Issuu on Google+

Manaaki Taha Moana (MTM) Mediated Modelling of Tauranga Coastal Ecosystem Services 17 November 2010 Marjan van den Belt


MTM project team • • • • • • • • • • •

Marjan van den Belt – EERNZ, Massey Univ. Derrylea Hardy – EERNZ, Massey Univ. Murray Patterson – EERNZ, Massey Univ. Tracey Ngatoko – Waka Taiao Carlton Bidois – Waka Taiao Paula Werohia – Waka Taiao Sarah Wairepo – Waka Taiao Lydia Hale – Waka Taiao Aaron McCallion and Mark Berry – Waka Digital Eric Goodwin – Cawthron Inst. Participants – 22


Project timeline

2008

2009

2010

2011

Proposal Development

2012

2013

2014

2015

Case studies

Project start & Stock take Mediated Modelling

Action Plans Implementation Benefit Transfer


Mediated Modeling Overview • Preparation: Participant selection, surveys, website, preliminary model. • Workshops: Schedule of 6 workshops and in-between activities – action plan in (Nov’ 10 – April‘ 11) • Follow up: Open for discussion


Wednesday’s topics • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Opening Welcome and introductions Expectations, Guidelines, Survey feedback STELLA software Preliminary model 10.30 Coffee break Defining the problem and system boundaries, Questions the model should answer 12.30 Lunch Model sectors, qualitative model building - plenary 15.00 Coffee break Qualitative model building - small groups 16.30 Summary, blue slips for feedback, scheduling and changes, tasks before next workshop 17.00 Closing


Rights & Responsibilities • It is each participant’s right and responsibility to be unique. Each participant is respected for the perspective he/she brings to the table. Creativity stems from divergent ideas. • (Meyers Briggs personality differences) • Participants also have the responsibility to communicate their perspectives as concisely and clearly as possible: Jargon flag. • Nobody knows everything, but together a group knows more than anyone alone. Ideas generated in the group belong to the entire group, not to any specific individual. • Assume that all those present are the right persons for the task. Opinions about the balance of the group can be stated through the survey and will go on record. It should not continue to take energy and focus away from new possibilities until the agreed upon time for evaluation.


Behavioral guidelines • Keep contributions short. • Creativity can only flow when destructive criticism is withheld. Withhold judgment until a participant has made him/herself understood. • Allow ideas to exist and grow, take them in, actively listen, listen for possibilities, allow for the possibility of being inspired, even when you would prefer to immediately shut out the ideas based on your rationale. • Ask questions for understanding rather than for the purpose of invalidating a contribution. • A focus on that which is equally good for all is maintained. • The ability to explain complex information in lay terms is more valuable than to confuse people with expert language. • Disagree without being disagreeable.


Consensus enhancing & conflict handling • Free discussion geared toward creativity is the primary goal. Consensus is never a requirement. • Even though not every participant may be equally happy with a specific modeling step, it is necessary for everyone to be able to “live with” the range of options. • Questions about the process can be flagged. • A request for a show of hands (up in the air) is used in order to identify the perception in the group about a specific issue. • In the interest of time group consensus is assumed if there is “no reasoned and paramount objection”. • Ad hoc meetings with individual participants, groups of stakeholders, or experts may occur as the need arises between the workshops. Preferably announce ad hoc meetings to foster transparency.


Modelling guideline • The final model is a joint product of a team learning experience. The team learning is as important as the model in creating an end product. The final model itself serves as a means to recreate the insights gained for others. • A model is always an abstraction of reality. A model can only be evaluated for the purpose for which it was designed. • Synthesis is the art of leaving things out. A minority of the variables that could be chosen should explain the majority of the system’s behavior. A scoping model should aim for simplicity and elegance, not for a high degree of detail. • System dynamics: modeling for understanding rather then prediction.


Survey Results Question 4: – Ranking of the relative importance of the four factors: Red Environmental (7) Economic outcome

Cultural values

Green: Cultural (3) Purple: Econ (2) Pink: Equal (2) Blue: Social (1)

Environmental sustainability

Social impact on community

“Environmental sustainability” ranked 1st or 2nd for nearly everyone.


Survey Results Question 5 – Health of Tauranga Harbour: participant perceptions (Scale 1–10) 10 8.5 Like it to be in 2030 (range=7,10)

7 Where it can be realistically be in 2030 if action taken (range=6,10)

Health of Harbour = 5 (range= 1,7)

3 Fear where it might be, if nothing done (range=1,6)

1 Now, 2010

2030


Survey Results Question 6: How concerned are you about state of harbour (Scale 1–10): Average=7.5; Range=6,10

Question 7: How concerned is the community about state of harbour: Average=5; Range=4,8

Question 8: How does the group rate (Scale 1–5): Inclusiveness: 4 (good) Time Preference: 3 (neutral) Leadership: 3.5 (between neutral and good) Creativity: 3.5 (between neutral and good)

Question 9: Number of participants in group that you interact with regularly (at least 2 x year): 0-2 participants: 3 3-5 participants: 5 5-10 participants: 5 10-15 participants: 1 NB: Some participants interact with the majority or organisations represented in the group, but just not the particular people present.


Survey Results Question 11: Perceived Level of Consensus of Participants (Scale 1-5): -

How system currently works re managing health of harbour = 3 (neutral) What long-term goal/vision is for management of harbour = 3 How to manage the health of harbour with future goals/visions in mind = 2.5 (between low and neutral)

Question 12: Description of task at hand: - Assessment and increased understanding of concerns about state of the harbour, with everyone having input to find sustainable solutions to problems. - Build model, scenarios, to understand interactions in harbour. - Look at wider perspectives and coming up with strategies and action plans to improve health of harbour. - Get consensus on problems and what to do about them.


Survey Results Question 13 – What would be a good outcome from the MM process? -

Enhanced and commonly shared understanding of state of harbour. Work together on vision and what needs to be done. An agreed action plan for improvement, including how to implement solutions. Consensus, come to an agreement.

Question 14 – What would be the worst possible outcome? -

-

Polarised, inaction, status quo, no consensus, participants ignore outcomes, process doesn’t work, disintegration, no change, no strategy formulated, no outcomes, nothing happens! Inability to deliver; frustration with process. Cultural values not imputed, or can’t be formalised. Inability to reach consensus around an action plan. Inequitable solutions, funding responsibilities unfairly allocated. Continue to loose kaimoana.


Survey Results Question 15 – What is the main issue around state of harbour, what is causing this issue, and what does that lead to? MANY issues identified, causes not always known, thus actions being taken ineffective at times because not based on accurate understanding of the actual problems. Summary of problems and issues they cause: - Sedimentation, water quality, pollutants etc from runoff, land use practices, coastal development and population increases, and ineffective regulation and monitoring. - Habitat destruction; Mangroves and Seagrass loss; Loss of kaimoana. - Increased pollutants and invasive species, eg sea lettuce, ballast from ships. - Decline in state of harbour and it’s ecosystems results negatively on people, mana, wellbeing.


Survey Results Question 16 – Only one participant has used STELLA before? Question 17 – Only two participants have used other modelling tools before? (GIS and groundwater models) Question 18 – Can responses be used for research purposes? (one decline) Question 19 – 5 were not aware of project website? (www.mtm.ac.nz) Question 20 – 3 required further information?


Preliminary model • establish a point of reference. • demonstrate the type of output that can be obtained from a model structure. • function as a starting point from which the discussion takes off during the first meeting, if a group wishes to do so.


Boundaries • Geographical • Time period and time step


Preliminary model: example questions • What are the 3 processes or factors that most threaten the health of the harbor (causes of the 3 biggest symptoms?) • What are the desired outcomes of a sustainable harbour with respect to 4 aspects of wellbeing? • What solutions (policies) to identified root causes can make an impact and how much? • What social values can we modify?


Workshop schedule Date

Event

17 Nov

Workshop 1

18 Nov

De-briefing Project Team: Process and Model

15 Dec

Workshop 2

16 Dec

De-briefing PT

18 Jan

Workshop 3

19 Jan

De-briefing PT

16 Febr

Workshop 4

17 Febr

De-briefing PT

16 March

Workshop 5

17 March

De-briefing PT

21 April

Workshop 6

22 April

De-briefing PT

29 May

Final report and model


Closing • • • • • • •

Next workshop 15 December Meetings before 15 December Data requirements and model development Updates published on www.mtm.ac.nz Blue slips for feedback Participant & observer list updated Closing round


Mtm%20med%20mod%20workshop%2017%20nov