↓ Skip to main content

Purpose, processes, partnerships, and products: four Ps to advance participatory socio‐environmental modeling

Overview of attention for article published in Ecological Applications, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
23 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
84 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
260 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Purpose, processes, partnerships, and products: four Ps to advance participatory socio‐environmental modeling
Published in
Ecological Applications, December 2017
DOI 10.1002/eap.1627
Pubmed ID
Authors

Steven Gray, Alexey Voinov, Michael Paolisso, Rebecca Jordan, Todd BenDor, Pierre Bommel, Pierre Glynn, Beatrice Hedelin, Klaus Hubacek, Josh Introne, Nagesh Kolagani, Bethany Laursen, Christina Prell, Laura Schmitt Olabisi, Alison Singer, Eleanor Sterling, Moira Zellner

Abstract

Including stakeholders in environmental model building and analysis is an increasingly popular approach to understanding ecological change. This is because stakeholders often hold valuable knowledge about socio-environmental dynamics and collaborative forms of modeling produce important boundary objects used to collectively reason about environmental problems. Although the number of participatory modeling (PM) case studies and the number of researchers adopting these approaches has grown in recent years, the lack of standardized reporting and limited reproducibility have prevented PM's establishment and advancement as a cohesive field of study. We suggest a four-dimensional framework (4P) that includes reporting on dimensions of: (1) the Purpose for selecting a PM approach (the why); (2) the Process by which the public was involved in model building or evaluation (the how); (3) the Partnerships formed (the who); and (4) the Products that resulted from these efforts (the what). We highlight four case studies that use common PM software-based approaches (fuzzy cognitive mapping, agent-based modeling, system dynamics, and participatory geospatial modeling) to understand human-environment interactions and the consequences of ecological changes, including bushmeat hunting in Tanzania and Cameroon, agricultural production and deforestation in Zambia, and groundwater management in India. We demonstrate how standardizing communication about PM case studies can lead to innovation and new insights about model-based reasoning in support of ecological policy development. We suggest that our 4P framework and reporting approach provides a way for new hypotheses to be identified and tested in the growing field of PM. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 260 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 260 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 43 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 16%
Student > Master 28 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 21 8%
Student > Bachelor 11 4%
Other 44 17%
Unknown 72 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 60 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 27 10%
Social Sciences 27 10%
Engineering 8 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 2%
Other 43 17%
Unknown 89 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 August 2018.
All research outputs
#2,723,398
of 26,391,249 outputs
Outputs from Ecological Applications
#694
of 3,259 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,252
of 451,564 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecological Applications
#12
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,391,249 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,259 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 451,564 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.