Exploring the Gap Between Water Managers and Researchers: Difficulties of Model-Based Tools to Support Practical Water Management

Borowski, Ilke; Hare, M.

doi:10.1007/s11269-006-9098-z

Cited by 131 publications

(117 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

112

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Once the processes have been adequately described, scientists are usually satisfied with the models and do not develop them further to solve practical problems ). This situation is often explained by a lack of understanding between modelers and stakeholders, in particular on the part of the scientists, (e.g., Borowski and Hare 2007;Brugnach et al 2007;de Kok and Wind 2003;Olsson and Andersson 2006). We argue that it is not necessarily the lack of understanding.…”

Section: Scientists' Motivation For Pmmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…That models developed by scientists remain unused is not uncommon (Borowski and Hare 2007). The PM activities are usually regarded as a way to overcome this problem.…”

Section: Discussion: Challenges Of Pm In Research On Global Change Immentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is frequently pointed out that models are often science-driven rather than user-driven types and do not address real-world issues from potential users' perspective (Borowski and Hare 2007;Kok et al 2008;Myšiak et al 2008). Once the processes have been adequately described, scientists are usually satisfied with the models and do not develop them further to solve practical problems ).…”

Section: Scientists' Motivation For Pmmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It seems that it is almost taken for granted that scientists are motivated to participate per se, probably because they are usually the ones who initiate PM activities. In terms of analyzing scientists' role in PM, the literature focuses on the ways that scientists choose to carry out PM (e.g., Voinov et al 2014), their limited insights into decision-making processes (e.g., Borowski and Hare 2007;Hare 2011), or their lack of competence in communication (Horlitz 2006;Kok et al 2008). McIntosh et al (2011) list more such deficiencies.…”

Section: Scientists' Motivation For Pmmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hare (2011) defined PM as ''a diverse range of modeling activities whose common element is that they involve stakeholders in one or more stages of the modeling process, from data collection through to model construction and use.'' One reason for the increased popularity of PM in recent years is the experience that models developed by scientists for scientific purposes are often not suitable for practical management due to their often (too) high complexity, low user friendliness, and lack of problem/solution orientation (e.g., Borowski and Hare 2007;Hare 2011;Horlitz 2006;Kok et al 2008;Myšiak et al 2008;Webler and Tuler 2006). Participation is considered a key concept of bridging the gap between modelers and stakeholders and eventually between science and society (Andersson et al 2008;Carmona et al 2013b;Simmons et al 2012;Voinov and Bousquet 2010).…”

Section: Introduction Terminologymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Global change impacts on the Upper Danube Catchment (Central Europe): a study of participatory modeling

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Participatory modeling (PM) has become an essential concept in environmental impact assessment and planning in the field of water resources. In this paper, we focus on the use of PM to support the development of the integrated regional modeling system DANUBIA as a scientific concept to analyze the previously unknown impacts of global change, i.e., the combined effects of climate, demographic, economic, social and ecological change, on the Upper Danube Catchment (Germany). We use this case study to examine the specific conditions for PM in the field of complex integrated models on a regional scale. We describe the stepwise PM process and discuss the respective results, focusing on (1) the stakeholder dialogue's contribution in supporting the development of new, complex modeling systems, particularly on a regional scale, (2) conditions of stakeholder involvement in issues related to the distant future, such as climate change impacts on regional water availability, and (3) limitations of PM and scientists' motivation to carry out participatory research at all. We conclude that the PM process was not entirely successful in improving the scientific quality and practical applicability of the developed models because the process goals were manifold and overambitious, and the definition of the problem of ''global change impacts on a regional scale'' was too weak and uncertain to allow for a clear common objective of modelers and stakeholders. We claim that there is a lack of incentives for scientists, particularly natural scientists, to commit to PM activities.

show abstract

Section: Scientists' Motivation For Pmmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…That models developed by scientists remain unused is not uncommon (Borowski and Hare 2007). The PM activities are usually regarded as a way to overcome this problem.…”

Section: Discussion: Challenges Of Pm In Research On Global Change Immentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Scientists' Motivation For Pmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Scientists' Motivation For Pmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introduction Terminologymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Global change impacts on the Upper Danube Catchment (Central Europe): a study of participatory modeling

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Debates—Perspectives on socio‐hydrology: Modeling flood risk as a public policy problem

Gober

Wheater

2015

Water Resources Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Socio-hydrology views human activities as endogenous to water system dynamics; it is the interaction between human and biophysical processes that threatens the viability of current water systems through positive feedbacks and unintended consequences. Di Baldassarre et al. implement socio-hydrology as a flood risk problem using the concept of social memory as a vehicle to link human perceptions to flood damage. Their mathematical model has heuristic value in comparing potential flood damages in green versus technological societies. It can also support communities in exploring the potential consequences of policy decisions and evaluating critical policy tradeoffs, for example, between flood protection and economic development. The concept of social memory does not, however, adequately capture the social processes whereby public perceptions are translated into policy action, including the pivotal role played by the media in intensifying or attenuating perceived flood risk, the success of policy entrepreneurs in keeping flood hazard on the public agenda during short windows of opportunity for policy action, and different societal approaches to managing flood risk that derive from cultural values and economic interests. We endorse the value of seeking to capture these dynamics in a simplified conceptual framework, but favor a broader conceptualization of socio-hydrology that includes a knowledge exchange component, including the way modeling insights and scientific results are communicated to floodplain managers. The social processes used to disseminate the products of socio-hydrological research are as important as the research results themselves in determining whether modeling is used for realworld decision making.

show abstract

Forms of Participatory Modelling and its Potential for Widespread Adoption in the Water Sector

Hare

2011

Env Pol Gov

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article serves as a support for those interested in learning more about participatory modelling and its potential for widespread adoption by resource managers. The first part introduces the reader to four basic forms of participatory modelling, identified by classifying nine example participatory modelling processes. The second part considers the potential widespread adoption of participatory modelling by resource managers in the water sector, concluding that this potential is low. It proposes recommendations as to how the potential for the adoption of participatory modelling by water managers can be increased. One of the most important recommendations is that policy-makers should focus on the promotion of forms of participatory modelling that support social learning and the development of conceptual models. These forms of participatory modelling are considered most likely to be adopted, especially if they can be promoted in terms of supporting learning cycles within an Adaptive Water Resources Management approach.This specifies the skills the organizing team need, to carry out different stages of the participatory modelling process:• modelling skills (M),• facilitation skills (F) and • knowledge acquisition skills (KA). 1 A category of model use also identified by Bots and van Daalen (2008).390 M. Hare 2 For more background on the term co-construction see, for example, Etienne et al. (2008a) and Daniell (2008).394 M. Hare

show abstract

Exploring the Gap Between Water Managers and Researchers: Difficulties of Model-Based Tools to Support Practical Water Management

Cited by 131 publications

References 25 publications

Global change impacts on the Upper Danube Catchment (Central Europe): a study of participatory modeling

Global change impacts on the Upper Danube Catchment (Central Europe): a study of participatory modeling

Debates—Perspectives on socio‐hydrology: Modeling flood risk as a public policy problem

Forms of Participatory Modelling and its Potential for Widespread Adoption in the Water Sector

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About