How, when, and for what reasons does land use modelling contribute to societal problem solving?

This paper reports and reflects on the contributions of land use models to societal problem solving. Its purpose is to inform model development and application and thus to increase chances for societal benefit of the modelling work. The key question is: How, when, and for what reasons does land use modelling contribute to societal problem solving? Addressing this question, we rely on a synthesis of three studies, reported more extensively elsewhere. Our research experience, as demonstrated by the three studies used as examples, implies that the impacts of using land use models are diverse. These impacts are not limited to learning about a land system, but extend to learning about the views, norms and values of other actors. Also, land use modelling work may enhance mediation of conflicts between stakeholders and contribute to community-building. The synthesis suggests that we need to anticipate the relatively fluid and fuzzy features of social contexts and problem solving processes to harness land use modelling for societal problem solving. To capture these features, we developed a conceptual framework that links five important factors for understanding the contribution of modelling to societal change. Four contextual factors are distinguished and a set of processes that are important for these four factors to become fruitfully matched. The four contextual factors are: problem solving dynamics; model types; boundary arrangements; roles of models. The matching consists of contextualization and network building. In view of these findings we conclude that in designing a modelling strategy equal attention should be paid to the requirements for model development and the embedding of the work in a given/intended societal context. For those who pursue the use of science-based land use models, a number of activities seem particularly relevant: 1. Exploration of the possible and desired impacts of the land use model; 2. Network building of modellers, potential users and stakeholders; 3. Model contextualization, i.e. the explication of values and aspirations underlying the modelling work, fitting the model to a social and biophysical context and interpretation of modelling results in relation to other knowledge sources such as expert knowledge; 4. Fostering feelings of interdependency between the participants in the problem solving process.

[1]  R. L. McCown,et al.  Changing systems for supporting farmers' decisions: problems, paradigms, and prospects , 2002 .

[2]  Holger Meinke,et al.  The interface between land use systems research and policy: multiple arrangements and leverages. , 2009 .

[3]  C. Leeuwis,et al.  Wheelbarrows full of frogs , 2002 .

[4]  M. K. van Ittersum,et al.  ROTAT, a tool for systematically generating crop rotations , 2003 .

[5]  Hedwig van Delden,et al.  Integration of multi-scale dynamic spatial models of socio-economic and physical processes for river basin management , 2007, Environ. Model. Softw..

[6]  D. Guston Boundary Organizations in Environmental Policy and Science: An Introduction , 2001 .

[7]  R. Mccown Locating agricultural decision support systems in the troubled past and socio-technical complexity of 'models for management' , 2002 .

[8]  Simon Shackley,et al.  Trust in models? The mediating and transformative role of computer models in environmental discourse , 1997 .

[9]  David J. Pannell,et al.  Conducting and delivering integrated research to influence land-use policy: salinity policy in Australia , 2009 .

[10]  P. H. Vereijken,et al.  A methodical way of prototyping integrated and ecological arable farming systems (I/EAFS) in interaction with pilot farms , 1997 .

[11]  F. K. van Evert,et al.  Farm Explorer : Designing sustainable arable farming systems. , 2002 .

[12]  Michael Redclift,et al.  The International Handbook of Environmental Sociology , 2000 .

[13]  R. Rabbinge,et al.  Long-Term Options for Land Use in the European Community , 1992 .

[14]  Cees Leeuwis,et al.  Finding niches for whole-farm design models – contradictio in terminis? , 2006 .

[15]  C. Leeuwis,et al.  Communication for Rural Innovation , 2004 .

[16]  Anthony J. Jakeman,et al.  Progress in integrated assessment and modelling , 2002, Environ. Model. Softw..

[17]  H.F.M. ten Berge,et al.  Farming options for The Netherlands explored by multi-objective modelling , 2000 .

[18]  Tim Oxley,et al.  Integrated modelling and decision-support tools: a Mediterranean example , 2004, Environ. Model. Softw..

[19]  H. van Keulen,et al.  A systems network (SysNet) approach for interactively evaluating strategic land use options at sub-national scale in South and South-east Asia , 2004 .

[20]  B.M.A. Kroonen-Backbier,et al.  The nucleus and pilot farm research approach: experiences from The Netherlands , 2005 .

[21]  Noelle Aarts,et al.  Dealing with uncertainty in solving complex problems , 2002 .

[22]  Anthony J. Jakeman,et al.  Ten iterative steps in development and evaluation of environmental models , 2006, Environ. Model. Softw..

[23]  Cees Leeuwis,et al.  Of computers, myths and modelling: the social construction of diversity, knowledge information and communication technologies in Dutch horticulture and agricultural extension. , 1993 .

[24]  Walter A.H. Rossing,et al.  Operationalizing sustainability: exploring options for environmentally friendly flower bulb production systems , 1997, European Journal of Plant Pathology.

[25]  David W. Cash,et al.  Knowledge systems for sustainable development , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[26]  Brian S. McIntosh,et al.  Tools to think with? Towards understanding the use of computer-based support tools in policy relevant research , 2007, Environ. Model. Softw..

[27]  Walter A.H. Rossing,et al.  Integrative modelling approaches for analysis of impact of multifunctional agriculture: A review for France, Germany and The Netherlands , 2007 .

[28]  M. Robertson,et al.  The FARMSCAPE approach to decision support: farmers', advisers', researchers' monitoring, simulation, communication and performance evaluation , 2002 .

[29]  Carlo Giupponi,et al.  Towards the development of a decision support system for water resource management , 2005, Environ. Model. Softw..

[30]  Martin K. van Ittersum,et al.  Land use models in complex societal problem solving: Plug and play or networking? , 2009, Environ. Model. Softw..

[31]  D. H. Walker,et al.  Decision support, learning and rural resource management , 2002 .

[32]  J. Bakkes,et al.  Scenario development to explore the future of Europe's rural areas , 2006 .

[33]  S. Dogliotti,et al.  Exploring options for sustainable development of vegetable farms in South Uruguay , 2003 .

[34]  J J Stoorvogel,et al.  Trade-off analysis in the Northern Andes to study the dynamics in agricultural land use. , 2004, Journal of environmental management.

[35]  N. Röling,et al.  Wheelbarrows full of frogs: social learning in rural resource management : international research and reflections , 2002 .

[36]  Robert Hoppe,et al.  Rethinking the science-policy nexus: from knowledge utilization and science technology studies to types of boundary arrangements , 2005, Poiesis Prax..

[37]  M. Waithaka Communication for rural innovation: rethinking agricultural extension , 2005 .

[38]  M. K. van Ittersum,et al.  A method for exploring sustainable development options at farm scale: a case study for vegetable farms in South Uruguay , 2005 .

[39]  A. Paassen Bridging the gap: computer model enhanced learning for natural resource management in Burkina Faso , 2004 .