Tue, Aug 16, 2022: 10:00 AM-10:15 AM
515A
Background/Question/MethodsConsidering the little progress in reducing global ecosystems’ threats, a growing number of ecologists acknowledge the importance of human subjectivity and collective decision-making research to tackle biodiversity loss and climate change. Governance research has similarly recognized the value of stakeholder participation in land planning, or in prioritization of ecological restoration projects. Accordingly, ecologists have developed innovative methods that utilize ecological results and simulations in participatory workshops. However, environmental stakeholder involvement is not a trivial undertaking and has ethical, scientific and logistic implications requiring attention. Our contribution examines five “W” questions (why, what, who, when, where) that interdisciplinary research teams should consider to achieve effective and mutually beneficial interactions with environmental stakeholders. We draw on our current research, pairing forest growth and management simulations with participatory workshops in Belgium and Canada. We conclude with concrete recommendations for the planning, progress and follow-up of environmental participatory workshops.
Results/ConclusionsWhy? We review why ecological researchers and stakeholders engage in participatory approaches. Expectations vary: representatives of forest owners are looking for scientific information easily transferable to their members; forest administrative officers want to enhance the effectiveness of adaptation and mitigation policies; and we want to include socio-economic issues in our recommendations based on ecological simulations.What? We discuss what participatory methods exist, especially those using ecological modelling. We also describe how some of our partners reused our serious games Foster Forest for awareness-raising and teaching purposes. We examine how co-constructing participatory workshops with key stakeholders helped us revise modelling assumptions, thereby increasing workshops’ effectiveness in identifying solutions. Our approach first modelled adaptation scenarios at the landscape level. Participatory workshops contributed to the late integration of another adaptation scenario at the forest stand level.With Who? When? Where? We report on how ethical considerations interact with logistics. Should researchers invite professional forest experts along with new private owners? Should limits on speaking time be set? We describe how setting the time and place of participatory workshops can convey important messages. For instance, participants were more creative and more eager to speak freely when we met in neutral environments (eg., our university).
Results/ConclusionsWhy? We review why ecological researchers and stakeholders engage in participatory approaches. Expectations vary: representatives of forest owners are looking for scientific information easily transferable to their members; forest administrative officers want to enhance the effectiveness of adaptation and mitigation policies; and we want to include socio-economic issues in our recommendations based on ecological simulations.What? We discuss what participatory methods exist, especially those using ecological modelling. We also describe how some of our partners reused our serious games Foster Forest for awareness-raising and teaching purposes. We examine how co-constructing participatory workshops with key stakeholders helped us revise modelling assumptions, thereby increasing workshops’ effectiveness in identifying solutions. Our approach first modelled adaptation scenarios at the landscape level. Participatory workshops contributed to the late integration of another adaptation scenario at the forest stand level.With Who? When? Where? We report on how ethical considerations interact with logistics. Should researchers invite professional forest experts along with new private owners? Should limits on speaking time be set? We describe how setting the time and place of participatory workshops can convey important messages. For instance, participants were more creative and more eager to speak freely when we met in neutral environments (eg., our university).