Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T20:20:17.242Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS & CASE STUDIES: Engaging the Public and Decision Makers in Cooperative Modeling for Regional Water Management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2011

Kristan Cockerill ,
Vincent Tidwell ,
Lacy Daniel  and
Amy Sun
Kristan Cockerill*
Affiliation:
University College, Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina
Vincent Tidwell
Affiliation:
Earth Systems Department, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Lacy Daniel
Affiliation:
Daniel Consulting, Estancia, New Mexico
Amy Sun
Affiliation:
Earth Systems Department, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico
*
Kristan Cockerill, University College, Appalachian State University, ASU Box 32080, Boone, NC 28608; (phone) 828 262 7252; (fax) 828-262-6400; (e-mail) cockerillkm@appstate.edu
Get access

Abstract

In cooperative modeling projects, a group of people work together to develop a model to better understand a complex system and explore consequences of various “what if” scenarios. This report describes a case study from New Mexico in which representatives from diverse organizations and institutions employed system dynamics–based cooperative modeling enhanced by computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW) to design a model that could be used as a tool in making water management decisions. In this case, CSCW was necessitated by the geographically dispersed nature of the participating stakeholders. The case study reflects that, although it is no panacea, cooperative modeling can be a successful way to create a sense of community, even among geographically dispersed citizens and decision makers, to understand contentious and complex water management issues. The purpose of this article is to highlight lessons learned for applying cooperative modeling with CSCW to assist other practitioners and broaden possibilities for improved water management decisions.

Environmental Practice 12:316–327 (2010)

Type
Features
Information
Environmental Practice , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , December 2010 , pp. 316 - 327
Copyright
Copyright © National Association of Environmental Professionals 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bidarra, R., Kranendonk, N., Noort, A., and Bronsvoort, W.F.. 2002. A Collaborative Framework for Integrated Part and Assembly Modeling. In Proceedings of the Seventh ACM Symposium on Solid Modeling and Applications, Saarbrücken, Germany. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, 389–400. Available at http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=566337 (accessed October 5, 2010).Google Scholar
Bureau of Business and Economic Research (BBER). 2008. New Mexico County Population Projections: July 1, 2005 to July 1, 2035. BBER, Albuquerque, NM. Available at http://bber.unm.edu/ (accessed December 2009).Google Scholar
Chen, L., Song, Z., and Feng, L.. 2004. Internet-Enabled Real-Time Collaborative Assembly Modeling via an e-Assembly System: Status and Promise. Computer-Aided Design 36(9):835–847.Google Scholar
Cockerill, K., Daniel, L., Malczynski, L., and Tidwell, V.. 2009. A Fresh Look at a Policy Sciences Methodology: Collaborative Modeling for More Effective Policy. Policy Sciences 42(3):211–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cockerill, K., Passell, H., and Tidwell, V.. 2006. Cooperative Modeling: Building Bridges between Science and the Public. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 42(2):457–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costanza, R., and Ruth, M., 1998. Using Dynamic Modeling to Scope Environmental Problems and Build Consensus. Environmental Management 22(2):183–195.Google Scholar
Crabtree, A., Rodden, T., and Benford, S.. 2005. Moving with the Times: IT Research and the Boundaries of CSCW. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 14(3):217–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dean, D.L., Orwig, R.E., and Vogel, D.R.. 2000. Facilitation Methods for Collaborative Modeling Tools. Group Decision and Negotiation 9(2):109–127.Google Scholar
Dennis, A.R. 1996. Information Exchange and Use in Group Decision Making: You Can Lead a Group to Information But You Can't Make It Think. MIS Quarterly 20(4):433–457.Google Scholar
Flanagin, A.J., Tiyaamornwong, V., O'Connor, J., and Seibold, D.R.. 2002. Computer-Mediated Group Work: The Interaction of Member Sex and Anonymity. Communication Research 29(1):66–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, A. 1999. Modeling the Environment: An Introduction to System Dynamics Modeling of Environmental Systems. Island Press, Washington, DC, 415 pp.Google Scholar
Forrester, J.W. 1961. Industrial Dynamics, 2nd edition. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 479 pp.Google Scholar
Franky, C.E. 2008. Determining Model Robustness within a Collaborative User Framework: The Gila–San Francisco Decision Support Tool (unpublished master's thesis). University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 70 pp.Google Scholar
Garner, S., and Mann, P.. 2003. Interdisciplinarity: Perceptions of the Value of Computer-supported Collaborative Work in Design for the Built Environment. Automation in Construction 12(5):495–499.Google Scholar
Greif, I., ed. 1988. Computer-Supported Cooperative Work: A Book of Readings. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 783 pp.Google Scholar
Grudin, J. 1994. Computer-Supported Cooperative Work: History and Focus. Computer 27(5):19–26.Google Scholar
Leinonen, P., Järvelä, S., and Häkkinen, P.. 2005. Conceptualizing the Awareness of Collaboration: A Qualitative Study of a Global Virtual Team. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 14(4):301–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemus, D.R., Seibold, D.R., Flanagin, A.J., and Metzger, M.J.. 2004. Argument and Decision Making in Computer-Mediated Groups. Journal of Communication 54(2):302–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindblom, C.E. 1990. Inquiry and Change: The Troubled Attempt to Understand and Shape Society. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 326 pp.Google Scholar
Moxey, A., and White, B.. 1998. NELUP: Some Reflections on Undertaking and Reporting Interdisciplinary River Catchment Modelling. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 41(3):397–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunamaker, J.F., Dennis, A.R., Valacich, J.S., Vogel, D.R., and George, J.F.. 1991. Electronic Meeting Systems to Support Group Work. Communications of the ACM 34(7):40–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, R.N., Keyes, A.M., and Fisher, S.. 1993. Empowering Stakeholders through Simulation in Water Resources Planning. In Water Management in the '90s: A Time for Innovation, Hon, K., ed. Proceedings of the 20th Anniversary Conference of ASCE's Water Resources Planning and Management Division, Seattle, Washington, May 1–5. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), New York, 451–454.Google Scholar
Palmer, R.N., Werick, W.J., MacEwan, A., and Woods, A.W.. 1999. Modeling Water Resources Opportunities, Challenges and Trade-offs: The Use of Shared Vision Modeling for Negotiation and Conflict Resolution. In WRPMD '99: Preparing for the 21st Century, Wilson, E.M., ed. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Water Resources Planning and Management Conference, ASCE, Tempe, AZ, June 6–9. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), New York, chap. 254.Google Scholar
Pilkey, O.H., and Pilkey-Jarvis, L.. 2007. Useless Arithmetic: Why Environmental Scientists Can't Predict the Future. Columbia University Press, New York, 230 pp.Google Scholar
Poole, M.S., and Holmes, M.E.. 1995. Decision Development in Computer-Assisted Group Decision Making. Human Communication Research 22(1):90–127.Google Scholar
Putnam, L.L. 1986. Conflict in Group Decision-Making. In Communication and Group Decision-Making, Hirokawa, R.Y. and Poole, M.S., eds. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 175–196.Google Scholar
Rotmans, J., and Dowlatabadi, H.. 1998. Integrated Assessment Modeling: Human Choice and Climate Change, Rayner, S. and Malone, E.L., eds. Battelle Press, Columbus, OH, 291–377.Google Scholar
Rouwette, E.A.J.A., Vennix, J.A.M., and van Mullekom, T.. 2002. Group Model Building Effectiveness: A Review of Assessment Studies. System Dynamics Review 18(1):5–45.Google Scholar
Sarjoughian, H.S., and Zeigler, B.P.. 1999. The Role of Collaborative DEVS Modeler in Federation Development. In SISO Fall Proceedings of the Simulation Interoperability Workshop, Orlando, FL, September 12–17. Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization (SISO), Orlando, FL. Available at http://www.acims.arizona.edu/PUBLICATIONS/SIW99Paper/DEVSOMT-SIW-fall99Final.doc (accessed October 5, 2010).Google Scholar
Scott, C.R. 1999. Communication Technology and Group Communication. In The Handbook of Group Communication Theory & Research, Frey, L.R., ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 432–472.Google Scholar
Sheen, D.P., Baeck, M.L., and Wright, J.R.. 1989. The Computer as Negotiator. Journal of the American Water Works Association 81(2):68–73.Google Scholar
Simonovic, S.P., and Fahmy, H.. 1999. A New Modeling Approach for Water Resources Policy Analysis. Water Resources Research 35(1):295–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stave, K. 2003. A System Dynamics Model to Facilitate Public Understanding of Water Management Options in Las Vegas, Nevada. Journal of Environmental Management 67(4):303–313.Google Scholar
Sterman, J.D. 2000. Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World. McGraw-Hill, Boston, 1008 pp.Google Scholar
Sun, A., Tidwell, V., and Klise, G.. 2009. Gila-San Francisco Decision Support Tool. Presented at The Second Natural History of Gila Symposium, Silver City, NM, October 16–17.Google Scholar
Sun, A., Tidwell, V., Klise, G., Malczynski, L., Peplinski, W., and Brainard, J.. 2008. System Dynamics Model of Southwestern New Mexico Hydrology to Assess Impact of the 2004 Arizona Water Settlements Act. In Proceedings of the International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Athens, July 20–24. Available at http://www.systemdynamics.org/conferences/2008/proceed/index.html.Google Scholar
Tidwell, V.C., Passell, H.D., Conrad, S.H., and Thomas, R.P.. 2004. System Dynamics Modeling for Community-Based Water Planning: Application to the Middle Rio Grande. Aquatic Sciences 66(4):357–372.Google Scholar
van den Belt, M. 2004. Mediated Modeling: A System Dynamics Approach to Environmental Consensus Building. Island Press, Washington, DC, 196 pp.Google Scholar
van den Berg, E. 2000. Web-Based Collaborative Modelling with SPIFF (unpublished master's thesis). Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 55 pp.Google Scholar
van Eeten, M.J.G., Loucks, D.P., and Roe, E.. 2002. Bringing Actors Together around Large-Scale Water Systems: Participatory Modeling and Other Innovations. Knowledge, Technology and Policy 14(4):94–108.Google Scholar
Vennix, J.A.M. 1999. Group Model-Building: Tackling Messy Problems. System Dynamics Review 15(4):379–401.3.0.CO;2-E>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zigurs, I., Poole, M.S., and DeSanctis, G.L.. 1988. A Study of Influence in Computer-Mediated Group Decision-Making. MIS Quarterly 12(4):625–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar