Assessment and Monitoring of the Effects of the ComMod Approach

Abstract

's darÉ, raPhaèle ducrot, natalie Jones, JÉrôMe queste, guy trÉBuil and anneMarie van Paassen Justifications and assumptionsWhy is an assessment of ComMod needed?The assessment of the effects of companion modelling is currently still a theoretical and methodological field under investigation. However, neighbouring fields of research provide relevant elements of reflection. For example, research on integrated assessments aims to provide public policy decision-makers with relevant information for decisionmaking. This information generally arises out of an interdisciplinary process for consolidating, interpreting and communicating knowledge from various sources (Hisschemöller et al., 2001). In this context, Siebenhüner and Barth (2005) tried to determine under what circumstances the use of a model would be consistent with the objectives of a participatory approach. It should be stressed, however, that there is a marked difference between an integrated assessment using certain forms of modelling and the ComMod approach itself. Hisschemöller et al. (2001) considered that the aim of integrated assessment is to inform the parties involved without seeking to promote convergence of opinion. As discussed in Chapter 1 and in more detail in Chapter 5, the ComMod approach, by contrast, seeks to support the sharing of views, the consensual exploration of scenarios and, where appropriate, group decision-making. From an approach assessment standpoint, it thus seems necessary to go beyond analysing knowledge creation and learning processes and also focus on interaction and mobilization processes, or even legitimacy and accountability principles to provide an understanding of 'what happens' during a ComMod approach and what are its consequences. E x e m p l a i r e a u t e u r Companion modelling 142Trying to establish an assessment protocol, which is both scaled to the implementation contexts of the ComMod approach and sufficiently robust to cover all the aforementioned analytical dimensions, is quite a challenge. Expecting to create a perfect protocol at the first attempt is just wishful thinking. The protocol created for, and used during, the ADD-ComMod project corresponds to a first draft of a more advanced assessment methodology, the initial stages of which are presented at the end of this chapter. Within this project, the objective of the assessment process is initially twofold: -to estimate the impact of the approach in terms of mobilization and involvement of local stakeholders in group learning and decision-making -to improve the ComMod approach's underlying methodology and theory.The second goal probably influenced the structure and content of the assessment protocol presented later in this chapter. As each structure has its own constraints, it is likely that the proposed format limited the assessors' ability to answer the questions raised by the first goal as much as they would have liked. However, the comparative nature of the ADD-ComMod project (27 case studies) imposed a methodological rigour called for by the di...

Visions, beliefs, and transformation: exploring cross-sector and transboundary dynamics in the wider Mekong region

“…ChaRL, however, allows for ongoing monitoring and thereby an adjustment of the methods deployed. Perez et al (2014) provide the most notable effort to formalize evaluation for one particular participatory modeling approach, companion modeling. Perez and colleagues largely focused on facilitating a better understanding of different points of view among different decision makers.…”

“…Both participatory modeling approaches have been repeatedly applied to various decision-making contexts and positive impacts on decision-making arenas are documented (van den Belt 2004, Perez et al 2014). However, in most cases it seems difficult to distinguish the relevance of the participatory process because the engagement is only one influence among many in an often very dynamic environment.…”

Towards understanding participatory processes: Framework, application and results

“…Many scholars identify "levels of governance influencing target system elements" as a critical variable, using different terms but with similar meanings: "shared jurisdiction" (Beierle & Konisky, 2000) or "scale of issue" (Perez et al, 2011). This variable is defined by the level of decision-making influencing the target system.…”

“…Allison & Hobbs (2006), Bellamy et al (2001), Chess & Purcell (1999) and Cumming (2000) refer to the social context broadly and Foley et al (2003) refer to social "natural resources". Others more specifically mention variables linked to conflict and mistrust as hindering contextual effects for participatory processes (Beierle & Cayford, 2002;Beierle & Konisky, 2000;Bellamy et al, 2001;Branch & Bradbury, 2006;Brocklesby, 2009;Jackson & Keys, 1984;Kelly & Van Vlaenderen, 1995;Ong, 2000;Ostrom, 2005;Perez et al, 2011;Webler & Tuler, 2002). The COPP Frameworks adopts the options suggested by Beierle & Cayford (2002) to describe the pre-existing relationships among participants: no pre-existing relationship, high degree of mistrust and conflict, moderate trust and conflict or good pre-existing relationships and trust.…”

“…Author-produced version of the article published in Journal of Environmental Management, 2015, N°157, p.84-95. The original publication is available at http://www.sciencedirect.com Doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.04.012 Halvorsen, 2001;Conley & Moote, 2003;Ferrand & Daniell, 2006summarized in Daniell, 2012Guston, 1999;Innes & Booher, 1999;Perez et al, 2011;Webler & Tuler, 2002). Other authors mention "individual impacts on participants" as one possible impact category, without detailing potential options for describing these impacts (e.g.…”