Supporting sustainable development: Using the SMILE toolkit with stakeholders in Scotland

1. Supporting sustainable development: Using the SMILE toolkit with stakeholders in Scotland K.L. Blackstock; K.M. Matthews; K. Buchan; D. Miller; L. Dinnie and M. Rivington Trends and Future of Sustainable Development Conference, Tampere, Finland, 9 – 10th June, 2011

2. Rationale for Paper • Utility evaluation using tools with stakeholders – • Cairngorms National Park Authority – coordinating governance body for multiple land owners in the park • Focus on roles and relationships within this process • Lessons learnt and future challenges to consider • To what extent can models or tools play: • a heuristic role to help understand complex systems; • a symbolic role in making issues visible to politicians; and • a relational role by creating a boundary object around which a social network can be developed(Sterk et al., 2009).

3. Conceptual framework for assessing utility

4. SMILE Tool-kit • Synergies of Multi-Level Integrated Linkages in Eco-social Systems (SMILE) operationalising DECOIN tools • Multi-scale bio-economic accounting methods to illustrate trajectories of development • Three tools: • ASA (Advanced Sustainability Analysis) not being applied • MUSIASEM (Multi-Scale Integrated Analysis Societal Ecosystem Metabolism) • SUMMA (Sustainability Multi-criteria Multi-scale Assessment)

5. Smile tool-kit continued.. • Applied at the Scotland (N+1), Cairngorms (N) and within-Cairngorms (N-1) level. • SUMMA applied to the agricultural sector • MUSIASEM was applied to the whole system • For more information on results regarding growth; trade-offs; and policy implications see reports D28 – 30 (available http://www.smile-fp7.eu/?id=deliverables). • Both recognise need to close Rosen’s loop • Little guidance on how to achieve this • Became part of Scottish case study objective to focus on framing and using outputs of tools • National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000: • To conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of the area; • To promote sustainable use of natural resources in the area; • To promote understanding and enjoyment (including enjoyment in the form of recreation) of the special qualities of the area by the public; and • To promote sustainable economic and social development of the area’s communities.

6. Methodology • 4 phases of data collection and analyses: • Introducing the study (3 sets of field notes/transcripts from interviews and two letters) – Dec 2007 – Oct 2008; • Systems diagramming workshop (2 sets of field notes, one transcript) – Nov 2008; • Follow up discussions (5 sets of field notes/transcripts from interviews) – Dec 2008 – Nov 2010; and • Utility evaluation workshop (2 sets of field notes, one transcript, 3 evaluation forms) – Dec 2010 • Final utility evaluation workshop arranged 23rd June 2011 • Workshops using work-books & semi-structured Interviews were transcribed and thematic analysed • Caveats regarding size and composition of sample • In parallel with a longitudinal research project collaboratively evaluating the development and implementation of the Cairngorms National Park Plan

7. Results: Views prior to utility workshop • Opportunity to “bring these models to the Cairngorms National Park Authority to see if they actually help you make some of your decisions” (Dec, 2007). • Focus on economic profitability of the land use sector; its environmental impact; and relating economic and social well-being to the Park’s natural assets. • Importance of national perspective; legitimacy of decision making processes; engaging Scottish Government • “I’m very keen on this multivariate analysis, but policy is very…. uni-variate … it usually focuses on one particular issue” (Nov, 2008). • The concerns were • Staff time commitment– can’t commit much time to understand/interpret results • Availability of, and access to, data– questions over reliability esp. repeatability cf. data sets • Whether the CNP was a suitable case study – complex new institution and spatial area • Language and terminology – acronyms also led to joking and/or laughter

8. Results: feedback on SUMMA • Excited about some results & generated discussion about how/why results occur

9. CNPAG & ScotAG Emissions (intensity metrics)

10. Results: feedback on SUMMA • Excited about some results & generated discussion about how/why results occur • Queries about the inputs & effects on the results e.g. land cover, systems diagram; still uncertainties e.g. fuel use, no direct emissions from livestock • Dislike of averaged co-efficients – heterogeneous system • “there are too many caveats and gaps in the input data to give me confidence that the outputs are a reliable basis on which to shape or monitor policy” (Dec, 2010).

11. Results: feedback on MUSIASEM • Excited about some results & generated discussion about how/why results occur

12. CNP acts like a city – region?

13. CNP HApw more productive? • Both extents and intensities – fund flow diagrams

14. Results: feedback on MUSIASEM • Excited about some results & generated discussion about how/why results occur • Query over GVA • Does it include housing values? • Does it include pensions/dividends? • How to account for commuting across borders? • Less queries about inputs and validity of results than SUMMA – more generic?

15. Results • Diversity of preferences but primacy of utility, salience and validity important criteria • MuSIASEM was seen as a more useful tool than SUMMA • SUMMA inappropriate at N+1 and N scale but ‘blanket’ coverage of MuSIASEM was more appropriate at these scales • SUMMA was perceived to be less transparent- “it’s hard to defend a trend if you can’t understand how it is was generated” (Dec 2010) • SUMMA was perceived to be data hungry - trade off the cost of accessing and preparing the data to the benefit gained • Results were salient to the Scottish Land Use Strategy, the CNPA’s landscape strategy and the Low Carbon Cairngorms project • Decision-making scale - many of the questions more relevant to decisions are made at Scottish Government or the farm level • Who are the ‘natural constituency’ for these tools? Will they invest time and energy to interpret and use tools?

16. Discussion • Validity: Why wasn’t the validity of MuSIASEM questioned – sample bias? • Salience: our requirement assessment good but limited ability to adapt to changing operational priorities • Interpretability: problem with terminology, diversity of ability to interpret outputs, and preferences for the different presentations • MUSIASEM could play a heuristic (or early warning) role & both useful as symbolic objects, to communicate key trends to policy makers • Will policy makers understand outputs and engage with complexity? • Important to encode and decode if tools are to be seen as credible, salient and legitimate (Matthews et al. 2008) but utility also affected by access to data and staff time of intermediaries e.g. CNPA • CNPA staff weigh up how tool use will impact on their relationships with others, their reputations and their credibility • Salience must be complemented by the ability to provide timely and credible evidence that shores up their legitimacy

17. Acknowledgements • The research is funded through the European Commission FP7 SMILE project, with match funding from the Scottish Government’s Environment: Land Use and Rural Stewardship Programme. • We would like to thank Gillian McCrum, Alana Gilbert, Hamish Trench, Murray Fergusson, Chris Bremner, and Gavin Miles for their contribution to the diagrams and ongoing support to the project. • We could not have written this paper without Mario Giampietro, and Sergio Ulgiati and their teams, who coached through the use of their tools. • For more information contact Kirsty.Blackstock@hutton.ac.uk or check http://www.smile-fp7.eu/ or http://www.macaulay.ac.uk/smile/