PM for participatory planning and decision-making: a review tool

This tool is intended to support self-reflection upon participatory modeling (PM) in relation to participatory planning processes. It can be used as an input to communication around, planning for, and learning from PM processes. Both before, during and after a PM process. Use the tool as a whole or in parts.

The tool was originally created to be used in a review of PM case study papers, see ....

(Note: The review tool is not used to collect any data from the It is here only for your own benefit. You do not need to answer and/or submit the review, and we will not collect any data that might be submitted by mistake. You may print out the questions (and potential answers) for your own use at the and of the survey.

Explanations, where necessary, are provided in relation to each respective question. Many of the questions are explicitly concerned with process (procedures, methods, tools, techniques), i.e. how was the participants of the process identified rather than who were participating in the process, or, how was the main uncertainties identified and handled rather than what uncertainties were included, or, if procedures for supporting stakeholder learning were described in the paper rather than if the process resulted in stakeholders having learned.

The tool is based of two complementary participatory process frameworks:
  1. The COPP: the framework for Comparision of Participatory Processes
  2. The SPF: the Sustainable Procedure Framework

The review tool has been used to review PM case study papers, see ........


Hassenforder, E., Smajgl, A. & Ward J. (2015) Towards understanding participatory processes: Framework, application and results. Journal of Environmental Management, 157, 84-95.

Hedelin, B. (2015). Further development of a sustainable procedure framework for strategic natural resources and disaster risk management. Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research, 7(4), 247-266.

Hedelin, B. (2007). Criteria for the assessment of sustainable water management. Environmental Management, 39(2), 151-163.

1 In what year was the PM process completed?
Note: this is not necessarily the year of publication. If you cannot find the year of completion, please enter "1900". If the project was on-going as of publication date, please enter 2100.
Invalid, the value must be between 1800 and 2200
2 Which categories best describe the focus of the case study? (Select all the main)