A review of tools for incorporating community knowledge, preferences, and values into decision making in natural resources management

By Tim Lynam, Douglas Sheil, T. Kusumanto, K. Evans. 2007

730 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We survey and evaluate selected participatory tools that have been proven effective in natural resources management and research during our extensive experience with forest communities. We first establish a framework for our analysis by identifying a set of criteria for evaluating each tool. Next we provide a brief description of each tool, followed by an evaluation and comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of all the tools examined and how well they can be adapted to diverse contexts. We also provide suggestions for avoiding common pitfalls. Our findings suggest that most tools are flexible enough to be adapted to a range of applications, and that results are more robust when tools are used in concert. Practitioners should not be disturbed when results are contradictory or unexpected; initial surprises can lead to unexpected discoveries. Given the complexity of natural resources and their management, picking the right tool does not guarantee that the data desired will be produced, but selecting the wrong tool does make success less likely. The tools assessed are Bayesian belief networks and system dynamic modeling tools, discourse-based valuation, the 4Rs framework, participatory mapping, scoring or the Pebble Distribution Method, future scenarios, spidergrams, Venn diagrams, and Who Counts Matrices.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6efd00bea922029b01bbc69903b3765f5291ca7a

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Global and Planetary Change

Citations in the corpus

Research, part of a Special Feature on Sustaining Ecosystem Services in Cultural Landscapes: Analysis and Management Options Exploring Futures of Ecosystem Services in Cultural Landscapes through Participatory Scenario Development in the Swabian Alb, Germany (2013, methodology): “We chose a participatory approach of exploratory scenario development to conceive and describe a range of possible future outcomes for this area (negative or positive), taking into account past developments, current trends, and uncertainties (Lynam et al. 2007).”
Tools and methods in participatory modeling: Selecting the right tool for the job (2018, background): “…lower end of Arnstein's participation ladder (i.e. ignorance, awareness, or information) may bene ﬁ t from an entirely di ﬀ erent set of methods or tools than those on the higher end (Lynam et al., 2007) of the participation ladder (e.g., consultation, discussion, co-design, co-decision making).”
Modelling with stakeholders (2010, methodology): “There are methods that focus on mental models, trying to elicit and present the ways different stakeholders see the problem (Becu et al., 2003; Mendoza and Prabhu, 2006; Giordano et al., 2007; Lynam et al., 2007).”
Participatory Scenario Planning for Protected Areas Management under the Ecosystem Services Framework: the Doñana Social-Ecological System in Southwestern Spain (2011, methodology): “The combination of different participative methods has been recommended for both the management of social-ecological systems and environmental management (Stringer et al. 2006, Lynam et al. 2007) and has previously been successfully applied (see Jessel and Jacobs 2005, Pereira et al. 2005).”
ARDI: a co-construction method for participatory modelling in natural resources management (2011, background): “Three sensitive aspects, identified as critical issues in recent reviews of methods to enhance stakeholders’ participation in environmental management (Lynam et al. 2007, Reed 2008, Voinov and Brown 2008), need to be highlighted.”
A Cognition-based View of Decision Processes in Complex Social–Ecological Systems (2007, background): “…Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000, Bouwen and Taillieu 2004, Olsson et al. 2004, Carlsson and Berkes 2005, Folke 2006, Pahl-Wostl 2006, Roux et al. 2006, Lynam et al. 2007); evolving toward more networked organizational structures through development of linkages among governance organizations (e.g.,…”