Keywords
environmental governance; polycentric governance; participatory modeling; model governance; model purpose; power
Start Date
6-7-2022 8:00 AM
End Date
6-7-2022 8:30 AM
Abstract
Computer models play increasingly central roles in environmental management, however, the role of the modeling process within environmental governance contexts and specifically, the governance of computer models are understudied. In this research, we apply existing theories of network and hierarchical governance, adaptive management and governance, and participatory modeling to analyze a key historical period of the Chesapeake Bay Program, 2008 - 2012. During this period, the purpose of the program shifted substantially, challenges to the legitimacy of the model itself were made, and the model was exposed to potential capture by stakeholders who stood to directly benefit from its outputs. Through the case, we illustrate how formal and informal governance institutions aided the model’s longevity, how internal learning and external events shaped its adaptation, and how the model both facilitated and fell short of mitigating power imbalances. We conclude by suggesting additional research needs for understanding the governance of computer models used in environmental management: (1) a typology of stakeholder participation and influence, (2) model update cycles within adaptive governance cycles, and (3) quantification of uncertainty due to political power in model evolution processes.
Governance of a watershed model with an evolving purpose: negotiating adaptation, stability, and power
Computer models play increasingly central roles in environmental management, however, the role of the modeling process within environmental governance contexts and specifically, the governance of computer models are understudied. In this research, we apply existing theories of network and hierarchical governance, adaptive management and governance, and participatory modeling to analyze a key historical period of the Chesapeake Bay Program, 2008 - 2012. During this period, the purpose of the program shifted substantially, challenges to the legitimacy of the model itself were made, and the model was exposed to potential capture by stakeholders who stood to directly benefit from its outputs. Through the case, we illustrate how formal and informal governance institutions aided the model’s longevity, how internal learning and external events shaped its adaptation, and how the model both facilitated and fell short of mitigating power imbalances. We conclude by suggesting additional research needs for understanding the governance of computer models used in environmental management: (1) a typology of stakeholder participation and influence, (2) model update cycles within adaptive governance cycles, and (3) quantification of uncertainty due to political power in model evolution processes.
Stream and Session
false