Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Involving Stakeholders in Building Integrated Fisheries Models Using Bayesian Methods

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A participatory Bayesian approach was used to investigate how the views of stakeholders could be utilized to develop models to help understand the Central Baltic herring fishery. In task one, we applied the Bayesian belief network methodology to elicit the causal assumptions of six stakeholders on factors that influence natural mortality, growth, and egg survival of the herring stock in probabilistic terms. We also integrated the expressed views into a meta-model using the Bayesian model averaging (BMA) method. In task two, we used influence diagrams to study qualitatively how the stakeholders frame the management problem of the herring fishery and elucidate what kind of causalities the different views involve. The paper combines these two tasks to assess the suitability of the methodological choices to participatory modeling in terms of both a modeling tool and participation mode. The paper also assesses the potential of the study to contribute to the development of participatory modeling practices. It is concluded that the subjective perspective to knowledge, that is fundamental in Bayesian theory, suits participatory modeling better than a positivist paradigm that seeks the objective truth. The methodology provides a flexible tool that can be adapted to different kinds of needs and challenges of participatory modeling. The ability of the approach to deal with small data sets makes it cost-effective in participatory contexts. However, the BMA methodology used in modeling the biological uncertainties is so complex that it needs further development before it can be introduced to wider use in participatory contexts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The problem framing part was included in our study after the first modeling interview had been carried out. At this time we realized the importance of a wider perspective in relation to the biological stock assessment.

References

  • Barton DN, Kuikka S, Varis O, Uusitalo L, Henriksen HJ, Borsus M, de la Hera A, Farmani R, Johnson S, Linnel JDC (2012) Bayesian networks in environmental and resource management. Integr Environ Assess Manag 8:418–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beirele TC, Cayford J (2002) Democracy in practice. Public participation in environmental decisions. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodner GM (1986) Constructivism: a theory of knowledge. J Chem Educ 63:873–878

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bots PWG, van Daalen CE (2008) Participatory model construction and model use in natural resource management: a framework for reflection. Syst Pract Action Res 21:389–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bromley J, Jackson NA, Clymer OJ, Giacomello AM, Jensen FV (2005) The use of Hugin to develop Bayesian networks as an aid to integrated water resource planning. Environ Model Softw 20:231–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cain J (2001) Planning improvements in natural resources management. Guidelines for using Bayesian networks to support the planning and management of development programmes in the water sector and beyond. Centre for ecology and hydrology, Wallingford, UK. http://www.norsys.com/downloads/BBN%20Guidelines%20-%20Cain.pdf. Accessed 17 Dec 2012

  • Cain JD, Jinapala K, Makin IW, Somaratna PG, Ariyaratna BR, Perera LR (2003) Participatory decision support for agricultural management. A case study from Sri Lanka. Agric Syst 76:457–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castelletti A, Soncini-Sessa R (2007a) Coupling real-time control and socioeconomic issues in participatory river basin planning. Environ Model Softw 22:1114–1128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castelletti A, Soncini-Sessa R (2007b) Bayesian networks and participatory modelling in water resource management. Environ Model Softw 22(8):1075–1088

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark RN, Stankey GH (2006) Integrated research in natural resources: the key role of problem framing. General technical report PNW-GTR-678. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Washington DC. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr678.pdf. Accessed 17 Dec 2012

  • Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (2001) European Governance. A White Paper, COM (2001) 428 final, Brussels. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2001/com2001_0428en01.pdf. Accessed 17 Dec 2012

  • Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (2002) Communication from the Commission. Towards a reinforced culture of consultation and Dialogue—general principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the commission. COM (2002) 704 final, Brussels. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2002:0704:FIN:en:PDF. Accessed 17 Dec 2012

  • Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (2009a) The Common Fisheries Policy. A user’s guide. Office for official publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/publications/pcp2008_en.pdf. Accessed 17 Dec 2012

  • Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (2009b) Green Paper. Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. Brussels, 22.4.2009. COM (2009)163 final. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0163:FIN:EN:PDF. Accessed 17 Dec 2012

  • Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (2010) Commission non-paper on the establishment of a multi-annual plan for pelagic stocks in the Baltic Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks. http://www.bsrac.org/archive/Dokumenter/Pelagic%20WG/150410/Non-Paper%20pelagics%20final.pdf. Accessed 17 Dec 2012

  • Dawid AP (2004) Probability, causality and the empirical world: a Bayes-deFinetti-Popper-orel synthesis. Stat Sci 19(1):44–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delanty GS (2002) Social science. Beyond constructivism and realism. Concepts in the social sciences. First published 1997. Reprinted 2000, 2002. Open University Press, Edmunds, Suffolk

  • Dennis B (1996) Discussion: should ecologists become Bayesians? Ecol Appl 6(4):1095–1103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dreyer M, Renn O (2011) Participatory approaches to modelling for improved learning and decision-making in natural resource governance: an editorial. Environmental Policy and Governance 21:379–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Druzdzel MJ, Henrion M (1993) Efficient reasoning in qualitative probabilistic networks. Proceedings of the 11th Annual Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-93), Washington DC, July 11–15, 1993, pp 548–553. http://www.pitt.edu/~druzdzel/psfiles/aaai93.pdf. Accessed 17 Dec 2012

  • Düspohl M, Frank S, Döll P (2012) A review of Bayesian networks as a participatory modeling approach in support of sustainable environmental management. J Sustain Dev 5:12

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards VM, Smith S (2011) Lessons from the application of decision-support tools in participatory management of the new forest national park, UK. Environ Policy Gov 21:417–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaddis E, Voinov A (2006) Landscape modeling and spatial optimization of management practices to restore water quality in the St. Albans Bay Watershed, Vermont. http://www.iemss.org/iemss2006/papers/s2/345_Gaddis_1.pdf. Accessed 17 Dec 2012

  • Gaddis EJB, Vladich H, Voinov A (2007) Participatory modeling and the dilemma of diffuse nitrogen management in a residential management. Environ Model Softw 22:619–629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia SM, Charles AT (2007) Fishery systems and linkages: from clockworks to soft watches. ICES J Mar Sci 64(4):580–587

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia SM, Charles AT (2008) Fishery systems and linkages: implications for science and governance. Ocean Coast Manag 51:505–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haapasaari P, Karjalainen TP (2010) Formalizing expert knowledge to compare alternative management plans: sociological perspective to the future management of Baltic salmon stocks. Mar Policy 34:477–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haapasaari P, Michielsens GGJ, Karjalainen TP, Reinikainen K, Kuikka S (2007) Management measures and fishers’ commitment to sustainable exploitation: a case study of Atlantic salmon fisheries in the Baltic Sea. ICES J Mar Sci 64:825–833

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haapasaari P, Mäntyniemi S, Kuikka S (2012) Baltic herring fisheries management: stakeholder views to frame the problem. Ecol Soc 17(3):36

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond TR, O’Brien CM (2001) An application of the Bayesian approach to stock assessment model uncertainty. ICES J Mar Sci 58:648–656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hare M (2011) Forms of participatory modelling and its potential for widespread adoption in the water sector. Environ Policy Gov 21:386–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hare M, Letcher RA, Jakeman AJ (2003) Participatory modelling in natural resource management: a comparison of four case studies. Integr Assess 4(2):62–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helgland TJ, Wilson DC (2009) Participatory modelling in EU fisheries management: Western horse mackerel and the Pelagic RAC. J Marit Stud (MAST) 8(1):75–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Henriksen HJ, Barlebo HC (2008) Reflections on the use of Bayesian belief networks for adaptive management. J Environ Manage 88(4):1025–1036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henriksen HJ, Rasmussen P, Brandt G, von Bülow D, Jensen FJ (2007) Public participation modelling using Bayesian networks in management of groundwater contamination. Environ Model Softw 22:1101–1113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) (2009) 8.3.3.1 Multi-annual management of pelagic fish stocks in the Baltic. Advice 2009, Book 8. ICES, Copenhagen. http://www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comwork/report/2009/Special%20Requests/EC%20Multiannual%20management%20pelagic%20stocks%20Baltic.pdf

  • International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) (2010) ICES Advice May 2010. Herring in Subdivisions 25-29 and 32 (excluding Gulf of Riga herring). http://www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comwork/report/2010/2010/Her-2532-Ex-Go.pdf. Accessed 17 Dec 2012

  • International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) (2011) 8.4.4 Ecoregion stock: Baltic Sea: herring in subdivisions 25–29 and 32 (excluding Gulf of Riga herring). Advice 2011, Book 8. ICES, Copenhagen. http://www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comwork/report/2011/2011/Her-2532-Ex-Go.pdf. Accessed 17 Dec 2012

  • Jensen FV (2001) Bayesian networks and decision graphs. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson MS (2009) Public participation and perceptions of watershed modeling. Soc Nat Resour 22:79–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones NA, Perez P, Measham TG, Kelly GJ, d’Aquino P, Daniell KA, Dray A, Ferrand N (2009) Evaluating participatory modeling: developing a framework for cross-case analysis. Environ Manage 44:1180–1195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones NA, Ross H, Lynam T, Perez P, Leitch A (2011) Mental models: an interdisciplinary synthesis of theory and methods. Ecol Soc 16(1):46

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan IM, McCay B (2004) Cooperative research, co-management and the social dimension of fisheries science and management. Mar Policy 28:257–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korfmacher K (2001) The politics of participation in watershed modelling. Environ Manage 27:161–176

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kuikka S, Varis O (1997) Uncertainties of climatic change impacts in Finnish watersheds: a Bayesian network analysis of expert knowledge. Boreal Environ Res 2(1):109–128

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kuikka S, Hildén M, Gislason H, Hansson S, Sparholt H, Varis O (1999) Modeling environmentally driven uncertainties in Baltic cod (Gadus morhua) management by Bayesian influence diagrams. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 56:629–641

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane EE, Stephenson RL (1998) A framework for risk analysis in fisheries decision-making. ICES J Mar Sci 55(1):1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levontin P, Kulmala S, Haapasaari P, Kuikka S (2011) Integration of biological, economic, and sociological knowledge by Bayesian belief networks: the interdisciplinary evaluation of potential management plans for Baltic salmon. ICES J Mar Sci 68:632–638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ludwig D (2001) The era of management is over. Ecosystems 4:758–764

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynam T, de Jong W, Sheil D, Kusumanto T, Evans K (2007) A review of tools for incorporating community knowledge, preferences, and values into decision making in natural resources management. Ecol Soc 12(1):5

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynam T, Drewry J, Higham W, Mitchell C (2010) Adaptive modelling for adaptive water quality management in the Great Barrier Reef region, Australia. Environ Model Softw 25:1291–1301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malakoff D (1999) Bayes offers a ‘New’ way to make sense of numbers. Science 19(286):1460–1464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mäntyniemi S, Kuikka S, Rahikainen M, Kell LT, Kaitala V (2009) The value of information in fisheries management: North Sea herring as an example. ICES J Mar Sci 66(10):2278–2283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mäntyniemi S, Haapasaari P, Kuikka S, Parmanne R, Lehtiniemi M, Kaitaranta J (2013) Incorporating stakeholders’ knowledge to stock assessment: Central Baltic herring. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. doi:10.1139/cjfas-2012-0316

    Google Scholar 

  • Martínez-Santos P, Henriksen HJ, Zorrilla P, Martínez-Alfaro PE (2010) Comparative reflections on the use of modelling tools in conflictive water management settings: the Mancha Occidental aquifer, Spain. Environ Model Softw 25:1439–1449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nau R (2001) De Finetti was right: probability does not exist. Theor Decis 51:89–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Hagan A, Buck CE, Daneshkhah A, Eiser JR, Garthwaite PH, Jenkinson DJ, Oakley JE, Rakow T (2006) Uncertain judgements. Eliciting experts’ probabilities. Wiley, Padstow

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Olsson P, Folke C, Berkes F (2004) Adaptive comanagement for building resilience in social–ecological systems. Environ Manage 34(1):75–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otto P, Struben J (2004) Gloucester fishery: insights from a group modeling intervention. Syst Dyn Rev 20(4):287–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pahl-Wostl C (2002) Towards sustainability in the water sector. The importance on human actors and processes of social learning. Aquat Sci 64:394–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prell C, Hubacek K, Reed M, Quinn C, Nanlin J, Holden J, Burts T, Kirby M, Sendzimir J (2007) If you have a hammer everything looks like a nail: traditional versus participatory model building. Interdisc Sci Rev 32(3):263–282

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsey FP (1926) “Truth and probability”, in Ramsey, 1931. In: Braithwaite RB (ed) The foundations of mathematics and other logical essays, Ch. VII, pp. 156–198, London, Kegan, Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co, New York, Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1999 electronic edition. http://fitelson.org/probability/ramsey.pdf. Accessed 17 Dec 2012

  • Ravera F, Hubacek K, Reed M, Tarrasón D (2011) Learning from experiences in adaptive action research: a critical comparison of two case studies applying participatory scenario development and modelling approaches. Environ Policy Gov 21:433–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed MS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol Conserv 141(10):2417–2431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Refsgaard JC, van der Sluijs JP, Höjberg AL, Vanrolleghem PA (2007) Uncertainty in the environmental modeling process—a framework and guidance. Environ Model Softw 22:1543–1556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renooij S, van der Gaag LC (1998) Decision making in qualitative influence diagrams. Utrect University: Information and Computing Sciences 1998-03. http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/math/2007-0118-200212/van_der_gaag_98_decision.pdf. Accessed 17 Dec 2012

  • Röckmann C, Ulrich C, Dreyer M, Bell E, Borodzicz E, Haapasaari P, Hauge KH, Howell D, Mäntyniemi S, Miller D, Tserpes G, Pastoors M (2012) The added value of participatory modelling in fisheries management—what has been learnt? Mar Policy 36:1072–1085

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandker M, Cambell BM, Ruiz-Pérez M, Sayer JA, Cowling R, Kassa H, Knight AT (2010) The role of participatory modeling in landscape approaches to reconcile conservation and development. Ecol Soc 15(2):13

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnute JT, Richards LJ (2001) Use and abuse of fishery models. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 58:10–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shachter RD (1986) Evaluating influence diagrams. Oper Res 34(6):871–882

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spiegelhalter DJ, Dawid AP, Steffen LL, Cowell RG (1993) Bayesian analysis in expert systems. Stat Sci 8(3):219–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Squires H, Renn O (2011) Can participatory modelling support social learning in marine fisheries? Reflections from the Invest in Fish South West Project. Environ Policy Gov 21(6):403–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uusitalo L (2007) Advantages and challenges of Bayesian networks in environmental modeling. Ecol Model 203:312–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uusitalo L, Kuikka S, Romakkaniemi A (2005) Estimation of Atlantic salmon smolt carrying capacity of rivers using expert knowledge. ICES J Mar Sci 62(4):708–722

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Eeten MJG, Loucks DP, Roe E (2002) Bringing actors together around large-scale water systems: participatory modelling and other innovations. Knowledge Technol Policy 14(4):94–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varis O, Fraboulet-Jussila S (2002) Water resources development in the Lower Senegal River Basin: conflicting interests, environmental concerns and policy options. Water Resour Dev 18(2):245–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varis O, Kuikka S (1999) Learning Bayesian decision analysis by doing: lessons from environmental and natural resources management. Ecol Model 119(2–3):177–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varis O, Lahtela V (2002) Integrated water resources management along the Senegal River: introducing an analytical framework. Water Resour Dev 18(4):501–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verweij MC, van Densen WLT (2010) Differences in causal reasoning about resource dynamics and consequences for the participatory debate on North Sea fisheries. Mar Policy 34:1144–1155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voinov A, Bousquet F (2010) Modelling with stakeholders. Environ Model Softw 25:1268–1281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voinov A, Gaddis EJB (2008) Lessons for successful participatory watershed modelling: a perspective from modeling practitioners. Ecol Model 216:197–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Glasersfeld E (1984) An introduction to radical constructivism. In: Watzlawick P (ed) The invented reality. How do we know what we believe we know? (Contributions to constructivism). WW Norton & Company Inc. New York. Originally published in Watzlawick P (ed) Die Erfundene Wirklichkeit. Piper 1981, Munich. http://www.cesipc.it/materiali/articoli/vG1.html. Accessed 17 Dec 2012

  • Walker WE, Harremoës P, Rotmans J, van der Sluijs JP, van Asselt MBA, Janssen P, Krayer von Krauss MP (2003) Defining uncertainty: a conceptual basis for uncertainty management in model-based decision support. Integr Assess 4(1):5–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webler T, Tuler S, Dietz T (2011) Modellers’ and outreach professionals’ views on the role of models in watershed management. Environ Policy Gov 21:472–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wellman MP (1990) Fundamental concepts of qualitative probabilistic networks. Artif Intell 44(3):257–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Worrapimphong K, Gajaseni N, Le Page C, Bousquet F (2010) A companion modeling approach to fishery management. Environ Model Softw 25(11):1334–1344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zorrilla P, Carmona G, De la Hera Á, Varela-Ortega C, Martinez-Santos P, Bromley J, Henriksen HJ (2009) Evaluation of Bayesian networks in participatory water resources management, Uppear Guadiana Basin, Spain. Ecol Soc 15(3):12

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was carried out with financial support from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement 212969, “Judgment and knowledge in fisheries involving stakeholders” (JAKFISH) and grant agreement 244706 “Effective use of ecosystem and biological knowledge in fisheries” (ECOKNOWS). It does not reflect the views of the European Commission and in no way anticipates the Commission’s future policy in this area. We thank the stakeholders who participated in the modeling process. We also thank Dr. Eveliina Klemola and the anonymous reviewers and editors for their valuable comments and suggestions in improving the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki - Fisheries and Environmental Management Group (FEM), Viikinkaari 1, P.O. Box 65, Helsinki, 00014, Finland

    Päivi Haapasaari, Samu Mäntyniemi & Sakari Kuikka

Authors
  1. Päivi Haapasaari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Samu Mäntyniemi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sakari Kuikka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Päivi Haapasaari.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Haapasaari, P., Mäntyniemi, S. & Kuikka, S. Involving Stakeholders in Building Integrated Fisheries Models Using Bayesian Methods. Environmental Management 51, 1247–1261 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0041-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0041-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation