Elsevier

Forest Policy and Economics

Volume 9, Issue 2, 30 November 2006, Pages 179-196
Forest Policy and Economics

Participatory modeling and analysis for sustainable forest management: Overview of soft system dynamics models and applications

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2005.06.006Get rights and content

Abstract

Participatory approaches to natural resource management and development are widely accepted as effective instruments for achieving sustainable resource management particularly in the developing nations. This paper presents an overview of soft system dynamics methods under a participatory modeling framework that is consistent with participatory approaches to assessing sustainable forest management. Three general types of soft system dynamics models are described: cognitive mapping, qualitative system dynamics, and fuzzy cognitive mapping. The three models entail different information requirements, knowledge base, and varying degrees of complexity. The models can be developed and used as stand-alone resource management tools. Or, depending on the level of complexity and the availability of information about the resource management system in question, they can be integrated to constitute a more robust and flexible planning framework. This paper describes applications of these models in different case studies. Applications of the first two models are reported in detail elsewhere, hence, they are only described briefly. The third model, called fuzzy cognitive mapping, is described in more detail including an illustrative case study. Experiences and lessons learned from these selected sets of applications are also discussed.

Introduction

The concept of sustainability has become prominent in almost all natural resource management situations. Its great appeal has dominated discussions about resource utilization, conservation, biodiversity, and many other resource development and management issues. Despite some lingering differences and confusion about the meaning and essence of sustainability, there is widespread acceptance that it is, in principle, a noble goal that all resource management must strive for. Consequently, the literature is now rich with reports and discussions about its meaning and practice. Over the last few years, significant amount of effort, resources, and initiatives worldwide have been dedicated to the implementation of sustainable management of forests and other natural resources. For example, one of the most common initiatives is the development of criteria and indicators for assessing and monitoring sustainability.

The practice of sustainable resource management has also brought new paradigms in terms of how it is implemented at the field level. Traditionally, resource management has often been entrusted to experts and professionals who exert enormous influence in how forests and other resources are managed. Local communities and other stakeholders have, in the past, been marginally involved in the planning and decision-making processes that ultimately affect how the resources were managed. This traditional management paradigm has, over the last decade, been considered ineffective and unable to address the challenges posed by sustainable resource management (Hjrotso, 2004, Reynolds et al., 2003, Guldin, 2003, Rosenhead and Mingers, 2001, Bousquet and Le Page, 2004). In its place, the paradigm of participatory or collaborative management has been widely accepted as a more appropriate and effective paradigm for natural resource management particularly in the developing nations. Consequently, there now exists a large body of resource management and development literature describing and advocating the practice of participatory approaches to resource management.

This paper aims to describe modeling approaches to support the participatory or collaborative management paradigm. Participatory approaches have been sufficiently described in the published literature and will not be rehashed here. The paper however, will describe the principle of participatory or collaborative modeling in general and also describe how it has been applied in a number of case studies. Many of these applications or case studies have been reported elsewhere; hence, the descriptions presented in this paper are brief. Readers are referred to relevant literature for more details.

Section snippets

The need for participatory modeling

There are a number of participatory approaches described and reported in the literature. Many of these approaches have taken different forms with their glossary of terms, concepts, and analytical constructs. Some of the more popular or better-known approaches include: participatory rural appraisal (Chambers and Guijt, 1995, Chambers, 1994), participatory action research (Selener, 1997), community-based resource management, co-management, joint forest management, adaptive management, integrated

Pluralistic and soft systems models

As pointed out above, because of their rigid assumptions and generally restrictive nature, traditional models do not suitably match the type of modeling and participatory process required in analyzing sustainable forest resource management. Current methodologies in participatory management, on the other hand, are also inadequate because they are inherently qualitative and do not offer a systematic framework by which natural resource management strategies and alternatives can be evaluated and

Fuzzy cognitive mapping: an Indonesian example

To describe the principles of FCM in participatory modeling under a participatory forest management a simple case study was used. The site is located at Situ Gede forest situated at the District of Bogor, Province of West Java Indonesia. The Situ Gede forest is approximately 50 ha. The forest is a mixed of different tree species approximately 40 years. The forest is under the jurisdiction of the Forest Research Development Agency (FORDA) of the Ministry of Forestry of Indonesia, which manages

Discussion

The soft system dynamics models described in this paper have desirable characteristics that offer two distinct advantages over traditional models. First, they are simple and highly transparent making them suitable frameworks for participatory modeling. The graphical modeling approach using nodes and arrows is very intuitive and easily within the grasp of participants or stakeholders who may be unfamiliar with models and modeling in general. Such simplicity and transparency create a modeling

Conclusion

It is now widely accepted that participatory methods are the most effective approaches to achieve sustainable resource management. Increasingly, local communities are demanding more voice and influence in the manner public forests are managed. This calls for more active and direct participation from a number of stakeholders who are affecting, or affected by, the forest. In response to such changing management paradigms, participatory methods have been proposed. However, to date, while many of

References (37)

  • J.P. Van der Sluijs

    A way out of the credibility crises of models used in integrated environmental assessment

    Futures

    (2002)
  • R.M. Axelrod

    Structure of Decisions: The Cognitive Map of Political Elites

    (1976)
  • Cash, D., Clark, W. 2001. From science to policy: assessing the assessment. Faculty Research Working Papers. Series...
  • R. Chambers et al.

    PRA five years later—where are we now?

    Forest, Trees and People

    (1995)
  • P.B. Checkland

    Systems Thinking Systems Practise

    (1981)
  • P.B. Checkland

    Systems Thinking in Management: The Development of Soft Systems

    (1984)
  • P.B. Checkland

    Soft systems methodology: overview

    Journal of Applied Systems Analysis

    (1988)
  • B. Cooke et al.

    Participation: The New Tyranny

    (2002)
  • Cited by (0)

    Earlier version of this paper was presented at the Symposium on Systems Analysis in Forest Resources, October 7–9, 2003, Stevenson Washington. This paper was funded through a cooperative project between the University of Illinois and the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). The ideas expressed herein are solely of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official views of CIFOR.

    View full text