Interpreting relationships and structures

One of the specific aims of the research alongside building a general understanding is to comprehend the actions and interactions through the concept of networks and systems, therefore the interview data and subsequent analysis was also used to inform a process of analysis of the relationships and structures within the catchment management system. A diagramming approach

104 was used to transform the words of the stakeholders into system or network depictions and a process informed by network analysis was used to more formally conceptualise the system as a network in order to enhance understandings of interactions and the processes of exchange.

4.1.2.1. Diagramming inspired by the ARDI method

In order to make sense of the system of water management and to better understand the dynamics between the multiple stakeholders in the catchment a diagramming method was used to interpret the interview data alongside the analysis of codes and themes. The method used was inspired by the ARDI (Actors, Resources, Dynamics, Interactions) method (Étienne et al., 2011) from the companion modelling approach (e.g. Barreteau et al., 2003). The ARDI method involves researchers working closely with a core group of stakeholders in the area of study. Through a series of workshops and deliberations the core group comes up with a diagram of the system that represents their shared understanding of the actors and resources involved and the interactions amongst them, incorporating knowledge of the dynamics of the system that informs the patterns (see Figure 4.1 as an example).. The core theme of the process is to elicit shared mental-models of the system. The ARDI process is designed as part of a modelling process in which an agent-based model would be created agent-based on the ARDI diagram in order to explore further dynamics and solutions (Biggs et al., 2008; Rouan et al., 2010; Simon and Etienne, 2010).

105 Figure 4.1 An ARDI diagram created for the Crocodile River system, depicting stakeholders (white), resources (green), processes (bold) and actions (blue). Reproduced from Etienne et al (2011).

This research recognises the benefits a process of diagramming offers to better understand the system and the mental-models of a wide variety of stakeholders, but it does not follow the ARDI method as closely as to create a core group of stakeholders who work together to produce the diagram. The purpose of studies that have previously used the method has been ‘action-research’, where the act of participating in the workshops becomes part of a practical way to build relationships in an area where problems may have been caused by lack of communication and lack of understanding across disparate groups and perhaps a lack of opportunity to meet and deliberate and share information. Through sensitive facilitation the process is able to act as the beginnings of a collaborative approach in place of any other formal modes of collaborative NRM.

An ARDI process conducted similarly in the Wear catchment context would be repetitive of the types of interactions and discussions that stakeholders involved in CaBA had already been through in the pilot phase.

Consequently, the process of ARDI in this research is a way to synthesise a variety of stakeholders’

mental-models of the system in the Wear catchment. The interviews act as a mode of expression for the stakeholders to define their own views about dynamics and interactions, which form the

106 basis for diagrams. As an addition to the ARDI process, in this research individual ARDI diagrams were created for each interviewee in order to represent their individual perceptions and networks of interactions and opinions about dynamics (see Figure 4.2 as an example and Appendix B for an example diagram). The individual diagrams were collated into a larger diagram of the whole system. Although the diagram is not co-created, as in other applications of the method, the content is based on the words and descriptions of the stakeholders and on the understanding of each of their worlds based on their individual diagrams.

Figure 4.2 Depiction of the hand-written ARDI- inspired diagram for an individual stakeholder (in this case a representative of the Wear Rivers Trust).

The process of ARDI is described by Étienne et al. (2011) and the identification of the four core principles (actors, resources, interactions and dynamics) are the elements of the method utilised in this research to create individual and collective diagrams. Each of the elements were identified for this research as follows:

Actors (“A”)

Actors in the system are usually identified by asking the participants to list all the people they believe are relevant to the system based on their experience. In this research the actors (defined firstly as human actors, organisations and institutions) were identified by working through the

107 interview material and recording all the groups mentioned. One of the research questions focused on asking the stakeholders about their key contacts, which fed into the identification of actors.

Actors were recorded at the organisational level in order to standardise the reporting (as some stakeholders would refer to individuals and others to only the organisation). Some problems occurred when stakeholders referred to generic groups such as ‘the public’, which are difficult to identify specifically, therefore specific publics were associated with specific groups rather than including one generic ‘public’ actor.

Within the ARDI process, actors are also interpreted as non-human elements and can refer to management entities or animals (but should be delineated from elements included in the resource category). This research interpreted elements such as legislation, management plans, specific meetings and partnerships or even infrastructure (around waste water for example) to have agency in the decision-making practices and therefore were included in the diagram. Importantly the links between actors (and other elements) are also identified as part of the ARDI process. At this stage there is simply an acknowledgement of association. The interactions and dynamics stage of the process identify the exact nature of the relations.

Resources (“R”)

Resources are identified as goods or products in the ARDI process (Étienne et al., 2011) but were more loosely interpreted as natural systems or types of environment relevant to stakeholders. As all stakeholders are focused on the same environment and the same resources the main elements included in the diagram were simply rivers and streams, riparian land, ground water and peatland.

Within each category it is recognised that there are many types of resources and environments that are valued, utilised and maintained but were not needed at this level of abstraction.

Dynamics (“D”)

Dynamics refer to the key processes in the system, in particular those that drive changes.

Processes could be ecological dynamics, social processes or economic dynamics. In the ARDI method, dynamics are ranked by importance by the stakeholders, however in this research the analysis of the importance of different dynamics is done through in depth analysis rather than deliberation with stakeholders therefore dynamics are included in the links between elements in the diagram.

Interactions (“I”)

This stage of the process brings together all the other elements of the ARDI process by identifying the interactions between the elements of the system. For ease of representation interactions are represented as links or lines between nodes on the diagram with a words or phrases attached

108 (usually including a verb) to represent the influence or exchange as well as dynamics between actors. The diagramming process encourages just one link to represent the relationship between actors, which is potentially problematic if there is a complex and multi-layered relationship, therefore sometimes multiple or more explanatory links were included, particularly to help depict the dynamics of the system.

Figure 4.3 shows the first-hand version of the final ARDI-inspired diagram for the Wear catchment system. The diagram was kept in draft format and utilised to feed into the analysis of the networked system, through informing the components of the system and the links between actors and elements.

Figure 4.3 ARDI-inspired diagram of the Wear catchment system. Yellow notes indicate stakeholders and actors, green notes indicate resources, blue notes indicate meetings or projects, pink notes indicate legislation or plans.

4.1.2.2. Identifying network structure

The ARDI method establishes that the catchment-management system can be conceived as a connected whole (within the limited boundaries and scope of the data used to understand the system). By conceptualising the water-management system as a social network, an additional in-depth analysis was made. SNA offers a system of standard practices to analyse the configuration

109 of a social network in relation to ties (links) and to the position of actors or ‘nodes’ within the network. It does, however require there to be quantitative data about the contacts and communication between actors in order to quantitatively analyse the outputs. For this research, a full social network analysis was not the aim and therefore the information collected about stakeholder interactions offers a qualitative understanding.

The software package NetDraw (Borgatti, 2002), part of the larger UCINET package, was used to visualise the network. In order to create a network graph and begin to analyse its structure, a network matrix was created. The components of the matrix represent those components that were seen to have power or importance in the system of management and decisions were made to include all stakeholders mentioned by interviewees, any partnerships in existence, any large multi-stakeholder meetings mentioned, as well as projects and actions within those projects. The network is therefore conceptualised differently to a stand-alone social network to encompass the different spaces and place of interactions identified through the ARDI process.

The matrix created was a symmetric matrix in which it is assumed that the ties between nodes are undirected and that there is an equality of relationship between each entity. The strength of the ties (Granovetter, 1973) was not included as the qualitative information produced during interviews was not consistent enough to translate to a standardised quantitative measure. Figure 4.4 shows part of the matrix created for the Wear catchment network with the components of the network listed against one another and the existence and type of relationship marked by categories. The types of relationships between actors were defined by the dominating relationship, which in itself is a difficult measure as many of the actors have complex relationships that involve many forms of interaction, however a certain level of abstraction was needed in order to assess the network. Once the matrix had been fed into the software package, graphs (or socio-grams) of the whole network as well as some ‘ego’ (node) graphs were produced to highlight the individual networks of some actors.

SNA allows for the production of quantitative measures about the network structure, reflecting on the power, centrality, positions and roles of the entities that make up the network. From UCINET various measures were produced for the Wear catchment graph including centrality and betweenness measure, for isolated parts of the network (e.g. only stakeholders) as well as the whole network. It is important to note, however, that the use of quantitative measures is balanced within the context of other forms of analysis and that they are not taken to be representative of

110 an absolute truth or permanency but one possible understanding of one construction of the system.

Figure 4.4 Section of the matrix created for the catchment network showing the network nodes against one another and the types of relationships.

4.2. Exploring the system through Agent-Based Modelling