Methodology   Good for Process of application Limitations   Nominal group technique •  Ensuring equal participation of each member of the team •  Building commitment •  Making the team’s consensus visible Introduction and explanation done by facilitator Silent generation of ideas by participants (10 minutes) Sharing ideas (without debates) by participants, recorded by facilitator (round robin process; 15-30 minutes) Group discussion (30-45 minutes) Voting and ranking Opinions may not converge in the voting process Cross-fertilization of ideas may be constrained The process may appear to be too mechanical†   Community based research (FGDs)   Community-based research often produces unanticipated and far reaching ancillary results, including new social relationships and trust, as well as heightened social efficacy‡ Choosing the question which build relationship with the stakeholders in order to understand how the research will fit in with their social change goals Designing the method for the considerations of how involved the community group wants to be in the actual research Collecting the data for the ability to build and skills and relationships by collecting data together and from each other Analyzing the data Reporting the results could be an oral report at a community meeting or testimony at city council or a glossy brochure§ Difficulties with respect to funding, and establishing continuity between community contacts and institutions and the research team.   Strategic Choice Approach   •  Aiding decisions to be made in particular planning and development situations •  Providing an interactive forum between people with different backgrounds and skills Shaping the problem areas Designing what can be done, looking at possibilities and drawbacks. Comparing various ideas, evaluating the best possible way forward Choosing the best ideas for solving the problems acknowledging any uncertainties SCA has methodical constraints, which do not allow to seek deeper for the single solutions Rigidness and lack of motivation of the participants due to the cyclical continuity of the process   Role playing game (as in companion modeling)   •  Embedding participants in a simulation experiment; making local knowledge more valuable, favouring communication and creativity •  Enhancing participants understanding of their mutual interactions and system •  Providing scientists with opportunity to better understand behaviours and interactions| Building a conceptual model focusing on the question at stake RPG design from model : simple resource dynamics; spatial characteristics transferred on game boards ; physical and social constraints become game rules; resource use and management are left to players with different roles RPG operationalisation : test and calibration, moderators training RPG sessions : game and debriefings Back to the loop : analysis , question reshaping, model evolution¶ #Good knowledge of local context and power relationships is needed to decipher game events, conduct efficient de-briefing, and take care that the process is not used to reinforce existing power in-equalities High demands for well organized debriefing, language barriers Needs at least 3 people to organize, well trained local facilitators , at least ½ day   Cognitive mapping   Collection, structure and integration of different understandings of the environmental system to be managed and of the information needed for the management process†† Consideration of overall question/goal by facilitator Writting down, on individual cards, causes that are important to a participant and that are directly linked to the question (1st order cause) Writting down causes that influence those already in the model, i.e. behind them (2nd order causes) Identification of the relationships Giving a name to the model and signing it The cognitive maps are not self-explaining, good records of presentations by the owners are essential.   Group model building   •  Team learning •  Consensus formation •  Improved acceptance of management decision‡‡ Consideration of overall question/goal by facilitator Nomination of a referee One by one presents the one card from the own cognitive maps and adds it to the model Discussion about the meaning of each card and its position Grouping cards by facilitator Possible definition for potential measures and relevant actors Limited representational capabilities of graph-based models. They cannot always represent consistently dynamic relationships between variables. For example, relationships that might change as a result of feedback effects or a tipping point being reached, cannot be easily represented using these static formats. See also Vennix (1996) for other problems.

^† Sample, 1984
^‡ Sclove, R. et al., 1998.
^§ Stoecker, R. 2004.
^| Barreteau et al., 2007.
^¶ Bousquet et al.., 2002
^# Barreteau et al., 2003.
^†† SEECON. 2007.
^‡‡ Hare, M.2007.