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