Regional Environmental Change

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 67–78 | Cite as

Learning integrative negotiation to manage complex environmental issues: example of a gaming approach in the peri-urban catchment of São Paulo, Brazil

  • Raphaelle Ducrot
  • Annemarie van Paassen
  • Vilma Barban
  • William’s Daré
  • Christelle Gramaglia
Original Article

Abstract

Participatory approaches are assumed to have a positive influence on decision-making for natural resource management. However, there are only a few detailed studies that examine their impact on participants. This paper analyses the contribution of a participatory modelling and simulation approach to the development of learning and relational capacity. It analyses two experiments that deal with pollution and sanitation issues in the expanding peri-urban settlements of São Paulo. The impact of the approach was assessed through interviews immediately after the simulation and 8 months later. The assessment identified the existence of social learning and the acquisition of skills related to integrative negotiation of complex environmental issues. Despite substantive and relational/normative learning, the acquisition of knowledge and negotiation skills, and a more integrative perspective, participants were unable to apply their new negotiation skills for a sustainable length of time within the prevalent socio-political and institutional context. A long-term iterative approach, involving relevant stakeholders in the process and process assessments, is needed to establish more conducive institutional structures.

Keywords

Negotiation Social learning Peri-urban catchment Capacity building Companion modelling Land and water management São Paulo 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was conducted as part of an INCO Project (No. 2001-10061), with support from the “Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo” (Processo No. 02/09817-5), and the French National Research Agency (ANR) within the Programme Agriculture et Développement Durable, ANR-05-PADD-007–04, ADD COMMOD project. We would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers whose comments and suggestions helped to greatly improve the manuscript. We are grateful to members of the municipality of Embu-Guaçu, the sub-municipality of Parelheiros (São Paulo) and SABESP who participated in the process. We would also like to thank Marialina Ribeiro Lima for the final assessment interviews.

References

  1. Aarts N, Woerkum CV (2002) Dealing with uncertainty in solving complex problems. In: Leeuwis C, Pyburn R (eds) Wheelbarrows full of frogs. Social learning in rural resources management. Koninklijk Van Gorcum, Assen, pp 421–435Google Scholar
  2. Argyris C, Schön D (1996) Organizational learning II: theory, method and practice. Addison Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  3. Armitage D, Marschke M, Plummer R (2008) Adaptive co-management and the paradox of learning. Glob Environ Change 18:86–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnaud C, VanPaassen A, Trébuil G, Promburom T, Bousquet F (2010) Dealing with power games in a companion modelling process: lessons from community water management in Thailand highlands. J Int Agric Ext Educ 16(1):55–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barreteau O, Antona M, D’Aquino P, Aubert S, Boissau S, Bousquet F, Daré W, Etienne M, Page CL, Mathevet R, Trébuil G, Weber J (Collectif Commod) (2003) Our companion modelling approach (La modélisation comme outil d’accompagnement). J Artif Soc Soc Simul 6(2). http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/6/2/1.html
  6. Bellenzani MLR (2000) A APA Municipal do Capivari-Monos como uma estratégia de proteção aos mananciais da Região Metropolitana de São Paulo. Mestrado, Universidade de São Paulo, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  7. Boonstra W, Frouws J (2005) Conflict about water: a case study contest and power in Dutch rural policy. J Rural Stud 21:297–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bueno AKDS (2004) A lei de proteção aos mananciais e mercado de terras: um estudo sobre loteamentos clandestinos. Tese de mestrado, Universidade de Campinas, CampinasGoogle Scholar
  9. Carnevale PJ (2006) Creativity in the outcomes of conflict. In: Deutsch M, Coleman PT, Marcus EC (eds) Handbook of conflict resolution, 2nd edn. Jossey-Bass, Hoboken, pp 414–435Google Scholar
  10. Commod (2005) La modélisation comme outil d’accompagnement. Nat Sci Soc 13:165–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cornwall A (2008) Unpacking ‘Participation’: models, meanings and practices. Commun Dev J 43(3):269–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Daniell KA, White I, Ferrand N, Ribarova IS, Coad P, Rougier J-E, Hare M, Jones NA, Popova A, Rollin D, Perez P, Burn S (2010) Co-engineering participatory water management processes: theory and insights from Australian and Bulgarian interventions. Ecol Soc 15(4):11Google Scholar
  13. Etienne M (ed) (2011) Companion Modelling. A participatory approach to support sustainable development. Springer, Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-8557-0
  14. Fannon K (2003) ‘Needle Stick’—a role-play simulation: transformative learning in complex dynamic social systems. Int J Train Res 1(2):100–116Google Scholar
  15. Follett MP (1940) Constructive conflict, in dynamic administration: the collected papers of Mary Parker Follett. H. C. Metcalf and L. Urwick. Harper, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. FUSP (2001) Diagnóstico da bacia do Alto Tietê: Relatório Zero. Fundação da Universidade de São Paulo, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  17. Garmendia E, Stagi S (2010) Public participation for sustainability and social learning: concepts and lessons from three case studies in Europe. Ecol Econ 69:1712–1722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. GWP (2000) Integrated water resources management. TAC background paper no. 4. Global Water Partnership, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  19. Huitema D, Mostert E, Egas W, Moellenkamp S, Pahl-Wostl C, Yalcin R (2002) Adaptive water governance: assessing the institutional prescriptions of adaptive (co-)management from governance perspective and defining a research agenda. Ecol Soc 14(1):26Google Scholar
  20. Ison R, Röling N, Watson D (2007) Challenges to science and society in the sustainable management and use of water: investigating the role of social learning. Environ Sci Policy 10:499–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lave J, Wenger E (1991) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leeuwis C (2000) Reconceptualizing participation for sustainable rural development: towards a negotiation approach. Dev Change 31:31–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leeuwis C (2004) Communication for innovation; rethinking agricultural extension. Blackwell Science, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  24. Marcondes MJA (1999) Cidade e natureza : proteção dos mananciais e exclusão social. Studio Nobel, Editora da USP, FAPESP, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  25. Molle F (2008) Nirvana concepts, narratives and policy models: insight from the water sector. Water Altern 1(1):131–156Google Scholar
  26. Molle F (2009) River-basin planning and management: the social life of a concept. Geoforum 40:484–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Muro M, Jeffrey P (2008) A critical review of the theory and application of social learning in participatory natural resource management processes. J Environ Plan Manag 51(3):325–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pahl-Wostl C, Craps M, Dewulf A, Mostert E, Tabara D, Taillieu T (2007) Social learning and water resources management. Ecol Soc 12(2):5Google Scholar
  29. Porto M, Porto RLL, Azevedo LGA (1999) A participatory approach to watershed management: the Brasilian system. J Am Water Resour Assoc 35(3):675–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rebich S, Gautier C (2005) Concept mapping to reveal prior knowledge and conceptual change in a mock summit course on global climate change. J Geosci Educ 53(4):355–365Google Scholar
  31. Reed MS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol Conserv 141:2417–2431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Reed MS, Evely AC, Cundill G, Fazey I, Glass J, Laing A, Newig J, Parrish B, Prell C, Raymond C, Stringer LC (2010) What is social learning? Ecol Soc 15(4):r1Google Scholar
  33. Rist S, Chidambaranathan M, Escobar C, Wiesman U, Zimmermann A (2006) Moving from sustainable management to sustainable governance of natural resources: the role of social learning processes in rural India, Bolivia and Mali. J Rural Stud 23:23–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rolnik R (2001) Estatuto da Cidade. Instrumento para as cidades que sonham crescer com justiça e beleza. In: Saule Junior N, Rolnik R (eds) Estatuto da Cidade: novas perspectivas para reformas urbanas. Caderno Polis n°4, São Paulo, p 64Google Scholar
  35. Scherpereel CM (2005) Changing mental models: business simulation exercises. Simul Gaming 36:388–403. doi:10.1177/1046878104270005
  36. Steel NM (2001) Epistemology, situated cognition, and mental models: ‘like a bridge over troubled water’. Instr Sci 29:403–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Steins NA, Edwards V (1999) Platforms for collective action in multiple-use common-pool resources. Agric Hum Values 16:241–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stringer LC, Reed MS, Dougill AJ, Rokitzki M, Seely M (2007) Enhancing participation in the implementation of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. Nat Resour Forum 31:198–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Susskind L, Cruishank J (1987) Breaking the impasse: consensual approaches to resolving public disputes. Basic Books, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  40. Ulrich W, Reynolds M (2010) Critical systems heuristics. In: Reynolds M, Holwell S (eds) Systems approaches to managing change: a practical guide. Springer, London, pp 243–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Voinov A, Bousquet F (2010) Modelling with stakeholders. Environ Model Softw 25(11):1268–1281. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.03.007
  42. Von Korff Y, d’Aquino P, Daniell KA, Bijlsma R (2010) Designing participation processes for water management and beyond. Ecol Soc 15(3):1 [online]. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss3/art1/
  43. Warner JF (2006) More sustainable participation? Multi-stakeholder platforms for integrated catchment management. Water Resour Dev 22(1):15–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yin RK (2003) Case study research: design and methods, vol 5., Applied social research methods seriesSage Publications, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raphaelle Ducrot
    • 1
  • Annemarie van Paassen
    • 2
  • Vilma Barban
    • 3
  • William’s Daré
    • 4
  • Christelle Gramaglia
    • 5
  1. 1.UMR G-EAU/Cirad-ESMontpellier Cedex 5France
  2. 2.Knowledge, Technology and Innovation StudiesWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.INSTITUTO PÓLISSão PauloBrazil
  4. 4.UR GREEN/CIRAD-ESSaint-Denis Messageries Cedex 9, Ile de la RéunionFrance
  5. 5.IRSTEA G-EAUMontpellier cedex 05France

Personalised recommendations