Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

FCMs as a Common Base for Linking Participatory Products and Models

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Environmental Modeling with Stakeholders

Abstract

Stakeholder involvement in modeling studies is increasing. Fuzzy Cognitive Maps (FCMs) are emerging as a promising tool to provide a common base for stakeholders and modelers. FCMs developed by stakeholders from three local Mediterranean case studies are used to construct a stakeholder based FCM. This is done via a workshop in which the locally developed FCMs are merged by regional experts. Graphs and quasi-dynamic output are then compared with an FCM based on a mathematical model (WaterGAP). This model-based FCM was developed in a small workshop by WaterGAP modelers, based on their knowledge of the model. Results show that FCMs indeed have the ability to serve as a common base for linking participatory products and models. The quasi-dynamic output helps to get a better understanding of the commonalities and differences in the two system descriptions. The comparisons showed that FCM is a very promising tool for linking stakeholders and modelers. It can function as a common base for comparison and to illustrate differences between stakeholder perceptions and models in detail. The system dynamics of FCMs can play an important role in the comparison between system perspectives and the dissemination process.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Within SCENES WaterGAP used seven regions following the composition of macro geographical (continental) regions and geographical sub-regions used by the UN (e.g., United Nations Statistics Division, http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm).

References

  • Alcamo J (2008) The SAS approach: combining qualitative and quantitative knowledge in environmental scenarios. In: Alcamo J (ed) Environmental futures: the practice of environmental scenario analysis . Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 123–150

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Alcamo J, Döll P, Henrichs T, Kaspar F, Lehner B, Rösch T, Siebert S (2003) Development and testing of the WaterGAP 2 global model of water use and availability. Hydrol Sci J 48(3):317–338. doi:10.1623/hysj.48.3.317.45290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bousquet F, Voinov A (2010) Preface to this thematic issue (thematic issue - modelling with stakeholders). Environ Model Softw 25(11):1267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cakmak EH, Dudu H, Eruygur O, Ger M, Onurlu S, Tonguc O (2013) Participatory fuzzy cognitive mapping analysis to evaluate the future of water in the Seyhan Basin, Turkey. J Water Clim Chang 4(2):131–145

    Google Scholar 

  • Cash DW, Adger W, Berkes F, Garden P, Lebel L, Olsson P, Pritchard L, Young O (2006) Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecol Soc 11(2)

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole JR, Persichitte KA (2000) Fuzzy cognitive mapping: applications in education. Int J Intell Syst 15(1):1–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Döll P, Kaspar F, Lehner B (2003) A global hydrological model for deriving water availability indicators: model tuning and validation. J Hydrol 270:105–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eierdanz F, Alcamo J, Acosta-Michlik L, Kromker D, Tanzler D (2008) Using fuzzy set theory to address the uncertainty of susceptibility to drought. Reg Environ Chang 8(4):197–205. doi:10.1007/s10113-008-0069-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flörke M, Alcamo J (2004) European outlook on water use, final report, EEA/RNC/03/007. Center for Environmental Systems Research, University of Kassel, Kassel, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  • Flörke M, Kynast E, Bärlund I, Eisner S, Wimmer F, Alcamo J (2013) Domestic and industrial water uses of the past 60 years as a mirror of socio-economic development: a global simulation study. Glob Environ Chang 23(1):144–156. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.10.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray S, Gagnon A, Gray S, O’Dwyer B, O’Mahony C, Muir D, Devoy R, Falaleeva M, Gault J (2013) Are coastal managers detecting the problem? Assessing stakeholder perception of climate vulnerability using fuzzy cognitive mapping. Ocean Coast Manag 94:74–89

    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 

  • Heemskerk M, Wilson K, Pavao-Zuckerman M (2003) Conceptual models as tools for communication across disciplines. Conserv Ecol 7(3)

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfgott A, Lord S, Bean N, Wildeberg M, Gray S, Gray S, Vervoort J, Kok K, Ingram J (in review) When Fuzzy Cognitive Maps Aren’t Fuzzy: fuzzy cognitive maps and system dynamics models in participatory social and environmental decision-aiding processes. Environmental Modelling & Software

    Google Scholar 

  • Jetter A, Schweinfort W (2011) Building scenarios with fuzzy cognitive maps: an exploratory study of solar energy. Futures 43(1):52–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jetter AJ, Kok K (2014) Fuzzy cognitive maps for futures studies-a methodological assessment of concepts and methods. Futures 61:45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kämäri J (2008) Results of first round of Pilot Area workshops, SCENES Deliverable IA2.2. SYKE, Helsinki

    Google Scholar 

  • Kämäri J, Alcamo J, Bärlund I, Duel H, Farquharson G, Flörke M, Fry M, Houghton-Carr H, Kabat P, Kaljonen M, Kok K, Meijer KS, Rekolainen S, Sendzimir J, Varjopuro R, Villars N (2008) Envisioning the future of water in Europe – the SCENES project. E-WAter (2008/03):1–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Khadra R, D’Agostino DR, Scardigno A, Lamaddalena N (2011) Down-scaling pan-European water scenarios to local visions in the Mediterranean: the Candelaro Basin case study in Italy. J Water Clim Chang 2(2-3):180–188. doi:10.2166/Wcc.2011.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kok K (2009) The potential of fuzzy cognitive maps for semi-quantitative scenario development, with an example from Brazil. Glob Environ Chang Hum Policy Dimens 19(1):122–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kok K, Bärlund I, Flörke M, Holman I, Gramberger M, Sendzimir J, Stuch B, Zellmer K (2015) European participatory scenario development: strengthening the link between stories and models. Climatic Change 128(3–4):187–200

    Google Scholar 

  • Kok K, van Delden H (2009) Combining two approaches of integrated scenario development to combat desertification in the Guadalentin watershed, Spain. Environ Plan B Plann Des 36(1):49–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kok K, van Vliet M (2011) Using a participatory scenario development toolbox: added values and impact on quality of scenarios. J Water Clim Chang 2(2-3):87–105. doi:10.2166/Wcc.2011.032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kosko B (1986) Fuzzy cognitive maps. Int J Man Mach Stud 24(1):65–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehner B, Verdin K, Jarvis A (2008) New global hydrography derived from spaceborne elevation data. Eos Trans AGU 89(10):93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magnuszewski P, Sendzimir J, Kronenberg J (2005) Conceptual modeling for adaptive environmental assessment and management in the Barycz Valley, Lower Silesia, Poland. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2(2):194–203

    Article  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 (thematic issue - modelling with stakeholders). Environ Model Softw 25(11):1439–1449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Özesmi U, Özesmi SL (2003) A participatory approach to ecosystem conservation: fuzzy cognitive maps and stakeholder group analysis in Uluabat Lake, Turkey. Environ Manag 31(4):518–531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Refsgaard JC, Henriksen HJ, Harrar WG, Scholten H, Kassahun A (2005) Quality assurance in model based water management - review of existing practice and outline of new approaches. Environ Model Softw 20(10):1201–1215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaldach R, Koch J (2009) Conceptual design and implementation of a model for the integrated simulation of large-scale land-use systems. In: Athanasiadis PA, Mitkas A, Rizzoli E, Marx-Gómez J (eds) Information technologies in environmental engineering. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 425–438

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Simon C, Etienne M (2010) A companion modelling approach applied to forest management planning (thematic issue - modelling with stakeholders). Environ Model Softw 25(11):1371–1384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterman JD (2004) Business dynamics: systems thinking and modelling for a complex world. Irwin/McGraw-Hill, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • van Vliet M, Kok K, Veldkamp T (2010) Linking stakeholders and modellers in scenario studies: the use of fuzzy cognitive maps as a communication and learning tool. Futures 42(1):1–14. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2009.08.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Vliet M, Kok K, Veldkamp T, Sarkki S (2012) Structure in creativity; effects of structuring tools on results of participatory scenario development workshops. Futures 44(8):746–760

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varela-Ortega C, Esteve P, Carmona G, Blanco I, Khadra R, D’Agostino D, Lamaddalena N, Cakmak E, Dudu H, Kok K, van Vliet M (2011) Integrating stakeholder-based fuzzy cognitive maps for understanding water systems in the Mediterranean. Paper presented at the Futures of European Waters, Budapest, Hungary

    Google Scholar 

  • Vennix JAM (1999) Group model-building: tackling messy problems. Syst Dyn Rev 15(4):379–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verburg PH, Rounsevell MDA, Veldkamp A (2006) Scenario-based studies of future land use in Europe. Agric Ecosyst Environ 114(1):1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verzano K (2009) Climate change impacts on flood related hydrological processes: further development and application of a global scale hydrological model. Reports on earth system science, vol 71-2009. Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  • Voinov A, Bousquet F (2010) Modelling with stakeholders. Environ Model Softw 25(11):1268–1281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Website Mont Fleur (2011) The Mont Fleur Scenarios. Mont Fleur Conference Venue. http://www.montfleur.co.za/about/scenarios.html. Accessed Feb 2011

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the work of the stakeholders in the Pilot Area workshops who developed the local FCMs. We would further like to thank all who helped in organizing the workshops and analyzing the workshop results, especially Gema Carmona and Irene Blanco, from the Guadiana Pilot Area, Nicola Lamaddalena and Alessandra Scardigno, from the Candelaro Pilot Area, and Ozlem Tonguc, from the Seyhan Pilot Area. We would like to thank Christof Schneider for helping with the model runs of WaterGAP. We further want acknowledge the funding of this research as part of SCENES, by the EC under contract 036822.

Disclaimer  The views expressed are purely those of the authors and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Public Administration and Policy Group, Wageningen University, 8130, 6700 EW, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    M. van Vliet

  2. Water Consultancy Group, Movares B.V., Utrecht, The Netherlands

    M. van Vliet

  3. Soil Geography and Landscape Group, Wageningen University, 47, 6700 AA, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    M. van Vliet & K. Kok

  4. Center for Environmental Systems Research, University of Kassel, Wilhelmshöher Allee 47, 34109, Kassel, Germany

    M. Flörke

  5. Department of Agricultural Economics, Statistics and Management, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    C. Varela-Ortega & P. Esteve

  6. Department of Economics, TED University, 06420, Ankara, Turkey

    E. H. Çakmak

  7. Mediterranean Agronomic Institute of Bari, Via Ceglie 9, 70010, Valenzano, Italy

    R. Khadra & D. D’Agostino

  8. Institute for Prospective and Technological Studies, EC-JRC, Seville, Spain

    H. Dudu

  9. Department Aquatic Ecosystem Analysis (ASAM), Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Brückstrasse. 3a, 39114, Magdeburg, Germany

    I. Bärlund

Authors
  1. M. van Vliet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Flörke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. Varela-Ortega
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. E. H. Çakmak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. R. Khadra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. P. Esteve
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. D. D’Agostino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. H. Dudu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. I. Bärlund
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. K. Kok
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. van Vliet .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Community Sustainability, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA

    Steven Gray

  2. Department of Anthropology, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA

    Michael Paolisso

  3. Department of Human Ecology, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA

    Rebecca Jordan

  4. Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Wellington, New Zealand

    Stefan Gray

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Vliet, M.v. et al. (2017). FCMs as a Common Base for Linking Participatory Products and Models. In: Gray, S., Paolisso, M., Jordan, R., Gray, S. (eds) Environmental Modeling with Stakeholders. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25053-3_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation