Use of Systems Theory, Directed Graphs, and Pulse Process Models in an Adaptive Approach to Agroecosystem Health and Sustainability - Integrated Assessment of Health and Sustainability of Agroecosystems - page 94

Levins, 1985; Ridgley and Lumpkin, 2000). Cognitive maps were developed, one for
each intensive study site (ISS), in 1-day participatory workshops, using principles
of participatory mapping described in Chapter 3. The maps were analyzed using
graph theory as described by Harary et al. (1965), Jeffries (1974), Roberts and Brown
(1975), Roberts (1976a, 1976b), Perry (1983), Puccia and Levins (1985), Klee (1989),
Ridgley and Lumpkin (2000), and Bang-Jensen and Gutin (2001).
4.2.1 p A r t i C i pAt of r y C o g n if t if v e m A p p i in g
Cognitive maps, in the form of signed directed graphs (digraphs), were constructed
for each ISS. These mapping activities were carried out in October and November
1997, subsequent to the initial village workshops. Details of the selection of study
sites are provided in Chapter 2. A 1-day workshop was held in each study site. Each
household in the study site was represented by at least one person. Although work-
shop participants from the ISS communities were not necessarily experts in any
relevant technical discipline, they were considered “lay” experts (Roberts, 1976a)
due to their unique experiential knowledge of the agroecosystem. Local participants
were taken to be “synthetic experts” (Dalkey, 1969).
To facilitate group discussions and to provide opportunities for each local partic-
ipant to give an opinion, the local participants were divided into groups of 6-10. The
number (ranging from 4 to 10) of groups depended on the number of participants and
therefore the size of the village. A facilitator and a recorder were provided for each
of the groups. Facilitators consisted of researchers and divisional team members as
described in Chapter 2. Each group was asked to discuss how various problems and
concerns in the study site interacted with each other, thus precipitating changes in
the health and sustainability of the agroecosystem. A whiteboard, index cards, and
large sheets of paper were used to plot the graphs. Each group was shown, using an
abstract example, of how they could represent their views in the form of a digraph
using the materials provided. Participants were asked to record the concepts on index
cards (making it easier to move concepts in a diagram) or directly on a whiteboard.
The concepts were then to be linked using the rules described for cognitive maps
and signed digraphs. Each group presented its diagram to the rest of the workshop
participants. Diagrams were compared and contrasted and a composite diagram
developed. This composite diagram included only those concepts and relationships
in which there was consensus about their existence. The rationale for this was that
collective action was likely to follow only if consensus existed. Further, consensus
was assumed to indicate a collective agreement that the concepts and relationships
operated in the manner depicted.
Participants described relationships among concepts in terms of the direction
of influence (for example, A influences B), the sign (positive if positively correlated
and negative if negatively correlated), as well as the perceived impact on the system
(positive if beneficial and negative if detrimental). In the cognitive map, correlations
were denoted by the line form (solid if positive and dashed if negative). The impact
was denoted by the color; red arrows denoted negative impact, while blue lines
denoted positive impact. A solid red arrow, for example, represented a positive cor-
relation with a negative impact on the agroecosystem. Conversely, a dashed blue line
represented a negative correlation with a positive impact.