Assoc. Prof. Marjan van den Belt, Vicky Forgie and Dr. Hendrik Stouten
[email protected] www.eernz.massey.ac.nz
www.SP2.org.nz
Tuesday 23 July 2013, 11 AM (Parallel 150), System Dynamics Conference, Boston, USA
When your goals don’t address your concerns:
Lessons learned from a mediated model to support
regional planning in Wellington, New Zealand
• Context: in which the Sustainable Pathways 2 action research is undertaken.
• Process: Stakeholder involvement, Mediated Modelling, Pre‐ and Post Surveys.
• Content: Causal Loop Diagram, Scenarios, System Dynamics Model
Overview
How do Modelling Tools Support
Planning and Adaptive Management?
Not a linear process
Sustainable Pathways 2 (SP2) Objectives
1. Mediated Modelling (MM)
Model building with rather than for stakeholders.
2. Integrated Scenario Explorer (ISE) for Auckland, Wellington
Build spatially explicit multi‐dimensional planning model, incorporating stakeholder input.
3. Embedding
Capacity building in using decision support tools in the Auckland & Wellington regions.
Mediated Modelling
‘Model building with, rather than for, people’
Auckland Mediated Modelling, Sustainable Pathways 2, 2012
•Provides a neutral space
•Structured, integrated dialogue
•Facts and perceptions
•Changes over time, impact of delays
Understanding complex systems and Consensus Building
Mediated Modeling Consensus on both problem/goals and
implementation pathway or scenarios, supporting
implementable policies
Mediated Discussion
Consensus on the goal or problem but little help on how to achieve the goal or solve problems
Understanding High
Consensus
Status Quo
High
Confrontational debate and no improvement Expert Modeling
Specialized model whose recommendations don’t get implemented due to lack of stakeholder support or
understanding
Consensus Low
Understanding
Low
High Interest in topic
Decision Making Power and Interest
Stakeholders who don’t see an
immediate link
High Decision
Making Power
Unengaged Public Represented stakeholders
& engaged public
Mediated Modelling participants (e.g. 15)
Low Decision
Making Power
Low Interest in topic
Stakeholder involvement (15)
Iwi/hapu?
Local, regional, national government
Industry and business
Non Governmental Org
• Federated Farmers
• Centreport
• Grow Wellington
• Wellington Employers/Chamber of Commerce
• Custance
• Association of Non Governmental Organisation Aotearoa
• Wellington City Council
• Kapiti Coast District Council
• Hutt City Council
• Upper Hutt City Council
• Porirua City Council
• Greater Wellington Regional Council
• Ministry of Social Development
• Statistics New Zealand
• Regional Public Health
Mediated Modelling Wellington Workshops (3)
Pre-survey +
Interviews
Post-survey +
Interviews WORKSHOP 1
7 April 2011 Introduction
to System Dynamics
+
Identifying concerns and
goals for the region
+ Start to conceptualize
the model
WORKSHOP 2 19 May 2011
Improvement of the model
+
Development of basic scenarios to simulate the model at a scoping level
WORKSHOP 3 18 Aug 2011 Presentation
of scoping model
+
Running scenarios
+
Evaluation and
recommendat ions
Pre‐survey: concerns identified by participants
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Number of participants
Pre‐survey Causal Loop Diagram (CLD)
Population
Desired consumption
Production
Used Land
+
+
Demand for land +
+ + Attractiveness of
region -
Demand for transport facilities
Transport facilities
+
+ +
Demand for jobs
Jobs + +
GDP
+ +
R2
Transport drives population growth
B1
Land limits population growth
R1
Jobs drives population growth
B2
Land limits production
+
Causal Loop Diagram at 3
rdworkshop
Relative attractiveness of the
Wellington Region
Production
Infrastructure
Output prices Unemployme
Households nt
Natural Capital
Waste / Pollution Average Household Income
Average Household Consumption
R4
Infrastructure Growth
B4
Overcrowding limits Growth
R7
Income drives Economic
Growth
R3
Households drive Economic Growth
R2 Labour Growth
B8
Household Consumption of Natural Capital
Limits Growth
B1
Unemployment Limits Population Growth
B5
Labour Substitution by
Capital
B9
Pollution Limits Growth
B11 B7
Natural Limits to Growth
R8
B10
Pollution Decays Nature limiting
Economic Growth Housing
R1
Residential Growth
Labour Substitution by
Natural Capital +
+ +
+
+ +
+ +
-
-
- -
-
-
B2
Unemployment limits Economic Growth
+ +
+ +
+
+ +
- -
-
- -
-
R6 +
+
+
Output Prices Limit Pollution Through Limiting
Consumption
B6
Natural Limits to Infrastructure
R5
Output Prices Growth Spiral
B3
Unemployment Limits Average Household
Incomes
Output Prices Created Growth in
Unemployment
‘This CLD is a good representation of the group’s discussion.’
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Strongly Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Number of Participants
‘This CLD is a helpful tool for me in communicating problems facing the Wellington Region to others.’
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Strongly Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Number fo Participants
‘It is useful to continue developing the CLD.’
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Strongly Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Number of Participants
‘MM helped structuring the thinking.’
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Strongly Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Number of Participants
‘MM helped structuring the dialogue.’
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Strongly Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Number of Participants
‘Do you want to stay involved in future MM workshops?’
UNSURE YES
Depends on:
•Topic
•Task requirements
•Time allocation
4 3 2 1
Number of participants
‘A Model is an aid to tell a story’
Scenario 1
• What if the population changes by 10% (up or down) by 2020 then what happens to “access”
and “inequality”?
Wellington Population
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 800000
Number of People
Base run
+10% in Birth Rate
-50% in Immigration Time
+10% in Birth Rate & -50% in Immigration Time
1990 2010 2030 2050
Wellington Inequality
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1
Gini-Coefficient
Base run
+10% in Birth Rate
-50% in Immigration Time
+10% in Birth Rate & -50% in Immigration Time
1990 2010 2030 2050
Scenario 1 summary
• Population growth does not change inequality.
• Inequality only increased (in model) when population declines through immigrants barriers, not birth rates.
Scenario 2
• What if the relative income per person in WR
changes by 10% (up or down)? How does this
impact on the relative attractiveness of the
WR?
Average income
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8
Income Index
Base run
+10% in income outside of the WR -10% in income outside of the WR
1990 2010 2030 2050
Attractiveness of Wellington
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Perceived Relative Attractiveness of WR
Base run
+10% in income outside of the WR -10% in income outside of the WR
1990 2010 2030 2050
Scenario 2 summary
• When relative income decreases, the (modelled)
Wellington region seeks to adjust for this loss limiting its effect on attractiveness.
• When relative income in the Wellington region increases there is no spectacular increase in attractiveness of the region. Increased attractiveness also comes at a high cost as unemployment increases.
Summary
• Modelling process highlights a potential gap between vision and tactical goals.
• Model content pointed at influence of delays and interlinkages.
• Context determines the process and content.
• Action research allows for reflective learning when challenges are complex or ‘wicked’.
Conclusion
• the concerns participants expressed for the Wellington region might not be major concerns.
• reaching the goals the participants had in mind for the Wellington region would not necessarily address these concerns.