An interdisciplinary framework for participatory modeling design and evaluation—What makes models effective participatory decision tools?

Abstract

Increased requirements for public involvement in water resources management (WRM) over the past century have stimulated the development of more collaborative decision‐making methods. Participatory modeling (PM) uses computer models to inform and engage stakeholders in the planning process in order to influence collaborative decisions in WRM. Past evaluations of participatory models focused on process and final outcomes, yet, were hindered by diversity of purpose and inconsistent documentation. This paper presents a two‐stage framework for evaluating PM based on mechanisms for improving model effectiveness as participatory tools. The five dimensions characterize the “who, when, how, and why” of each participatory effort (stage 1). Models are evaluated as “boundary objects,” a concept used to describe tools that bridge understanding and translate different bodies of knowledge to improve credibility, salience, and legitimacy (stage 2). This evaluation framework is applied to five existing case studies from the literature. Though the goals of participation can be diverse, the novel contribution of the two‐stage proposed framework is the flexibility it has to evaluate a wide range of cases that differ in scope, modeling approach, and participatory context. Also, the evaluation criteria provide a structured vocabulary based on clear mechanisms that extend beyond previous process‐based and outcome‐based evaluations. Effective models are those that take advantage of mechanisms that facilitate dialogue and resolution and improve the accessibility and applicability of technical knowledge. Furthermore, the framework can help build more complete records and systematic documentation of evidence to help standardize the field of PM.

Participatory flood vulnerability assessment: a multi-criteria approach

“…This finding becomes even more relevant when considering that several respondents work for the local Civil Defences and the National Centre for Monitoring and Early Warning of Natural Disasters (CEMADEN) -thus having great influence over deci-sions related to flood risk management in the region. These results reinforce the findings of other participatory modelling exercises (Falconi and Palmer, 2017;Kissinger et al, 2017;Maskrey et al, 2016;Oulahen et al, 2015;Voinov and Bousquet, 2010) that state that end users find it more accurate and useful when the model is created based on their perspectives.…”

“…Several authors argue that to be accepted and used by stakeholders, models should be simple and easy to use, as complexity can obscure transparency and limit model accessibility (Falconi and Palmer, 2017;Horlitz, 2007). During the workshops, it became clear that the elicitation of criteria weights demands a significant cognitive effort from participants due to the inconsistency in the matrices, especially in the AHP technique.…”

Simulation Model for Collaborative Decision Making on Sediment Source Reduction in an Intensively Managed Watershed

“…A flexible, step‐by‐step development approach served to accommodate the input and honor the effort of stakeholders. An important consideration in model development was to provide nearly instantaneous model output in order to support evaluation of trade‐offs, deliberation, and negotiation (Falconi & Palmer, ).…”

Twelve Questions for the Participatory Modeling Community

“…In this process, the participants cocreate the problem statement and use modeling practices to define the descriptions, solutions, and decision-making actions of the group (see Falconi & Palmer, 2017;Voinov & Gaddis, 2008 for examples) PM is often used in environmental management contexts (see Table 1 for hypothetical examples and for a preview of the questions listed below). In this process, the participants cocreate the problem statement and use modeling practices to define the descriptions, solutions, and decision-making actions of the group (see Falconi & Palmer, 2017;Voinov & Gaddis, 2008 for examples) PM is often used in environmental management contexts (see Table 1 for hypothetical examples and for a preview of the questions listed below).…”

“…To begin, we define PM as a purposeful learning process for action that engages the implicit and explicit knowledge of stakeholders to create formalized and shared representations of reality. In this process, the participants cocreate the problem statement and use modeling practices to define the descriptions, solutions, and decision-making actions of the group (see Falconi & Palmer, 2017;Voinov & Gaddis, 2008 for examples) PM is often used in environmental management contexts (see Table 1 for hypothetical examples and for a preview of the questions listed below).…”