Spatial ABM H-E Interactions Dawn Parker, George Mason University Participatory agent-based modeling applied to human-environment interactions April 8, 2009 Notes on Bousquet et al and other stuff

Spatial ABM H-E Interactions Dawn Parker, George Mason University Types of participatory modelling: Companion modeling: use of various techniques, including role playing games, to develop and validate model rules in conjunction with those you are modeling Interactions with stakeholders: Attempt to develop research questions, methods, and potential outputs jointly Use of the final model with stakeholders for: Understanding multiple perspectives and possible outcomes Negotiation Policy design and evaluation

Spatial ABM H-E Interactions Dawn Parker, George Mason University Bridging tensions between positivist and constructivist approaches Positivist asserts an objective, generalizable truth Constructivist asserts “reality is socially constructed” More concretely: Unique circumstances may shape each case study Researchers and subjects may have different definitions/conceptions/interpretations of key concepts

Spatial ABM H-E Interactions Dawn Parker, George Mason University More on positivist/constructivist: Participatory modeling can create a “shared reality” See that reality as constantly evolving and adaptive (fundamentally rejects the single- equilibrium perspective) Also consistent with theories of resilience and adaptive management; this requires interactions with stakeholders

Spatial ABM H-E Interactions Dawn Parker, George Mason University General points: Natural complementarity between RPG and MAS modeling Predictability is not possible; scenarios developed jointly with stakeholders likely to be more successful Assumes successful creation of shared understanding of problems and the need for a solution

Spatial ABM H-E Interactions Dawn Parker, George Mason University Steps to companion modeling: Create representation of artificial environment Present draft model to stakeholders for validation. Let stakeholders try out artificial world. Simulation in two phases: As a RPG, with real-world agents As a stand-alone MAS model

Spatial ABM H-E Interactions Dawn Parker, George Mason University Interesting open questions (from Sylvopast) Is the “fun” physical game really better than the more appropriate computerized game? Should all players have the same level of knowledge? Should players be put into different roles to gain understanding?

Spatial ABM H-E Interactions Dawn Parker, George Mason University Potential advantages of participatory models Chance to observe decisions and ask participants to explain their decision process Can allow rules to “emerge” as requested by participants Agent interactions in the artificial environment can also be observed directly Chance to put stakeholders into a more neutral environment Opportunity for increased understanding of contrasting viewpoints/incentives Process can reveal key challenges/problems

Spatial ABM H-E Interactions Dawn Parker, George Mason University Implicit assumptions Decisions are, or can be controlled at the local level Stakeholders and modelers have sufficient understanding of the system under study Negotiated decisions are socially optimal

Spatial ABM H-E Interactions Dawn Parker, George Mason University New themes/ideas Participatory modeling as a means of discovering and implementing Pareto-improving solutions Knowledge building and consensus building Challenges of integrating biophysical modeling into MAS/participtory-lack of assumptions to link behavior and outcomes (Barteau) Successes: changes in perspective and changes in implemented policies (Barteau)

Spatial ABM H-E Interactions Dawn Parker, George Mason University Interesting questions Why so little implementation/success in the US? What is the appropriate/feasible scale for participatory modeling? When and why is stakeholder validity alone sufficient? How detailed does the DM need to be to be acceptable to stakeholders, and how does this influence the parsimony of the model? More?