IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/srbeha/v35y2018i6p791-810.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Transparency and Reproducibility in Participatory Systems Modelling: the Case of Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping

Author

Listed:
  • Marta Olazabal
  • Marc B. Neumann
  • Sébastien Foudi
  • Aline Chiabai

Abstract

By aggregating semi‐quantitative mind maps from multiple agents, fuzzy cognitive mapping (FCM) allows developing an integrated, cross‐sectoral understanding of complex systems. However, and especially for FCM based on individual interviews, the map‐building process presents potential pitfalls. These are mainly related to the different understandings of the interviewees about the FCM semantics as well as the biases of the analyst during the elicitation and treatment of data. This paper introduces a set of good practice measures to increase transparency and reproducibility of map‐building processes in order to improve credibility of results from FCM applications. The case study used to illustrate the proposed good practices assesses heatwave impacts and adaptation options in an urban environment. Agents from different urban sectors were interviewed to obtain individual cognitive maps. Using this set of data, we suggest good practices to collect, digitalize, interpret, pre‐process and aggregate the individual maps in a traceable and coherent way. © 2018 The Authors Systems Research and Behavioral Science published by International Federation for Systems Research and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Suggested Citation

  • Marta Olazabal & Marc B. Neumann & Sébastien Foudi & Aline Chiabai, 2018. "Transparency and Reproducibility in Participatory Systems Modelling: the Case of Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(6), pages 791-810, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:srbeha:v:35:y:2018:i:6:p:791-810
    DOI: 10.1002/sres.2519
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2519
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sres.2519?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. R. S. Clements & S. K. Birthisel & A. Daigneault & E. Gallandt & D. Johnson & T. Wentworth & M. T. Niles, 2021. "Climate change in the context of whole-farming systems: opportunities for improved outreach," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 166(3), pages 1-20, June.
    2. Payam Aminpour & Heike Schwermer & Steven Gray, 2021. "Do social identity and cognitive diversity correlate in environmental stakeholders? A novel approach to measuring cognitive distance within and between groups," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-18, November.
    3. López-Bernabé, Elena & Linares, Pedro & Galarraga, Ibon, 2022. "Energy-efficiency policies for decarbonising residential heating in Spain: A fuzzy cognitive mapping approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    4. Vanermen, Iris & Muys, Bart & Verheyen, Kris & Vanwindekens, Frederic & Bouriaud, Laura & Kardol, Paul & Vranken, Liesbet, 2020. "What do scientists and managers know about soil biodiversity? Comparative knowledge mapping for sustainable forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    5. Goswami, Rupak & Roy, Kalyan & Dutta, Sudarshan & Ray, Krishnendu & Sarkar, Sukamal & Brahmachari, Koushik & Nanda, Manoj Kr. & Mainuddin, Mohammed & Banerjee, Hirak & Timsina, Jagadish & Majumdar, Ka, 2021. "Multi-faceted impact and outcome of COVID-19 on smallholder agricultural systems: Integrating qualitative research and fuzzy cognitive mapping to explore resilient strategies," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    6. Marina Anokhina, 2020. "Parameters of the strategy for managing the economic growth of agricultural production in Russia," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 66(3), pages 140-148.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:srbeha:v:35:y:2018:i:6:p:791-810. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/1092-7026 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.