Supporting sustainable development: Using the SMILE toolkit with stakeholders in Scotland

K.L. Blackstock; K.M. Matthews; K. Buchan; D. Miller; L. Dinnie and M. Rivington

Trends and Future of Sustainable Development Conference, Tampere, Finland, 9 – 10th June, 2011

Rationale for PaperUtility evaluation using tools with stakeholders –

Cairngorms National Park Authority – coordinating governance body for multiple land owners in the park

Focus on roles and relationships within this process Lessons learnt and future challenges to consider

To what extent can models or tools play: a heuristic role to help understand complex systems;

a symbolic role in making issues visible to politicians; and

a relational role by creating a boundary object around which a social network can be developed(Sterk et al., 2009).

Conceptual framework for assessing utility

Science Policy/Society

Basic

Strategic

SystemsModelling

Content & Communication

SoftwareEngineering

Government,Regulation, Markets &

Media

Validation

Interpret-ability

Reliability

OtherStakeholders (e.g.Policy,

Management & Society

Direct Stake-holders

Direct Stake-holders

SystemsAnalysis Utility

Research Priorities

OutputsOut-

comes

Usability

PeerReview

Development Priorities

Process Effects

Salience

Research Development Operations Evaluation

OutcomeEvaluation

SMILE Tool-kitSynergies of Multi-Level Integrated Linkages in Eco-social

Systems (SMILE) operationalising DECOIN tools

Multi-scale bio-economic accounting methods to illustrate trajectories of development

Three tools: ASA (Advanced Sustainability Analysis) not being applied

MUSIASEM (Multi-Scale Integrated Analysis Societal Ecosystem Metabolism)

SUMMA (Sustainability Multi-criteria Multi-scale Assessment)

Smile tool-kit continued.. Applied at the Scotland (N+1),

Cairngorms (N) and within-Cairngorms (N-1) level.

SUMMA applied to the agricultural sector

MUSIASEM was applied to the whole system

For more information on results regarding growth; trade-offs; and policy implications see reports D28 – 30 (available http://www.smile-fp7.eu/?id=deliverables).

Both recognise need to close Rosen’s loop

Little guidance on how to achieve this

Became part of Scottish case study objective to focus on framing and using outputs of tools

Semantic entailment: stakeholder processes

Formal entailment: inferential model

External referent: quantitative benchmarks

decoding

encoding

National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000:• To conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of the area;• To promote sustainable use of natural resources in the area;• To promote understanding and enjoyment (including enjoyment in the form of recreation) of the special qualities of the area by the public; and• To promote sustainable economic and social development of the area’s communities.

Methodology 4 phases of data collection and analyses:

Introducing the study (3 sets of field notes/transcripts from interviews and two letters) – Dec 2007 – Oct 2008;

Systems diagramming workshop (2 sets of field notes, one transcript) – Nov 2008;

Follow up discussions (5 sets of field notes/transcripts from interviews) – Dec 2008 – Nov 2010; and

Utility evaluation workshop (2 sets of field notes, one transcript, 3 evaluation forms) – Dec 2010

Final utility evaluation workshop arranged 23rd June 2011

Workshops using work-books & semi-structured Interviews were transcribed and thematic analysed

Caveats regarding size and composition of sample

In parallel with a longitudinal research project collaboratively evaluating the development and implementation of the Cairngorms National Park Plan

Results: Views prior to utility workshop

Opportunity to “bring these models to the Cairngorms National Park Authority to see if they actually help you make some of your decisions” (Dec, 2007).

Focus on economic profitability of the land use sector; its environmental impact; and relating economic and social well-being to the Park’s natural assets.

Importance of national perspective; legitimacy of decision making processes; engaging Scottish Government

“I’m very keen on this multivariate analysis, but policy is very…. uni-variate … it usually focuses on one particular issue” (Nov, 2008).

The concerns were Staff time commitment – can’t commit much time to understand/interpret results

Availability of, and access to, data – questions over reliability esp. repeatability cf. data sets

Whether the CNP was a suitable case study – complex new institution and spatial area

Language and terminology – acronyms also led to joking and/or laughter

Results: feedback on SUMMA

Excited about some results & generated discussion about how/why results occur

CNPAG & ScotAG Emissions (intensity metrics)

CO2

CO

NOx

SO2PM10

N2O

CH4

-

0.50

1.00

Emissions per ha - 2007

CNP2007 Sco2007

CO2

CO

NOx

SO2PM10

N2O

CH4

-2.00

3.00

8.00

Emissions per € - 2007

CNP2007 Sco2007

CO2

CO

NOx

SO2PM10

N2O

CH4

-

5.00

10.00

Emissions per MJ - 2007

CNP2007 Sco2007

CO2

CO

NOx

SO2PM10

N2O

CH4

-

5.00

10.00

Emissions per kgDM - 2007

CNP2007 Sco2007

Results: feedback on SUMMA

Excited about some results & generated discussion about how/why results occur

Queries about the inputs & effects on the results e.g. land cover, systems diagram; still uncertainties e.g. fuel use, no direct emissions from livestock

Dislike of averaged co-efficients – heterogeneous system

• “there are too many caveats and gaps in the input data to give me confidence that the outputs are a reliable basis on which to shape or monitor policy” (Dec, 2010).

Results: feedback on MUSIASEMExcited about some results & generated discussion about

how/why results occur

12

CNP acts like a city – region?

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 1609

14

19

24

29

ELPPW vs. EMRPW by region (paid work) (zoomed section)

Aberdeen City, Aberdeenshire & North East MorayAngus & Dundee CityBordersCity of EdinburghClackmannanshire & FifeDumfries & GallowayE & W Dunbartonshire & Helensburgh & LomondEast & MidlothianFalkirkGlasgow CityInverclyde, East Renfrewshire & RenfrewshireNorth LanarkshireOrkney IslandsPerth & Kinross and StirlingShetland IslandsSouth AyrshireSouth LanarkshireWest LothianCNP

EMR - Exosomatic Metabolic Rate (MJ of energy throughput per hour of human activity)

ELP

- Eco

nom

ic La

bour

Pro

ducti

vity

(£ G

VA p

er h

our o

f hum

an a

ctivi

ty)

13

CNP HApw more productive?Both extents and intensities – fund flow diagrams

Flow ShareETpw / TET

= 73.8%

EMRpwFlow/Fund n-1ETpw / HApw = 61.85 MJ/h

EMRFlow/Fund n

TET / THA = 10.16 MJ/h

FLOW (ETpw) n-1 (Paid Work)

1.13E+09MJ

Fund ShareHApw / THA

= 12.12%

FUND (THA)n (CNP)

1.51E+08h

FLOW (TET)n (CNP)

1.53E+09MJ

FUND (HApw)n-1 (Paid Work)

1.82E+07h

Human Activity and Energy - CNP (2007)

Flow ShareETpw / TET

= 68.1%

EMRpwFlow/Fund n-1ETpw / HApw = 92.66 MJ/h

EMRFlow/Fund n

TET / THA = 12.48 MJ/h

FLOW (ETpw) n-1 (Paid Work)

3.84E+11MJ

Fund ShareHApw / THA

= 9.17%

FUND (THA)n (Scotland) 4.52E+10h

FLOW (TET)n (Scotland) 5.64E+11MJ

FUND (HApw)n-1 (Paid Work)

4.15E+09h

Human Activity and Energy - Scotland (2007)

Results: feedback on MUSIASEMExcited about some results & generated discussion about

how/why results occur

Query over GVA Does it include housing values?

Does it include pensions/dividends?

How to account for commuting across borders?

• Less queries about inputs and validity of results than SUMMA – more generic?

Results Diversity of preferences but primacy of utility, salience and validity important criteria

MuSIASEM was seen as a more useful tool than SUMMA

SUMMA inappropriate at N+1 and N scale but ‘blanket’ coverage of MuSIASEM was more appropriate at these scales

SUMMA was perceived to be less transparent - “it’s hard to defend a trend if you can’t understand how it is was generated” (Dec 2010)

SUMMA was perceived to be data hungry - trade off the cost of accessing and preparing the data to the benefit gained

Results were salient to the Scottish Land Use Strategy, the CNPA’s landscape strategy and the Low Carbon Cairngorms project

Decision-making scale - many of the questions more relevant to decisions are made at Scottish Government or the farm level

Who are the ‘natural constituency’ for these tools? Will they invest time and energy to interpret and use tools?

Discussion Validity: Why wasn’t the validity of MuSIASEM questioned – sample bias?

Salience: our requirement assessment good but limited ability to adapt to changing operational priorities

Interpretability: problem with terminology, diversity of ability to interpret outputs, and preferences for the different presentations

MUSIASEM could play a heuristic (or early warning) role & both useful as symbolic objects, to communicate key trends to policy makers

Will policy makers understand outputs and engage with complexity?

Important to encode and decode if tools are to be seen as credible, salient and legitimate (Matthews et al. 2008) but utility also affected by access to data and staff time of intermediaries e.g. CNPA

CNPA staff weigh up how tool use will impact on their relationships with others, their reputations and their credibility

Salience must be complemented by the ability to provide timely and credible evidence that shores up their legitimacy

Acknowledgements The research is funded through the European Commission FP7

SMILE project, with match funding from the Scottish Government’s Environment: Land Use and Rural Stewardship Programme.

We would like to thank Gillian McCrum, Alana Gilbert, Hamish Trench, Murray Fergusson, Chris Bremner, and Gavin Miles for their contribution to the diagrams and ongoing support to the project.

We could not have written this paper without Mario Giampietro, and Sergio Ulgiati and their teams, who coached through the use of their tools.

For more information contact Kirsty.Blackstock@hutton.ac.uk or check http://www.smile-fp7.eu/ or http://www.macaulay.ac.uk/smile/