Fulltext - Linköping University Electronic Press

meetings were also seen to have increased the understanding of other stakeholders’ agendas as
well as of the own. In the light of other stakeholders comments the new possibilities were
identified. Jerry Ravertz have in a similar contexts described the role of models and model
generated information as almost “poetic” in the sense that they are able to extend our
imagination and perhaps even our affection and sympathy. 67
As a consequence it could be said that it is the participatory modelling process as a whole
that contributes to the enlargement of the room of action creating the glue between
stakeholder groups, diminishing the transaction costs for any future collective actions.
Formal incentive structures and the limitation/potential of participatory
modelling
The formal economic and legal structure of incentives that affect local stakeholders’ room of
action influencing the implementation of remedies against, for example, eutrophication, is
difficult for a participatory modelling initiative to influence directly. Experiences from
previous studies emphasise that it is crucial to clearly define and communicate the limitations
of the used models to participating stakeholders, and that the role and purpose of scenarios
used are well defined so participants understand what such a process may give and what it
may not give. 68 Indirectly, however, there are at least two ways in which a participatory
modelling process may change the formally defined room of action for remedy
implementation.
Increase the visibility of the room of action
Even if the models used are not able to handle issues such as possible effects of changes in the
CAP and contradictions between existing legal tools, a participatory modelling process may
highlight which remedies and combination of remedies could comfortably be implemented by
stakeholders within their room of action. As discussed earlier, one of our theoretical points of
departure is that actions that can comfortably be carried out within the available room of
action are more likely to be taken than others. This means that remediation measures that are
profitable for the individual are implemented to a greater extent than costly ones. If model
results can show that certain practices are both profitable for the individual farmer, and costeffective
in reducing nutrient transports, the rate of implementation may increase. By
choosing scenarios and scenario combinations, models make the room of action more
“visible” and hence increase the possibilities to act. This change in visibility is thus closely
connected to what was discussed about the “education-effect in section (5.1).
A change of the visibility in the room of action can only be achieved if the chosen
scenarios are relevant to stakeholders. Model scenarios should therefore include the most
popular (profitable/heavily subsidized) land management practices. To model expensive,
unprofitable or unsubsidized practices will not give realistic images of potential futures and it
is instead likely that the “visibility” of the room of action actually shrinks. Thus, scenarios
and combination of remedies should be adapted to the formally defined room of action to
increase the utility of the model results in a participatory process.
Change the form of the room of action
In a short-term perspective the scope of a participatory modelling process is not likely to
change the components defining the formal room of action of local stakeholders. However, a
participatory modelling process may also highlight aspects of the present room of action that
are unwanted or “uncomfortable” from the perspective of the stakeholders and thus indirectly
67 Ravertz, J., 2003.
68 Jonsson et al, 2005.
520