View
214
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
Supporting sustainable development: Using the SMILE toolkit with stakeholders in Scotland
K.L. Blackstock; K.M. Matthews; K. Buchan; D. Miller; L. Dinnie and M. Rivington
Trends and Future of Sustainable Development Conference, Tampere, Finland, 9 – 10th June, 2011
Rationale for PaperUtility evaluation using tools with stakeholders –
Cairngorms National Park Authority – coordinating governance body for multiple land owners in the park
Focus on roles and relationships within this process
Lessons learnt and future challenges to consider
To what extent can models or tools play:
a heuristic role to help understand complex systems;
a symbolic role in making issues visible to politicians; and
a relational role by creating a boundary object around which a social network can be developed(Sterk et al., 2009).
Conceptual framework for assessing utility
Science Policy/Society
Basic
Strategic
SystemsModelling
Content & Communication
SoftwareEngineering
Government,Regulation, Markets &
Media
Validation
Interpret-ability
Reliability
OtherStakeholders (e.g.Policy,
Management & Society
Direct Stake-holders
Direct Stake-holders
SystemsAnalysis Utility
Research Priorities
Outputs
Out-comes
Usability
PeerReview
Development Priorities
Process Effects
Salience
Research Development Operations Evaluation
OutcomeEvaluation
SMILE Tool-kitSynergies of Multi-Level Integrated Linkages in Eco-social
Systems (SMILE) operationalising DECOIN tools
Multi-scale bio-economic accounting methods to illustrate trajectories of development
Three tools:
ASA (Advanced Sustainability Analysis) not being applied
MUSIASEM (Multi-Scale Integrated Analysis Societal Ecosystem Metabolism)
SUMMA (Sustainability Multi-criteria Multi-scale Assessment)
Smile tool-kit continued.. Applied at the Scotland (N+1),
Cairngorms (N) and within-Cairngorms (N-1) level.
SUMMA applied to the agricultural sector
MUSIASEM was applied to the whole system
For more information on results regarding growth; trade-offs; and policy implications see reports D28 – 30 (available http://www.smile-fp7.eu/?id=deliverables).
Both recognise need to close Rosen’s loop
Little guidance on how to achieve this
Became part of Scottish case study objective to focus on framing and using outputs of tools
Semantic entailment: stakeholder processes
Formal entailment: inferential model
External referent: quantitative benchmarks
decoding
encoding
National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000:• To conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of the area;• To promote sustainable use of natural resources in the area;• To promote understanding and enjoyment (including enjoyment in the form of recreation) of the special qualities of the area by the public; and• To promote sustainable economic and social development of the area’s communities.
Methodology 4 phases of data collection and analyses:
Introducing the study (3 sets of field notes/transcripts from interviews and two letters) – Dec 2007 – Oct 2008;
Systems diagramming workshop (2 sets of field notes, one transcript) – Nov 2008;
Follow up discussions (5 sets of field notes/transcripts from interviews) – Dec 2008 – Nov 2010; and
Utility evaluation workshop (2 sets of field notes, one transcript, 3 evaluation forms) – Dec 2010
Final utility evaluation workshop arranged 23rd June 2011
Workshops using work-books & semi-structured Interviews were transcribed and thematic analysed
Caveats regarding size and composition of sample
In parallel with a longitudinal research project collaboratively evaluating the development and implementation of the Cairngorms National Park Plan
Results: Views prior to utility workshop
Opportunity to “bring these models to the Cairngorms National Park Authority to see if they actually help you make some of your decisions” (Dec, 2007).
Focus on economic profitability of the land use sector; its environmental impact; and relating economic and social well-being to the Park’s natural assets.
Importance of national perspective; legitimacy of decision making processes; engaging Scottish Government
“I’m very keen on this multivariate analysis, but policy is very…. uni-variate … it usually focuses on one particular issue” (Nov, 2008).
The concerns were
Staff time commitment – can’t commit much time to understand/interpret results
Availability of, and access to, data – questions over reliability esp. repeatability cf. data sets
Whether the CNP was a suitable case study – complex new institution and spatial area
Language and terminology – acronyms also led to joking and/or laughter
Results: feedback on SUMMA
Excited about some results & generated discussion about how/why results occur
CNPAG & ScotAG Emissions (intensity metrics)
CO2
CO
NOx
SO2PM10
N2O
CH4
-
0.50
1.00
Emissions per ha - 2007
CNP2007 Sco2007
CO2
CO
NOx
SO2PM10
N2O
CH4
-2.00
3.00
8.00
Emissions per € - 2007
CNP2007 Sco2007
CO2
CO
NOx
SO2PM10
N2O
CH4
-
5.00
10.00
Emissions per MJ - 2007
CNP2007 Sco2007
CO2
CO
NOx
SO2PM10
N2O
CH4
-
5.00
10.00
Emissions per kgDM - 2007
CNP2007 Sco2007
Results: feedback on SUMMA
Excited about some results & generated discussion about how/why results occur
Queries about the inputs & effects on the results e.g. land cover, systems diagram; still uncertainties e.g. fuel use, no direct emissions from livestock
Dislike of averaged co-efficients – heterogeneous system
• “there are too many caveats and gaps in the input data to give me confidence that the outputs are a reliable basis on which to shape or monitor policy” (Dec, 2010).
Results: feedback on MUSIASEMExcited about some results & generated discussion about
how/why results occur
12
CNP acts like a city – region?
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 1609
14
19
24
29
ELPPW vs. EMRPW by region (paid work) (zoomed section)
Aberdeen City, Aberdeenshire & North East MorayAngus & Dundee CityBordersCity of EdinburghClackmannanshire & FifeDumfries & GallowayE & W Dunbartonshire & Helensburgh & LomondEast & MidlothianFalkirkGlasgow CityInverclyde, East Renfrewshire & RenfrewshireNorth LanarkshireOrkney IslandsPerth & Kinross and StirlingShetland IslandsSouth AyrshireSouth LanarkshireWest LothianCNP
EMR - Exosomatic Metabolic Rate (MJ of energy throughput per hour of human activity)
ELP
- Eco
nom
ic La
bour
Pro
ducti
vity
(£ G
VA p
er h
our o
f hum
an a
ctivi
ty)
13
CNP HApw more productive?Both extents and intensities – fund flow diagrams
Flow ShareETpw / TET
= 73.8%
EMRpwFlow/Fund n-1ETpw / HApw = 61.85 MJ/h
EMRFlow/Fund n
TET / THA = 10.16 MJ/h
FLOW (ETpw) n-1 (Paid Work)
1.13E+09MJ
Fund ShareHApw / THA
= 12.12%
FUND (THA)n (CNP)
1.51E+08h
FLOW (TET)n (CNP)
1.53E+09MJ
FUND (HApw)n-1 (Paid Work)
1.82E+07h
Human Activity and Energy - CNP (2007)
Flow ShareETpw / TET
= 68.1%
EMRpwFlow/Fund n-1ETpw / HApw = 92.66 MJ/h
EMRFlow/Fund n
TET / THA = 12.48 MJ/h
FLOW (ETpw) n-1 (Paid Work)
3.84E+11MJ
Fund ShareHApw / THA
= 9.17%
FUND (THA)n (Scotland) 4.52E+10h
FLOW (TET)n (Scotland) 5.64E+11MJ
FUND (HApw)n-1 (Paid Work)
4.15E+09h
Human Activity and Energy - Scotland (2007)
Results: feedback on MUSIASEMExcited about some results & generated discussion about
how/why results occur
Query over GVA
Does it include housing values?
Does it include pensions/dividends?
How to account for commuting across borders?
• Less queries about inputs and validity of results than SUMMA – more generic?
Results Diversity of preferences but primacy of utility, salience and validity important criteria
MuSIASEM was seen as a more useful tool than SUMMA
SUMMA inappropriate at N+1 and N scale but ‘blanket’ coverage of MuSIASEM was more appropriate at these scales
SUMMA was perceived to be less transparent - “it’s hard to defend a trend if you can’t understand how it is was generated” (Dec 2010)
SUMMA was perceived to be data hungry - trade off the cost of accessing and preparing the data to the benefit gained
Results were salient to the Scottish Land Use Strategy, the CNPA’s landscape strategy and the Low Carbon Cairngorms project
Decision-making scale - many of the questions more relevant to decisions are made at Scottish Government or the farm level
Who are the ‘natural constituency’ for these tools? Will they invest time and energy to interpret and use tools?
Discussion Validity: Why wasn’t the validity of MuSIASEM questioned – sample bias?
Salience: our requirement assessment good but limited ability to adapt to changing operational priorities
Interpretability: problem with terminology, diversity of ability to interpret outputs, and preferences for the different presentations
MUSIASEM could play a heuristic (or early warning) role & both useful as symbolic objects, to communicate key trends to policy makers
Will policy makers understand outputs and engage with complexity?
Important to encode and decode if tools are to be seen as credible, salient and legitimate (Matthews et al. 2008) but utility also affected by access to data and staff time of intermediaries e.g. CNPA
CNPA staff weigh up how tool use will impact on their relationships with others, their reputations and their credibility
Salience must be complemented by the ability to provide timely and credible evidence that shores up their legitimacy
Acknowledgements The research is funded through the European Commission FP7
SMILE project, with match funding from the Scottish Government’s Environment: Land Use and Rural Stewardship Programme.
We would like to thank Gillian McCrum, Alana Gilbert, Hamish Trench, Murray Fergusson, Chris Bremner, and Gavin Miles for their contribution to the diagrams and ongoing support to the project.
We could not have written this paper without Mario Giampietro, and Sergio Ulgiati and their teams, who coached through the use of their tools.
For more information contact Kirsty.Blackstock@hutton.ac.uk or check http://www.smile-fp7.eu/ or http://www.macaulay.ac.uk/smile/
Recommended