-
E-participation Requires Systems IntelligencePaula Siitonen and
Raimo P. HmlinenHelsinki University of Technology, Systems Analysis
LaboratoryMarcelo Tabarelli, Pernambuco Federal
UniversityConservation of the Atlantic Forests in Northeast
Brazil
-
Emotions as well as Facts are Important in ParticipationEvery
participation process is systemicPeople react to the way the
process is initially framed and carried outThese reactions and
feedbacks have an impact in the outcomes of the processA
successfull participation process requires the consideration of the
facts and goals as well as peoples relationships and interactions
with Systems Intelligence
-
Systems Intelligence (SI) Intelligent and active behaviour of an
individual in the context of systems with interactions and
feedbacks (Saarinen & Hmlinen 2004)
Systems intelligence: A person sees the situation as a system,
herself in it, her own impact on the system and the impact of the
other components (people, organizations) of the system on her. She
behaves creativily concerning these feedbacks.
-
Understanding the System Interaction and feedbacks between
people and between human system and forest ecosystemIncludes facts
and hidden values and emotions such as trust and fear
-
SI Participation ProcessBring the participants into a dialogue
to build positive trust and to give people a voiceFrame the
situation as a collaborative process to learn more together to
reach mutual benefits instead of conflict managementUsing dialogue
work towards shared understanding of the situation as a system with
intercations and feedbacks between the people and between the human
and natural system. Work together to define a common goal; the
desired benefits and a process to produce them. Structure the
objectives. Consider also unmeasurable invisible objectives such as
trust.Create and evaluate different ways to change the existing
system to a desired one. These are strategy alternatives.Monitor
and evaluate the process. Consider what was created and also what
was not yet created. See this as a possibility and a challenge for
the future collaboration.
-
Case:
Design a process for the sustainable conservation of the
Atlantic Forests in Northeast Brazil using SI
-
Policy IssuesForests fragmented (3% remains), more large
continuos areas needed for species survival: restoration and
agroforestryHunting and illegal cuttingsPeople are poor and level
of education is lowMost of remaining forests are on private
landsLaw requires conservation of remaining forests and
reforestation of river corridors. Law is not conformedSuger mills
started reforestation of the river corridors to ensure water supply
and to improve competitiveness
-
How to improve species survival and economic and social
wellfare?
-
Methods and Participation in Brazil CaseDialogue Internet
pageFacilitated meetingsSystems descriptionField
excursionsGISMCDA-programsEvaluating feelings
-
StartingDialogue to create positive trustFraming the situation
as a collaborative process: To learn moreTo reach mutual benefits
To create sustainable development in the region rather than just
conservation
-
Seeing the Situation as a SystemWho are the decision makers and
other interested parties in Atlantic Forests?Why? Benefits?
Goals?See interactions between the parties involvedSee interactions
between parties and forest ecosystemWorking towards a shared vision
of the present situation
-
Defining a Common GoalFocus on the desired benefits instead of
conflicts ! What kind of system or process produces these
benefits?Structure benefits as fundamental objectives such as
maintenance of species, and means objectives, such as habitat area,
and ways to reach them such as restoration.
Water, Food, Species, Money...
-
Evaluating Policy Alternatives Law: reforestation of river
corridorsJointly improving: using native species, connecting
fragments, environmental education and economic alternatives...
Aims to improve mutual understanding of the situation and to
create innovative strategy alternatives
-
ConclusionThe way the process is started and framed is
crucialGoals and facts are just one partSustainable conservation is
an outcome of a systems intelligent collaborative learning process
E-participation requires this all: a systems intelligenent
approach
-
References
Daniels, S. E., Walker, G.B. (2001).Working through
environmental conflict. The collaborative learning approach.
Praeger, London. Hmlinen, R.P. (1988). Computer assisted energy
policy analysis in the Parliament of Finland. Interfaces
18:12-23.Hmlinen, R. P, Kettunen E., Marttunen M., Ehtamo H.
(2001). Evaluating a framework for multi-stakeholder decision
support in water resources management. Group Decision and
Negotiation 10:331-353.Hmlinen, R.P. 2003. Decisionarium - Aiding
Decisions, Negotiating and Collecting Opinions on the Web. Journal
of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 12(2-3): 101-110.Marttunen, M.,
Hmlinen, R. P. (1995). Decision analysis interviews in
environmental impact assessments. European Journal of Operational
Research 87:551-563.Mustajoki, J., Hmlinen, R.P., Marttunen, M.
(2004). Participatory multicriteria decision analysis with
Web-HIPRE: a case of lake regulation policy. Environmental
Modelling and Software. 19:537-547.Saarinen E., Hmlinen R.P.
(2004). Connecting engineering thinking with human sensitivity. In
Systems intelligence-Discovering hidden competence in human actions
and organizational life, R.P. Hmlinen and E. Saarinen (Eds.),
Systems Analysis Laboratory Research Reports A88:9-37.Siitonen, P.,
Hmlinen R.P. (2004). From conflict management to systems
intelligence in forest conservation decision making. In Systems
intelligence-Discovering hidden competence in human actions and
organizational life, R.P. Hmlinen and E. Saarinen (Eds.), Systems
Analysis Laboratory Research Reports A88:199-214.Siitonen, P.,
Tanskanen, A., Lehtinen, A. (2002). Method for selection old-forest
reserves. Conservation Biology 16:1398-1408.
-
ReferencesSiitonen, P., Lehtinen, A., Siitonen, M. (2005).
Effects of edges on distribution, abundance and regional
persistence of wood-rotting fungi. Conservation Biology
19:250-260.Silva, J. M. C., Tabarelli, M. (2000). Tree species
impoverishment and the future flora of the Atlantic forest of
northeast Brazil. Nature 404: 72-74.Sinkko, K., Hmlinen, R.P.,
Hnninen R. (2004). Experiences in methods to involve key players in
planning protective actions in the case of a nuclear accident.
Radiation Protection Dosimetry 109:127-132.Slotte, S., Hmlinen,
R.P. (2003). Decision structuring dialogue. Systems Analysis
Laboratory Research Reports E13. Tabarelli, M., Silva, J. M. C. ,
Cascon C. (2004). Forest fragmentation, synergism and the
impoverishment of neotropical forests. Biodiversity and
Conservation 13:1419-1425. Vntnen A., Marttunen, M. (2005). Public
involvement in multiobjective water level regulation projects
Evaluating the applicability of public involvement methods.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25:281-304.Wondellock, J.
M., Yaffee S. (2000). Making collaboration work. Lessons from
innovation in natural resource management. Island Press, Washington
D.C.
Project Web pages:
Conservation of the Atlantic Forests in Northeast Brazil:
http://www.environment.sal.tkk.fi/brazil
SAL Environmental Decision Making and Participation:
http://www.environment.sal.tkk.fi