Page 97 - A bird’s-eye view of recreation - Rogier Pouwels

Effectiveness of scientific tools in decision making processes
the scientists preferred the tools they had developed and used. The stakeholders accepted the tools because we started with a reflection in the first stakeholder meeting and the development of the tools during the project was an iterative cycle (Farolfi et al. 2010). In these meetings we explained the concepts behind the tools. In this way the tools were used to cross the boundary between recreation and biodiversity (Lamers et al. 2010). In some cases the use of the tools for evaluating management alternatives is less important than the discussion of the results (Voinov and Bousquet 2010, Itami 2008).
The biodiversity tool LARCH that we used in the PROGRESS project was simple
compared with the recreation tool MASOOR. LARCH predicts potential suitable
habitats for species in three classes based on four landscape characteristics. The tool
does not model the population processes, but uses thresholds that are related to these
processes (Verboom et al. 2001, Opdam et al. 2003). We think LARCH was accepted
by the managers and stakeholders because the results were credible when compared
to local knowledge and data, and the tool was salient and legitimate because it was
simple and easy to understand. The MASOOR model is rather complex for lay people
because it is based on a Hierarchical Control System in which agents interpret the world
at different scales and autonomously navigate a given recreational track network. The
navigation of the agents in the landscape is a random process based on multicriteria
analysis using the preferences of the agents for the characteristics of the landscape, 5 the goals agents try to reach, and the already followed route (Jochem et al. 2008). It is
difficult for people to fully understand what the consequences are for the results when some parameters and equations will change. We think the most important reason for managers and stakeholders to accept MASOOR is the animated results. We also used a simple algorithm for predicting the use of visitors, but the managers and stakeholders chose the more complex tool because it was more salient. Legitimacy was gained in one of the meetings when an example of the results of MASOOR was presented. One of the stakeholders in the New Forest remarked, “that's the exact route I always take.” This simple remark led to the acceptance of almost every stakeholder present.
We have addressed how scientific tools can be made more effective in helping solutions to be found for common conflicts between biodiversity and recreation functions. We discussed how four proposed features of interactive tools enhanced understanding of the other side's viewpoint, helped clarify the conflict, and assisted in exploring solutions. To achieve this, a tool needs to be built on the relationship between
95