Advertisement

Participatory Approaches

  • Olivier BarreteauEmail author
  • Pieter Bots
  • Katherine Daniell
  • Michel Etienne
  • Pascal Perez
  • Cécile Barnaud
  • Didier Bazile
  • Nicolas Becu
  • Jean-Christophe Castella
  • William’s Daré
  • Guy Trebuil
Chapter
Part of the Understanding Complex Systems book series (UCS)

Why Read This Chapter?

To help you understand how one might involve stakeholders in all stages of the modelling process. This approach allows for including stakeholders’ expertise as well as giving them more control over the process.

Abstract

This chapter aims to describe the diversity of participatory approaches in relation to social simulations, with a focus on the interactions between the tools and participants. We consider potential interactions at all stages of the modelling process: conceptual design; implementation; use; and simulation outcome analysis. After reviewing and classifying existing approaches and techniques, we describe two case studies with a focus on the integration of various techniques. The first case study deals with fire hazard prevention in southern France, and the second one with groundwater management on the Atoll of Kiribati. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the advantages and limitations of participatory approaches.

Keywords

Tacit Knowledge Participatory Approach Participatory Process Social Complexity Bayesian Belief Network 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Abel N, Ross H, Walker P (1998) Mental models in rangeland research, communication and management. Rangel J 20:77–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akkermans HA (1995) Developing a logistics strategy through participative business modelling. Int J Oper Prod Manag 15:100–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akkermans HA, Vennix JAM (1997) Clients’ opinions on group model building: an exploratory study. Syst Dyn Rev 13:3–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnstein S (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Plann Assoc 35:216–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barreteau O (2003) The joint use of role-playing games and models regarding negotiation processes: characterization of associations. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 6(2), http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/6/2/3.html
  6. Barreteau O (2007) Modèles et processus de décision collective: entre compréhension et facilitation de la gestion concertée de la ressource en eau (HDR Thesis). Paris Dauphine University, ParisGoogle Scholar
  7. Barreteau O, Bousquet F (1999) Jeux de rôles et validation de systèmes multi-agents. In: Gleizes M-P, Marcenac P (eds) Ingénierie des systèmes multi-agents, actes des 7èmes JFIADSMA. Hermès, Paris, pp 67–80Google Scholar
  8. Barreteau O, Bousquet F, Attonaty J-M (2001) Role-playing games for opening the black box of multi-agent systems: method and teachings of its application to Senegal River Valley irrigated systems. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 4(2), http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/4/2/5.html
  9. Barreteau O, Hare M, Krywkow J, Boutet A (2005) Model designed through participatory processes: whose model is it? In: Ferrand N, Perez P, Batten D (eds) Joint conference on multiagent modelling for environmental management, CABM-HEMA-SMAGET 2005. Bourg St Maurice – Les Arcs, 21–25 Mar 2005Google Scholar
  10. Barreteau O, Le Page C, Perez P (2007) Contribution of simulation and gaming to natural resource management issues: An introduction. Simul Gaming 38(2):185–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Becu N (2006) Identification et modélisation des représentations des acteurs locaux pour la gestion des bassins versants. PhD thesis, Sciences de l’eau, Université Montpellier 2, Montpellier, FranceGoogle Scholar
  12. Becu N, Barreteau O, Perez P, Saising J, Sungted S (2006) A methodology for identifying and formalizing farmers' representations of watershed management: a case study from Northern Thailand. In: Bousquet F, Trebuil G, Hardy B (eds) Companion modeling and multi-agent systems for integrated natural resource management in Asia. IRRI, Los Baños, pp 41–62Google Scholar
  13. Bharwani S (2006) Understanding complex behavior and decision making using ethnographic knowledge elicitation tools (KnETs). Soc Sci Comput Rev 24:78–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bousquet F, Voinov A (eds) (2010) Thematic issue – modelling with stakeholders. Environ Modell Softw 25(11):1267–1488Google Scholar
  15. Bousquet F, Bakam I, Proton H,Le Page C (1998) Cormas: common-pool resources and multi-agent systems. In: Lecture notes in artificial intelligence 1416, Springer, Berlin pp 826–838Google Scholar
  16. Bousquet F, Barreteau O, Le Page C, Mullon C, Weber J (1999) An environmental modelling approach: the use of multi-agent simulations. In: Blasco F, Weill A (eds) Advances in environmental and ecological modelling. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 113–122Google Scholar
  17. Bousquet F et al (2002) Multi-agent systems and role games: an approach for ecosystem co-management. In: Janssen M (ed) Complexity and ecosystem management: the theory and practice of multi-agent approaches. Edward Elgar, Northampton, pp 248–285Google Scholar
  18. Callon M, Muniesa F (2006) Economic experiments and the construction of markets. In: MacKenzie D, Muniesa F, Siu L (eds) Do economists make markets? On the performativity of economics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 163–189Google Scholar
  19. Cardenas J-C, Stranlund J, Willis C (2000) Local environmental control and institutional crowding-out. World Dev 28:1719–1733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Castella JC, Tran Ngoc T, Boissau S (2005) Participatory simulation of land-use changes in the northern mountains of Vietnam: the combined use of an agent-based model, a role-playing game, and a geographic information system. Ecol Soc 10(1):27, http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art27/ Google Scholar
  21. Cockes D, Ive J (1996) Mediation support for forest land allocation: the SIRO-MED system. Environ Manage 20(1):41–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Daalen CE van, Bots PWG (2006) Participatory model construction and model use in natural resource management. In: Proceedings of the workshop on formalised and non-formalised methods in resource management – knowledge and learning in participatory processes, Osnabrück, 21–22 Sept 2006, http://www.partizipa.uni-osnabrueck.de/wissAbschluss.html
  23. Daniell KA, Ferrand N, Tsoukias A (2006) Investigating participatory modelling processes for group decision aiding in water planning and management. In: Seifert S, Weinhardt C (eds) Proceedings of group decision and negotiation (GDN) 2006, International conference, Karlsruhe, 25–28 June 2006, Universitätsverlag Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, pp 207–210Google Scholar
  24. D’Aquino P, Le Page C, Bousquet F, Bah A (2003) Using self-designed role-playing games and a multi-agent system to empower a local decision-making process for land use management: the SelfCormas experiment in Senegal. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 6(3), http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/6/3/5.html
  25. Davidson EJ (1999) Joint application design (JAD) in practice. J Syst Softw 45:215–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. DeSanctis G, Gallupe RB (1987) A foundation for the study of group decision support systems. Manag Sci 33:589–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dewulf A, Bouwen R, Tailleu T (2006) The multi-actor simulation ‘Podocarpus National Park’ as a tool for teaching and researching issue framing. In: Proceedings of IACM 2006 Montreal Meetings. http://ssrn.com/abstract=915943
  28. Dray A et al (2006a) The AtollGame experience: from knowledge Engineering to a computer-assisted role playing game. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 9(1), http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/9/1/6.html
  29. Dray A, Perez P, Le Page C, D’Aquino P, White I (2006b) AtollGame: a companion modelling experience in the pacific. In: Perez P, Batten D (eds) Complex science for a complex world: exploring human ecosystems with agents. ANU E Press, Canberra, pp 255–280Google Scholar
  30. Driessen PPJ, Glasbergen P, Verdaas C (2001) Interactive policy making: a model of management for public works. Eur J Oper Res 128:322–337zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Drogoul A, Vanbergue D, Meurisse T (2003) Multi-agent based simulation: where are the agents? In: Sichman JS, Bousquet F, Davidsson P (eds) Multi-agent-based simulation II: third international workshop, MABS 2002, Bologna, Revised papers (Lecture notes in computer science, 2581), Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, 15–16 July 2002, pp 1–15Google Scholar
  32. Dudley RG (2003) Modeling the effects of a log export ban in Indonesia. Syst Dyn Rev 20:99–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Duke RD, Geurts JLA (2004) Policy games for strategic management. Dutch University Press, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  34. Étienne M (2006) Companion modelling: a tool for dialogue and concertation in biosphere reserves. In: Bouamrane M (ed) Biodiversity and stakeholders: concertation itineraries, Biosphere reserves – technical notes 1, Unesco, Paris, pp 44–52Google Scholar
  35. Étienne M (ed) (2011) Companion modeling: a participatory approach to support sustainable development. QUAE, VersaillesGoogle Scholar
  36. Etienne M (2003) SYLVOPAST a multiple target role-playing game to assess negotiation processes in sylvopastoral management planning. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulations 6, http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/6/2/5.html
  37. Étienne M, Le Page C, Cohen M (2003) A step by step approach to build up land management scenarios based on multiple viewpoints on multi-agent systems simulations. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 6(2), http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/6/2/2.html
  38. Eversole R (2003) Managing the pitfalls of participatory development: some insight from Australia. World Dev 31:781–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Fischer G, Giaccardi E, Eden H, Sugimoti M, Ye Y (2005) Beyond binary choices: integrating individual and social creativity. Int J Hum-Comput Stud 63:482–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Friedman D, Sunder S (1994) Experimental methods, a primer for economists. Cambridge University Press, CambridgezbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Fung A (2006) Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Adm Rev 66:66–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Funtowicz SO, Martinez-Alier J, Munda G, Ravetz JR (1999) Information tools for environmental policy under conditions of complexity, vol 9, Environmental issues series. European Environment Agency, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  43. Gilbert N, Troitzsch KG (1999) Simulation for the social scientist. Open University Press, BuckinghamGoogle Scholar
  44. Green KC (2002) Forecasting decisions in conflict situations: a comparison of game theory, role-playing and unaided judgment. Int J Forecast 18:321–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Guyot P (2006) Simulations multi-agents participatives. PhD thesis, Informatique, Université Paris VI, ParisGoogle Scholar
  46. Guyot P, Honiden S (2006) Agent-based participatory simulations: merging multi-agent systems and role-playing games. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 9(4), http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/9/4/8.html
  47. Hamel A, Pinson S (2005) Conception participative de simulations multi-agents basée sur une approche d’analyse multi-acteurs. In: Drogoul A, Ramat E (eds) Systèmes multi-agents: Vers la conception de systèmes artificiels socio-mimétiques (JFSMA 2005). Hermès, Paris, pp 1–15Google Scholar
  48. Hanneman RA (1995) Simulation modeling and theoretical analysis in sociology. Sociol Perspect 38:457–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Henriksen HJ, Rasmussen P, Brandt G, von Bülow D, Jensen FV (2004) Engaging stakeholders in construction and validation of Bayesian belief networks for groundwater protection. In: Proceedings of IFAC workshop on modelling and control for participatory planning and managing water systems, Venice, 29 Sept–1 Oct 2004Google Scholar
  50. Henry C (1974) Investment decisions under uncertainty: the irreversibility effect. Am Econ Rev 64:1006–1012Google Scholar
  51. Hochman Z, Hearnshaw H, Barlow R, Ayres JF, Pearson CJ (1995) X-breed: a multiple domain knowledge based system integrated through a blackboard architecture. Agr Syst 48:243–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Irvin RA, Stansbury J (2004) Citizen participation in decision making: is it worth the effort. Public Adm Rev 64:55–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Johannessen J-A, Olaisen J, Olsen B (2001) Mismanagement of tacit knowledge: the importance of tacit knowledge, the danger of information technology, and what to do about it. Int J Inf Manag 21:3–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kinzig A, Ryan P, Etienne M, Allyson H, Elmqvist T, Walker B (2006) Resilience and regime shifts: assessing cascading effects. Ecol Soc 11(1):20, http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art20 Google Scholar
  55. Klopfer E, Yoon S, Rivas L (2004) Comparative analysis of palm and wearable computers for participatory simulations. J Comput Assist Lear 20:347–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kujala S (2003) User involvement: a review of the benefits and challenges. Behav Inf Technol 22:1–16Google Scholar
  57. Landry M, Banville C, Oral M (1996) Model legitimation in operational research. Eur J Oper Res 92:443–457zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Le Bars M, Le Grusse P, Allaya M, Attonaty J-M, Mahjoubi R (2004) NECC: Un jeu de simulation pour l’aide à la décision collective; Application à une région méditerranéenne virtuelle. In: Projet INCO-WADEMED, Séminaire Modernisation de l’Agriculture Irriguée, RabatGoogle Scholar
  59. Loucks DP, Kindler J, Fedra K (1985) Interactive water resources modeling and model use: an overview. Water Resour Res 21:95–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Maier FH, Grössler A (2000) What are we talking about? A taxonomy of computer simulations to support learning. Syst Dynam Rev 16:135–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Manson SM (2002) Validation and verification of multi-agent systems. In: Janssen M (ed) Complexity and ecosystem management: the theory and practice of multi-agent approaches. Edward Elgar, Northampton, pp 63–74Google Scholar
  62. Marengo L, Pasquali C (2003) How to construct and share a meaning for social interactions? In Conventions et Institutions: Approfondissements théoriques et Contributions au Débat Politique, ParisGoogle Scholar
  63. Martin L et al (2007) Microworld gaming of a local agricultural production chain in Poland. Simul Gaming 38(2):211–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Mayer IS, van Bueren EM, Bots PWG, van der Voort HG, Seijdel RR (2005) Collaborative decision-making for sustainable urban renewal projects: a simulation-gaming approach. Environ Plan B Plan Des 32:403–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. McKinnon J (2005) Mobile interactive GIS: bringing indigenous knowledge and scientific information together; a narrative account. In: Neef A (ed) Participatory approaches for sustainable land use in Southeast Asia. White Lotus, Bangkok, pp 217–231Google Scholar
  66. Mermet L (1993) Une méthode de prospective: Les exercices de simulation de politiques. Nature Sciences Sociétés 1:34–46Google Scholar
  67. Miettinen R, Virkkunen J (2005) Epistemic objects, artefacts and organizational change. Organization 12:437–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Molin E (2005) A causal analysis of hydrogen acceptance. Transport Res Rec 1941:115–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Moss S, Downing T, Rouchier J (2000) Demonstrating the role of stakeholder participation: an agent based social simulation model of water demand policy and response (CPM report, 00–76). Centre for Policy Modelling, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, http://cfpm.org/cpmrep76.html
  70. Mostert E (2006) Participation for sustainable water management. In: Giupponi C, Jakeman AJ, Karssenberg D, Hare MP (eds) Sustainable management of water resources. Edward Elgar, Northampton, pp 153–176Google Scholar
  71. Nancarrow B (2005) When the modeller meets the social scientist or vice-versa. In: Zerger A, Argent RM (eds) MODSIM 2005 international congress on modelling and simulation. Modelling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand, Melbourne, pp 38–44Google Scholar
  72. Ostrom E, Gardner R, Walker J (1994) Rules, games and common-pool resources. The University of Michigan Press, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  73. Pahl-Wostl C, Hare M (2004) Processes of social learning in integrated resources management. J Community Appl Soc Psychol 14:193–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Pateman C (1990) Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  75. Perez P, Dray A, Le Page C, D’Aquino P, White I (2004) Lagoon, agents and kava: a companion modelling experience in the Pacific. In: van Dijkum C, Blasius J, Durand C (eds) Recent developments and applications in social research methodology: Proceedings of RC33 sixth international conference on social science methodology, Amsterdam Barbara Budrich Publishers, Opladen, p 282Google Scholar
  76. Ramanath AM, Gilbert N (2004) The design of participatory agent based simulations. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 7(4), http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/7/4/1.html
  77. Reitsma R, Zigurs I, Lewis C, Wilson V, Sloane A (1996) Experiment with simulation models in water-resources negotiations. J Water Resour Plan Manag 122:64–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Richard A, Barreteau O (2006) Concert’eau: un outil de sociologie expérimentale pour l'étude de dispositifs de gestion locale et concertée de l’eau. In: Proceedings of 2e Congrès de l’Association Française de Sociologie, Bordeaux, 5–8 Sept 2006Google Scholar
  79. Richard A, Trometter M (2001) Les caractéristiques d’une décision séquentielle: Effet irréversibilité et endogénéisation de l’environnement. Revue Economique 52:739–752Google Scholar
  80. Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4:155–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Robinson JB (1991) Modelling the interactions between human and natural systems. Int Soc Sci J 130:629–647Google Scholar
  82. Rocha EM (1997) A ladder of empowerment. J Plan Edu Res 17:31–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Rouchier J (2003) Re-implementation of a multi-agent model aimed at sustaining experimental economic research: the case of simulations with emerging speculation. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 6(4), http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/6/4/7.html
  84. Rouwette EAJA, Vennix JAM, van Mullekorn T (2002) Group model building effectiveness: a review of assessment studies. Syst Dyn Rev 18:5–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Rowe G, Frewer LJ (2004) Evaluating public-participation exercises: a research agenda. Sci Technol Hum Val 29(4):512–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Ryan T (2000) The role of simulation gaming in policy making. Syst Res Behav Sci 17:359–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Schelling TC (1961) Experimental games and bargaining theory. World Polit 14:47–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Schuler D, Namioka A (eds) (1993) Participatory design: principles and practices. Lawrence Erlbaum, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  89. Shakun ME (1996) Modeling and supporting task-oriented group processes: purposeful complex adaptive systems and evolutionary systems design. Group Decis Negot 5:305–317Google Scholar
  90. Simon H (1977) The new science of management decision. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  91. Star SL, Griesemer JR (1989) Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berleley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–39. Soc Stud Sci 19:387–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Sterman JD (1992) Teaching takes off – flight simulators for management education. OR/MS Today, pp 40–44Google Scholar
  93. Ticehurst J, Rissik D, Letcher RA, Newham LTH, Jakeman AJ (2005) Development of decision support tools to assess the sustainability of coastal lakes. In: Zerger A, Argent RM (eds) MODSIM 2005 international congress on modelling and simulation, Modelling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand, Melbourne, pp 2414–2420, http://www.mssanz.org.au/modsim05/papers/ticehurst.pdf
  94. Toth FL (1988) Policy exercises: objectives and design elements. Simul Games 19:235–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. van Asselt M et al (2001) Building blocks for participation in integrated assessment: a review of participatory methods. ICIS, MaastrichtGoogle Scholar
  96. van Daalen CE, Thissen WAH, Berk MM (1998) The Delft process: experiences with a dialogue between policy makers and global modellers. In: Alcamo J, Leemans R, Kreileman E (eds) Global change scenarios of the 21st century: results from the IMAGE 2.1 model. Elsevier, London, pp 267–285Google Scholar
  97. Van den Belt M (2004) Mediated modeling: a system dynamics approach to environmental consensus building. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  98. Vennix JAM (1996) Group model building, facilitating team learning using system dynamics. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  99. Webler T, Kastenholz H, Renn O (1995) Public participation in impact assessment: a social learning perspective. Environ Impact Assess Rev 15:443–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Whitworth B, Gallupe B, McQueen R (2000) A cognitive three-process model of computer mediated group interaction. Gr Decis Negot 9:431–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Wood J, Silver D (1995) Joint application development. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olivier Barreteau
    • 1
    Email author
  • Pieter Bots
    • 2
  • Katherine Daniell
    • 3
  • Michel Etienne
    • 4
  • Pascal Perez
    • 5
  • Cécile Barnaud
    • 6
  • Didier Bazile
    • 7
  • Nicolas Becu
    • 8
  • Jean-Christophe Castella
    • 9
  • William’s Daré
    • 7
  • Guy Trebuil
    • 7
  1. 1.IRSTEA, UMR G-EAUMontpellierFrance
  2. 2.Faculty of Technology, Policy and ManagementDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Centre for Policy InnovationThe Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia
  4. 4.Ecodevelopment UnitDomaine St-PaulAvignon cedex 9France
  5. 5.SMARTUniversity of WollongongWollongongAustralia
  6. 6.INRA, Centre INRA de Toulouse UMR Dynafor Chemin de Borde RougeCastanet Tolosan CedexFrance
  7. 7.Cirad GREENMontpellier Cedex 5France
  8. 8.CNRS, Laboratoire de géographie PRODIGParisFrance
  9. 9.Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD)UMR 220 GRED (IRD UPV Montpellier 3)VientianeLaos

Personalised recommendations