Participatory modeling is increasingly recognized as an effective way to assist collective decision-making processes in the domain of natural resource management. This article introduces a framework for evaluating projects that have adopted a participatory modeling approach. This evaluation framework--known as the "Protocol of Canberra"--was developed through a collaboration between French and Australian researchers engaged in participatory modeling and evaluation research. The framework seeks to assess the extent to which different participatory modeling initiatives not only modify perceptions among and interactions between participants, but also contribute to collective decision-making. The article discusses the development of the framework and its application to three case-studies, two from Australia and one from the Pacific Island of the Republic of Kiribati. The article concludes with some comments for future use of the framework in a range of participatory modeling contexts.

No abstract

Evaluating participatory processes, participatory planning processes especially, can be challenging. Due to their complexity, these processes require a specific approach to evaluation. This paper proposes a framework for evaluating projects that have adopted a participatory planning approach: the monitoring and evaluation of participatory planning processes (MEPPP) framework. The MEPPP framework is applied to one case study, a participatory planning process in the Rwenzori region in Uganda. We suggest that this example can serve as a guideline for researchers and practitioners to set up the monitoring and evaluation of their participatory planning process of interest by following six main phases: (1) description of the case, (2) clarification of the M&E viewpoint(s) and definition of the M&E objective(s), (3) identification of the context, process and outputs/outcomes analytical variables, (4) development of the M&E methods and data collection, (5) data analysis, and (6) sharing of the M&E results. Results of the application of the MEPPP framework in Uganda demonstrate the ability of the framework to tackle the complexity of participatory planning processes. Strengths and limitations of the MEPPP framework are also discussed.

International audienceThe Water Framework Directive requires Public Participation in River Basin Management (RBM), including previously excluded constituencies besides water experts and policy makers. In this context, the HarmoniCOP project studies ways to improve PP based on the concept of Social Learning (SL). SL refers to the growing capacity of a social network to develop and perform collective actions. Complex issues such as RBM can be better resolved taking into account the diversity of interests and mental frames, and relying on disseminated information and knowledge. Information and Communication tools (IC-tools) can thereby play an important role. In this paper we firstly present our main concepts in relation to SL and PP. Then we propose a provisional qualitative characterisation of the role of IC-tools. Thirdly, we present a framework of analysis to explore IC-tool impact on participatory and SL processes. This framework is used to assess the IC-tools from three perspectives: their technical characteristics, their impact on PP and SL and their usability as perceived by the users. In the fourth part we present a first application of the framework of analysis for two case studies in Flanders and in Dordogne (France). Finally, we discuss some expected future outcomes of the project

Significant changes in production processes and consumption patterns are required if high-consumption societies are to tackle climate change. These changes will not be achieved unless climate change is taken into account in the general and sector-specific policies that underlie economic activity and general social development. When actors react to climate policies, they are also influenced significantly by other policies.The degree to which climate change issues are considered and integrated into existing policy areas is therefore a key issue, along with climate-specific measures such as emissions trading. The paper assesses the extent of climate policy integration in six European countries (Denmark, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom) and in some cases regions and municipalities and analyses measures and means for enhancing climate policy integration.This study shows that climate change has a more prominent role in governmental programmes than ever before, and it is no longer delegated to just one minister, one ministry or a few institutions. The most recent national climate strategies recognize the need for, and are built on, climate policy integration to a much greater extent than was previously the case. At the local level, many large cities, as well as smaller Climate Policy Integration as a Necessity for an Efficient Climate Policy -Amsterdam Conference 20092 municipalities, have made climate commitments which are often more ambitious than commitments made at a national level.More important than incorporating climate policy integration more deeply into policy strategies is extending it more fully to specific policy instruments. Across countries and regions, the need to deepen climate policy integration into spatial planning and governmental budgeting is common. In the countries studied, there are many inconsistencies between climate policy aims and other policy aims, which are rarely openly assessed. Mainstreaming climate policy opens up controversies such as the option of nuclear energy production or regulating the use of private cars. The study also shows that both mitigation and adaptation concerns all levels from the local to the global and that the interactions between levels are complex and multidirectional.