IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-05173749.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Try, try again: Lessons learned from success and failure in participatory modeling

Author

Listed:
  • Eleanor Sterling

    (AMNH - American Museum of Natural History)

  • Moira Zellner

    (University of Illinois System)

  • Karen Jenni

    (US Geological Survey)

  • Kirsten Leong

    (Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center)

  • Pierre Glynn

    (US Geological Survey)

  • Todd Bendor

    (NC State - North Carolina State University [Raleigh] - UNC - University of North Carolina System)

  • Pierre Bommel

    (UPR GREEN - Gestion des ressources renouvelables et environnement - Cirad - Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement)

  • Klaus Hubacek

    (Loyola University [Maryland, Baltimore])

  • Antonie Jetter

    (Portland State University)

  • Rebecca Jordan

    (Rutgers - Rutgers University System)

  • Laura Schmitt Olabisi

    (Michigan State University [East Lansing] - Michigan State University System)

  • Michael Paolisso

    (Loyola University [Maryland, Baltimore])

  • Steven Gray

    (Michigan State University [East Lansing] - Michigan State University System)

Abstract

Participatory Modeling (PM) is becoming increasingly common in environmental planning and conservation, due in part to advances in cyberinfrastructure as well as to greater recognition of the importance of engaging a diverse array of stakeholders in decision making. We provide lessons learned, based on over 200 years of the authors' cumulative and diverse experience, about PM processes. These include successful and, perhaps more importantly, not-so-successful trials. Our collective interdisciplinary background has supported the development, testing, and evaluation of a rich range of collaborative modeling approaches. We share here what we have learned as a community of participatory modelers, within three categories of reflection: a) lessons learned about participatory modelers; b) lessons learned about the context of collaboration; and c) lessons learned about the PM process. First, successful PM teams encompass a variety of skills beyond modeling expertise. Skills include: effective relationship-building, openness to learn from local experts, awareness of personal motivations and biases, and ability to translate discussions into models and to assess success. Second, the context for collaboration necessitates a culturally appropriate process for knowledge generation and use, for involvement of community co-leads, and for understanding group power dynamics that might influence how people from different backgrounds interact. Finally, knowing when to use PM and when not to, managing expectations, and effectively and equitably addressing conflicts is essential. Managing the participation process in PM is as important as managing the model building process. We recommend that PM teams consider what skills are present within a team, while ensuring inclusive creative space for collaborative exploration and learning supported by simple yet relevant models. With a realistic view of what it entails, PM can be a powerful approach that builds collective knowledge and social capital, thus helping communities to take charge of their future and address complex social and environmental problems.

Suggested Citation

  • Eleanor Sterling & Moira Zellner & Karen Jenni & Kirsten Leong & Pierre Glynn & Todd Bendor & Pierre Bommel & Klaus Hubacek & Antonie Jetter & Rebecca Jordan & Laura Schmitt Olabisi & Michael Paolisso, 2019. "Try, try again: Lessons learned from success and failure in participatory modeling," Post-Print hal-05173749, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-05173749
    DOI: 10.1525/elementa.347
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-05173749v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-05173749v1/document
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1525/elementa.347?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Baruch Fischhoff, 1995. "Risk Perception and Communication Unplugged: Twenty Years of Process," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(2), pages 137-145, April.
    2. Bram Buscher & Elna de Beer, 2011. "The contemporary paradox of long-term planning for social-ecological change and its effects on the discourse-practice divide: evidence from Southern Africa," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(3), pages 301-318.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Melissa Matlock & Suellen Hopfer & Oladele A. Ogunseitan, 2019. "Communicating Risk for a Climate-Sensitive Disease: A Case Study of Valley Fever in Central California," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-15, September.
    2. Ann Bostrom & Ragnar E. Löfstedt, 2003. "Communicating Risk: Wireless and Hardwired," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 241-248, April.
    3. Houghton, J.R. & Rowe, G. & Frewer, L.J. & Van Kleef, E. & Chryssochoidis, G. & Kehagia, O. & Korzen-Bohr, S. & Lassen, J. & Pfenning, U. & Strada, A., 2008. "The quality of food risk management in Europe: Perspectives and priorities," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 13-26, February.
    4. Ruth E Alcock & Jerry Busby, 2006. "Risk Migration and Scientific Advance: The Case of Flame‐Retardant Compounds," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 369-381, April.
    5. Clare Bayley & Simon French, 2008. "Designing a Participatory Process for Stakeholder Involvement in a Societal Decision," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 195-210, May.
    6. Caron Chess & Kandice L. Salomone & Billie Jo Hance & Alex Saville, 1995. "Results of a National Symposium on Risk Communication: Next Steps for Government Agencies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(2), pages 115-125, April.
    7. Branden B. Johnson & Adam M. Finkel, 2016. "Public Perceptions of Regulatory Costs, Their Uncertainty and Interindividual Distribution," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(6), pages 1148-1170, June.
    8. Anabela Carvalho & Jacquelin Burgess, 2005. "Cultural Circuits of Climate Change in U.K. Broadsheet Newspapers, 1985–2003," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(6), pages 1457-1469, December.
    9. Ragnar Lofstedt, 2013. "Communicating Food Risks in an Era of Growing Public Distrust: Three Case Studies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(2), pages 192-202, February.
    10. Matthew D. Wood & Ann Bostrom & Todd Bridges & Igor Linkov, 2012. "Cognitive Mapping Tools: Review and Risk Management Needs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(8), pages 1333-1348, August.
    11. Jamie K. Wardman, 2008. "The Constitution of Risk Communication in Advanced Liberal Societies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1619-1637, December.
    12. Ragnar E. Löfstedt & Ortwin Renn, 1997. "The Brent Spar Controversy: An Example of Risk Communication Gone Wrong," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), pages 131-136, April.
    13. Sjöberg, Lennart, 2003. "Risk communication between experts and the public: perceptions and intentions," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration 2003:13, Stockholm School of Economics.
    14. repec:plo:pone00:0198286 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Eric R. Stone & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Abigail M. Wilkins & Emily M. Boker & Jacqueline MacDonald Gibson, 2017. "Designing Graphs to Communicate Risks: Understanding How the Choice of Graphical Format Influences Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(4), pages 612-628, April.
    16. Sungjong Roh, 2014. "The Signal and the Noise: Why So Many Predictions Fail—But Some Don't by Nate Silver, New York Penguin Press. 2012," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 396-398, February.
    17. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Anne Marike Lokhorst, 2016. "The Key Role of Experiential Uncertainty when Dealing with Risks: Its Relationships with Demand for Regulation and Institutional Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1615-1629, August.
    18. R. G. van der Vegt, 2018. "Risk Assessment and Risk Governance of Liquefied Natural Gas Development in Gladstone, Australia," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1830-1846, September.
    19. Elaine Kurtovich & Sylvia Guendelman & Linda Neuhauser & Dana Edelman & Maura Georges & Peyton Mason-Marti, 2015. "Development and First Phase Evaluation of a Maternity Leave Educational Tool for Pregnant, Working Women in California," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-15, June.
    20. Ruixia Han & Jian Xu, 2020. "A Comparative Study of the Role of Interpersonal Communication, Traditional Media and Social Media in Pro-Environmental Behavior: A China-Based Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-21, March.
    21. Ming Zhong & Lu Xiao & Qian Zhang & Tao Jiang, 2021. "Risk Perception, Risk Communication, and Mitigation Actions of Flash Floods: Results from a Survey in Three Types of Communities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-23, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:hal:journl:hal-05173749. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.