirements to involve stake-
holders in the decision making process (Pahl-Wostl, 2002), participation has
a place in three broad areas: problem identification, information provision,
and implementation.
Problem identification. Projects can only be successful when they ad-
dress the right problem at the right scale and scope. Participation can
help to create a shared understanding about the identity and extent of
the problem. In addition, the process by which the problem will be
addressed can be defined. As a result, the purpose of the model and
the project, as well as any deliverables, are clearly defined at the outset
(Hjortso, 2004). The exchange of viewpoints at this stage is an impor-
tant part of consensus building as it clarifies any divergent views and
through managed interaction helps shape the project (Winch, 1995).
Information provision. Participation ensures that relevant mental, writ-
ten and numerical information is accessible. Forrester (1994) advises
that the mental information containing informal causal relationships and
value judgements is paramount in building system dynamics models.
Using information provided by participants has numerous beneficial ef-
fects as it creates trust in the modeller and the model-building process
(Ford and Sterman, 1998); it can improve communication by develop-
ing a shared language; in a group setting it creates alignment and thus
promotes consensus building (Andersen et al., 1997); it educates partic-
ipants and enables efficient learning about the system and their role in
it which can lead to changes in mental models and behaviour (Rouwette
and Vennix, 2006). It is argued that this learning is a necessary condition
for institutional change (Senge, 1992).
Implementation. As stakeholders contribute to the project and make it
more transparent, their acceptance of and commitment to its outcomes
increases. Participation thus results in an increased willingness of stake-
holders to own and implement the end-products of the project. This
ensures that stakeholders maintain the project’s dynamic which is ex-
pected to lead to a more effective and sustainable system change. An-
other positive outcome can be increased independence, self-awareness,
4
Cost type Example
Monetary staff time (paid and unpaid), staff expenses, consultant
fees, fees to participants, participants’ expenses, training
for staff and participants, administration, venue hire,
other event costs (e.g. equipment), newsletters, leaflets,
monitoring and evaluation fees.
Non-monetary time contributed by participants, time contributed by
staff (coordination, administrative effort), time for
training, time for processing results and analysis, op-
portunity costs (taking time off from other work).
Potential hidden reputation (from bad participatory practice), stress, un-
costs certainty and conflict, shifting the burden from govern-
mental to local management (Clayton et al., 1998).
Table 1: Overview of costs associated with participatory practice.
and empowerment of stakeholders to address local problems indepen-
dently (Elliot et al., 2005; Fraser et al., 2006; Kapoor, 2001).
The above description outlines benefits resulting from perfect participa-
tion. The effectiveness of a single participatory method clearly depends on
the circumstances, the timing and the quality of its application.
In contrast to these benefits, there are numerous costs associated with
stakeholder involvement. These can be categorised as monetary, non-monetary
and potential hidden costs (Table 1) and can affect individual participants,
institutions or society as a whole (Involve, 2005). Moynihan (2003) points
out that the instrumental costs and benefits are often overvalued compared
to normative benefits such as an increase in governmental legitimacy.
The Question of Choice
Participation can take many forms and as a result, methods can be categorised
according to a variety of themes. Various approaches exist that attempt to
define participation through categorisation. Many authors (Arnstein, 1969;
Hale, 1993; Lynam et al., 2007; Pateman, 1970) define participation through
a continuum of interaction (or levels of participation) between the public and
the decision-maker/government. Arnstein (1969) distinguishes eight levels
of increasing interaction ranging from pure manipulation of participants to
full-blown citizen control. As participatory methods move across the contin-
uum, the degree of public power over the process outcome increases. Hale
(1993) distinguishes three levels of participation according to process objec-
tives: awareness (a top-down process aimed at increasing public knowledge
about a problem®), education (a top-down process aimed at providing infor-
mation so the public can understand government policies and actions’) and
involvement (a two-way process where the public has the opportunity to assist
in decision-making or takes some action to support policy implementation®).
Other continuum frameworks categorise with respect to the scale at which
take place (national, regional, local); the role participants play as
si ies, informants, cost-sharers, consultees, or counter-
parts; the type of participants ranging from lay persons to experts which may
include stakeholders with differing levels of representativeness; the structure of
the method (structured, unstructured, active, passive); the goals of the pro-
cess or method (decision-making/planning, consensus building, information
gathering, etc.) (Figure 1); how well the method is accepted by the pub-
lic (lack of confidence, alienation, inadequate information, advisory models,
public consultation models, information models); and whether participation
is voluntary or compulsory. The distribution of technical expertise can vary
widely between methods with some drawing heavily on expert input and oth-
ers on public input. Categories that have not yet been addressed are the
extent to which the method supports consensus building or how well it sup-
ports independent thinking among participants and is thus suited to tease out
a broader range of mental models.
Practitioners can use these continuum frameworks to characterise their
situation and thus narrow down the methods that may be used to address it.
This can reduce the number of methods that need to be further evaluated.
A second approach in defining participation attempts to link participatory
methods to policy problems. Here, the specific type of problem determines
whether and how participation takes place. The decision whether participa-
tion is appropriate is left to the initiator of the process. It is argued that
the discontinuous nature of policy problems, the influence of local history on
participation and the use of overlapping participatory methods needs a de-
scriptive categorisation rather than a normative one (Bishop and Davis, 2002;
Shand and Arnberg, 1996; Thomas, 1993). As noted by Bishop and Davis
(2002, p. 21):
“Participation is shaped by the policy problem at hand, the tech-
niques and resources available, and ultimately, a political judgement
about the importance of the issue and the need for public involve-
ment. Participation arrangements tend to be local and ad hoc, and
any realistic categorisation will reflect diverse and unrelated prac-
tice.
3¢.g. using the final model to show policy effects or gathering of feedback
e.g. cliciting mental models for model development or the use of a management flight simulator
preconceived policies (Ford, 1996)
esting of policies suggested by the participants or a full mediated modelling interven-
tion/facilitated group model building (Stave, 2003; Tidwell et al., 2004)
Mapping out
diversity
a4 Scientists- F
stakeholder _ Policy
workshop Exercises
Focus Scenario
Groups analysis
Participatory
modelling
Process as a goal 1 —_____» Process asa means
Citizens
Participatory pines
Planning
Consensus
Conferences
v
Reaching
consensus
Figure 1: Categorising methods according to process goals. Reproduced from
van Asselt-Marjolein and Rijkens-Klomp (2002).
Thomas (1993) distinguishes five situations: autonomous managerial decision
making with no public involvement; modified autonomous managerial decision
making where the manager may seek public information which may or may
not influence his decision; segmented public consultation where the problem
is shared with segments of the public separately and the decision reflects any
hared
suggestions made; unitary public consultation where the problem is s
with the public simultaneously, i.e. with a single group, and the decision
ision where information is shared
reflects any suggestions made; and public de
with the public simultaneously and a decision is made based on consensus
reached between all segments of the public and the manager. Each situation
is supported by a particular method which also depends on the public make-
up, ie. the range of individual and/or interest groups. For example, for a
small number of stakeholders/organised interest groups a manager with a high
degree of autonomy will rely on key contacts to seek information from each
group, but when the number of stakeholders becomes too great or disorganised
asurvey becomes a more appropriate method of participation. If the manager
decides that public consultation is required, s/he can either meet with each
group or create a citizens advisory committee in the case of a large number
of stakeholders or a disorganised public (Thomas, 1990).
7
Shand and Arnberg (1996), and similarly Bishop and Davis (2002), match
a number of methods to five contemporary policy types (Table 2).
Purpose Suggested methods
Information surveys, focus groups, public information campaign
Consultation key contacts, interest group meetings, discussion papers, town
hall meetings, circulation of proposals, public hearings
Partnership advisory board/committee, policy communities
Delegation public enquiries, impact assessment studies
Control referenda
Table 2: Participation purpose and corresponding suggested methods. Repro-
duced from Shand and Arnberg (1996).
Fey and Trimble (1992) list methods for the tasks of knowledge acquisition®
and knowledge representation’. Elliot et al. (2005) suggest that five elements
should be considered when selecting a participatory method: objectives, topic,
participants, time, and budget.
The number of participative methods is large and steadily increasing.
Rowe and Frewer (2005) list more than 100 traditional methods ranging from
interviews in different formats to questionnaires, various mapping methods
for individual or group use that can be facilitated or not, and large-scale facil-
itated group processes. In addition, a large number of innovative approaches
exist that combine traditional methods of participation (e.g. Bostrom (2003);
Gregory et al. (2001); Hermans et al. (In press 2007); Lowndes et al. (2001a);
Regan et al. (2006)).
Of particular interest to system dynamics practitioners is participatory
modelling, also referred to as group model building (Vennix, 1996, 1999; Ven-
nix et al., 1992), mediated modelling (Van den Belt, 2004) or adaptive eco-
logical modelling (Costanza and Ruth, 1998). Participatory modelling sees
model users (and often stakeholders) actively involved in the modelling pro-
cess, particularly during the conceptual (design) phase (van Asselt-Marjolein
and Rijkens-Klomp, 2002).
The Question of Effectiveness
The research literature usually describes the outcomes of participatory meth-
ods as they would have been achieved under ideal circumstances. However,
pr tracing techniques, task analy repertory grid technique,
is, nominal group technique, free group d Delphi method
various maps, graphs and diagrams, prose and verbal descriptions, rules, conditional state-
ments, tables and scenarios
job analy
, sur
7.
there is no agreed understanding of these required circumstances, what makes
a participatory method effective or even what appropriate benchmarks for ef-
fectiveness could be. Effective participation has been defined as “maximising
the relevant information from the maximum number of all relevant sources
and transferring it (with minimal information loss) to the other parties, with
the efficient processing of that information by the receivers (the sponsors and
the participants) and the combining of it into an accurate composite” (Rowe
and Frewer, 2005, p. 263). Rowe and Frewer (2000) suggest the following
acceptance and proy criteria (Table 3) for evaluating and comparing par-
ticipatory methods:
Webler et al. (2001) develop five criteria of process “goodness”: acquisition
and maintenance of legitimacy, facilitation of ideological discussion/search for
common values, realisation of democratic principles of fairness and equality,
equal power among participants and viewpoints, responsible leadership and
compromise. Further discussion, suggested criteria and benchmarks for effec-
tiveness can be found in Beierle and Konisky (2000); Brody (2003); Chess and
Purcell (1999); Hale (1993); McCool and Guthrie (2001); Palerm (2000) and
Davies (2001).
Much of the success or failure of a particular exercise will stem from
whether the method was selected appropriately for the situation and how
well the method was applied. However, structural features can limit or en-
hance effectiveness. An example would be the provision of a facilitator vs.
the quality of facilitation. As a result there is no best-choice method suitable
for all problems although some authors agree that the most appropriate tech-
niques are hybrids of more traditional methods (Rowe and Frewer, 2000; Smith
et al., 1997). Other pitfalls in participatory practice include the inability of
stakeholders to resolve conflicts over equity, the distributive effects of natural
resources, and competing visions about project goals (Singleton, 2002); the
management of fragmentation among stakeholders from the top (Pellizzoni,
2003); a lack of stakeholder interest® (Laurian, 2004; Lowndes et al., 2001b);
inadvertent or deliberate exclusion of key groups from the dialogue (Barnes
et al., 2002; Lane and Corbett, 2005); ongoing communication where scien-
tific language terminology is appropriately translated into lay terms (Glicken,
1999, 2000); and the loss of mutual respect. (Andersson, 2004).
Participation in Environmental Management
Participation is now considered to be an integral component of effective envi-
ronmental management. The shift in emphasis from discipline-bound ’command-
and-control’ perspectives towards participatory adaptive management over
the past few decades has been accompanied by transitions in the sources
and forms of information used, processes applied, decision-making procedures,
8The inverse-scale effect applies: more people are interested in participating in proc
local scales than at regional or national scales (Carver et al., 2001).
9
Acceptance
criteria
Explanation
Representativeness
Independence
Early involvement
Influence
Transparency
The public participants should comprise a broadly
representative sample of the population of the af-
fected public particularly with a view of integrating
multiple knowledge systems (Kelsey, 2003).
The participation process should be conducted in an
independent, unbiased way (managers and facilita-
tors).
The public should be involved as early as possible
in the process as soon as value judgements become
salient.
The output of the procedure should have a genuine
impact on policy.
The process should be transparent so that the public
can see what is going on and how decisions are being
made.
Process criteria
Resource accessibil-
ity
Task definition
Structured decision
making
Cost-effectiveness
Participants should have access to the appropriate
resources to enable them to successfully fulfil their
brief.
The nature and scope of the participation task should
be clearly defined.
The participation exercise should use/provide appro-
priate mechanisms for structuring and displaying the
decision-making process.
The method should in some sense be cost-effective.
Table 3: Acceptance and proce.
criteria suggested to evaluate the effectiveness
of participatory methods. Reproduced from Rowe and Frewer (2000).
and implementation/maintenance of adopted measures (cf. Hermans et al. (In
press 2007); Hillman and Brierley (2005); Holling and Meffe (1996)). Engage-
ment and inclusion are increasingly recognized to be key starting points in
defining, let alone addressing, environmental problems, such that practices
*work with’ rather than being ‘imposed upon’ community perspectives. To-
day, few projects in natural resource management are supported unless they
include substantial community involvement in planning, design and implemen-
tation. These initiatives are especially effective when the benefits of collabo-
10
ration are clear, a collective vision is developed, and learning and adaptation
accompany decision-making, implementation and maintenance. True partici-
patory projects build local skills, interests and capacities that continue after
the project ends. Given these traits, participatory processes form a part of the
rapid growth in environmental justice literature (e.g. Hillman (2005, 2006)),
in emerging approaches to co-management (e.g. Folke et al. (2005)), in envi-
ronmental impact assessment — and here particularly Participatory Integrated
Assessment ~ (e.g. Hartley and Wood (2005); Palerm (2000); Persson (2006);
Vicente and Partidrio (2006)) and in the resilience movement (e.g. Adger
(2000); Fiksel (2006); Folke (2006); Gunderson (2000); Holling (1996)). As
noted earlier, key concerns that are expressed in the adoption of participatory
processes relate to time and resource costs, and difficulties in implement-
ing outcomes across differing scales and managerial hierarchies (e.g. Kapoor
(2001); Matthies et al. (2007); Steel and Weber (2001)). In addition to requir-
ing sufficient resources (time, money and skills), participatory processes also
have to deal with issues of representativeness, transparency and accountabil-
ity. These developments, and limitations, parallel those observed within the
literature on environmental applications of systems dynamics principles that
apply participatory procedures.
Participation in System Dynamics
Stakeholder participation in system dynamics (SD) is not limited to partici-
patory modelling alone, although thi a key factor. Rouwette et al. (2002)
trace the history of stakeholder participation in SD applications back more
than 50 years and remark on the exponential growth in case studies with client
involvement. In the beginning, stakeholders were mainly seen as information
providers. During the last 20 years however their involvement became more
intense and was characterised by continuous information feedback processes,
e.g. through social learning and the exchange of knowledge. The intent was
to increase uptake, generate a sense of ownership and support in the imple-
mentation of models (Rouwette and Vennix, 2006).
In the system dynamics research literature most attention has been di-
rected to group model building (GMB) interventions. These are projects where
people work together in groups and jointly construct models to tackle ‘messy’
problems (Vennix, 1999). Facilitated group projects are particularly useful
when stakes are high and stakeholder objectives conflicting. A GMB inter-
vention consist of three broad phases: pre-meeting activities, the actual meet-
ings and post-meeting follow-up activities. Andersen et al. (1997) describe in
more detail best practices in GMB. The time frame of group model building
interventions can range from one day to several years and group sizes can vary
between a handful to up to 100.
Rouwette and Vennix (2006) note a lack of understanding of the effects
of individual processes and techniques in a GMB intervention which is com-
1
monly replaced by intuition and experience. GMB interventions are either
aimed at modelling for decision-making or modelling for consensus building
(Rouwette and Vennix, 2006; Zagonel, 2002). The choice between these two
options will result in markedly different models and necessitates the use of dis-
tinct methods. Models aimed at decision-making will be more parsimonious
with due focus on validity testing, whereas a model designed for consensus
building will integrate potentially conflicting views that are elicited e.g. in
open discussions.
of GMB interventions is structured by way of meticulously
ies known as scripts. A large variety of scripts exist to sup-
port, among others, problem definition, model conceptualization and policy
development (c.f. Andersen and Richardson (1997); Luna-Reyes et al. (2007);
Rouwette and Vennix (2006) and references therein).
3 Alternatives to Group Model Building
While GMB interventions clearly seem to be the best practice in SD partic-
ipatory projects, full-scale group workshops may neither always be feasible
nor desirable. Group processes are particularly time-expensive and require
extensive scheduling — and often rescheduling — of meetings for all involved.
Student research projects are particularly at risk of becoming involuntarily
prolonged, for examples see Holmstrém (2004) and Den Exter (2004). More-
over, the effectiveness of interventions may be compromised if they are long-
term and have a high participant turnover. For large numbers of stakeholders
a full GMB intervention may prove prohibitive for actual model development.
In these instances, group workshops are usually reduced to one or two meet-
ings where problem definition, system conceptualization and model evaluation
take place (Andersen et al., 1997). GMB requires an effective rapport between,
client institution/stakeholders and the modelling team. This may necessitate
multiple interviews before the actual intervention can start, extending the
lead time. Group proc can also be foreclosed by substantial conflict. In
some countries or areas experienced facilitators familiar with system dynam-
ics may not be available. Furthermore, institutional boundaries and barriers
may impede group processes. Examples include cross-agency issues, where
different agencies are concerned with individual (but interconnected) parts of
the ecosystem, but all aim to protect their own agendas, staff and resources.
Additionally there are countless examples of cross-boundary conflicts over
natural resources. Here, institutions and/or interest groups may even be keen
to hijack prospects of any mutual agreement or joint work.
On the basis of th criteria a fully facilitated group model building in-
tervention may sometimes no longer be suitable. The question then becomes
which other participatory methods can be utilised instead, at what stage and
how? For example, cognitive mapping methods have proven useful in teasing
out mental models of single participants during problem definition and system
12
conceptualization phases. These maps can then be aggregated and converted
into causal loop diagrams or stock and flow diagrams (Eden, 1994). Table
4 makes suggestions as to which participatory methods are useful at the dif-
ferent stages of a system dynamics project. The reader/reviewer is asked to
reflect and feed back to the authors any suggestions and concerns.
4 Conclusions
From the public participation literature a number of criteria emerge that
should be considered when selecting a participatory method: the overall pur-
pose of the project, how well the problem is understood, the conflict potential
of the problem and decision making process, the number of stakeholders avail-
able, the level of their interest and support, the type of stakeholder (influence,
power, salience), type and amount of data available to support the method,
the phase in the project the method will be applied to, any relevant historic
processes, and other resources available particularly time and money. From
this it becomes clear that dec:
m makers need to carefully balance active
participation with technical limitations and political interests.
Despite some unresolved issues in participation practice, it is clear that
considerable progress has been made over the past decade. Increasingly, de-
cision makers and officials rely extensively on public participation. Signifi-
cant empirical research has investigated the effectiveness of these participa-
tion practices. Frameworks have emerged that help decision makers in their
choice of method for their individual situation. Of concern is the fact that
similar research efforts in different fields occur in parallel, without knowledge
of one another. This has resulted in a misnaming of methods and uncertainty
about the equivalence of terms: the same method can go by a variety of names
(Rowe and Frewer, 2005)! This doubling of efforts is not only inefficient but,
together with the vastness of the literature, impedes prospects to generate a
beneficial synthesis.
5 Bibliography
J. Abelson, P.-G. Forest, J. Eyles, P. Smith, E. Martin, and F.-P. Gauvin. Deliber-
ations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public
participation pro: . Social Science & Medicine, 57(2):239-251, July 2003. doi:
10.1016 /S0277-9536(02)00343-X.
W.N. Adger. Social and ecological resilience: Are they related? Progress in Human
Geography, 24(3):347-364, 2000.
D. F. Andersen and G. P. Richardson. Scripts for group model building. System
Dynamics Review, 13(2):107-129, 1997.
D.F. Andersen, G.P. Richardson, and J.A.M. Vennix. Group model building: adding
more science to the craft. System Dynamics Review, 13(2):187-201, 1997.
13
qaload sovuipU
-fip wajshis 0 ur sabojs quataffp 4of spoyyaut haoyodioy.nd paysabing
arqeL
Spoye popuoyuIUM PUR pepUozUT JO} poroyMoUr ATOsopO ore sotorjod
Ajuo soSeuewt/ysdpeue <q posn Joo} uoryemurts jt
SulUesy
Ajo Jeseueut/ysATeue Aq pasn oo} WoryemMuts Ft
paaarype
udeq sey] soURUTIOJA0d JOpOUT UO sNsUBsUOD [eA9UIOS ST a1} JOYITA 480} 07
sotorjod yeryuojod pue soueuriojiod
S}I UO YoRqpeey eatsueyxe pyet wes uoNemMuUNs oy YW Aeyd penpratpurt
Jepout [eUY oy} Jo souaTyTRs snyy pue
Aouaredsuety sasvaroul ‘eyep/UOTeULIOJUT JO SeomMos Jay}O pue ospapmouy
oe ‘selqeliea oaryeqiyenb Jo uoryeoyryuenb ayy Joy sessod01d
otyeiD0wep Jo osn ‘yydep pue YYpeorq Jopout sduENyUr snyy pue s104d0s
JEpoUT JaJaYyTIp JO surges 0} yurod wed sreppoyexeys ‘ssedord oy} SuuMp
sdrysuorjeper pue syueuoduos Japout sayeprfea ‘yoaford auo ey} atout IoF
pasn oq [[IM FI UoTpM Jo soTueUAp w94sAs TPIT TeTpUTT ore sIoppoyayeys wo
SJopjoyoyeys Woy ATJUopuodopur powttojsiod ATUouUOD se o[qeoydde you
‘sdrystoryepor pue syuouod
-WI09 Woysks Jnoqe UOryRoTUNUIUIOD oacduT pue osenSuel poreys oyeard 04
stsoyjyodAy, orureuAp
pue spout souarejaI UO SnsuasuOD YST[qeISe 0} ‘(japout utaysAs penydeou0d
syofoid Surroztuout Ayrunututos :dnors
:yenprArput
yowqpoe}y 104
~afer ‘uorssnostp dnors peyeyqioey :dnors
spoyjyout stsAyeue WoTstoep Joyo Io WoT}
renqead AUTEN eyng1yye-yNUT :penprATpur
uolssnostp dnors poyeyyioey :dnos
(6861 ‘seteg) Suysoqy uoryeoydut Loyod
‘Sur}so} MolAvyoq/amyonzys — :[eNplAlpul
yditos
woTEHTo oqerea “(1667 ‘Wospreyory pure
uesiepuy) dios yuoutouyos fopour “ydt19s
uoreuryse vyep “dirs uoryesyyn Ajroed
-e ‘uoIssnosip dnois poyeyoey :dnors
:yenprlarput
(2002 “Te 9 Sasoy-eun'q) ydrios uo
-eyfoTJa aaNgonAys ‘ydizos uoTyeyOTe epout
aottareyar ‘Japout ydaouod v Jo yuauIdopaAsp
yutof ‘snsuastoo dnors ‘uotssnostp dno13s
uodo ‘sornousutoy ‘dnors snooy :dnoi3
uolyeyuoute|dury
isAjeue ATTOd
8urysoy/u01y
-enyead [Epo]
14
TWOTYR]
-NUIOJ [OPO]
®% ayea1d 0} JapIO UT pastseyyUAS aq 0} pool VT} [[IM UOTyeUTIOJUT) UIT} sisAyeue yuoyOd ‘sisAyeue asinoo —_ woTyezTTenydao
-dnoIs SUIPIOAR [TTA S[opour [eyWoU [eNPIATpUT fo AZorTeA oplM ev somydeo 0} -SIP ‘AIO}STY] [RIO ‘SMOTATOFUT :[eNpPLAIpur -t0d — WaysAG
uorssnostp dnors uado ‘ydtios ,steoy pue
UOISIA UOUIUIOD B Soyeatd ‘pornba. st snsuasuod usyM sodoy, ‘doysytom ‘syoeyuoa Koy :dnors
worn
UOIsPep JuouoSseueUt doz SMOLATOYUT ‘SyoRyuoD Aoy :[eNpPIAIpul -Yop wolqo1g
Suruoseoy poyywyL aseys
L. Andersson. Experiences of the use of riverine nutrient models in stakeholder
dialogues. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 20(3):399-425,
September 2004. doi: 10.1080/0790062042000248547.
S.R. Arnstein. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning
Association, 35:216-224, 1969.
Y. Barlas. Multiple tests for validation of system dynamics type of simulation models.
European Journal of Operational Research, 42:59-87, 1989.
M. Barnes, J. Newman, A. Knops, and H. Sullivan. Constituting the ‘public’ in
public participation. Public Administration, 81(2):379-399, 2002. doi: 10.1111/
1467-9299.00352.
T.C. Beierle. The quality of stakeholder-based d
749, 2002. doi: 10.1111/0272-4332.00065.
ions. Risk Analysis, 22(4):739-
T.C. Beierle and D.M. Konisky. Values, conflict and trust in participatory environ-
mental planning. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 19:587-602, 2000.
doi: 10.1002/1520-6688(200023)19:4(587::AID-PAM4)3.0.CO;2-Q.
P. Bishop and G. Davis. Mapping public participation in policy choices. Australian
Journal of Public Administration, 61(1):14-29, 2002. doi: 10.1111/1467-8500
00255.
M. Bostrom. Environmental organisations in new forms of political participation:
Ecological modernisation and the making of voluntary rules. Environmental Val-
ues, 12(2):175-193, May 2003.
S.D. Brody. Measuring the effects of stakeholder participation on the quality of
local plans based on the principles of collaborative eco
nal of Planning Education and Research, 22(4):407-415
0739456X03022004007.
em management. Jour-
, 2003. doi: 10.1177/
R.J. Burby. Making plans that matter: Citizen involvement and government action.
Journal of American Planning Association, 69(1):33-49, 2003.
S. Carver, A. Evans, R. Kingston, and I. Turton. Public participation, GIS and
cyberdemocracy: evaluating on-line spatial decision support systems. Environment
and Planning B: Planning and Design, 28(6):907-21, 2001.
C. Chess and K. Purcell. Public participation and the environment: Do we know
what works? Environmental Science & Technology, 33(16):2685 -2692, 1999. doi:
10.1021 /es980500gS0013-936X(98)00500-8.
A. Clayton, P. Oakley,
UNDP, 1998.
and B. Pratt. Empowering People: A Guide to Participation.
R. Costanza and M. Ruth. Using dynamic modeling to scope environmental problems
and build consensus. Environmental Management, 22(2):183-195, 1998.
A. Davies. What silence knows: Planning public participation and environmental
values. Environmental Values, 10(1):77-102, 2001.
15
K. Den Exter. Integrating Environmental Science and Management: The Role of
System Dynamics Modelling. PhD thesis, CRC Sustainable Tourism
Environmental Science and Management, Southern Cross University, Qu
Australia, 2004.
C. Eden. Cognitive mapping and problem structuring for system dynamics model
building. System Dynamics Review, 10(2-3):257-276, 1994.
J. Elliot, S. Heesterbeck, C.J. Lukensmeyer, and N. Slocum. Participatory methods
toolkit - a practitioner's manual. Technical report, King Baudouin Foundation and
the Flemish Institute for Science and Technology Assessment (viWTA), September
2005. URL www.viWTA.be. ISBN 90-5130-506-0
W. Fey and J. Trimble. The evaluation and development of knowledge aquisition in
system dynamics studies. In Proceedings of the International Conference of the
System Dynamics Society, pages 173-182, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 1992.
J. Fiksel. Sustainability and resilience: toward a systems approach. Sustainability:
Science, Practice, & Policy, 2(2):14-21, 2006. URL http: //ejournal .nbii.org/
archives/vol2iss2/0608-028.fiksel.html.
D.J. Fiorino. Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional
mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 15(2):226-243, Spring 1990.
P. Fitzpatrick and A.J. Sinclair. Learning through public involvement in environmen-
tal assessment hearings. Journal of Environmental Management, 67(2):161-174,
2003. doi: 10.1016/$0301-4797(02)00204-9.
C. Folke. Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems
analysis. Global Environmental Change, 16:253-267, 2006.
C. Folke, T. Hahn, P. 0)
systems. Annual Re
n, and J. Norberg. Adaptive governance of social-ecological
» of Environment and Resources, 30:441-473, 2005.
A. Ford. Testing the Snake River Explorer. System Dynamics Review, 12(4):305-329,
Winter 1996.
D.N. Ford and J.D. Sterman. Expert knowledge elicitation to improve formal and
mental models. System Dynamics Review, 14(4):309-340, Winter 1998.
J.W. Forrester. System dynamics, systems thinking, and soft or. System Dynamics
Review, 10(2-3):245-256, 1994.
E. D. G. Fraser, A. J. Dougill, W. E. Mabee, M. Reed, and P. McAlpine. Bottom
up and top down: Analysis of participatory processes for sustainability indicator
identification as a pathway to community empowerment and sustainable environ-
mental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 78:114-127, 2006.
doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.04.009.
J. Glicken. Effective public involvement in public decisions. Science Communication,
2(3):298327, 1999.
16
J. Glicken. Getting stakeholder participation ‘right’: A discussion of participatory
processes and possible pitfalls. Environmental Science & Policy, 3:305-310, 2000.
R. Gregory. Using stakeholder values to make smarter environmental decisions. En-
vironment, 42(5):34-44, 2000.
R. Gregory, T. McDaniels, and D. Fields. Decisions aiding, not dispute resolution:
Creating insights through structured environmental decisions. Journal of Policy
Analysis and Management, 20(3):415~432, 2001. doi: 10.1002/pam.1001.
L. H. Gunderson. Ecological resilience - in theory and application. Annual Review
of Ecology and Systematics, 31:425~439, 2000.
E.O. Hale. Successful public involvement. Journal of Environmental Health, 55(4):
17-19, 1993.
M. Hare and C. Pahl-Wostl. Stakeholder categorisation in participatory integrated
sment processes. Integrated Assessment, 3(1):50-62, 2002.
N. Hartley and C. Wood. Public participation in environmental impact assessment-
implementing the aarhus convention. Environmental Impact Assessment Review,
25:319-340, 2005.
C. Hendriks. Institutions of deliberative democratic processes and interest groups:
ions, and incentives. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 61
, 2002. doi: 10.1111/1467-8500.00259.
C. Hermans, J. Erickson, T. Noordewier, A. Sheldon, and M. Kline. Collaborative
environmental planning in river management: An application of multicriteria de-
cision analysis in the white river watershed in vermont. Journal of Environmental
Management, In press 2007. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.07.013.
M. Hillman. Justice in river management: Community perceptions from the Hunter
Valley, New South Wales, Australia. Geographical Research, 43(2):152-161, 2005.
M. Hillman. Situated justice in environmental decision-making: Lessons from river
management in Southeastern Australia. Geoforum, 37:695-707, 2006.
M. Hillman and G. Brierley. A critical review of catchment- ream rehabilitation
programmes. Progress in Physical Geography, 29(1):50-70, 2005. doi: 10.1191/
0309133305pp434ra.
C.N. Hjortso. Enhancing public participation in natural resource management using
soft OR — an application of strategic option development and analysis in tactical
forest planning. European Journal of Operational Research, 152:667-683, 2004.
doi: 10.1016/$0377-2217(03)00065-1.
C. 8. Holling. Surprise for science, resilience for ecosystems, and incentives for people.
Ecological Applications, 6(3):733-735, August 1996.
C. S. Holling and G. K. Meffe. Command and control and the pathology of natural
resource management. Conservation Biology, 10(2):328-337, 1996. doi: 10.1046/
j.1523-1739.1996.10020328.x.
17
P. Holmstrém. Group modeling in system dynamics - a case study. Master’s
sis, Department of Applied Information Technology, IT University of Géteborg,
Géteborg, Sweden, 2004.
Involve. The true costs of public participation. Full report, London, UK, November
2005.
I. Kapoor. Towards participatory environmental management? Journal of Environ-
mental Management, 63(3):269-279, 2001. doi: 10.1006/jema.2001.0478.
B. Kasemir, J. Jager, C.C. Jaeger, and M.T. Gardner, editors. Public participation in
sustainability science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Massachussetts,
USA, 2003.
M. Keen, V. Brown, and R. Dyball, editors. Social learning in environmental man-
agement : building a sustainable future. Earthscan, London, UK, 2005.
E. Kelsey. Integrating multiple knowledge systems into environmental decision-
making: Two case studies of participatory biodiversity initiatives in Canada and
their implications for conceptions of education and public involvement. Environ-
mental Values, 12(3):381-396, August 2003.
M. B. Lane and T. Corbett. The tyranny of localism: Indigenous participation in
community-based environmental management. Journal of Environmental Policy
and Planning, 7(2):141-159, 2005. doi: 10.1080=15239080500338671.
L. Laurian. A prerequisite for participation: Environmental knowledge and what res-
idents know about local toxic sites. Journal of Planning Education and Research,
22(3):257-269, 2003. doi: 10.1177/0739456X02250316.
L. Laurian. Public participation in environmental decision making: Findings from
communities facing toxic waste cleanup. Journal of American Planning Associa
tion, 70(1):53-65, 2004.
V. Lowndes, L. Pratchett, and G. Stoker. Trends in public participation (part 1):
Local government perspectives. Public Administration, 79(1):205222, 2001a. doi:
10.1111/1467-9299.00253.
<
. Lowndes, L. Pratchett, and G. Stoker. Trends in public participation (part 2):
Citizen's perspectives. Public Administration, 79(2):445-455, 2001b. doi: 10.
1111/1467-9299.00264.
L.F. Luna-Reyes, I.J. Martinez-Moyano, T.A. Pardo, A.M. Cresswell, D.F. Andersen,
and G.P. Richardson. Anatomy of a group model-building intervention: building
dynamic theory from case study research. System Dynamics Review, 22(4):291-
320, 2007. doi: 10.1002/sdr.349.
T. Lynam, W. De Jong, D. Sheil, T. Kusumanto, and K. Evans. A review of tools for
incorporating community knowledge, preferences, and values into decision making
in natural resources management. Ecology and Society, 12:5, 2007. {online| URL:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/issl /art5.
18
J. Mansbridge, J. Hartz-Karp, M. Amengual, and J. Gastil. Norms of deliberation:
An inductive study. Journal of Public Deliberation, 2(1):7, 2006. URL http:
//services.bepress.com/jpd/vol2/iss1/art7/.
M. Matthies, C. Giupponi, and B. Ostendorf. Environmental decision support sys-
tems: Current issues, methods and tools. Environmental Modelling & Software,
22(2):123-127, 2007.
S.F. McCool and K. Guthrie. Mapping the dimensions of successful public par-
ation in messy natural resources management situations. Society & Natural
Resources, 14(4):309-323, 2001. doi: 10.1080/713847694.
R. K. Mitchell, B. R. Agle, and D. J. Wood. Toward a theory of stakcholder identifi-
cation and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy
of Management Review, 22(2):853-886, October 1997.
D.P. Moynihan. Normative and instrumental perspectives on public participation:
Citizen summits in Washington D.C. American Review of Public Administration,
33(2):164-188, 2003. doi: 10.1177/0275074003251379.
C. Pahl-Wostl. Participative and stakcholder-based policy design, evaluation and
modeling processes. Integrated Assessment, 3(1):3-14, 2002.
C. Pahl-Wostl. The importance of social learning in restoring the multifunctionality
of rivers and floodplains. Ecology and Society, 11(1):10, 2006. [online] URL:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/voll 1/iss1 /art10/.
C. Pahl-Wostl and M. Hare. Pro of social learning in integrated resources
management. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 14(3):193-206,
2004. doi: 10.1002/casp.774.
J.R. Palerm. An empirical — theoretical analysis framework for public participa-
tion in environmental impact nent. Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management, 43:581-600, 2000.
C. Pateman. Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, Massachussetts, USA, 1970.
L. Pellizzoni. Uncertainty and partic
(2):195-224, 2003.
atory democracy. Environmental Values, 12
J. Persson. Theoretical reflections on the connection between environmental assess-
ment methods and conflict. Environmental Impact A ew, 26(7):
605-613, October 2006. doi: 10.1016/j-ciar.2006.04.005.
L. Pratchett. New fashions in public participation: towards greater democracy?
Parliamentary Affairs, 52(4):617-33, 1999. doi: 10.1093/pa/52.4.616.
H.M. Regan, M. Colyvan, and L. Markovchick-Nicholls. A formal model for con-
sensus and negotiation in environmental management. Journal of Environmental
Management, 80(2):167-176, July 2006.
19
E.A.J.A. Rouwette and J.A.M. Vennix. System dynamics and organizational in-
terventions. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 23:451-466, 2006. doi:
E.A.J.A. Rouwette, JAM. Vennix, and T. van Mullekom. Group model building
effectiveness: a review of assessment studies. System Dynamics Society, 18:
2002.
D.J. Roux, K.H. Rogers, H.C. Biggs, P.J. Ashton, and A. Sergeant. Bridging the sci-
encemanagement divide: Moving from unidirectional knowledge transfer to knowl-
edge interfacing and sharing. Ecology and Society, 11(1):4, 2006. online] URL:
http: / /www.ecologyandsociety.org/voll1 /iss1 /art4/.
G. Rowe and L.J. Frewer. Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation.
Science, Technology & Human Values, 25(1):3-29, 2000.
G. Rowe and L.J. Frewer. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci-
ence, Technology € Human Values, 30(2):251-290, 2005. doi: 10.1177/
0162243904271724.
P. M. Senge. The Fifth Discipline. Random House, Australia, 7th ed. edition, 1992.
D. Shand and M. Arnberg. Responsive government: Service ty initiatives. Tech-
nical report, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris,
France, 1996.
S. Singleton. Collaborative environmental planning in the american west: The good,
the bad, and the ugly. Environmental Politics, 11(3):54-75, 2002. doi: 10.1080/
714000626.
L.G. Smith, C.-Y. Nell, and M.V. Prystupa. The converging dynamics of interest
representation in resources management. Environmental Management, 21(2):139-
146, March 1997. doi: 10.1007 /s002679900013.
K.A. Stave. A system dynamics model to facilitate public understanding of water
management options in Las Vegas, Nevada. Journal of Environmental Manage-
ment, 67:303-313, 2003.
B.S. Steel and E. Weber. Ecosystem management, decentralization, and pub-
lic opinion. Global Environmental Change, 11:119-131, 2001. doi: 10.1016/
$0959-3780(00)00062-5.
L.C. Stringer, A.J. Dougill, E. Fraser, K. Hubacek, C. Prell, and M.S. Reed.
Unpacking “participation” in the adaptive management of social-ecological sys:
tems: A critical review. Ecology and Society, 11(2):39, 2006. [online] URL:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/voll1/iss2/art39.
J.C. Thomas. Public involvement in public management: Adapting and testing a
borrowed theory. Public Administration Review, 50(4):435-45, 1990.
J.C. Thomas. Public involvement and governmental effectiveness: a decision-making
model for public managers. Administrative Science and Society, 24(4):444-69,
1993.
20
V.C. Tidwell, H.D. Passell, $.H. Conrad, and R.P. Thomas. System dynamics model-
ing for community-based water planning: Application to the Middle Rio Grande.
Aquatic Sciences, 66:357-372, 2004. doi: 10.1007/s00027-004-0722-9.
B.A. van Asselt-Marjolein and N. Rijkens-Klomp. A look in the mirror: reflection on
participation in integrated assessment from a methodological perspective. Global
Environmental Change, 12:167184, 2002.
M. Van den Belt. Mediated Modelling - A System Dynamics Approach to Environ-
mental Consensus Building. Island Press, Washington, USA, 2004.
J.P.M. van Tatenhove and P. Leroy. Environment and participation in a context of
political modernisation. Environmental Values, 12(2):155-174, May 2003.
J.A.M. Vennix. Group-Model Building: Facilitating Team Learning Using System
Dynamics. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK, 1996.
J.A.M. Vennix. Group model-building: tackling messy problems. System Dynamics
Review, 15(4):379-401, 1999.
J.A.M. Vennix, D.F. Andersen, G.P. Richardson, and J. Rohrbaugh. Model-building
for group decision support: Issues and alternatives in knowledge elicitation. Eu-
ropean Journal of Operational Research, 59:28-41, 1992.
G. Vicente and M.R. Partidrio. SEA — enhancing communication for better envi-
ronmental di Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26(8):696—706,
November 2006. doi: 10.1016/j.ciar.2006.06.005.
G. Walkerden. Adaptive management planning projects as conflict reso-
lution processes. Ecology and Society, 11(1):48, 2006. [online] URL:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/voll 1/iss1 /art48/.
T. Webler, S. Tuler, and R. Krueger. What is a good public participation process?
Five perspectives from the public. Environmental Management, 27(3):435-450,
March 2001. doi: 10.1007/s002670010160.
M.A. Wilson and R.B. Howarth. Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem servi
Establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation. Ecological Economics, 4
431-443, 2002. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00092-7.
G. Winch. Developing consensus: reflections on a model-supported decision pr
Management Decision, 33(6):22-31, 1995. doi: 10.1108/00251749510087623.
S. Yearley, §. Cinderby, J. Forrester, P. Bailey, and P. Rosen. Participatory modeling
and the local governance of the politics of UK air pollution: A three-city case
study. Environmental Values, 12(2):247-262, 2003.
A.A. Zagonel. Model conzeptualisation in group model building: a review of the
literature exploring the tension between representing reality and negotiating social
order. In Proceedings of the International Conference of the System Dynamics
Society. Palermo, Italy, July 28August 1, 2002.
