IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v26y2013icp1-11.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Problem structuring in participatory forest planning

Author

Listed:
  • Khadka, Chiranjeewee
  • Hujala, Teppo
  • Wolfslehner, Bernhard
  • Vacik, Harald

Abstract

Decision-making for multi-purpose forestry requires well-aligned public participation and stakeholder interaction. The operational research community has developed both the theory and practice of problem-structuring methods (PSMs) to help stakeholders determine a solvable joint problem perception. Problem structuring is typically conducted via facilitated modelling (group negotiation) in workshops. This review investigates problem-structuring activity within participatory forest planning over the period 2002–2011. A total of 32 research articles were studied and summarized. It was found that problem structuring is widely scattered in different continents, but most of the explicitly named PSMs arise from south-eastern Asia or Africa. Sophisticated problem structuring seems rather rare in forest planning, but some good examples bring evidence that encourages the use of facilitated modelling in participatory forest planning. Evoked activeness among stakeholders signals meaningful social learning, while improved knowledge exchange, anticipated ‘sense of ownership’ by stakeholders and commitment to the process were the main observed positive effects of problem structuring. However, problem structuring needs good facilitation as well as modelling and decision-analysis expertise. Attention must be paid to ensure participants' comprehension and to explicate the goals and rules of problem structuring with participants.

Suggested Citation

  • Khadka, Chiranjeewee & Hujala, Teppo & Wolfslehner, Bernhard & Vacik, Harald, 2013. "Problem structuring in participatory forest planning," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 1-11.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:26:y:2013:i:c:p:1-11
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2012.09.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934112002195
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2012.09.008?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. J Rosenhead, 2006. "Past, present and future of problem structuring methods," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(7), pages 759-765, July.
    2. Nordström, Eva-Maria & Eriksson, Ljusk Ola & Öhman, Karin, 2010. "Integrating multiple criteria decision analysis in participatory forest planning: Experience from a case study in northern Sweden," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(8), pages 562-574, October.
    3. Alberto Franco, L., 2009. "Problem structuring methods as intervention tools: Reflections from their use with multi-organisational teams," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 193-203, February.
    4. Buchy, M. & Hoverman, S., 2000. "Understanding public participation in forest planning: a review," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 15-25, May.
    5. Duncan Shaw & Alberto Franco & Mark Westcombe, 2006. "Problem structuring methods: new directions in a problematic world," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(7), pages 757-758, July.
    6. M. Muro & P. Jeffrey, 2008. "A critical review of the theory and application of social learning in participatory natural resource management processes," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(3), pages 325-344.
    7. Robson, Mark & Kant, Shashi, 2007. "The development of government agency and stakeholder cooperation: A comparative study of two Local Citizens Committees' (LCCs) participation in forest management in Ontario, Canada," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(8), pages 1113-1133, May.
    8. Mingers, John & Rosenhead, Jonathan, 2004. "Problem structuring methods in action," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 152(3), pages 530-554, February.
    9. Eden, Colin, 1995. "On evaluating the performance of `wide-band' GDSS's," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 302-311, March.
    10. Mendoza, Guillermo A. & Prabhu, Ravi, 2006. "Participatory modeling and analysis for sustainable forest management: Overview of soft system dynamics models and applications," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 179-196, November.
    11. Franco, L. Alberto & Montibeller, Gilberto, 2010. "Facilitated modelling in operational research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 205(3), pages 489-500, September.
    12. L A Franco, 2007. "Assessing the impact of problem structuring methods in multi-organizational settings: an empirical investigation," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(6), pages 760-768, June.
    13. L White, 2006. "Evaluating problem-structuring methods: developing an approach to show the value and effectiveness of PSMs," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(7), pages 842-855, July.
    14. Finlay, Paul N., 1998. "On evaluating the performance of GSS: Furthering the debate," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 107(1), pages 193-201, May.
    15. Etiënne A. J. A. Rouwette & Jac A. M. Vennix & Albert J. A. Felling, 2009. "On Evaluating the Performance of Problem Structuring Methods: An Attempt at Formulating a Conceptual Model," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 18(6), pages 567-587, November.
    16. Purnomo, Herry & Mendoza, Guillermo A. & Prabhu, Ravi & Yasmi, Yurdi, 2005. "Developing multi-stakeholder forest management scenarios: a multi-agent system simulation approach applied in Indonesia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 475-491, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kleinschmit, Daniela & Pülzl, Helga & Secco, Laura & Sergent, Arnaud & Wallin, Ida, 2018. "Orchestration in political processes: Involvement of experts, citizens, and participatory professionals in forest policy making," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 4-15.
    2. Konsti-Laakso, Suvi & Rantala, Tero, 2018. "Managing community engagement: A process model for urban planning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1040-1049.
    3. Alexandre de A. Gomes Júnior & Vanessa B. Schramm & Fernando Schramm, 2023. "Problem Structuring Methods in Social-Ecological Systems," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 461-478, June.
    4. Tanh T. N. Nguyen & Daniel G. Scognamillo & Christopher E. Comer, 2019. "Revealing Community Perceptions for Ecological Restoration Using a Soft System Methodology," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 429-442, August.
    5. Foster, Michaela & Peterson, M. Nils & Cubbage, Frederick & McMahon, Gerard, 2019. "Evaluating natural resource planning for longleaf pine ecosystems in the Southeast United States," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 142-153.
    6. Nobre, Silvana Ribeiro & Borges, José Guilherme & Diaz-Balteiro, Luis & Rodriguez, Luiz Carlos Estraviz & von Glehn, Helena Carrascosa & Zakia, Maria José, 2019. "A generalizable monitoring model to implement policies to promote forest restoration – A case study in São Paulo - Brazil," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 123-135.
    7. Bekius, Femke & Gomes, Sharlene L., 2023. "A framework to design game theory-based interventions for strategic analysis of real-world problems with stakeholders," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 309(2), pages 925-938.
    8. Vanermen, Iris & Muys, Bart & Verheyen, Kris & Vanwindekens, Frederic & Bouriaud, Laura & Kardol, Paul & Vranken, Liesbet, 2020. "What do scientists and managers know about soil biodiversity? Comparative knowledge mapping for sustainable forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    9. Alexandre de A. Gomes Júnior & Vanessa B. Schramm, 2022. "Problem Structuring Methods: A Review of Advances Over the Last Decade," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 55-88, February.
    10. Khadka, Chiranjeewee & Aryal, Keshava Prasad & Edwards-Jonášová, Magda & Upadhyaya, Anju & Dhungana, Nabin & Cudlin, Pavel & Vacik, Harald, 2018. "Evaluating participatory techniques for adaptation to climate change: Nepal case study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 73-82.
    11. Kangas, Annika & Heikkilä, Juuso & Malmivaara-Lämsä, Minna & Löfström, Irja, 2014. "Case Puijo—Evaluation of a participatory urban forest planning process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 13-23.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lami, Isabella M. & Tavella, Elena, 2019. "On the usefulness of soft OR models in decision making: A comparison of Problem Structuring Methods supported and self-organized workshops," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(3), pages 1020-1036.
    2. Midgley, Gerald & Cavana, Robert Y. & Brocklesby, John & Foote, Jeff L. & Wood, David R.R. & Ahuriri-Driscoll, Annabel, 2013. "Towards a new framework for evaluating systemic problem structuring methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 229(1), pages 143-154.
    3. Ion Georgiou & Joaquim Heck, 2021. "The emergence of problem structuring methods, 1950s–1989: An atlas of the journal literature," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(6), pages 756-796, November.
    4. White, Leroy, 2016. "Behavioural operational research: Towards a framework for understanding behaviour in OR interventions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 827-841.
    5. David Lowe & Louise Martingale & Mike Yearworth, 2016. "Guiding interventions in a multi-organisational context: combining the Viable System Model and Hierarchical Process Modelling for use as a Problem Structuring Method," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 67(12), pages 1481-1495, December.
    6. Franco, L. Alberto & Lord, Ewan, 2011. "Understanding multi-methodology: Evaluating the perceived impact of mixing methods for group budgetary decisions," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 362-372, June.
    7. Scott, Rodney J & Cavana, Robert Y & Cameron, Donald, 2016. "Recent evidence on the effectiveness of group model building," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 908-918.
    8. Alberto Franco, L., 2013. "Rethinking Soft OR interventions: Models as boundary objects," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 231(3), pages 720-733.
    9. Franco, L. Alberto & Rouwette, Etienne A.J.A., 2011. "Decision development in facilitated modelling workshops," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 212(1), pages 164-178, July.
    10. L. Alberto Franco, 2008. "Facilitating Collaboration with Problem Structuring Methods: A Case Study of an Inter-Organisational Construction Partnership," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 267-286, July.
    11. Gregory, Amanda J. & Atkins, Jonathan P. & Burdon, Daryl & Elliott, Michael, 2013. "A problem structuring method for ecosystem-based management: The DPSIR modelling process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 227(3), pages 558-569.
    12. Laouris, Yiannis & Michaelides, Marios, 2018. "Structured Democratic Dialogue: An application of a mathematical problem structuring method to facilitate reforms with local authorities in Cyprus," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 918-931.
    13. Konsti-Laakso, Suvi & Rantala, Tero, 2018. "Managing community engagement: A process model for urban planning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1040-1049.
    14. Marleen McCardle-Keurentjes & Etiënne A. J. A. Rouwette, 2018. "Asking Questions: A Sine Qua Non of Facilitation in Decision Support?," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(5), pages 757-788, October.
    15. Henao, Felipe & Franco, L. Alberto, 2016. "Unpacking multimethodology: Impacts of a community development intervention," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(3), pages 681-696.
    16. Ackermann, Fran, 2012. "Problem structuring methods ‘in the Dock’: Arguing the case for Soft OR," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 219(3), pages 652-658.
    17. White, Leroy & Burger, Katharina & Yearworth, Mike, 2016. "Understanding behaviour in problem structuring methods interventions with activity theory," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 983-1004.
    18. E A J A Rouwette, 2011. "Facilitated modelling in strategy development: measuring the impact on communication, consensus and commitment," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(5), pages 879-887, May.
    19. Smith, Chris M. & Shaw, Duncan, 2019. "The characteristics of problem structuring methods: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(2), pages 403-416.
    20. Francis Marleau Donais & Irène Abi-Zeid & E. Owen D. Waygood & Roxane Lavoie, 2021. "A Framework for Post-Project Evaluation of Multicriteria Decision Aiding Processes from the Stakeholders’ Perspective: Design and Application," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(5), pages 1161-1191, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:26:y:2013:i:c:p:1-11. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.