Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Water Resources Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alkan Olsson J, Berg K (2005) Local stakeholders acceptance of model-generated data used as a communication tool in water management: the Rönnera study. Ambio 34:507–512

    Google Scholar 

  • Alkan Olsson J (2003) Setting Limits in Nature, The Case of the Critical Load Concept. Department of Thematic studies, Linköping University, Linköping

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson L (2004) Riverine nutrient models in stakeholder dialogues. Int J Water Resour Dev 20:399–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersson L, Moody D (2004) Foreword. Int J Water Resour Dev 20:267–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arheimer B, Torstensson G, Wittgren H (2004) Landscape planning to reduce coastal eutrophication. Agricultural practices and constructed wetlands. Landscape Urban Plann 67:205–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey P (1997) Integrated environmental assessment: a new methodology for environmental policy? Environ Impact Assess Rev 17:221–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey P, Yearley S, Forrester J (1999) Involving the public in local air pollution assessment: a citizen participation case study. Int J Environ Pollut 11:290–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barreteau O, Bousquet F, Attonaty JM (2001) Role-playing games for opening the black box of multi-agent systems: method and lessons of its application to Senegal River Valley irrigated systems. J Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 4(2)

  • Barreteau O, Bousquet F, Millier C, Weber J (2004) Suitability of mulit-agent simulations to study irrigated system viability: application to case studies in the Senegal River Valley. Agricult Syst 80:255–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beierle T (1998) Public Participation in Environmental Decisions An Evaluation Framework using Social Goals. Resources for the Future, Discussion Paper 99–06, Washington, DC

  • Blomqvist A (2004) How can stakeholders participation improve European watershed management? the water framework directive, watercourse groups and Swedish contributions to Baltic Sea Eutrophication. Water Policy 6:39–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandt M, Grahn G, rArnfelt E, Bäckman N (2004) Anpassning av TRK-systemet frran nationell till regional niv/ra samt scenarioberäkningar för kväve – Tester för Motala Ström. Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute, SMHI Report 94, Norrköping (in Swedish)

    Google Scholar 

  • Cash D, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Noelle E, Guston DH, Jäger J, Mitchell RB (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:8086–8091

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chess C, Purcell K (1999) Public Participation and the environment: do we know what works? Environ Sci Technol 33:2685–2692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahinden U, Querol C, Jäger J, Nilsson M (2003) Citizen interaction with computer models. In: Kasemir B, Jäger J, Jaeger CC, Gardner MT (eds) Public Participation in Sustainability Science A Handbook. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahinden U, Querol C, Jäger J, Nilsson M (2000) Exploring the use of computer models in participatory integrated assessment- experiences and recommendations for further steps. Integr Assess 1:253–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dariér E, Gough C, De Marchi B, Funtowicz S, Grove-White R, Kitchener D, Pereira A, Wynne B (1999) Between democracy and expertise? citizens' participation and environmental Integrated Assessment in Venice (Italy) and St. Helens (UK). J Environ Policy Plann 1:103–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darier E, Shackely S, Wynne B (1999) Towards a “Folk integrated assessment” of climate change? Int J Environ Pollut 11:351–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Double J (1995) Public opinion about issues characterized by technological complexity and scientific uncertainty. Public Understand Sci 4:95–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas M (ed) (1982) Essays in the Sociology of perception. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Dürrenberger G, Behringer J, Dahinden U, Gerger ra, Kasemir B, Querol C, Schüle R, Tábara D, Toth F, van Asselt M, Vassilarou D, Willi N, Jaeger C (1997) Focus Groups in Integrated Asessment: A Manual for a Participatory tool. Ulysses WP-97-2. Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in Technology, Darmstadt University of Technology, Darmstadt

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards P (1999) Global climate science, uncertainty and politics: data-laden models, model-filtered data. Sci Cult 8:437–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galaz V (2005) Social- ecological resilience and social conflict: institutions and strategic adaptation in Swedish water management. Ambio 7:567–572

    Google Scholar 

  • Gough C, Darier é, De Marchi B, Funtowicz S, Grove-White R, Guimaraes Pereira A, Schackley S, Wynne B (2003) Contexts of citizen participation. In: Kasemir B, Jäger J, Jaeger CC, Gardner MT (eds) Public Participation in Sustainability Science A Handbook. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Guimaraes Pereira A, Gough C, Marchi B (1999) Computers citizens and climate change – the art of communicating technical issues. Int J Environ Pollut 11:266–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irwin A (1995) Citizens science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin A, Dale A, Smith D (1996) Science and Hell's Kitchen: The Local Understanding of Hazard Issues. In: Irwin A, Wynne B (eds) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 47–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin A, Wynn B (1996) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaeger C, Schule R, Kasemir B (1999) Focus groups in integrated assessment: a micro-cosmos for reflexive modernization. Innovation 12:195–219

    Google Scholar 

  • Jäger J (1998) Current thinking on using scientific findings in environmental policymaking. Environ Model Assess 3:145–153

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff S, Wynne B (1998) Science and decision-making. In: Rayner S, Malone E (eds) Human Choice and Climate Change, Vol. 1: The Societal Framework. Batelle Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Jöborn A, Danielsson I, Arheimer B, Jonsson A, Larsson MH, Lundqvist LJ, Löwgren M, Tonderski K (2005) Integrated water management for eutrophication control: public participation, pricing policy and catchment modelling. Ambio 7:482–488

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson N, Munk Ravnborg H, Westerman O, Probst K (2001) User participation in watershed management and research. Water Policy 3:507–520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonsson A (2004) Metoder för ökat deltagande. In: Lundqvist L, Jonsson A, Galaz V, Löwgren M, Alkan Olsson J (eds) Hrallbar vattenförvaltning – organisering, deltagande, inflytande, ekonomi. VASTRA Rapport 5., Göteborg. (in Swedish)

  • Kasemir B, Schibli D, Stoll S, Jaeger C (2000) Involving the public in climate and energy decisions. Environment 42:32–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasemir B, Jäger J, Jaeger CC, Gardner MT (eds) (2003a) Public Participation in Sustainability Science A Handbook. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasemir B, Jaeger C, Jäger J (2003b) Citizens participation in sustainability assessment. In: Kasemir B, Jäger J, Jaeger CC, Gardner MT (eds) Public Participation in Sustainability Science A Handbook. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Laird F (1993) Participatory analysis, democracy and technological decision making. Sci Technol Hum Val 18:341–361

    Google Scholar 

  • Lam D, Swayne D (2001) Issues of EIS software design: some lessons learned in the past decade. Environ Model Software 16:419–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour B (1986) Visualization and cognition: thinking with eyes and hands. Knowledge and Society: Studies in the Sociology of Culture, Past and Present 6:1–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour B (1990) Drawing things together. In: Lynch M, Woolgar S (eds) Representation in scientific practice. MIT Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindley J (2001) Virtual tools for Complex problems: an overview of the AtlasNW Regional Interactive Sustainability atlas for planning for sustainable development. Impact Assessment Proj Appraisal 19:141–151

    Google Scholar 

  • Mc Granahan G, Gerger AA (1999) Participation and environmental assessment in northern and southern cities, with examples form Stockholm and Jakarta. Int J Environ Pollut 11:373–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson M (1998) Computer Tool Experiences in Ulysses. Stockholm Environmental Institute, Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

  • Oreskes N (2000) Why believe a computer? Models, measures and meaning in the natural world. In: Scheiderman, JS (ed) The earth around us: Maintaining a liveable planet. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Pahl-Wostl C, Schlumpf C, Büssenshütt M, Schönborn A (2000) Models at the interface between science and society: impacts and options. Integr Assess 1:267–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palerm J (2000) An empirical-theoretical analysis framework for public participation in environmental impact assessment. J Environ Plan Manage 43:581–600

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravetz J (1999) Developing principles of good practice in integrated environmental asessment. Int J Environ Pollut 11:1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ravetz J (2003) Models as metaphors. In: Kasemir B, Jäger J, Jaeger CC, Gardner MT (eds) Public Participation in Sustainability Science A Handbook. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosa E (1999) The quest to understand society and nature: looking back but mostly forward. Soc Nat Resour 12:371–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarewitz D, Pielke RA, Byerly R (eds) (2000) Prediction Science and the Future of Nature. Island Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Schackley S, Darier é (1998) Seduction of the sirens: global climate change and modelling. Sci Public Policy 25:171–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Shackley S (1997) Trust in models? The Mediating and Transformative Role of Computer Models in Environmental Discourse. In: Redclift M, Woodgate G (eds) The International Handbook of Environmental Sociology. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham Glos, pp 237–260

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulze R (2001) Managing water as a resource in Africa: are we asking the right questions? In: Gash J, Odada E, Oyebande L, Schulze R (eds) Freshwater resources in Africa. BAHC International Project Office PIK, Potsdam, Chapter 2: 9–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulze R, Horan M, Seetal A, Schmidt E (2004) Roles and perspectives of the policy-maker, affected water sector and scientists in integrated water resource management: a case study from Africa. Int J Water Resour Dev 20:325–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swallow BM, Johnson N, Meinzen-Dick RS (2001) Editorial: Working with people for watershed management. Water Policy 3:449–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittgren HB, Castensson R, Gippert L, Joelsson A, Jonason L, Pettersson A, Thunvik R, Torstensson G (2004) An actor game on implementation of environmental quality standards for nitrogen in a Swedish agricultural catchment. Ambio (in press)

  • Wynne B (1984) The institutional context of science, models, and policy: The IIASA Energy Study. Policy Sci 17:277–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne B (1992) Misunderstood misunderstanding: social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding Sci 1:281–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yearly S (1999a) What do We Mean by “Science” in the Public Understanding of Science. In: Dierkes M, von Gröte C (eds) Between Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science and Technology. Harwood Academic, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Yearly S (1999b) Computer models and the public's understanding of science: a case-study analysis. Soc Studies Sci 29:845–866

    Google Scholar 

  • Yearley S (2000) Making systematic sense of public discontents with expert knowledge: two analytical approaches and a case study. Public Understanding Sci 9:105–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies, (LUCSUS), Box 170, S-221 00, Lund, Sweden

    Johanna Alkan Olsson

  2. Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (SMHI), S-601 76, Norrköping, Sweden

    Lotta Andersson

Authors
  1. Johanna Alkan Olsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lotta Andersson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Olsson, J.A., Andersson, L. Possibilities and problems with the use of models as a communication tool in water resource management. Water Resour Manage 21, 97–110 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-006-9043-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-006-9043-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation