Possibilities and problems with the use of models as a communication tool in water resource management

Politicians and policy-makers, as well as modellers, often nurses an expectation that model derived results is an objective source of information that can be used to support decisions. However, several prerequisites have to be dealt with in order to ensure that models can be used as legitimate and efficient tools in water resource management. Based on empirical material from recent studies on the use of models in stakeholder dialogues, mainly focusing on catchment nutrient transport, two central problems are identified: (a) Models are laden with choices and thus depend on assumptions and priorities of modellers. (b) There are several factors that influence ability and willingness of stakeholders (as information recovers) to criticize or accept results of the modelling exercise. Recognized factors likely to influence stakeholders' acceptance of model derived results include issues at stake, stakeholders' ability to criticize model derived information, and their trust in the institutions that have developed or applied the used models. Identified prerequisites for successful use of models in integrated water resource management include: consideration of user relevance, awareness of and preparedness to handle constraints linked to communication of model-based results, transparency of used models and data and of involved uncertainties, mutual respect between experts and stakeholders and between involved stakeholder groups, a robust institutional network, and sufficient time for dialogues. Development and use of strategies for participatory modelling, based on a continuous dialogue between experts and stakeholders is recommended as a way to facilitate that the prerequisites for a successful use of models in water resource management are fulfilled.

[1]  David A. Swayne,et al.  Issues of EIS software design: some lessons learned in the past decade , 2001, Environ. Model. Softw..

[2]  William C. Clark,et al.  Public Participation in Sustainability Science: Frontmatter , 2003 .

[3]  Thomas C. Beierle.  Public Participation in Environmental Decisions: An Evaluation Framework Using Social Goals , 1998 .

[4]  Carlo C. Jaeger,et al.  Focus groups in integrated assessment: A micro‐cosmos for reflexive modernization , 1999 .

[5]  E. Harrison,et al.  Land application of sewage sludges: an appraisal of the US regulations , 1999 .

[6]  Måns Nilsson,et al.  Public Participation in Sustainability Science: Citizen interaction with computer models , 2003 .

[7]  Clair Gough,et al.  Computers, citizens and climate change: the art of communicating technical issues , 1999 .

[8]  Alan Irwin,et al.  Misunderstanding science?: Science and Hell's kitchen: the local understanding of hazard issues , 1996 .

[9]  Carlo C. Jaeger,et al.  Involving the Public in Climate and Energy Decisions , 2000 .

[10]  François Bousquet,et al.  Suitability of Multi-Agent Simulations to study irrigated system viability: application to case studies in the Senegal River Valley , 2004 .

[11]  S. Rayner,et al.  Human choice and climate change , 1998 .

[12]  Lennart J. Lundqvist,et al.  Hållbar vattenförvaltning. Organisering, deltagande, inflytande, ekonomi. En handbok. , 2004 .

[13]  Ângela Guimarães Pereira,et al.  Public Participation in Sustainability Science: Contexts of citizen participation , 2003 .

[14]  Brian Wynne,et al.  The institutional context of science, models, and policy: The IIASA energy study , 1984 .

[15]  Jerome R. Ravetz.  Developing principles of good practice in integrated environmental assessment , 1999 .

[16]  Berit Arheimer,et al.  Landscape planning to reduce coastal eutrophication: agricultural practices and constructed wetlands , 2004 .

[17]  Ângela Guimarães Pereira,et al.  'Between Democracy and Expertise? Citizens' Participation and Environmental Integrated Assessment in Venice (Italy) and St.Helens (UK) , 1999 .

[18]  Simon Shackley,et al.  Seduction of the Sirens: Global climate change and modelling , 1998 .

[19]  B. Latour.  Visualization and cognition: thinking with eyes and hands , 1986 .

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

[21]  P. Bailey,et al.  IEA: A new methodology for environmental policy? , 1997 .

[22]  Johanna Alkan Olsson and Karin Berg.  Local Stakeholders' Acceptance of Model-generated Data Used as a Communication Tool in Water Management: The Rönneå Study , 2005, Ambio.

[23]  Simon Shackley,et al.  Towards a "folk integrated assessment" of climate change? , 1999 .

[24]  J. Ravetz,et al.  Public Participation in Sustainability Science: Models as metaphors , 2003 .

[25]  François Bousquet,et al.  Role-playing games for opening the black box of multi-agent systems: method and lessons of its application to Senegal River Valley irrigated systems , 2001, J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul..

[26]  R. Pielke,et al.  Prediction : science, decision making, and the future of nature , 2000 .

[27]  Steven Yearley,et al.  Involving the public in local air pollution assessment: a citizen participation case study , 1999 .

[28]  Berit Arheimer,et al.  Integrated water management for eutrophication control: public participation, pricing policy, and catchment modeling. , 2005, Ambio.

[29]  Steven Yearley,et al.  Computer Models and the Public's Understanding of Science , 1999 .

[30]  Roger Thunvik,et al.  An actor game on implementation of environmental quality standards for nitrogen in a Swedish agricultural catchment. , 2002, Ambio.

[31]  David Policansky,et al.  SCIENCE AND DECISION MAKING FOR WATER RESOURCES , 1998 .

[32]  Gordon McGranahan,et al.  Participation and environmental assessment in Northern and Southern cities, with examples from Stockholm and Jakarta , 1999 .

[33]  Lotta Andersson.  Experiences of the use of riverine nutrient models in stakeholder dialogues , 2004 .

[34]  S. Yearley.  Making systematic sense of public discontents with expert knowledge: two analytical approaches and a case study , 2000 .

[35]  Kristen Purcell,et al.  Public Participation and the Environment: Do We Know What Works? , 1999 .

[36]  Mark Horan,et al.  Roles and perspectives of the policy‐maker, affected water sector and scientist in integrated water resources management: a case study from South Africa , 2004 .

[37]  P. N. Edwards.  GLOBAL CLIMATE SCIENCE, UNCERTAINTY AND POLITICS: DATA-LADEN MODELS, MODEL-FILTERED DATA , 1999 .

[38]  Claudia Pahl-Wostl,et al.  Models at the interface between science and society: impacts and options , 2000 .

[39]  D. McDowell.  Foreword , 1999 .

[40]  Anna Blomqvist.  How can stakeholder participation improve european watershed management: the Water Framework Directive, watercourse groups and Swedish contributions to Baltic Sea eutrophication , 2004 .

[41]  Meinolf Dierkes,et al.  Between Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science and Technology , 1999 .

[42]  Johanna Alkan Olsson.  Setting Limits in Nature and the Metabolism of Knowledge: The Case of the Critical Load Concept , 2003 .

[43]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Misunderstood misunderstanding: social identities and public uptake of science , 1992 .

[44]  Nancy L. Johnson,et al.  User participation in watershed management and research , 2001 .

[45]  Christoph Bättig,et al.  Influence of non-membership of the European Union on collaboration in European R&D networks: The case of Switzerland , 1998 .

[46]  A. Irwin.  Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development , 1995 .

[47]  Lotta Andersson,et al.  Special thematic issue : Hydrology for the environment. life and policy (Help) Programme - Foreword , 2004 .

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

[49]  Eugene A. Rosa,et al.  Forum The Quest to Understand Society and Nature: Looking Back, but Mostly Forward , 1999 .

[50]  S. Woolgar,et al.  Representation in Scientific Practice , 1990 .

[51]  Sarah Lindley.  Virtual tools for complex problems: an overview of the AtlasNW regional interactive sustainability atlas for planning for sustainable development. , 2001 .

[52]  Frank N. Laird,et al.  Participatory Analysis, Democracy, and Technological Decision Making , 1993 .

[53]  Victor Galaz,et al.  Social-ecological Resilience and Social Conflict: Institutions and Strategic Adaptation in Swedish Water Management , 2005, Ambio.

[54]  John Doble,et al.  Public opinion about issues characterized by technological complexity and scientific uncertainty , 1995 .

[55]  M. Douglas,et al.  Essays in the Sociology of Perception , 1982 .

[56]  Jill Jäger,et al.  Current thinking on using scientific findings in environmental policy making , 1998 .

[57]  Eric O. Odada,et al.  Freshwater Resources in Africa , 2001 .

[58]  Måns Nilsson,et al.  Exploring the use of computer models in participatory integrated assessment – experiences and recommendations for further steps , 2000 .

[59]  Suzan Dagg.  Book Review: Public Participation in Sustainability Science — A Handbook, Bernd Kasemir, Jill Jäger, Carlo Jaeger and Matthew T. Gardner (Eds.) , 2003 .

[60]  B. Swallow,et al.  Working with people for watershed management , 2002 .

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

[62]  Jon D. Miller.  Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology , 1998 .

[63]  J. Palerm,et al.  An Empirical‐Theoretical Analysis Framework for Public Participation in Environmental Impact Assessment , 2000 .