Abstract
Differences in problem framing and understanding are unavoidable in multi-actor decision-making processes, deeming ambiguous problem definitions and actions. The presence of ambiguity may have diverse implications. On the one hand, a diversity in frames can enhance the co-production of knowledge offering opportunities for innovative solutions. On the other hand, the presence of ambiguity can be a source of discrepancies or conflict in a group, hampering the implementation and/or reducing the effectiveness of environmental policy. This work demonstrates that neglecting ambiguity in problem framing leads decision-actors to simplify the interaction space by ignoring the role of some of the other decision-actors and/or making wrong assumptions about their mental models. Moreover, they act as if the system is as simple as the decision-actors presume it to be. To demonstrate these hypotheses, a Causal Loop Diagram method was implemented to investigate the policy resistance mechanisms hampering the implementation of sustainable groundwater abstraction policy in the Apulia Region (Southern Italy).
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Borowski I, Hare M (2007) Exploring the gap between water managers and researchers: difficulties of model-based tools to support practical water management. Water Resour Manag 21:1049–1074
Bouchard M, Jousselme AL, Doré PE (2013) A proof for the positive definiteness of the Jaccard index matrix. Int J Approx Reason 54:615–626
Bouyssou D, Marchant T, Pirlot M, Tsoukias A, Vincke P (2006) Evaluation and decision models with multiple criteria: stepping stones for the analyst. Springer, New York
Brock WA, Durlauf SN (2001) Interactions-based Models. In: Hackman JJ, Leamer E (eds) Handbook of econometrics. North Holland, Amsterdam
Brugnach M, Dewulf A, Henriksen HJ, van der Keur P (2011) More is not always better: coping with ambiguity in natural resources management. J Environ Manag 92(1):78–84
Brugnach M, Ingram H (2012) Ambiguity: the challenge of knowing and deciding together. Environ Sci Policy 15(1):60–71
Brugnach M, Ingram H (2013) Ways of knowing and relational knowledge. In: Dubach UG (ed) Workshop on science, politics, and policy. Oregon State University, Corvallis
Daniell KA, Mazri C, Tsoukias A (2010) Real world decision-aiding: a case of participatory water management. In: e-Democracy: a group decision and negotiation perspective, vol 5(2). Springer, Berlin, pp 125–150
De Marchi G, Lucertini G, Tsoukiàs A (2016) From evidence based policy making to policy analytics. Ann Oper Res 236(1):15–18
Dewulf A, Gray B, Putnam L, Lewicki R, Aarts N, Bouwen R, van Woerkum C (2009) Disentangling approaches to framing in conflict and negotiation research: a meta-paradigmatic perspective. Hum Relat 62(2):155–193
Donnellon A, Gray B, Bougon MG (1986) Communication, meaning, and organized action. Adm Sci Q 31(1):43–55
Giordano R, Passarella G, Uricchio VF, Vurro M (2007) Integrating conflict analysis and consensus reaching in a decision support system for water resource management. J Environ Manag 84:213–228
Giordano R, D’agostino D, Apollonio C, Lamaddalena N, Vurro M (2013) Bayesian Belief Network to support conflict analysis for groundwater protection: the case of the Apulia Region. J Environ Manag 15:136–146
Giordano R, D’agostino D, Apollonio C, Scardigno A, Pagano A, Portoghese I, Lamaddalena N, Piccinni AF, Vurro M (2015) Evaluating acceptability of groundwater protection measures under different agricultural policies. Agric Water Manag. doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2014.07.023
Iglesias A, Garrote L, Flores F, Moneo M (2007) Challenges to manage the risk of water scarcity and climate change in the mediterranean. Water Resour Manag 21:775–788
Jaccard P (1901) Distribution de la flore alpine dans le bassin des Dranses et dans quelques régions voisines. Bull Soc Vaud Sci Nat 37:241–272
Jones NA, Ross H, Lynam T, Perez P, Leitch A (2011) Mental models: an interdisciplinary synthesis of theory and methods. Ecol Soc 16(1):46. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art46/
Keeney RL (2015) Understanding and using the group decision analysis model. In: Kamiński B, Kersten GE, Szapiro T (eds) GDN 2015, LNBIP, vol 218. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 77–86
Knűppe K, Pahl-Wostl C (2011) A framework for the analysis of governance structures applying to groundwater resources and the requirements for the sustainable management of associated ecosystem services. Water Resour Manag 25:3387–3411
Martinez-Santos P, Martinez-Alfaro PE (2010) Estimating groundwater withdrawals in areas of intensive agricultural pumping in central Spain. Agric Water Manag 98:172–181
Mazri C et al (2007) Apport méthodologique pour la structuration de processus de décision publique en contexte participatif. LAMSADE, Université Paris Dauphine, Paris, Le cas des risques industriels majeurs en France, p 393
Ostanello A (1990) Action evaluation and action structuring—different decision aid situations reviewed through two actual cases. In: Bana e Costa CA (ed) Readings in multiple criteria decision aid. Springer, Berlin, pp 36–57
Ostanello A, Tsoukiàs A (1993) An explicative model of ‘public’ interorganizational actions. Eur J Oper Res 70:67–82
Pahl-Wostl P, Jeffrey P, Isendhal N, Brugnach M (2011) Maturing the new water management paradigm: progressing from aspiration to practice. Water Resour Manag 25(3):837–856
Pereira LS, Cordery I, Iacovides I (2009) Coping with water scarcity. In: Addressing the challenges. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 382. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9579-5
Portoghese I, D’Agostino D, Giordano R, Scardigno A, Apollonio C, Lamaddalena N, Vurro M (2013) An integrated modelling tool to evaluate the acceptability of irrigation constraint measures for groundwater protection. Environ Model Softw 46:90–103
Rosenhead J, Mingers J (2001) A new paradigm for analysis. In: Rosenhead J, Mingers J (eds) Rational analysis for a problematic world. Wiley, Chichester
Schaffernicht M (2006) Detecting and monitoring change in models. Syst Dyn Rev 22(1):73–88
Schaffernicht M, Groesser SN (2011) A comprehensive method for comparing mental models of dynamic systems. Eur J Oper Res 210:57–67
Simon HA (1954) A behavioral model of rational choice. Q J Econ 69:99–118
Simon HA (1956) Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychol Rev 63:129–138
Simon HA (1957) A behavioural model of rational choice. In: Simon HA (ed) Models of man: social and rational; mathematical essays on rational human behavior in a social setting, J. Wiley, New York, pp 241–260
Simonovic SP (2011) Systems approach to management disasters: methods and applications. Wiley, New York
Sterman JD (1994) Learning in and about complex systems. Syst Dyn Rev 10(2/3):291–330
Van Camp M, Radfar M, Walraevens K (2010) Assessment of groundwater storage depletion by overexploitation using simple indicators in an irrigated closed aquifer basin in Iran. Agric Water Manag 97:1876–1886
Vennix JAM (1996) Group model-building: tackling messy problems. Syst Dyn Rev 15(4):379–401
Voudouris K, Polemio M, Kazakis N, Sifaleras A (2010) An agricultural decision support system for optimal land use regarding groundwater vulnerability. Int J Inf Syst Soc Change 1(4):66–79
Weick K (1995) Sense-making in organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Giordano, R., Brugnach, M. & Pluchinotta, I. Ambiguity in Problem Framing as a Barrier to Collective Actions: Some Hints from Groundwater Protection Policy in the Apulia Region. Group Decis Negot 26, 911–932 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-016-9519-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-016-9519-1