Developing Methods and theory

Mediation and land evaluation

The SIRO-MED process adapted for this project has been developed over the last twenty-five years by CSIRO. The process involves: identifying land use issues; defining and prioritising land uses; describing rules to guide land allocation; collecting data to support those rules; creating maps that display use value or suitability; exploring scenarios of land allocation; and mediating between stakeholders on tradeoffs over competing allocations. The process has been encapsulated in the decision support system WINLUPIS (land use planning and information system). The project did not attempt to proceed beyond preliminary exploration of land allocation because the extent of the region was too large to allow participants to "sign off" on negotiated scenarios. Any future sub-regional planning processes would be designed to proceed through all phases.

Complexity, adaptation and resilience

Human interactions with the environment and our economy are continuously evolving (Abel and Langston in prep (PDF 343 Kb)). Complex and adaptive systems such as this tend to go through long phases where the system appears stable. These periods encourage humans to believe that through application of tight control they can maintain stability indefinitely. However, also typical of these systems are periods of rapid change, instability and reorganisation following disturbances. For example, drought and collapse of wool markets have generated significant disturbance of the agro-pastoral sector. Such times present opportunities for system redesign although responses must be appropriate to the type of disturbance and the condition of the system. Attempting to exclude disturbances or trying to fully compensate for their impacts by externally applied means (for example, through drought relief and price support policies), encourages decline in the capacity of regional mechanisms to respond to disturbances. When, inevitably, a disturbance hits a region over-protected in this way, it may be less able or unable to recover. It is better to manage in ways that allow some disturbance, accommodate fluctuation and facilitate self-reorganisation and recovery, than it is to manage for a false stability. This approach is called 'designing for resilience' and it enables the systems involved to bounce back after disturbances occur. It contrasts with approaches that try to resist change at great expense and with only temporary success.

Designing institutions that promote resilience

We propose five components to include in any institutional changes. Design institutions to give just enough external support to prevent a system crash, but without discouraging internal adaptation. Maintain institutional memory to guide regions through recovery following disturbance. Build and maintain capacity for learning from past disturbance and thus enhance the ability to anticipate and adapt to future ones. Foster innovation and diversity within societies and land use to provide a wide range of options if the environment changes. Accept a level of redundancy in infrastructure, technology and institutions so that if a part fails there are backups.

Adoption of project outputs

It is not enough to come up with proposals for institutional change in this project - they must be implemented by the relevant organisations. The study of social psychology predicts that community and agency participation and their consequent ownership of outputs are necessary for implementation of proposals. Psychology also tells us that individuals tend to accept information that confirms pre-existing perceptions and shed that which contradicts. People tend to construct ideas about controversial issues that are simple and comfortable. 

Recognising these tendencies, this project tried several ways of improving implementation and adoption. Working together in a shared learning process helped overcome the resistance to change. Being exposed to the views of other sectors, learning about their values, hearing their social history all contributed to shared understanding. We used participants as champions within their own organisations to help overcome such tendencies and to stimulate a reaction beyond 'business as usual'. Regular communication proved vital in maintaining the understanding of participants and our newsletters maintained contact during long periods of data collection and analysis by researchers. We also visited people at home or in a nearby town rather than always expecting them to travel long distances to workshops.

Evaluating changed perceptions

The project involved a two way exchange of information where community participants and researchers would learn from each other. Participants were surveyed at intervals to detect changes in their understanding - of the meaning of 'sustainability' and of relationships among institutions, land use and sustainability. Non-participants from similar social and professional circumstances were also surveyed on these issues to provide a benchmark of change in values and understanding in the broader community against which any change in the participants could be measured. This evaluation will contribute to the future development of the participatory method used in the project.

>>> View or print the evaluation  ( PDF 93Kb)