Water Resources Management

, 21:97 | Cite as

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

  • Johanna Alkan Olsson
  • Lotta Andersson
Original Article


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.


Participatory modelling Catchment models Scenarios Water management Communication Understanding of science 


  1. 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 34:507–512Google Scholar
  2. Alkan Olsson J (2003) Setting Limits in Nature, The Case of the Critical Load Concept. Department of Thematic studies, Linköping University, LinköpingGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersson L (2004) Riverine nutrient models in stakeholder dialogues. Int J Water Resour Dev 20:399–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andersson L, Moody D (2004) Foreword. Int J Water Resour Dev 20:267–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arheimer B, Torstensson G, Wittgren H (2004) Landscape planning to reduce coastal eutrophication. Agricultural practices and constructed wetlands. Landscape Urban Plann 67:205–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bailey P (1997) Integrated environmental assessment: a new methodology for environmental policy? Environ Impact Assess Rev 17:221–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bailey P, Yearley S, Forrester J (1999) Involving the public in local air pollution assessment: a citizen participation case study. Int J Environ Pollut 11:290–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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)Google Scholar
  9. 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 80:255–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beierle T (1998) Public Participation in Environmental Decisions An Evaluation Framework using Social Goals. Resources for the Future, Discussion Paper 99–06, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  11. 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 6:39–52Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 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 100:8086–8091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chess C, Purcell K (1999) Public Participation and the environment: do we know what works? Environ Sci Technol 33:2685–2692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. 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 1:253–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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 1:103–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Darier E, Shackely S, Wynne B (1999) Towards a “Folk integrated assessment” of climate change? Int J Environ Pollut 11:351–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Double J (1995) Public opinion about issues characterized by technological complexity and scientific uncertainty. Public Understand Sci 4:95–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Douglas M (ed) (1982) Essays in the Sociology of perception. Routledge and Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. 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, DarmstadtGoogle Scholar
  22. Edwards P (1999) Global climate science, uncertainty and politics: data-laden models, model-filtered data. Sci Cult 8:437–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Galaz V (2005) Social- ecological resilience and social conflict: institutions and strategic adaptation in Swedish water management. Ambio 7:567–572Google Scholar
  24. 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, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Guimaraes Pereira A, Gough C, Marchi B (1999) Computers citizens and climate change – the art of communicating technical issues. Int J Environ Pollut 11:266–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Irwin A (1995) Citizens science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. 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 47–64Google Scholar
  28. Irwin A, Wynn B (1996) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Jaeger C, Schule R, Kasemir B (1999) Focus groups in integrated assessment: a micro-cosmos for reflexive modernization. Innovation 12:195–219Google Scholar
  30. Jäger J (1998) Current thinking on using scientific findings in environmental policymaking. Environ Model Assess 3:145–153Google Scholar
  31. 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, MAGoogle Scholar
  32. 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 7:482–488Google Scholar
  33. Johnson N, Munk Ravnborg H, Westerman O, Probst K (2001) User participation in watershed management and research. Water Policy 3:507–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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)Google Scholar
  35. Kasemir B, Schibli D, Stoll S, Jaeger C (2000) Involving the public in climate and energy decisions. Environment 42:32–42Google Scholar
  36. Kasemir B, Jäger J, Jaeger CC, Gardner MT (eds) (2003a) Public Participation in Sustainability Science A Handbook. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  37. 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, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  38. Laird F (1993) Participatory analysis, democracy and technological decision making. Sci Technol Hum Val 18:341–361Google Scholar
  39. Lam D, Swayne D (2001) Issues of EIS software design: some lessons learned in the past decade. Environ Model Software 16:419–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Latour B (1986) Visualization and cognition: thinking with eyes and hands. Knowledge and Society: Studies in the Sociology of Culture, Past and Present 6:1–40Google Scholar
  41. Latour B (1990) Drawing things together. In: Lynch M, Woolgar S (eds) Representation in scientific practice. MIT Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  42. 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 19:141–151Google Scholar
  43. 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 11:373–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nilsson M (1998) Computer Tool Experiences in Ulysses. Stockholm Environmental Institute, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  45. 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 FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  46. Pahl-Wostl C, Schlumpf C, Büssenshütt M, Schönborn A (2000) Models at the interface between science and society: impacts and options. Integr Assess 1:267–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Palerm J (2000) An empirical-theoretical analysis framework for public participation in environmental impact assessment. J Environ Plan Manage 43:581–600Google Scholar
  48. Ravetz J (1999) Developing principles of good practice in integrated environmental asessment. Int J Environ Pollut 11:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  50. Rosa E (1999) The quest to understand society and nature: looking back but mostly forward. Soc Nat Resour 12:371–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sarewitz D, Pielke RA, Byerly R (eds) (2000) Prediction Science and the Future of Nature. Island Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  52. Schackley S, Darier é (1998) Seduction of the sirens: global climate change and modelling. Sci Public Policy 25:171–184Google Scholar
  53. 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 237–260Google Scholar
  54. 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: 9–14Google Scholar
  55. 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 20:325–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Swallow BM, Johnson N, Meinzen-Dick RS (2001) Editorial: Working with people for watershed management. Water Policy 3:449–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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)Google Scholar
  58. Wynne B (1984) The institutional context of science, models, and policy: The IIASA Energy Study. Policy Sci 17:277–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wynne B (1992) Misunderstood misunderstanding: social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding Sci 1:281–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  61. Yearly S (1999b) Computer models and the public's understanding of science: a case-study analysis. Soc Studies Sci 29:845–866Google Scholar
  62. Yearley S (2000) Making systematic sense of public discontents with expert knowledge: two analytical approaches and a case study. Public Understanding Sci 9:105–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johanna Alkan Olsson
    • 1
  • Lotta Andersson
    • 2
  1. 1.Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies, (LUCSUS)LundSweden
  2. 2.Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (SMHI)NorrköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations