Participatory methods of integrated assessment—a review

Abstract

The field of Participatory Integrated Assessment (PIA) is still very young, having evolved from the broader field of Integrated Assessment (IA) in the mid to late 1990s. Like IA, PIA is a problem-based field, with a focus on interdisciplinary research. Fundamental to PIA, however, is the assertion that the quality of decisions is improved by the direct involvement of stakeholders in the assessment process-particularly when those decisions pertain to complex, intractable problems. Climate change presents just such a problem, and it is in the domains of climate change and related sustainability issues where PIA has seen its broadest application. Previous reviews have focused primarily on the mechanisms of participation in PIAs. The purpose of this review is to take a broader look at the field of PIA, focusing on components and cross-cutting themes that appear to be defining the conduct of PIA exercises. The review first looks at common components of PIA, including methods (future scenarios and models), participation (mechanisms of participation, representation, and stages of involvement), and outcomes (policy outcomes and process outcomes). The review then turns to an examination of cross-cutting themes in the field of PIA. These themes include the tension between qualitative and quantitative information, the role of interactivity in PIA, the importance of institutions and institutional change, and navigating the space defined by choice, uncertainty, and constraints. As governments at all levels move toward response options for climate change, PIA is increasingly becoming an approach for providing meaningful participation in the selection of those options. 

Innovations in science and scenarios for assessment

“…The SWG, responding to increased experience with participatory approaches that mix experts and end users in assessment and decision support processes (NRC 2009;Salter et al 2010), decided to test opportunities for participatory scenario planning as a component of the NCA3 scenario strategy. The approaches use climate and socioeconomic scenarios to anticipate potential local-scale conditions and impacts, and to explore adaptation (and/or mitigation) options that could address potential impacts and withstand the range of potential future conditions.…”

Linking the ecosystem services approach to social preferences and needs in integrated coastal land use management – A planning approach

“…A key analytical aspect, therefore, in understanding the linkages between ecosystem services and the social impact implies an understanding of the position of each of the stakeholders. The analysis, therefore, sets out to investigate the knowledge, experiences and needs of each stakeholder in relation to achieving better development outcomes for the region affected (see also Salter et al, 2010). The ecosystem services approach is used as a strategy to integrate local ecosystem services -ecosystem-based material and non-material resources as the source of supply from which benefits are produced -into decisionmaking (MA 2003).…”

Integrating knowledge exchange and the assessment of dryland management alternatives – A learning-centered participatory approach

“…However, regardless the assessment approach followed, the effective use of the results tends to be limited largely because local perspectives, interests, needs, and knowledge, are inadequately considered (Estrella and Gaventa, 1998;Hisschemller et al, 2001;Whitfield and Reed, 2012). Despite the many open questions on the benefits and risks of participatory approaches (e.g., Coglianese, 1997;Irvin and Stansbury, 2004;Webler and Tuler, 2001), it is acknowledged that the involvement of stakeholders in the assessment process contributes to ensuring the relevance and acceptance of the assessment approach and outcomes; enriching the assessment with local and contextual knowledge; and understanding and adequately considering the influence of the governance and cultural elements on the system assessed (Stirling, 2006;Salter et al, 2010).…”

“…Frameworks have been developed to evaluate public participation processes (e.g., Rowe and Frewer, 2000), participatory integrated assessment (e.g., Salter et al, 2010), and the application of participatory research processes (e.g., Blackstock et al, 2007), which provide insight into the essential elements of a participatory environmental assessment. Accordingly, a variety of participatory methods and tools have been developed over the last decades (see for example van Asselt and Rijkens-Klomp, 2002) and have been increasingly incorporated into decision-making and integrated assessment in land and water management programs (e.g., Mostert, 2003;Salter et al, 2010).…”

“…Frameworks have been developed to evaluate public participation processes (e.g., Rowe and Frewer, 2000), participatory integrated assessment (e.g., Salter et al, 2010), and the application of participatory research processes (e.g., Blackstock et al, 2007), which provide insight into the essential elements of a participatory environmental assessment. Accordingly, a variety of participatory methods and tools have been developed over the last decades (see for example van Asselt and Rijkens-Klomp, 2002) and have been increasingly incorporated into decision-making and integrated assessment in land and water management programs (e.g., Mostert, 2003;Salter et al, 2010). However, stakeholder participation in the evaluation of dryland restoration and sustainable dryland management is very scarce (Bautista et al, 2010;Schwilch et al, 2011), and participatory methods that effectively translate the evaluation of previous and ongoing management and restoration actions into new learning and enhanced capacity to responding to land degradation have received limited attention (Rojo et al, 2012;Schwilch et al, 2009Schwilch et al, , 2011Derak and Cortina, 2014;Kong et al, 2014).…”