Seeing is not believing: cognitive bias and modelling in collaborative planning

Purpose, processes, partnerships, and products: four Ps to advance participatory socio‐environmental modeling

“…, Hoch et al. ]); (6) develop models that are applicable to stakeholders decision‐making context (Henly‐Shepard et al. )…”

“…Ostensibly, the inclusion of stakeholders provides some unique insight that would otherwise not be available with models constructed by traditional (i.e., scientific) experts alone. From a modeler's perspective, in a PM approach, stakeholder participation may be justified by the need to (1) understand the values and beliefs different stakeholder groups hold in relation to the problem and how modeling can support new understanding Gaddis 2008, Jones et al 2016); (2) understand how different stakeholder groups believe the system operates and how explicit knowledge representation can support articulation of differences and similarities (Gray et al 2012); (3) support ethical or normative dimensions of planning and decision making, acknowledging that stakeholders should have a right to participate in decision-making processes that impact them (Stec andCasey-Lefkowitz 2000, National Research Council 2008); (4) understand the social and environmental implications of projected policy or behavioral changes, and for collective visioning (e.g., scenario planning; Zellner and Campbell 2015); (5) support mutual recognition of perceptions and articulate several points of view among participants (such knowledge sharing in a neutral space can reduce power asymmetries and overreliance on technical or scientific experts [Barnaud et al 2013, Hoch et al 2015); (6) develop models that are applicable to stakeholders decision-making context (Henly-Shepard et al 2015) From the perspective of the stakeholder participants, the purpose of the PM exercise is typically to gain insight into a problem they care about, so as to better inform individual or collective decision making, or to (1) ensure that their knowledge, needs, and interests are included in social or environmental assessments; (2) better understand a socio-environmental situation; (3) make sure "incorrect" modeled answers are avoided, the models take into consideration key factors that might be overlooked, or key factors that not capable of being modeled are acknowledged; (4) to have a voice and control over the future of the socio-environmental systems they depend on. These many purposes are not exclusive to one another, but formulating the goals explicitly can provide justification on the unique contribution of a particular PM approach, including the social, political, or scientific benefits that stakeholder involvement brings to the practice of environmental modeling.…”

“…While explicit reporting of products other than the models remains sparse in the literature, some researchers have begun to report on additional outcomes, including the number of "decision variables" and "decision criteria" in the model, how framing influences outcomes (Stirling 2006) as well as the degree of stakeholder frustration (Stave 2010). Social outcomes that have been reported include advances in individual insight, interest in and understanding of model structure, policy agreement, increases in group communication, increased engagement, and social learning (Stave 2010, Zellner et al 2012, Hoch et al 2015.…”

Twelve Questions for the Participatory Modeling Community

“…There are numerous case studies and a few PM review articles that have been investigating these issues, but these have not been systematically reviewed. Problems that were frequently mentioned by our group include cultural barriers relating to indigenous people, gender discrimination, exclusion from the process or within the process, dominant behavior and views creating biases, groupthink, manipulation, hostility, and unskilled facilitation (Hoch et al, 2015). Best practice recommendations on how to deal with these issues through structured and community-driven facilitation (Hovmand, 2014) are just now emerging based on comparative case study analyses when drawing from the wider literature on participatory environmental research (e.g., de Vente et al, 2016).…”

“…A culture of rapid answers and fixes (Hoch et al 2015;Zellner and Campbell 2015). Participatory modeling is a desirable approach to complex problems, where there are no final answers, and our best hope is for iterative innovation and adaptation.…”