Equity, power games, and legitimacy: dilemmas of participatory natural resource management

Many papers in the recent literature on participatory approaches emphasize the need to take better account of the complexity of the social contexts in which they are conducted. Without attention to power asymmetries, there is a risk that the most powerful stakeholders will have greater influence on the outcomes of the participatory process than marginalized stakeholders. However, very few authors address the question of how to deal with such power asymmetries. This question puts designers of participatory processes in a dilemma. On the one hand, if they claim a neutral posture, they are accused of being naively manipulated by the most powerful stakeholders and of increasing initial power asymmetries; but, on the other hand, if they adopt a nonneutral posture and decide to empower some particular stakeholders, their legitimacy to do so is questioned. We test a particular posture to overcome this dilemma: that is, a “critical companion” posture, which strategically deals with power asymmetries to avoid increasing initial power asymmetries, and which suggests that designers should make explicit their assumptions and objectives regarding the social context so that local stakeholders can choose to accept them as legitimate or to reject them. Legitimacy is seen as the product of a coconstruction process between the designers and the participants. This posture was tested in the context of a participatory process conducted in northern Thailand to address a conflict between the creation of a national park and two local communities. While we show that this posture makes it possible for designers to be both strategic and legitimate at the same time, it also raises new questions and new dilemmas. Can we, and should we, really make all our assumptions explicit? How can we deal with stakeholders who refuse to engage in any form of dialog? We conclude that there is no “right” posture to adopt, but that designers need to be more reflexive about their own postures

Anchoring innovation methodologies to ‘go-to-scale’; a framework to guide agricultural research for development

Research for development (R4D) projects increasingly engage in multi-stakeholder innovation platforms (IPs) as an innovation methodology, but there is limited knowledge of how the IP methodology spreads from one context to another. That is, how experimentation with an IP approach in one context leads to it being succesfully replicated in other contexts. To inspire development actors to consider the fit of an innovation methodology for a context, following work on anchoring for scaling, we developed a framework for networking-, methodological, and institutional anchoring and applied it to a R4D IP in order to test the value of such an anchoring approach for understanding the scaling of innovation methodologies such as IP. We selected a R4D project with a Farmer Research Group-Innovation Platform in Ethiopia, whose technical output and methodological approach were greatly appreciated by the actors involved. Using the anchoring framework, the executed or non-executed tasks were identified. Besides, the embedding of the methodological experiment the potential up-scaling and out-scaling were systematically analyzed. The analysis yielded the strengths and weaknesses of the anchoring work done so far to scale the innovation methodology used, and provided concrete suggestions of how to proceed if an innovation project considers ‘going to scale’. We recommend R4D projects to valorize their work and pay more explicit attention to anchoring. With a flexible, multi-pronged anchoring approach and continuous scanning of the progress made in context, more R4D projects and their associated innovation methodologies can ‘go to scale’.</p

Dealing with power games in a companion modelling process : lessons from community water management in Thailand highlands

International audienceAlthough stakeholder participation is expected to promote equitable and sustainable natural resource management, lessons from the past tell us that more careful attention needs to be paid to achieving equitable impacts. Now the question is how to address social inequities and power asymmetries. Some authors emphasize the need for more dialogue, while others prefer a critical perspective, arguing that dialogue might not be sufficient to avert the risk of a process deepening existing social inequities. This article aims to enrich this debate and question the practical implications of the critical perspective through an in-depth analysis of power games in a participatory process. A Companion Modelling (ComMod) process was conducted in an Akha community of Northern Thailand with a critical perspective, i.e. with a concern for the less influent stakeholders. Simulation tools such as role-playing games were used to mediate a cross-cultural learning process among researchers, farmers and administrators about a local irrigation water management problem. The detailed analysis of power games in this learning and negotiation process reveals that in spite of initial power asymmetries, the poorest farmers of the community started to voice and assert their interests. We identify a set of practical facilitation methods that helped to manage power asymmetries and to level the playing field, but we also discuss the main limits of our cultural-embedded methodological choices. Acknowledging that 'the facilitators' neutrality' is an illusion, this study allows us to raise the question of their social legitimacy. We suggest that they should systematically make explicit and reflect on their cultural-ideological background and methodological hypothesis and choices and their effects on the socio-political context. This article is an original attempt to accept this challenge

Living labs and innovation platforms: A literature review

This literature study identifies the success and failure factors of living labs and innovation platforms. The study accomplishes this by zooming in on key characteristics and design principles of living labs and innovation platforms and distilling statements from academic and professional literature. Design principles are guidelines to follow in the design process to implement and operate a living lab or innovation platform successfully

Testing the Applicability of a Checklist-Based Startle Management Method in the Simulator

Several checklist-based methods have been proposed to help pilots manage startle in unexpected situations. In the current experiment, we tested how pilots reacted to using such a method, which featured the mnemonic COOL: Calm down – Observe – Outline – Lead. Using a motion-based simulator outfitted with a non-linear aerodynamic model of a small twin-propeller aircraft, twelve pilots practiced using the COOL method before performing four test scenarios involving startling events. Application of the full method in the test scenarios was high (90-100%), and pilots rated the method on average as useful (4 on a 1-5 point Likert scale). The first two steps of the method were seen as the “core” of the method. However, pilots also displayed difficulty with prioritizing dealing with immediate threats over executing the method. The results are promising, but they also warn us to be cautious when introducing a startle management method

The Skill Assumption -Over-Reliance on Perception Skills in Hazard Assessment

In the analysis of human performance and human error, considerable attention is given to the cognitive processes of actors involved in error or success scenarios. Even with awareness of hindsight bias, it takes effort to understand the actions of agents in later inspection of error scenarios. One such topic of heated discussion was the perceived poor performance of pilots in the two 737 MAX MCAS-related crashes in applying the “memory item” checklist pertaining to a runaway trim. In this paper, we argue that it is not so much the reproduction of the checklist that was lacking in these scenarios, but the trigger for even starting the checklist. Not only trim run-away problems, but several other issues likewise require an instant reaction from pilots, designated as “memory items”. Rasmussen’s simplifed schematic for the “skill, rule and knowledge” taxonomy already provides the tools for properly analyzing this. The skill to provide the triggers for these reactions relies on pattern extraction from the available sensory input, and, importantly, it can only be learned in a valid training context. It is argued that re-appraisal of these items is needed, addressing explicitly the validity of the training environments that enable pilots to learn the required pattern recognition skills

Tick treatment practices in the field: Access to, knowledge about, and on-farm use of acaricides in Laikipia, Kenya.

The prevention of tick-borne diseases is a major challenge for livestock production globally. Tick control strategies include the use of acaricides, but the prescribed strategies do not achieve the desired results in several countries, including Kenya. To better understand how tick treatment practices, contribute to reported tick treatment failures, we assessed livestock owners' acaricide procurement, level of knowledge about acaricides and tick resistance, and how they apply acaricides. We also assessed the quality of the commonly available acaricides. We focused on three livestock systems in Laikipia County, Kenya: two private ranches; one community ranch whose members communally graze their cattle and acquire and apply acaricides; and individual livestock owners in two pastoral communities who individually graze their cattle and acquire and apply acaricides. Through interviews and focus group discussions we assessed; access to acaricides, livestock owners' knowledge, and acaricide use practices; interview data were triangulated with participant observations (n = 107). We analysed nine commonly used acaricides to determine the active ingredient concentration and we determined the concentration of active ingredients in acaricide dilutions collected on farms. All livestock owners had access to and used chemical acaricides for tick control, predominantly amitraz-based. Private ranchers bought one amitraz-based acaricide in bulk directly from the manufacturer, while all other livestock owners bought from agrovet shops. The livestock owners acquired knowledge about acaricides from their own experiences and through experience-based recommendations from peers, but not from the technical information provided by the manufacturers and agrovet shops. All pastoral livestock frequently changed acaricide brand and active ingredient class. A large majority of pastoralists (86%) mixed acaricide brands within and across active ingredient classes; a smaller majority (56%) mixed acaricides with crop pesticides and insecticides. Our lab tests confirmed the content description on the labels bought from agrovet shops. However, on-farm acaricide dilutions from all three livestock systems deviated from the level recommended for effective treatment. If too diluted, the acaricide does not kill ticks, promoting resistance development. If too concentrated, this increases environmental contamination and raises public health concerns. Livestock owners lack a technical understanding of the functioning of acaricides, compromising their use and effectiveness. The widely adopted mixing of acaricides with insecticides and pesticides raises serious health concerns