Table 3. Evaluation criteria applied to each of the tools reviewed: products.

Tools
Does it encourage communication and learning among different stakeholders?
Does it encourage co-learning or single group learning?
Does it encourage communication and learning between local stakeholders and users?
Is it simple to use?
Is it readily translatable across socioeconomic groups?
Is it readily translatable across cultures?
Does it allow for dynamic, iterative, or recursive use?
Does it easily provide specialized knowledge?
What specific skills are required from the user?
Can community members use it themselves?
Is it capable of rapid implementation?
Bayesian belief network and system dynamic model
Yes
Can be co-learning, but this is difficult
Yes, if developed jointly
No
No
Unknown
Yes
No
Numeracy; abstract reasoning
No
No
Discourse-based valuation
Yes
Co-learning
Yes
Variable
Dependent on power structures
Unknown
Yes
Yes
Numeracy
Yes, with training
Yes
4Rs framework
Yes
Both
Depends on use
Variable
Yes
Unknown
Yes
No
Able to mediate/ facilitate divergent views
Yes, with training, but needs neutral facilitator, may be difficult
No
Participatory mapping
Yes
Co-learning
Yes
Yes
No
Unknown
Yes
Yes
Drawing; two-dimensional abstract thinking and representation
Yes
Yes
Pebble Distribution Method
Yes
Both possible
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Can be
Yes
Numeracy and shared definitions
Yes
Yes
Future scenario
Yes
Co-learning
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Abstract reasoning
Yes
No
Spidergram
Yes
Co-learning
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Numeracy
Yes
Yes
Venn diagram
Yes
Both
Depends on use
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Abstract visualizing and inferring
Yes
Yes
Who Counts Matrix
Yes
Can be both
Depends on use
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Shared definitions and numeracy
Yes
No