Supplementary Files
Keywords
science policy
evidence-based policy
boundary objects
watershed management
How to Cite
Abstract
Stakeholder participation in social-ecological systems (SES) modeling is increasingly considered a desirable way to elicit diverse sources of knowledge about SES behavior and to promote inclusive decision-making in SES. Understanding how participatory modeling processes function in the context of long-term adaptive management of SES may allow for better design of participatory processes to achieve the intended outcomes of inclusionary knowledge, representativeness, and social learning, while avoiding unintended outcomes. Long-term adaptive management contexts often include political influences -- attempts to shift or preserve power structures and authority, and efforts to represent the political and economic interests of stakeholders -- in the computer models that are used to shape policy making and implementation. In this research, we examine a period that included a major transition in the watershed model used for management of the Chesapeake Bay in the United States. The Chesapeake Bay watershed model has been in development since the 1980s, and is considered by many to be an exemplary case of participatory modeling. We use documentary analysis and interviews with participants involved in the model application and development transition to reveal a variety of ways in which participatory modeling may be subject to different kinds of political influences, some of which resulted in unintended outcomes, including: perceptions of difficulty updating the model in substantive ways, “gaming” of the model/participatory process by stakeholders, and increasing resistance against considering uncertainty in the system not captured by the model. This research suggests unintended or negative outcomes may be associated with both participatory decision-making and stakeholder learning even though they are so often touted as the benefits of participatory modeling. We end with a hypothesis that further development of a theory of computer model governance to bridge model impact and broader theories of environmental governance at the science-policy interface may result in improved SES modeling outcomes.
References
Akerlof, G.A., 1997. Social Distance and Social Decisions. Econometrica 65, 1005–1027. https://doi.org/10.2307/2171877
Armitage, D., Marschke, M., Plummer, R., 2008. Adaptive co-management and the paradox of learning. Glob. Environ. Change 18, 86–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.07.002
Arnold, T., Guillaume, J.H.A., Lahtinen, T.J., Vervoort, R.W., 2020. From ad-hoc modelling to strategic infrastructure: A manifesto for model management. Environ. Model. Softw. 123, 104563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.104563
Arnstein, S.R., 1969. A Ladder Of Citizen Participation. J. Am. Inst. Plann. 35, 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
Band, L., Dillaha, T., Duffy, C., Reckhow, K., Welty, C., 2008. Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee: Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Phase V Review (No. 08–003).
Berg, B.L., Lune, H., 2011. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, 8th edition. Pearson, Boston.
Bicknell, B.R., Imhoff, J.C., Kittle, J.L., Donigan, A.S.Jr., Johanson, R.C., 1997. Hydrological Simulation Program--Fortran: User’s manual for version 11 (No. EPA/600/R-97/080). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA.
Booher, D.E., Innes, J.E., 2010. Governance for Resilience: CALFED as a Complex Adaptive Network for Resource Management. Ecol. Soc. 15.
Cash, D., Adger, W.N., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., Pritchard, L., Young, O., 2006. Scale and Cross-Scale Dynamics: Governance and Information in a Multilevel World. Ecol. Soc. 11. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01759-110208
Cash, D.W., Clark, W.C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N.M., Eckley, N., Guston, D.H., Jäger, J., Mitchell, R.B., 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 100, 8086–8091. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231332100
CBP, 2014. Chesapeake Watershed Agreement. As amended Jan 24, 2020. https://www.chesapeakebay.net/documents/FINAL_Ches_Bay_Watershed_Agreement.withsignatures-HIres.pdf
CBP, 2021. Governance and Management Framework for the Chesapeake Bay Program. October 7, 2021. https://d18lev1ok5leia.cloudfront.net/chesapeakebay/documents/CBP_GDOC_Version_4.0.pdf
CBP, 2023a. How We’re Organized: Scientific, Technical Assessment and Reporting (STAR): Modeling Workgroup [WWW Document]. URL https://www.chesapeakebay.net/who/group/modeling-team (accessed 2.12.23).
CBP, 2023b. How We’re Organized: Water Quality Goal Implementation Team (GIT 3) [WWW Document]. URL https://www.chesapeakebay.net/who/group/water-quality-goal-implementation-team (accessed 2.12.23).
CBP, 2023c. Learn the Issues: Population Growth [WWW Document]. Chesapeake Bay Program. URL https://www.chesapeakebay.net/issues/threats-to-the-bay/population-growth (accessed 3.10.23).
CBP, 2023d. The Chesapeake Bay Program [WWW Document]. Chesapeake Bay Program. URL https://www.chesapeakebay.net/
CBP STAC, 2011. Review of the LimnoTech Report “Comparison of Load Estimates for Cultivated Cropland in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed” (No. 11– 02). Edgewater, MD.
Charmaz, K., 2014. Constructing Grounded Theory, Second edition. SAGE Publications Ltd, London; Thousand Oaks, Calif.
Cialdini, R.B., Goldstein, N.J., 2004. Social Influence: Compliance and Conformity. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 55, 591–621. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015
Colding, J., Barthel, S., 2019. Exploring the social-ecological systems discourse 20 years later. Ecol. Soc. 24. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10598-240102
Cooke, B., Cooke, P.B., Kothari, U., 2001. Participation: The New Tyranny? Zed Books.
Corbin, J., Strauss, A., 1990. Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria 19.
Corburn, J., 2009. Cities, Climate Change and Urban Heat Island Mitigation: Localising Global Environmental Science. Urban Stud. 46, 413–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098008099361
Crouch, J.R., Shen, Y., Austin, J.A., Dinniman, M.S., 2008. An educational interactive numerical model of the Chesapeake Bay. Comput. Geosci. 34, 247–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2007.03.017
Cumming, G.S., 2016. Heterarchies: Reconciling Networks and Hierarchies. Trends Ecol. Evol. 31, 622–632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2016.04.009
Cumming, G.S., Cumming, D.H.M., Redman, C.L., 2006. Scale mismatches in social-ecological systems: Causes, consequences, and solutions. Ecol. Soc. 11, 14.
Dedoose, 2021. Version 9.0.17, cloud application for managing, analyzing, and presenting qualitative and mixed method research data (2021). Los Angeles, CA: SocioCultural Research Consultants, LLC www.dedoose.com. Devereux, O., Rigelman, J.R., 2014. CAST: An Online Tool for Facilitating Local Involvement in Watershed Implementation Plans for the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load. J. Water Manag. Model. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.14796/JWMM.C364
Dolfsma, W., Leydesdorff, L., 2009. Lock-in and break-out from technological trajectories: Modeling and policy implications. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 76, 932–941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2009.02.004
Dryzek, J.S., 2013. The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses, 3rd edition. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Easton, Z., Scavia, D., Alexander, R., Band, L., Kleinman, P., Martin, J., Miller, A., Pizzuto, J., Smith, D., Welty, C., Tech, V., 2017. Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model Phase 6 Review (No. 17– 007). CBP STAC.
Edmonds, B., Hofstede. G.J., Koch, J., le Page, C., Lim, T., Lippe, M., Nöldeke, B., van Delden, H., under review. Chimaera Modelling – when the modellers have to reconcile inconsistent elements. Socio-Environmental Systems Modelling.
Elster, J., 1989. Social Norms and Economic Theory. J. Econ. Perspect. 3, 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.3.4.99
Ernst, H.R., 2003. Chesapeake Bay Blues: Science, Politics, and the Struggle to Save the Bay, 1st Edition, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Lanham.
Everett, J.A.C., Faber, N.S., Crockett, M., 2015. Preferences and beliefs in ingroup favoritism. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 9.p 15
Executive Office of the President, 2009. Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration.Federal Register, Executive Order 13508, May 12, 2009. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2009/05/15/E9-11547/chesapeake-bay-protection-and-restoration
Falconi, S.M., Palmer, R.N., 2017. An interdisciplinary framework for participatory modeling design and evaluation—What makes models effective participatory decision tools? Water Resour. Res. 53, 1625–1645. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR019373
Flyvbjerg, B., 2006. Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research. Qual. Inq. 12, 219–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800405284363
French, R.D., 2019. Is it time to give up on evidence-based policy? Four answers. Policy Polit. 47, 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557318X15333033508220
Fung, A., 2006. Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance. Public Adm. Rev. 66, 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00667.x
Funtowicz, S.O., Ravetz, J.R., 1993. The Emergence of Post-Normal Science, in: Von Schomberg, R. (Ed.), Science, Politics and Morality. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8143-1
Girod, B., Wiek, A., Mieg, H., Hulme, M., 2009. The evolution of the IPCC’s emissions scenarios. Environ. Sci. Policy 12, 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2008.12.006
Glynn, P.D., 2014. W(h)ither the Oracle? Cognitive Biases and Other Human Challenges of Integrated Environmental Modeling. International Environmental Modelling and Software Society (iEMSs) 7th Intl Congrees on Env. Modelling and Software, San Diego, CA, USA.https://www.iemss.org/society/index.php/iemss-2014-proceedings
Glynn, P.D., Chiavacci, S.J., Rhodes, C.R., Helgeson, J.F., Shapiro, C.D., Straub, C.L., 2022a. Value of Information: Exploring Behavioral and Social Factors. Front. Environ. Sci. 10.p 437
Glynn, P.D., Rhodes, C.R., Chiavacci, S.J., Helgeson, J.F., Shapiro, C.D., Straub, C.L., 2022b. Value of Information and Decision Pathways: Concepts and Case Studies. Front. Env. Sci 10, 805214.
Glynn, P.D., Voinov, A.A., Shapiro, C.D., White, P.A., 2018. Response to Comment by Walker et al. on “From Data to Decisions: Processing Information, Biases, and Beliefs for Improved Management of Natural Resources and Environments.” Earths Future 6, 762–769. https://doi.org/10.1002/2018EF000819
Glynn, P.D., Voinov, A.A., Shapiro, C.D., White, P.A., 2017. From data to decisions: Processing information, biases, and beliefs for improved management of natural resources and environments. Earths Future 5, 356–378. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000487
Gray, S., Voinov, A., Paolisso, M., Jordan, R., BenDor, T., Bommel, P., Glynn, P., Hedelin, B., Hubacek, K., Introne, J., Kolagani, N., Laursen, B., Prell, C., Olabisi, L.S., Singer, A., Sterling, E., Zellner, M., 2018. Purpose, processes, partnerships, and products: four Ps to advance participatory socio-environmental modeling. Ecol. Appl. 28, 46–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1627
Gregory, R., Failing, L., Harstone, M., Long, G., McDaniels, T., Ohlson, D., 2012. Structured Decision Making: A Practical Guide to Environmental Management Choices. John Wiley & Sons.
Haasnoot, M., van Deursen, W.P.A., Guillaume, J.H.A., Kwakkel, J.H., van Beek, E., Middelkoop, H., 2014. Fit for purpose? Building and evaluating a fast, integrated model for exploring water policy pathways. Environ. Model. Softw. 60, 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.05.020
Hamilton, S.H., Fu, B., Guillaume, J.H.A., Badham, J., Elsawah, S., Gober, P., Hunt, R.J., Iwanaga, T., Jakeman, A.J., Ames, D.P., Curtis, A., Hill, M.C., Pierce, S.A., Zare, F., 2019. A framework for characterising and evaluating the effectiveness of environmental modelling. Environ. Model. Softw. 118, 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.04.008
Hedelin, B., Gray, S., Woehlke, S., BenDor, T.K., Singer, A., Jordan, R., Zellner, M., Giabbanelli, P., Glynn, P., Jenni, K., Jetter, A., Kolagani, N., Laursen, B., Leong, K.M., Schmitt Olabisi, L., Sterling, E., 2021. What’s left before participatory modeling can fully support real-world environmental planning processes: A case study review. Environ. Model. Softw. 143, 105073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2021.105073
Hewitt, C., 1988. Offices Are Open Systems, in: Bond, A.H., Gasser, L. (Eds.), Readings in Distributed Artificial Intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 321–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-934613-63-7.50036-X
Hood, R.R., Shenk, G.W., Dixon, R.L., Smith, S.M.C., Ball, W.P., Bash, J.O., Batiuk, R., Boomer, K., Brady, D.C., Cerco, C., Claggett, P., de Mutsert, K., Easton, Z.M., Elmore, A.J., Friedrichs, M.A.M., Harris, L.A., Ihde, T.F., Lacher, L., Li, L., Linker, L.C., Miller, A., Moriarty, J., Noe, G.B., Onyullo, G., Rose, K., Skalak, K., Tian, R., Veith, T.L., Wainger, L., Weller, D., Zhang, Y.J., 2021. The Chesapeake Bay program modeling system: Overview and recommendations for future development. Ecol. Model. 456, 109635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2021.109635
Hughes, T., 1987. Evolution of Large Technical Systems, in: The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.; London, pp. 51–82.
Intemann, K., 2015. Distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate values in climate modeling. Eur. J. Philos. Sci. 5, 217–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-014-0105-6
Iwanaga, T., Wang, H.-H., Hamilton, S.H., Grimm, V., Koralewski, T.E., Salado, A., Elsawah, S., Razavi, S., Yang, J., Glynn, P., Badham, J., Voinov, A., Chen, M., Grant, W.E., Peterson, T.R., Frank, K., Shenk, G., Barton, C.M., Jakeman, A.J., Little, J.C., 2021. Socio-technical scales in socio-environmental modeling: Managing a system-of-systems modeling approach. Environ. Model. Softw. 135, 104885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2020.104885
Jakeman, A.J., Letcher, R.A., Norton, J.P., 2006. Ten iterative steps in development and evaluation of environmental models. Environ. Model. Softw. 21, 602–614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2006.01.004
Janis, I.L., 1982. Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes, 2nd edition. Cengage Learning, Boston.
Jordan, R., Gray, S., Zellner, M., Glynn, P.D., Voinov, A., Hedelin, B., Sterling, E.J., Leong, K., Olabisi, L.S., Hubacek, K., Bommel, P., BenDor, T.K., Jetter, A.J., Laursen, B., Singer, A., Giabbanelli, P.J., Kolagani, N., Carrera, L.B., Jenni, K., Prell, C., National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center Participatory Modeling Pursuit Working Group, 2018. Twelve Questions for the Participatory Modeling Community. Earths Future 6, 1046–1057. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018EF000841
Kaufman, D.E., Shenk, G.W., Bhatt, G., Asplen, K.W., Devereux, O.H., Rigelman, J.R., Ellis, J.H., Hobbs, B.F., Bosch, D.J., Van Houtven, G.L., McGarity, A.E., Linker, L.C., Ball, W.P., 2021. Supporting cost-effective watershed management strategies for Chesapeake Bay using a modeling and optimization framework. Environ. Model. Softw. 144, 105141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2021.105141
Klosterman, R.E., 2012. Simple and Complex Models. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 39, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1068/b38155
Kolar, K., Ahmad, F., Chan, L., Erickson, P.G., 2017. Timeline Mapping in Qualitative Interviews: A Study of Resilience with Marginalized Groups. Int. J. Qual. Methods 14, 13–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691501400302
Korfmacher, K.S., 2001. The Politics of Participation in Watershed Modeling. Environ. Manage. 27, 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002670010141
Kruger, J., Dunning, D., 1999. Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.77 (6) p 1121
Lahtinen, T.J., Guillaume, J.H.A., Hämäläinen, R.P., 2017. Why pay attention to paths in the practice of environmental modelling? Environ. Model. Softw. 92, 74–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.02.019
Latour, B., 2005. Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford; New York.
Latour, B., 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Harvard University Press.
Layzer, J.A., 2011. Ecosystem-Based Management in the Chesapeake Bay, in: The Environmental Case: Translating Values Into Policy. CQ Press, Washington, D.C.
Liberatore, A., Funtowicz, S., 2003. ‘Democratising’ expertise, ‘expertising’ democracy: What does this mean, and why bother? Sci. Public Policy 30, 146–150. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154303781780551
Lim, T.C., 2021. Model emulators and complexity management at the environmental science-action interface. Environ. Model. Softw. 135, 104928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2020.104928
LimnoTech, 2010. Comparison of Draft Load Estimates for Cultivated Cropland in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, Prepared for the Agricultural Nutrient Policy Council. Ann Arbor, MI.
Lindner, I., Strulik, H., 2008. Social Fractionalization, Endogenous Appropriation Norms, and Economic Development. Economica 75, 244–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0335.2007.00614.x
Linker, L.C., Batiuk, R.A., Shenk, G.W., Cerco, C.F., 2013. Development of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Total Maximum Daily Load Allocation. JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 49, 986–1006. https://doi.org/10.1111/jawr.12105
Linker, L.C., Shenk, G., Wang, P., Hopkins, K.J., Pokharel, S., 2002. A Short History of Chesapeake Bay Modeling and the Next Generation of Water Shed and Estuarine Models, in: Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation. Presented at the Water Environment Federation, Alexandria, VA, pp. 569–582.
Lubell, M., Segee, B., 2013. Conflict and Cooperation in Natural Resource Management, in: Vig, N.J., Kraft, M.E. (Eds.), Environmental Policy: New Directions for the Twenty-First Century. CQ Press, Thousand Oaks,CA.
Martin, J., Runge, M.C., Nichols, J.D., Lubow, B.C., Kendall, W.L., 2009. Structured decision making as a conceptual framework to identify thresholds for conservation and management. Ecol. Appl. 19, 1079–1090. https://doi.org/10.1890/08-0255.1
Meadowcroft, J., 2002. Politics and scale: some implications for environmental governance. Landsc. Urban Plan., Scaling and Environmental Understanding 61, 169–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00111-1
Merry, S.E., 2016. The Seductions of Quantification: Measuring Human Rights, Gender Violence, and Sex Trafficking, Illustrated edition. The University of Chicago Press.
Morrison, T.H., 2017. Evolving polycentric governance of the Great Barrier Reef. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114, E3013–E3021. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1620830114
Morrison, T.H., Adger, W.N., Brown, K., Lemos, M.C., Huitema, D., Phelps, J., Evans, L., Cohen, P., Song, A.M., Turner, R., Quinn, T., Hughes, T.P., 2019. The black box of power in polycentric environmental governance. Glob. Environ. Change 57, 101934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101934
National Research Council, 2011. Achieving Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Goals in the Chesapeake Bay: An Evaluation of Program Strategies and Implementation. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.
Newig, J., Fritsch, O., 2009. Environmental governance: participatory, multi-level – and effective? Environ. Policy Gov. 19, 197–214. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.509
Oreskes, N., 2003. The role of quantitative models in science, in: Canham, C.D., Cole, J.J., Laurenroth, W.K. (Eds.), Models in Ecosystem Science. Princeton University Press, NJ, USA, pp. 13–31.
Ormerod, R.J., 2009. The history and ideas of critical rationalism: the philosophy of Karl Popper and its implications for OR. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 60, 441–460. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602573
Ostrom, E., 2011. Background on the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. Policy Stud. J. 39, 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00394.x
Paolisso, M., Trombley, J., Hood, R.R., Sellner, K.G., 2015. Environmental Models and Public Stakeholders in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Estuaries Coasts 38, 97–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-013-9650-z
Parker, C., Scott, S., Geddes, A., 2019. Snowball Sampling. SAGE Res. Methods Found.
Popper, K., 2002. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203994627
Porter, T.M., 1996. Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life, Trust in Numbers. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400821617
Punch, M., 1986. The politics and ethics of fieldwork. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1986. 93 p.
Python Software Foundation, 2023. Python Language Reference.
Rayner, S., 2012. Uncomfortable knowledge: the social construction of ignorance in science and environmental policy discourses. Econ. Soc. 41, 107–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2011.637335
Reagan, R., 1984. Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the State of the Union.
Ryan, G.W., Bernard, H.R., 2003. Techniques to Identify Themes. Field Methods 15, 85–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X02239569
Saltelli, A., Bammer, G., Bruno, I., Charters, E., Di Fiore, M., Didier, E., Nelson Espeland, W., Kay, J., Lo Piano, S., Mayo, D., Pielke Jr, R., Portaluri, T., Porter, T.M., Puy, A., Rafols, I., Ravetz, J.R., Reinert, E., Sarewitz, D., Stark, P.B., Stirling, A., van der Sluijs, J., Vineis, P., 2020. Five ways to ensure that models serve society: a manifesto. Nature 582, 482–484. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01812-9
Saltelli, A., Funtowicz, S.O., 2014. When All Models Are Wrong. Issues Sci. Technol. 30, 79–85.
Saltelli, A., Giampietro, M., 2017. What is wrong with evidence based policy, and how can it be improved? Futures, Post-Normal science in practice 91, 62–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2016.11.012
Saltelli, A., Stark, P.B., Becker, W., Stano, P., 2015. Climate Models as Economic Guides: Scientific Challenge or Quixotic Quest? Issues Sci. Technol. 79–84.
Sarewitz, D., 2004. How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environ. Sci. Policy, Science, Policy, and Politics: Learning from Controversy Over The Skeptical Environmentalist 7, 385–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2004.06.001
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee, 2023. Chesapeake Bay Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee [WWW Document]. URL https://www.chesapeake.org/stac/
Scott, J.C., 1999. Seeing like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn.
Shenk, G.W., Linker, L.C., 2013. Development and Application of the 2010 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Total Maximum Daily Load Model. JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 49, 1042–1056. https://doi.org/10.1111/jawr.12109
Smith, J.A., 1995. Semi structured interviewing and qualitative analysis, in: Smith, J.A., Harre, R., Van Langenhove, L. (Eds.), . Sage Publications, pp. 9–26.
Star, S.L., 1999. The Ethnography of Infrastructure. Am. Behav. Sci. 43, 377–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027649921955326
Star, S.L., Griesemer, J.R., 1989. Institutional Ecology, `Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Soc. Stud. Sci. 19, 387–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003001
Sterling, E.J., Zellner, M., Jenni, K.E., Leong, K., Glynn, P.D., BenDor, T.K., Bommel, P., Hubacek, K., Jetter, A.J., Jordan, R., Olabisi, L.S., Paolisso, M., Gray, S., 2019. Try, try again: Lessons learned from success and failure in participatory modeling. Elem. Sci. Anthr. 7, 9. https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.347
Sterman, J.D., 2012. Sustaining Sustainability: Creating a Systems Science in a Fragmented Academy and Polarized World, in: Weinstein, M.P., Turner, R.E. (Eds.), Sustainability Science. Springer New York, New York, NY, pp. 21–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3188-6_2
Strassheim, H., Kettunen, P., 2014. When does evidence-based policy turn into policy-based evidence? Configurations, contexts and mechanisms. Evid. Policy 10, 259–277. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426514X13990433991320
Sundberg, M., 2007. Parameterizations as Boundary Objects on the Climate Arena. Soc. Stud. Sci. 37, 473–488. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312706075330
U.S. EPA, 2010. Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load for Nitrogen, Phosphorous and Sediment. https://www.epa.gov/chesapeake-bay-tmdl/chesapeake-bay-tmdl-document
USDA, 2011. Assessment of the Effects of Conservation Practices on Cultivated Cropland in the Chesapeake Bay Region, Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP).
van den Hove, S., 2007. A rationale for science–policy interfaces. Futures 39, 807–826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2006.12.004
van der Sluijs, J., 2005. Uncertainty as a monster in the science–policy interface: four coping strategies. Water Sci. Technol. 52, 87–92. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2005.0155
van der Sluijs, J.P., Petersen, A.C., Janssen, P.H.M., Risbey, J.S., Ravetz, J.R., 2008. Exploring the quality of evidence for complex and contested policy decisions. Environ. Res. Lett. 3, 024008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/3/2/024008
van der Vaart, W., 2004. The Time-line as a Device to Enhance Recall in Standardized Research Interviews: A Split Ballot Study. J. Official Stat. 20, 301.
Voinov, A., Bousquet, F., 2010. Modelling with stakeholders. Environ. Model. Softw., Thematic Issue - Modelling with Stakeholders 25, 1268–1281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.03.007
Voinov, A., Jenni, K., Gray, S., Kolagani, N., Glynn, P.D., Bommel, P., Prell, C., Zellner, M., Paolisso, M., Jordan, R., Sterling, E., Schmitt Olabisi, L., Giabbanelli, P.J., Sun, Z., Le Page, C., Elsawah, S., BenDor, T.K., Hubacek, K., Laursen, B.K., Jetter, A., Basco-Carrera, L., Singer, A., Young, L., Brunacini, J., Smajgl, A., 2018. Tools and methods in participatory modeling: Selecting the right tool for the job. Environ. Model. Softw. 109, 232–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.08.028
Voinov, A., Kolagani, N., McCall, M.K., Glynn, P.D., Kragt, M.E., Ostermann, F.O., Pierce, S.A., Ramu, P., 2016. Modelling with stakeholders – Next generation. Environ. Model. Softw. 77, 196–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.11.016
Weller, D.E., Benham, B., Friedrichs, M., Naijar, R., Paolisso, M., Pascual, P., Shenk, G., Sellner, K., 2013. Multiple Models for Management in the Chesapeake Bay (No. 14– 004). Edgewater, MD.
Wesselink, A., Buchanan, K.S., Georgiadou, Y., Turnhout, E., 2013. Technical knowledge, discursive spaces and politics at the science–policy interface. Environ. Sci. Policy, SI: Environmental and Developmental Discourses: Technical knowledge, discursive spaces and politics 30, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.12.008
White, D.D., Wutich, A., Larson, K.L., Gober, P., Lant, T., Senneville, C., 2010. Credibility, salience, and legitimacy of boundary objects: water managers’ assessment of a simulation model in an immersive decision theater. Sci. Public Policy 37, 219–232. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234210X497726
Wu, K., Dunning, D., 2018. Hypocognition: Making Sense of the Landscape beyond One’s Conceptual Reach. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 22, 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000126
Wyborn, C., Datta, A., Montana, J., Ryan, M., Leith, P., Chaffin, B., Miller, C., van Kerkhoff, L., 2019. Co-Producing Sustainability: Reordering the Governance of Science, Policy, and Practice. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 44, 319–346. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-101718-033103
Zellner, M.L., Milz, D., Lyons, L., Hoch, C.J., Radinsky, J., 2022. Finding the Balance Between Simplicity and Realism in Participatory Modeling for Environmental Planning. Environ. Model. Softw. 157, 105481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2022.105481
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2023 Theodore C. Lim, Pierre D. Glynn, Gary W. Shenk, Patrick Bitterman, Joseph H. A. Guillaume, John C. Little, D. G. Webster