Nils Ferrand

Evaluating participatory modeling: Developing a framework for cross-case analysis

Participatory modeling is increasingly recognized as an effective way to assist collective decision-making processes in the domain of natural resource management. This article introduces a framework for evaluating projects that have adopted a participatory modeling approach. This evaluation framework—known as the “Protocol of Canberra”—was developed through a collaboration between French and Australian researchers engaged in participatory modeling and evaluation research. The framework seeks to assess the extent to which different participatory modeling initiatives not only modify perceptions among and interactions between participants, but also contribute to collective decision-making. The article discusses the development of the framework and it’s application to three case-studies, two from Australia and one from the Pacific Island of the Republic of Kiribati. The article concludes with some comments for future use of the framework in a range of participatory modeling contexts.

Co-engineering Participatory Water Management Processes: Theory and Insights from Australian and Bulgarian Interventions

Broad-scale, multi-governance level, participatory water management processes intended to aid collective decision making and learning are rarely initiated, designed, implemented, and managed by one person. These processes mostly emerge from some form of collective planning and organization activities because of the stakes, time, and budgets involved in their implementation. Despite the potential importance of these collective processes for managing complex water-related social-ecological systems, little research focusing on the project teams that design and organize participatory water management processes has ever been undertaken. We have begun to fill this gap by introducing and outlining the concept of a co-engineering process and examining how it impacts the processes and outcomes of participatory water management. We used a hybrid form of intervention research in two broad-scale, multi-governance level, participatory water management processes in Australia and Bulgaria to build insights into these co- engineering processes. We examined how divergent objectives and conflict in the project teams were negotiated, and the impacts of this co-engineering on the participatory water management processes. These investigations showed: (1) that language barriers may aid, rather than hinder, the process of stakeholder appropriation, collective learning and skills transferal related to the design and implementation of participatory water management processes; and (2) that diversity in co-engineering groups, if managed positively through collaborative work and integrative negotiations, can present opportunities and not just challenges for achieving a range of desired outcomes for participatory water management processes. A number of areas for future research on co-engineering participatory water management processes are also highlighted.

Collaborative modelling as a boundary institution to handle institutional complexities in water management

Water management is an area for several sources of institutional complexity, which have been extensively studied but are still poorly handled in practice. In this chapter we add to the family of boundary entities a concept of boundary institution, in order to re-visit the dynamics at stake in participatory modelling. On the basis of a few case studies, we show that participatory modelling, as a process, fits this concept of “boundary institution”. A boundary institution is a step above considering the model as a boundary object, because it provides rules for interaction among stakeholders without prior consensus among them. In addition, these institutions provide prototypes to develop other institutions that address complex water management issues or that could help in providing institutional infrastructure (rules, etc.) to existing boundary organizations. Boundary institutions have no tangible infrastructure. Because they are intangible, how boundary organizations actually function will require further research.

The MEPPP Framework: A Framework for Monitoring and Evaluating Participatory Planning Processes

Evaluating participatory processes, participatory planning processes especially, can be challenging. Due to their complexity, these processes require a specific approach to evaluation. This paper proposes a framework for evaluating projects that have adopted a participatory planning approach: the monitoring and evaluation of participatory planning processes (MEPPP) framework. The MEPPP framework is applied to one case study, a participatory planning process in the Rwenzori region in Uganda. We suggest that this example can serve as a guideline for researchers and practitioners to set up the monitoring and evaluation of their participatory planning process of interest by following six main phases: (1) description of the case, (2) clarification of the M&E viewpoint(s) and definition of the M&E objective(s), (3) identification of the context, process and outputs/outcomes analytical variables, (4) development of the M&E methods and data collection, (5) data analysis, and (6) sharing of the M&E results. Results of the application of the MEPPP framework in Uganda demonstrate the ability of the framework to tackle the complexity of participatory planning processes. Strengths and limitations of the MEPPP framework are also discussed.

Drivers of Environmental Institutional Dynamics in Decentralized African Countries.

This paper builds on the assumption that an effective approach to support the sustainability of natural resource management initiatives is institutional “bricolage.” We argue that participatory planning processes can foster institutional bricolage by encouraging stakeholders to make their own arrangements based on the hybridization of old and new institutions. This papers aims at identifying how participatory process facilitators can encourage institutional bricolage. Specifically the paper investigates the specific contextual and procedural drivers of institutional dynamics in two case studies: the Rwenzori region in Uganda and the Fogera woreda in Ethiopia. In both cases, participatory planning processes were implemented. This research has three innovative aspects. First, it establishes a clear distinction between six terms which are useful for identifying, describing, and analyzing institutional dynamics: formal and informal; institutions and organizations; and emergence and change. Secondly, it compares the contrasting institutional dynamics in the two case studies. Thirdly, process-tracing is used to identify contextual and procedural drivers to institutional dynamics. We assume that procedural drivers can be used as “levers” by facilitators to trigger institutional bricolage. We found that facilitators need to pay particular attention to the institutional context in which the participatory planning process takes place, and especially at existing institutional gaps or failures. We identified three clusters of procedural levers: the selection and engagement of participants; the legitimacy, knowledge, and ideas of facilitators; and the design of the process, including the scale at which it is developed, the participatory tools used and the management of the diversity of frames.

Aiding multi-level decision-making processes for climate change mitigation and adaptation

Progress towards climate change aware regional sustainable development is affected by actions at multiple spatial scales and governance levels, and equally impacts actions at these scales. Many authors and policy practitioners consider therefore that decisions over policy, mitigation strategies and capacity for adaptation to climate change require construction and coordination over multiple levels of governance to arrive at acceptable local, regional and global management strategies. However, how such processes of coordination and decision-aiding can occur and be maintained and improved over time is a major challenge in need of investigation. We take on this challenge by proposing research-supported methods of aiding multi-level decision-making processes in this context. Four example regionally-focussed multi-level case studies from diverse socio-political contexts are outlined – estuarine management in Australia’s Lower Hawkesbury, flood and drought management in Bulgaria’s Upper Iskar Basin, climate policy integration in Spain’s Comunidad Valenciana, and food security in Bangladesh’s Faridpur District – from which insights are drawn. Our discussion focuses on exploring these insights including: (1) the possible advantages of informal research-supported processes, and specifically those that provide individual arenas of participation for different levels of stakeholders; (2) the complexity of organisation processes required for aiding multi-level decision-making processes; and (3) to what extent progress towards integrated regional policies for climate change aware sustainable development can be achieved through research-supported processes. We finish with a speculative section that provides ideas and directions for future research.