IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i3p825-d203629.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modeling with Stakeholders for Transformative Change

Author

Listed:
  • Anne van Bruggen

    (Section Energy and Industry, Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Jaffalaan 5, 2628 BX Delft, The Netherlands)

  • Igor Nikolic

    (Section Energy and Industry, Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Jaffalaan 5, 2628 BX Delft, The Netherlands)

  • Jan Kwakkel

    (Section Policy Analysis, Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Jaffalaan 5, 2628 BX Delft, The Netherlands)

Abstract

Coherent responses to important problems such as climate change require involving a multitude of stakeholders in a transformative process leading to development of policy pathways. The process of coming to an agreement on policy pathways requires critical reflection on underlying system conceptualizations and commitment to building capacity in all stakeholders engaged in a social learning process. Simulation models can support such processes by providing a boundary object or negotiating artifact that allows stakeholders to deliberate through a multi-interpretable, consistent, transparent, and verifiable representation of reality. The challenge is how to structure the transdisciplinary process of involving stakeholders in simulation modeling and how to know when such a process can be labeled as transformative. There is a proliferation of approaches for this across disciplines, of which this article identifies Group Model Building, Companion Modeling, Challenge-and-Reconstruct Learning, and generic environmental modeling as the most prominent. This article systematically reviews relevant theories, terminology, principles, and methodologies across these four approaches to build a framework that can facilitate further learning. The article also provides a typology of approaches to modeling with stakeholders. It distinguishes transformative approaches that involve stakeholders from representative, instrumental and nominal forms. It is based on an extensive literature review, supported by twenty-three semi-structured interviews with participatory and non-participatory modelers. The article brings order into the abundance of conceptions of transformation, the role of simulation models in transformative change processes, the role of participation of stakeholders, and what type of approaches to modeling with stakeholders are befitting in the development of policy pathways.

Suggested Citation

  • Anne van Bruggen & Igor Nikolic & Jan Kwakkel, 2019. "Modeling with Stakeholders for Transformative Change," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-21, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:3:p:825-:d:203629
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/3/825/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/3/825/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hermans, Leon M. & Haasnoot, Marjolijn & ter Maat, Judith & Kwakkel, Jan H., 2017. "Designing monitoring arrangements for collaborative learning about adaptation pathways," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 29-38.
    2. Marjolijn Haasnoot & Hans Middelkoop & Astrid Offermans & Eelco Beek & Willem Deursen, 2012. "Exploring pathways for sustainable water management in river deltas in a changing environment," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 115(3), pages 795-819, December.
    3. Sterman, J.D., 2006. "Learning from evidence in a complex world," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 96(3), pages 505-514.
    4. L. Andrew Bollinger & Igor Nikolić & Chris B. Davis & Gerard P.J. Dijkema, 2015. "Multimodel Ecologies: Cultivating Model Ecosystems in Industrial Ecology," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 19(2), pages 252-263, April.
    5. Sterman, John., 1994. "Learning in and about complex systems," Working papers 3660-94., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    6. Natalie A Jones & Pascal Perez & Thomas G Measham & Gail J Kelly & Patrick D’Aquino & Katherine Daniell & Anne Dray & Nils Ferrand, 2008. "Evaluating Participatory Modeling: Developing a Framework for Cross-case Analysis," Socio-Economics and the Environment in Discussion (SEED) Working Paper Series 2008-11, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems.
    7. Martin J Wassen & Hens Runhaar & Aat Barendregt & Tomasz Okruszko, 2011. "Evaluating the Role of Participation in Modeling Studies for Environmental Planning," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 38(2), pages 338-358, April.
    8. Jan Kwakkel & Marjolijn Haasnoot & Warren Walker, 2015. "Developing dynamic adaptive policy pathways: a computer-assisted approach for developing adaptive strategies for a deeply uncertain world," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 132(3), pages 373-386, October.
    9. Kelly Levin & Benjamin Cashore & Steven Bernstein & Graeme Auld, 2012. "Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(2), pages 123-152, June.
    10. David Colander & Roland Kupers, 2014. "Complexity and the Art of Public Policy: Solving Society’s Problems from the Bottom Up," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 10207.
    11. Olivier Barreteau, 2003. "Our Companion Modelling Approach," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 6(2), pages 1-1.
    12. Andrzej Nowak & Agnieszka Rychwalska & Wojciech Borkowski, 2013. "Why Simulate? To Develop a Mental Model," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 16(3), pages 1-12.
    13. Laura J. Black & David F. Andersen, 2012. "Using Visual Representations as Boundary Objects to Resolve Conflict in Collaborative Model‐Building Approaches," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 194-208, March.
    14. Duncan J. Watts, 2017. "Should social science be more solution-oriented?," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 1(1), pages 1-5, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Nicholas A. Kirk & Nicholas A. Cradock-Henry, 2022. "Land Management Change as Adaptation to Climate and Other Stressors: A Systematic Review of Decision Contexts Using Values-Rules-Knowledge," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-23, May.
    2. Leslie Paul Thiele, 2020. "Integrating political and technological uncertainty into robust climate policy," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 163(1), pages 521-538, November.
    3. Jahel, Camille & Bourgeois, Robin & Bourgoin, Jérémy & Daré, William's & De Lattre-Gasquet, Marie & Delay, Etienne & Dumas, Patrice & Le Page, Christophe & Piraux, Marc & Prudhomme, Rémi, 2023. "The future of social-ecological systems at the crossroads of quantitative and qualitative methods," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    4. Eline E. Vos & Henk B. M. Hilderink & Simone R. de Bruin & Allard J. van der Beek & Karin I. Proper, 2022. "The Working Informal Caregiver Model: A Mixed Methods Approach to Explore Future Informal Caregiving by Working Caregivers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-18, March.
    5. Castilla-Rho, Juan & Kenny, Daniel, 2022. "What prevents the adoption of regenerative agriculture and what can we do about it? Lessons from a behaviorally-attuned Participatory Modelling exercise in Australia," OSF Preprints asxr2, Center for Open Science.
    6. R Chitra & N L Balasudarsun & M Sathish & R Jagajeevan, 2023. "Supply chain modelling in organic farming for sustainable profitability," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 69(6), pages 255-266.
    7. Daniel C. Kenny & Juan Castilla-Rho, 2022. "No Stakeholder Is an Island: Human Barriers and Enablers in Participatory Environmental Modelling," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-26, February.
    8. Daniel C. Kenny & Juan Castilla-Rho, 2022. "What Prevents the Adoption of Regenerative Agriculture and What Can We Do about It? Lessons and Narratives from a Participatory Modelling Exercise in Australia," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-30, August.
    9. Jakob Lundgren, 2021. "The Grand Concepts of Environmental Studies Boundary objects between disciplines and policymakers," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 11(1), pages 93-100, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vizinho, André & Avelar, David & Fonseca, Ana Lúcia & Carvalho, Silvia & Sucena-Paiva, Leonor & Pinho, Pedro & Nunes, Alice & Branquinho, Cristina & Vasconcelos, Ana Cátia & Santos, Filipe Duarte & Ro, 2021. "Framing the application of Adaptation Pathways for agroforestry in Mediterranean drylands," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    2. Jan H. Kwakkel, 2019. "A generalized many‐objective optimization approach for scenario discovery," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(2), June.
    3. Yang, Y. & Lin, J. & Liu, G. & Zhou, L., 2021. "The behavioural causes of bullwhip effect in supply chains: A systematic literature review," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 236(C).
    4. Pieter Bloemen & Tim Reeder & Chris Zevenbergen & Jeroen Rijke & Ashley Kingsborough, 2018. "Lessons learned from applying adaptation pathways in flood risk management and challenges for the further development of this approach," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 23(7), pages 1083-1108, October.
    5. Jiazhe Sun & Kaizhong Yang, 2016. "The Wicked Problem of Climate Change: A New Approach Based on Social Mess and Fragmentation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-14, December.
    6. Miles M. Yang & Hong Jiang & Michael Shayne Gary, 2016. "Challenging learning goals improve performance in dynamically complex microworld simulations," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 32(3-4), pages 204-232, July.
    7. Tina Comes & Bartel Van de Walle & Luk Van Wassenhove, 2020. "The Coordination‐Information Bubble in Humanitarian Response: Theoretical Foundations and Empirical Investigations," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(11), pages 2484-2507, November.
    8. Judy Lawrence & Robert Bell & Adolf Stroombergen, 2019. "A Hybrid Process to Address Uncertainty and Changing Climate Risk in Coastal Areas Using Dynamic Adaptive Pathways Planning, Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis & Real Options Analysis: A New Zealand App," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-18, January.
    9. Frerichs, Leah & Young, Tiffany L. & Dave, Gaurav & Stith, Doris & Corbie-Smith, Giselle & Hassmiller Lich, Kristen, 2018. "Mind maps and network analysis to evaluate conceptualization of complex issues: A case example evaluating systems science workshops for childhood obesity prevention," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 135-147.
    10. Richard Taylor & John Forrester & Lydia Pedoth & David Zeitlyn, 2022. "Structured output methods and environmental issues: perspectives on co-created bottom-up and ‘sideways’ science," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, December.
    11. Mohanasundar Radhakrishnan & Hong Quan Nguyen & Berry Gersonius & Assela Pathirana & Ky Quang Vinh & Richard M. Ashley & Chris Zevenbergen, 2018. "Coping capacities for improving adaptation pathways for flood protection in Can Tho, Vietnam," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 149(1), pages 29-41, July.
    12. Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Lahtinen, Tuomas J., 2016. "Path dependence in Operational Research—How the modeling process can influence the results," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 3(C), pages 14-20.
    13. Paulo Gonçalves & Paolo Ferrari & Luca Crivelli & Emiliano Albanese, 2023. "Model‐informed health system reorganization during emergencies," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 32(5), pages 1323-1344, May.
    14. Christoffer Carstens & Karin Mossberg Sonnek & Riitta Räty & Per Wikman-Svahn & Annika Carlsson-Kanyama & Jonathan Metzger, 2019. "Insights from Testing a Modified Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways Approach for Spatial Planning at the Municipal Level," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-16, January.
    15. Luciano Raso & Jan Kwakkel & Jos Timmermans & Geremy Panthou, 2019. "How to evaluate a monitoring system for adaptive policies: criteria for signposts selection and their model-based evaluation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 153(1), pages 267-283, March.
    16. Steinmann, Patrick & Auping, Willem L. & Kwakkel, Jan H., 2020. "Behavior-based scenario discovery using time series clustering," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    17. Amelung, Dorothee & Funke, Joachim, 2013. "Dealing with the uncertainties of climate engineering: Warnings from a psychological complex problem solving perspective," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 32-40.
    18. Lu, Jinfeng & Dimov, Dimo, 2023. "A system dynamics modelling of entrepreneurship and growth within firms," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 38(3).
    19. Sadie McEvoy & Frans H. M. van de Ven & Reinder Brolsma & Jill H. Slinger, 2019. "Evaluating a Planning Support System’s Use and Effects in Urban Adaptation: An Exploratory Case Study from Berlin, Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-27, December.
    20. Dinar, Ariel & Farolfi, Stefano & Patrone, Fioravante & Rowntree, Kate, 2006. "TO NEGOTIATE OR TO GAME THEORIZE: Negotiation vs. Game Theory Outcomes for Water Allocation Problems in the Kat Basin, South Africa," Working Papers 60888, University of Pretoria, Department of Agricultural Economics, Extension and Rural Development.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:3:p:825-:d:203629. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.