peterson&al_2010_participatory processes and climate forecast use

Participatory processes and climate forecast use:Socio-cultural context, discussion, and consensusNICOLE D. PETERSON1,*, KENNETH BROAD2,*, BEN ORLOVE3, CARLA RONCOLI4,RENZO TADDEI5 and MARIA-ALEJANDRA VELEZ6

1Department of Anthropology, Barnard College, 3009 Broadway, New York, NY 10027, USA2Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami, 4600 Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, FL 33149, USA3Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California, One Shields Way, Davis, CA 95616, USA4Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, University of Georgia, Griffin, GA 302232, USA5School of Communication, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Av. Pasteur, 250 fundos Praia Vermelha, Rio de Janeiro,

RJ 22290-902, Brazil6Facultad de Administracion. Universidad de los Andes, Colombia

Participatory processes are increasingly promoted by various groups as among the best approaches to increase efficiency, dem-ocracy and equity in decisions involving climate forecasts. Yet little is understood about the interaction between participation and itssurrounding socio-cultural environment in the context of the dissemination and use of climate forecasts. This article draws on two casestudies: water allocation choices in Brazil and agricultural decision making in Uganda. The focus is on two under-studied aspects ofparticipatory processes: (1) the social norms of interactions that affect activity and outcomes through exclusion, pre-meetings, alli-ances, language and non-linguistic events; and (2) the diversity of goals and outcomes that motivate participation, including desire forconsensus, social networking and community building. Thesenormsandgoals often result in behaviours andoutcomesunanticipatedby the promoters. We argue that the influence of socio-cultural context on the process is not only an unavoidable characteristic ofparticipation, but also what makes it possible in the first place, bringing meaning and purpose to the activity for many participants.

Keywords: climate; culture; economic development; language; participation

1. Introduction

In an over-air-conditioned room of a rural town in

the dusty interior of the state of Ceara in Northeast

Brazil a region prone to devastating, recurrent

droughts about 120 people sit in tight, orderly

rows of chairs facing a stage with a long table occu-

pied by representatives from the state water agency,

local water committees, and the municipal govern-

ment. For almost 8 hours, with breaks for fresh air,

coffee and cigarettes, the participants discuss how

much water to release from the massive Jaguar-

ibeMetropolitano Hydrosystem reservoirs. A

microphone is passed around, moving from local

politicians to itinerant fisherpersons, to farmers,

to aquaculturalists. All, to varying degrees and in

different forms, have a stake in how much water

is released, and employ a range of analytical and

emotional arguments to push for choosing one of

six scenarios projected on a screen at the front.

Central to many of their arguments are predictions

of next years rains and subsequent reservoir levels.

If a consensus is not achieved, a vote will be taken.

This twice-a-year meeting is imbued with gravitas

well beyond the practical outcome of who gets

how much water. It is a symbolic event linked to

the interrelated tenets of modernization,

decentralization and democratization. In contrast

to the norms of explicit clientilism and state

paternalism that drove allocation decisions in the

research paper

B *Corresponding authors. E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT 2 (2010) 1429

doi:10.3763/cdev.2010.0033 # 2010 Earthscan ISSN: 1756-5529 (print), 1756-5537 (online) www.earthscan.co.uk/journals/cdev

recent past, this participatory decision making

enables a varied set of resource users to choose

among several scenarios of water-release under

current climate forecasts and hydrological

models. At least this is the goal espoused by organ-

izations, including the World Bank, that have pro-

moted this process as a means of fostering

democratic ideals of participation and equity.

A very different meeting, also convened to

discuss the upcoming seasons climate forecast, is

taking place under a spreading tree in the Rakai dis-

trict in the southern part of Uganda. This open-air

meeting appears quite informal. People from

nearby villages walk in and greet each other

before finding a spot on a chair or bench or mat.

The gathering group has been formed in recent

years through government agricultural develop-

ment projects, through decentralization pro-

grammes, and through the activities of

international and national NGOs; it draws

widely from the population of farmers who grow

a variety of crops on small fields, including

maize, beans, cassava, sweet potatoes, white pota-

toes, peanuts and, in carefully tended plots,

bananas and coffee. At some point, a leader of

the group or a local official makes formal intro-

ductions and the group welcomes a team of visi-

tors. The team includes two linguists from the

national university and two anthropologists

from the USA, who are introduced by the local

agricultural extension agent. The team plays a

taped forecast for the upcoming rainy season pre-

pared by meteorologists at the Uganda Depart-

ment of Meteorology. The farmers spend some

time discussing the forecast and its implications

for farm management and other activities. In

this meeting, the primary goal is to reach

farmers who have had limited access to cutting

edge information to aid agricultural decisions;

secondarily, the aim is to link farmers to a larger

movement of decentralized rural development.

These two cases involving climate forecasts,

apparently so different, share an important charac-

teristic: they represent the interaction of several

sets of ideas about the purpose and process of

participatory processes. Participatory processes in

economic development activities emerged in

the 1960s as a way to involve local users in the

implementation of local projects (Agrawal and

Gibson, 1999; Botchway, 2001; Campbell and

Vainio-Mattila, 2003; Stephenson, 2003). Most

studies focus on the official purpose of partici-

pation (e.g. Cooke and Kothari, 2001; Beierle and

Cayford, 2002; National Research Council, 2008).

These evaluations give little, if any, attention to

the range of goals and motivations derived from

the social norms and lived experiences of project

participants. Yet, as will be shown in this article,

participatory processes are characterized and some-

times driven by such extra-project norms and

goals. Our analysis reveals the shortcomings

of US-based models of participation which, by

emphasizing equality and recognizing only verbal

speech, miss the depth of participation for many

people around the world.

Climate forecast producers and other meteor-

ologists have begun to look to participatory

processes as a means of improving the

comprehension and use of their data. The intent

is to correct patterns of underuse, distortion or mis-

application of forecasts, which persist despite

impressive advances in scientific ability to forecast

seasonal climate variations in several regions of

the world (see http://iri.columbia.edu for an

example of state-of-the-art capabilities) (Stern and

Easterling, 1999; Broad and Agrawala, 2000;

Hammer et al., 2001; Miller, 2001; Phillips et al.,

2001; Broad et al., 2002; Hansen, 2002; Ingram

et al., 2002). In some cases, including in Ceara,

Brazil, the probabilistic nature of forecasts has

been miscommunicated or misunderstood, creat-

ing confusion and distress as well as problems

arising from the incorrect application of forecasts

(Taddei, 2009). These unintended consequences

have led to criticism of the forecast community

(Finan and Nelson, 2001; Broad et al., 2002;

Glantz, 2002; Lemos, 2003). Studies have increas-

ingly shown them to be a result of the cognitive dif-

ficulty of explaining the complex topic of

uncertainty to a lay audience (Cash et al., 2006),

as well as a result of socio-economic factors, includ-

ing disparity in socio-political power and access

to capital and productive resources (Nicholls and

Kestin, 1998; Pfaff et al., 1999; Patt, 2001; Patt

Participatory processes and climate forecast use 15

CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT

and Gwata, 2002; Podesta et al., 2002; Luseno et al.,

2003; Roncoli et al., 2003, 2009; Hansen et al.,

2004; Ziervogel, 2004; McCrea et al., 2005;

Roncoli, 2006).

Scholars and on-the-ground practitioners

(e.g. rural NGOs) have also criticized forecasting

agencies for their unidirectional model of infor-

mation flow, in which organizations publish

press releases, bulletins or other media for use by

individual decision makers or intermediary organ-

izations (Agrawala et al., 2001; Orlove et al., 2004;

Taddei, 2008). Such information has sometimes

been entirely ignored. In other cases, it has

reached only people and organizations with

greater economic resources and access to state

and private institutions (Agrawala and Broad,

2002; Archer, 2003; Luseno et al., 2003; Taddei,

2004, 2005). Drawing on lessons from analogous

technology transfer cases, policy analysts have

urged forecasting agencies to collaborate with

end users to increase the acceptance and usability

of their information (Agrawala and Broad, 2002).

One solution suggested by consultants with

experience in other areas of international devel-

opment was participatory meetings between

end users and the forecast communities in

regions throughout the world. In response, the

Climate Outlook Fora (COF) (see NOAA/OGP,

1999) began bringing together researchers from

different fields, sectoral specialists, media repre-

sentatives and, lately, end users (IRI, 2000;

DaSilva et al., 2004). The Brazil and Uganda

cases explored here stem from the COF process.

An early COF for northeastern South America

washeld inCeara in1998,andregionalmeteorolo-

gists have attended regularly since; meanwhile

the Uganda Department of Meteorology has

taken part in Greater Horn of Africa COFs since

the late 1990s, hosting them on several occasions.

In Ceara, climate data informs more sophisticated

reservoir modelling efforts that are integrated

into the states water resource management

system, and in public meetings are presented as

a set of reservoir release scenarios (Taddei, 2005,

forthcoming; Taddei et al., forthcoming). The

introduction of seasonal climate forecasts to

Ugandas rural areas not including those based

on traditional indicators is a result of applied

research efforts funded by the US National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and

of Ugandas efforts to reduce poverty through

increased agricultural productivity. A systematic

comparison of these two cases reveals the func-

tion of participatory activities under very differ-

ent social and technological conditions.

Even in the seemingly straightforward case

of information dissemination, participatory

processes are still influenced by socio-political

issues, as well as the additional challenge of under-

standing the inherent uncertainties of climate fore-

casts. This article acknowledges the usefulness of

participation for improving forecast dissemination,

yet finds a critical approach useful for probing the

limitations of previous work on participation. Our

intent is to discuss participation as a result of

social context, including relationships of power

and influence. While others have recognized its

importance (e.g. Cooke and Kothari, 2001; Hickey

and Mohan, 2004; Chambers, 2005), our focus is

on how social context is both problematic,

because it affects how participation is understood

and proceeds in different situations, and vital, in

that it creates the possibility for participation by

providing a set of norms and goals for the process.

We examine the social contexts created by social

norms, including exclusion, alliances, language

and non-linguistic cues, which indicate a variety

of concrete ways in which power operates. We

also discuss various goals brought into participa-

tory processes, including non-project goals, and

possible outcomes from participation.

2. Case studies: Water allocation in theNortheast Region of Brazil and small-scaleagriculture in Uganda1

2.1. Brazil water allocation meetings

The semi-arid northeast region of Brazil that

includes the state of Ceara is subject to extreme

droughts that affect the agricultural production

of commercial and subsistence farmers. Low pro-

ductivity is also due to poor soils, skewed land

16 Peterson et al.


distribution, low levels of education, high levels

of poverty and underemployment, and limited

physical and social infrastructure (Costa et al.,

1997). Farmers vulnerabilities are exacerbated

during multi-year droughts (Magalhaes, 2002;

Neves, 2002). Historically, the government has

responded to recurrent droughts by funnelling

relief money into public works programmes

which gave disproportionate advantage to

private landholders and oligarchic rural families.

Recently, efforts have focused on understanding

and predicting climate variability in the region

(influenced by El Nino and other climatic

factors), and applying this information to public

decision making in order to prevent reliance

on the central government for bailout measures

(Finan and Nelson, 2001; Lemos, 2003). Two

major initiatives by government agencies in

Ceara, partly funded by multinational organiz-

ations, have sought to alleviate the biases of

drought response through: (1) the development

of an extensive network of reservoirs for water

storage and canals for water transfer, and (2)

an intensive implementation of participatory

decisionmaking forwaterallocationamongstake-

holders, in so-called Water Allocation Semin-

ars, in large part due to a lending requirement of

the World Bank (Kemper et al., 2005; Taddei,

2005, forthcoming; Taddei et al., forthcoming).

The participatory process involves groups who

share water from connected reservoirs (see Taddei

et al., forthcoming, for a typology of users). They

are hydrological residents of the Jaguaribe

Valley, the largest segment of a rural hinterland

of some 30,000 ha of irrigated land, home to

over 2 million people. Small plots of less than

10 ha dominate, and rice and other crops are cul-

tivated mostly with rudimentary technologies.

Participants in allocation meetings are presented

with a range of scenarios for the next seasons

water availability which factor in climate variabil-

ity. Organized and led by the Ceara state water

management agency Companhia de Gestao

dos Recursos Hidricos (COGERH), water users

negotiate, through day-long discussions, water-

release amounts for each reservoir and water-use

priorities for the upcoming six months. The

informal presentation and discussion of scenarios

pre-selected by COGERH is often preceded by

a technical presentation on some aspect of

climate or water management. Consensus is

attained through dialogue, facilitated by a mod-

erator from COGERH. If verbal agreement is not

unanimous, a vote is taken. Given the variety

of alliances and points of discussion, consensus

can be reached on characteristics of water man-

agement and minimum needs of diverse users at

several points, suggesting that the dynamics of

the process follow from an interaction between

selfish motives and social norms related to main-

taining stable relations among the network of

water users (Taddei, 2005).

2.2. Uganda farmer discussion groups

As in most of sub-Saharan Africa, the majority

of Ugandas population resides in rural areas and

relies on rain-fed agriculture for food and income.

Compared with its neighbours, Uganda is favoured

by abundant rainfall and fertile soils. Yet a poor

choice of crop variety or planting date can be the

difference between a good harvest and a partial or

total crop failure, threatening household liveli-

hood. Therefore, at the onset of each rainy

season, farmers scrutinize the local environment

for indicators signalling whether their crops can

safely germinate, grow, and mature before the

rainy season ends. Indicators include shifts in

wind direction, night-time minimum tempera-

tures, the shape and forms of clouds, observations

of migratory birds, and the flowering of particular

trees (Orlove and Kabugo, 2005). In addition,

farmers rely on information from social networks,

marketplaces, and radio broadcasts that allow

them to track the onset of rains across the

country (Orlove et al., forthcoming). Interpret-

ations are grounded in theaccumulated experience

of multiple generations of local farmers.

While Ugandan farmers still rely on this local

knowledge base, many believe climatic patterns

today are changing and less predictable. Their

growing sense of uncertainty suggests they are

open to receiving additional information to



orient their decisions. Since the El Nino event

caused severe floods in the region in 1997

1998, the Ugandan government has disseminated

ENSO-based climate forecasts through media

advisories and agricultural extension. Produced

by the Department of Meteorology in collabor-

ation with other scientific centres in the region,

the forecasts are incorporated into advisories by

the Ministry of Agriculture. Due to cumbersome

political mechanics, advisories do not always

reach farmers at the right time (before planting)

or in a format that facilitates understanding and

use. In addition, reports are written in English

rather than local languages and spread through

newspapers or national radio stations that do

not reach rural areas. The local language pro-

grammes more commonly listened to by farmers

sometimes introduce distortions. Even when

forecasts are correctly reproduced, their broad

(regional) scale and ambiguities relative to their

probabilistic nature can deter farmers from

using them as decision support tools.

To help make climate forecasts more accessible

and useful to farmers, a team from the Center for

Research on Environmental Decisions (CRED),

composed of US-based anthropologists and

Ugandan linguists, worked with the Department

of Meteorology to produce and distribute down-

scaled seasonal rainfall forecasts to farmer groups.

In its outreach efforts the CRED team sought to

capitalize on an extensive network of community-

based organizations that has been promoted by

thegovernments recent shift towards decentraliza-

tion of governance and modernization of agri-

culture. The project assessed whether farmers

groups could serve as key links in a participatory

process joining forecast producers, agricultural

advisors and end users. The first step in the experi-

mental design consisted of rendering downscaled

seasonal rainfall forecasts in a few simple sen-

tences that were then translated into the local

language (Luganda), paying particular attention

to key terms like season, normal and prob-

ability. The resulting message was recorded on

tape and played during farmers groups meetings;

afterward, participants were invited to discuss the

information without facilitation by the

researchers. Group discussion focused on partici-

pants understanding of the forecast and its impli-

cations for agricultural decision making. In many

cases, groups sought to reach a consensus on what

the forecast meant and what strategies to

adopt. Each group was also asked to agree on a

number of feedback points that would be con-

veyed by the research team to the Department

of Meteorology to help them better serve the

farmers needs.

In these cases, as many other studies, different

ideas about participatory processes are evident,

similar to Arnsteins (1969) early ideas regarding

participation. Participation is seen by those

setting up the meetings as a useful means for

communicating forecast information to improve

decision making. The process is framed as fostering

communication, understanding, and decisions.

But, in practice, social processes of negotiation,

manipulation, and contestation can overtake

and subvert the activity. Participants and organ-

izers alike bring in ideas about what participation

involves, how it should proceed and what it can

accomplish (see also Mompati and Prinsen, 2000;

Botchway, 2001; Eversole, 2003). Far from being

a neutral space for decision making, participation

becomes an arena for enacting and resolving

conflicts (Gaventa, 2004), negotiating social rela-

tionships (Williams, 2004), and creating commu-

nities. As we discuss in the next section, this arena

includes a diversity of social norms and project

goals that can influence the process.

3. Beyond talk: The social normsof participation

Participation happens in a variety of formal and

informal spaces and includes activities ranging

from organized to open-ended. Much of the

focus of the participatory literature has been

on formal and organized events, rather than the

context surrounding them. For example, formal

participatory processes are often the focus of

experimental studies (e.g. Ostrom, 2000; Walker

et al., 2000; Tyran and Feld, 2002; Cardenas,

2005; Bischoff, 2007). However, studies

18 Peterson et al.


increasingly suggest that informal meetings and

activities are important (Uphoff, 1992; Cleaver,

1999; Buanes et al., 2005; Parkins and Mitchell,

2005). Case studies suggest that western models

of participation in either formal or informal

events are insufficient: participation often reflects

local modes of social exchange. As a result, the

design of participatory processes should acknowl-

edge a broader range of activities (Buanes et al.,

2005; Parkins and Mitchell, 2005), since non-

meeting activities, social norms and non-verbal

interactions appear to affect how information is

presented, discussed, and the influence that

various groups and individuals exert.

A close look at activities surrounding participa-

tory processes suggests that the western-dominated

notion of participation as egalitarian and based in

speech misses the real cultural richness of what it

means to participate for many people, including

norms of exclusion, alliances, language use, and

non-linguistic activities.

3.1. Norms of involvement: Exclusion

As noted, participation is often idealized as open

involvement, in which everyone can be part of

the process, whether for design, decision making

or another project activity. Yet participation can

be,atbest,poorly implementedgivenlocalcontexts

(Taddei, 2005) and, at worst, a mask for larger issues

of inequality and inadequacy in governance (Ter-

borgh, 2000) or a means for institutionalizing

powerdifferences (Wester et al., 2003;Taddei, forth-

coming). Critics see few real benefits for the most

vulnerable (Cleaver, 1999; Blair, 2000; Kumar,

2002; Taddei, 2005). In the Brazil and Uganda

cases, shortcomings included: exclusion, whether

via intentional or unintentional non-invitation to

the main participatory activity; non-participation

in pre-activity meetings; or privileging certain

voices (or modes of expression) during the

meeting (see also Peterson, forthcoming).

In the Uganda project, group meetings were

scheduled in advance and members were

informed by an extension agent or the group

chairperson, as is customary. Being contacted

and informed by these gatekeepers was therefore

a prerequisite for attendance. Some individuals

were prevented from participation because they

live in remote areas (and did not receive the

information) or because they were purposefully

excluded. In one case, a group leader failed to

invite a member who had openly challenged

him and the team during a previous meeting.

Exclusion particularly affects immigrants and

other marginal social groups. In some cases,

those not informed or invited can join or listen

to the discussion, although this is more difficult

when meetings are held indoors rather than out-

doors, where it is possible to linger on the edge

and listen, or move closer to join the discussion.

InCeara, thereisdefactoexclusionbecausetrans-

portation to the meetings is not subsidized, and

poorer or marginalized groups often cannot pay

transportation costs (Taddei et al., forthcoming).

Traditionally, in Ceara meetings, the strength of

individuals or representatives comes from their

degree of visible support from non-voting group

members.Sopoorergroupscanbedoublydisadvan-

taged by having fewer attendants who can speak,

and fewer supporters for those who do speak.

3.2. Norms of involvement: Alliances

In Ceara, another form of exclusion occurs

because the government presents only a limited

range of water-release options during the meet-

ings. The water use of some regions (e.g. the

metropolitan area of Fortaleza, capital of Ceara)

or sectors (tourism and industry) is not open to

public negotiation. In addition, before meetings,

different user groups often forge alliances that

increase the total number of supporters or

provide access to speakers able to advance a par-

ticular water-release scenario. Clearly, informal

participation outside the recognized process can

influence outcomes (Taddei, 2005).

Norms of inclusion thus appear to be powerful

determinants of outcomes. The range of means

for exclusion shows the limitationsofparticipation

and suggests that exclusion is based on, and often

justified by, social norms of interaction often



unanticipated by organizers that dictate how

participation in a local context should proceed.

The extra-project context introduces additional

rules, constraints, and expectations that guide

the processes of participation.

3.3. Languages in use

Linguistic strategies and norms can also substan-

tially affect how people may participate and the

extent to which they may do so. In the Uganda

meeting, participants draw on different styles

of speech. Some traditional leaders adopt a

flowery, high-flown form of Luganda, similar to

that used in the royal courts. Elected officials

sometimes draw on the populist rhetoric of politi-

cal campaigns or development discourse. Edu-

cated members, such as teachers or deacons,

might pepper their presentations with English

words or switch into English entirely.

In Ceara, the terminology of hydrology

imposed by water managers as the legitimate reg-

ister for making proper decisions alienates less

educated (economically disadvantaged) individ-

uals. As a result, a given consensus could mask

the fact that some people failed to voice their con-

cerns due to linguistic discomfort. Taddei (2004,

2005, forthcoming) has suggested that the ways

in which climate forecasts are used in Ceara

reflect local social, cultural and political div-

isions, as well as the attempt of local elites to

manipulate scientific products or the uncertain-

ties behind them, potentially affecting how

people participate. Language then, in Brazil and

Uganda, serves as a strategic means to exclude

others, bring in political messages, or increase par-

ticipants social capital, giving them additional

modes of communication derived from their

experiences in the local socio-cultural context.

3.4. Non-verbal inuences

Cultural norms concerning appropriate public

discourse also guide participation. In Uganda,

such norms favour positive contributions over

expression of disagreement. Yet participants

may express dissent or challenge ideas in subtle

ways, for example by withholding expected

non-verbal expressions of assent like nodding or

humming, or by failing to show support by

repeating the statement in question. Engaging

in side conversations or attending to other tasks

can also suggest disagreement or dissatisfaction.

Rather than abruptly changing topic, dissenting

members might try to steer the conversation by

a series of small steps towards a different con-

clusion. These tactics are especially common in

public discussions involving individuals of differ-

ent social status (men and women, elders and

young people, locals and immigrants).

In Uganda spatial arrangements reflect differ-

ences in social roles or power, which in turn

affect participation. Men sit on chairs or

benches and closer to the researchers. Women

sit on the floor and on the margins of the group,

tending children and carrying out other tasks.

Some women directly address the group (particu-

larly if called upon), but more often talk among

themselves or communicate through non-verbal

means, such as stance, glances, clapping, or

laughter. Boys often sit or stand by the side

in a group, intently observing and occasionally

joining in laughter. They are ignored by the

adults, except when reprimanded for making

noise or called upon to help carry chairs. When

meetings take place outdoors, passers-by may stop

and linger, or join members of their own gender.

The very history of the term participation in

Uganda yields insights into how the act is under-

stood and engaged in. Ugandans who are fluent

speakersofbothLugandaandEnglishtranslate par-

ticipation by the Luganda term kwetabamu

(Roncoli et al., submitted). Its literal meaning is

involvement, joining up together or uniting

with a group. It carries a sense of entering an area

and remaining there, and usually applies to

groups that physically meet together. Though the

English meaning of participation, as used in the

context of participatory development, centres on

voicing ones own opinion to a group, the word

kwetabamu is broader. It refers not only to speech,

but also to non-verbal expressions, such as

20 Peterson et al.


laughter, applause, murmurs, and gestures. Such

behaviours constitute a more active process of lis-

tening than is expected in other settings. Though

speech is important, and the contribution of ideas

(ebirowoozo) is valued, non-verbal forms of partici-

pation are appreciated as equally positive contri-

butions. Mere physical presence is considered a

legitimate form of participation, signalling ones

assent to the emerging consensus and adhesion to

the groups social goals. Ugandan farmers experi-

ence of participation centres on these meanings

and values that reflect shared cultural norms of

communication.

Similarly, in Ceara, because reaching a consensus

during debates is locally preferred over voting,

groups that feel vulnerable sometimes encourage

a large turnout of associates, as mentioned. Such

crowds do not have voting power, and although

any individual can speak, few feel comfortable

doing so. Nevertheless, through their massive pres-

ence and spontaneous reactions to issues being dis-

cussed, and through their facial reactions or

collective murmuring, they can influence the

course of debates, evident in the switching of

stated positions by some official representatives in

response to group dynamics.

Researchers have called for a greater appreciation

for non-linguistic means of communication

(Young, 2000; Parkins and Mitchell, 2005) or atten-

tion to context-dependent information about how

different speakers (and non-speakers) participate

in a conversation (Levinson, 1987). Yet most

reviews ignore how different ideas about language

and communication are central to how partici-

pation is envisioned by different participants. The

cases discussed here show that non-verbal beha-

viours during discussions are valid, if underappre-

ciated, forms of participation that arise from the

socio-cultural experiences of those involved, and

can be crucial for how the activity proceeds.

4. Beyond decisions: Goals and outcomesof participatory processes

In Brazil and Uganda, facilitators and participants

advanced multiple goals and outcomes, some not

directly project-related yet nevertheless provid-

ing motivation for participation. Debates during

the meetings about what participation was

intended to achieve suggested that the processes

were guided by many different ideas and expec-

tations about the purpose of the activity.

The academic and policy literature broadly

acknowledges two kinds of outcomes for partici-

pation, based on whether international agencies

are pushing efficiency or empowerment (Orlove

and Brush, 1996; Michener, 1998; Cleaver, 1999;

Kessler, 2004). Efficiency goals include improving

project success through increased compliance

and better use of resources. For instance, a

recent World Bank report suggests that partici-

pation and civic involvement in loan policy

development led to greater commitment to

democratic reforms, and less resistance to and

increased support for projects (Reuben and

Arevalo, 2005). In Brazil, participation in the allo-

cation seminars appears to have contributed

to improving compliance, reducing conflict and

infrastructure sabotage, and increasing the

overall sense among some groups of a shift

toward a more democratic society. Similarly, in

Uganda, participating in the discussion groups

has led farmers to use forecast information in

planning decisions; farmers elsewhere have been

less likely to do so (Orlove et al., forthcoming).

In contrast, empowerment refers toan intention

to improve the conditions of local people by

increasing their capacity to enact changes them-

selves. Botchway (2001), studying economic devel-

opment projects, suggests that at a minimum,

participation is the process in which local

communities discover the possibilities of exercis-

ing choice and become capable of managing

what they understand as development. This idea

of participation as empowerment to manage

resources is increasingly common in evaluations

of participatory processes (Pollnac et al., 2001;

Beierle and Cayford, 2002; Brody et al., 2003;

Fung and Wright, 2003; Mascia, 2003; Bryan,

2004). However, decentralization efforts in

Brazil have not significantly transformed histori-

cal patterns of wealth concentration in the last

10 years (Cleaver, 1999; Blair, 2000; Kumar, 2002).



Other case studies suggest that additional

outcomes are important to participants (see also

Chambers, 2005). Studies that examine individ-

uals satisfaction with participatory processes

find that respectful and appropriate processes

are more important than specific material out-

comes (Wilson and McCay, 1998; Smith and

McDonough, 2001). In both Brazil and Uganda,

reaching consensus appears to be a shared goal

for many participants, often tied to ideas of com-

mitment and shared ownership in a project (see

also Brody et al., 2003; Bryan, 2004). Other

goals have also become very important for the

process of participation, some deriving from

ideas about how meetings should proceed, and

others from re-appropriation of the process to

provide assistance for other projects.

4.1. Consensus in participatory processes

In Uganda, the attainment of consensus or

agreement (nzikiriziganya, which translates as

something like agreeing with one another2) is

regarded as a goal in itself for any group inter-

action. Yet consensus is not unproblematic or

simple. A closer analysis of the Uganda linguistic

data shows that reaching the appearance of

group consensus entails subtle negotiations over

meaning and shifts in turn taking (Roncoli

et al., submitted). For example, a male elder

opened a discussion of the forecast by stating

that planting should proceed as usual. A woman

speaker then voiced her concern that a break in

the rains made it urgent for everyone to plant

quickly; she did so by making a polite statement

that appeared to respect the older mans view

but in fact countered it. Though the man reiter-

ated that group members should plant at their

habitual time, others picked up on the womans

concern and began discussing what to do about

the predicted dry spell. The womans early plant-

ing plan was ultimately adopted by the whole

group. The whole interaction reflected complex

power dynamics of dominance and resistance.

In Ceara, consensus is also the preferred

decision mechanism; voting is considered a last

resort and is rarely used. Given the divergence

of interests in the water allocation process, move-

ment toward consensus is heavily influenced by

alliances, which can become crucial bargaining

tools. The overarching goal is conflict resolution;

in years with greater uncertainty about water

availability, majority-win voting replaces consen-

sus mechanisms, suggesting a greater emphasis

on a particular outcome (i.e. more water for a par-

ticular group). Thus, the final decision might arise

because of the social goal of closure, rather than

actual agreement, which can also have repercus-

sions; it is not unusual to see sabotage actions

(e.g. the opening or closing of a reservoir valve

during the night) that go against the decisions

made in the participatory allocation process.

One reading of these actions is that they are made

in response to the incapacity of the decision struc-

ture to accommodate diverse socio-economic

backgrounds and conflicting interests (e.g.

upstream vs. downstream) in the same decision

setting (Taddei, 2005).

Researchers and practitioners have often exam-

ined the heterogeneity of those engaged in parti-

cipatory processes, finding that differences

particularly differences in wealth are often

ignored but can lead to different degrees of politi-

cal influence and biased outcomes (Agrawal and

Gupta, 2005). However, we find that the effects

of heterogeneity can be mediated by the goal of

consensus. In Uganda, focusing on consensus

appears to conceal social inequalities, while in

Ceara, an interest in conflict resolution makes

voting necessary in drought years because of

heightened differences among participants and

their desires, and also appears to lead to increased

dissatisfaction with the outcome. Indeed, hetero-

geneity of participants can lead to different actual

outcomes and levels of satisfaction in different

social contexts.

4.2. Non-project outcomes of participation

Outcomes other than those explicitly adopted by

the participatory exercise (e.g. a decision) appear

equally important for individuals, and are largely

22 Peterson et al.


neglected in the participatory literature. Non-

project outcomes include individual, group or

community gain. In our view, these outcomes

must be seen, again, as a product of the context

in which they occur, bringing together traditions,

local culture, and previous experiences with

similar participatory processes.

Given the continual movement towards

democracy in both Brazil and Uganda, partici-

pation in decisions regarding forecasts is an

important affirmation of increasing political

involvement. The events also provide opportun-

ities to communicate directly with the govern-

ment. In Ceara, the allocation meeting serves

not only as a place in which to discuss water,

but also as a venue for voicing local community

concerns directly to the state government (via

the water agency), thereby providing an alterna-

tive to the clientelistic processes that mark

municipal political relations. Meetings also give

local individuals an opportunity to grow in politi-

cal status, since the watershed decision level is

located between state and municipal political

structures (Taddei, 2005, forthcoming). Many

participants have taken advantage of networking

possibilities and have transformed from tech-

nicians to important local leaders through their

participation in the water allocation process.

In the Uganda discussions, participation has an

important social goal of reaffirming connections

to the farmers group and to the local community.

This affirmation is expressed in the concerted

effort to reach consensus on the meaning of the

forecast and on appropriate adaptive responses.

In addition, while many results of the participa-

tory process consist of individual decisions

(e.g. decisions about what to plant, when and

where), some entail group planning and effort,

including implementation of soil and water con-

servation technologies (e.g. digging trenches to

channel excess water, obtaining improved seed

and inputs on credit, and group marketing of

farm produce to secure better prices and attract

traders). In addition, group members are aware

that communities with high levels of organi-

zational capacity and technology adoption are

also more likely to attract NGO interventions

and development projects, creating greater

opportunities and potentially greater represen-

tation in government. More broadly, the partici-

patory process encourages farmers groups to

consolidate and expand their membership, to

move into new activities, and to link with other

groups as part of democratization.

Much as there are multiple goals, there are mul-

tiple objects of attention in the discussion at

meetings (and in other forms of participation).

People may be talking about the forecast, but

they also know theyre talking about a particular

political party, or whether uneducated people

have worthwhile knowledge, or what arenas are

appropriate for ministers or priests to speak in.

4.3. Improving understanding throughparticipation

These cases also suggest that participation can aid

in applying complex information. In Uganda,

farmers who attended group meetings reported

more ideas about potential adaptive responses

to forecasts than those who did not (Orlove

et al., forthcoming; see also Patt et al., 2005).

The participatory process facilitated understand-

ing and use of climate information by enabling

individuals to pool ideas and plan coordinated

responses. The data suggests an important value

for discussion as a way to understand and incor-

porate uncertainty into planning. Discussions

about the forecasts often reframe uncertainty as

the possibility of a loss that can be mitigated by

focused attention and group efforts. In several

groups, participants commented that before

they heard the forecast, they were uncertain

about the course of the rains, hence about

which agricultural strategies to pursue. They

said when they heard different opinions voiced

at the meeting they remained unsure about

what would come and what to do, but once a con-

sensus was reached, they trusted the forecast, and

felt they could work hard and effectively at the

particular strategies the group had settled on.3

The examples above argue strongly for wider

recognition of the importance of non-project



goals in participatory projects. From a desire for

community agreement, political involvement,

coordination of activities, or understanding

new ideas, these activities provide a forum for

meeting a variety of group and individual goals.

And while the decision at the end of the

meeting might be the obvious outcome of this

process, participants achieve other goals, un-

related to those of the project. It is not impossible

that these extra-project goals might sometimes

even drive the participatory process itself, or

entice different individuals to participate in the

first place.

5. Conclusions

Our case studies highlight the rich cultural influ-

ences on participation, which is often seen to

be a Western or formal process characterized by

specific techniques and rules of order. In fact,

participation emerges from the experiences and

expectations of those involved, depending as

much on how Ugandans hum, Brazilians form

alliances, and how both sets of participants

understand the importance of consensus, as on

how the formal speechmaking proceeds.

The methodological focus on interactions

during participatory processes, and on the

relationship between these and the wider social

context (see also Parkins and Mitchell, 2005)

brings into bold relief the expected and the

more subtle characteristics of how people partici-

pate. In identifying specific ways that participa-

tory discussions proceed, through pre-meetings,

alliances, non-linguistic cues and norms of inter-

action, it becomes clear that the socio-cultural

context plays a large role in organizing interactions.

Participation can also support the understand-

ing and use of information like climate forecasts.

However, it is also important to note that both

participation and climate forecasts themselves

have a social existence. Far from being neutral,

authoritative sources, forecasts are often modi-

fied during social processes, and sometimes

manipulated by those responsible for creating

and maintaining disparities in income and

social influence (Lemos et al., 2002; Finan, 2003;

Roncoli, 2006). When participation, also highly

dependent on social context, is used simply as a

tool for forecast dissemination and use, there is

a chance that the result will be more complex

than either forecast use or participation alone,

particularly when discussions and a focus on

consensus create opportunities for multiple

perspectives and spontaneous reframing of the

information to make it relevant and accessible.

Instead of seeing participation as a tool for

these kinds of projects, its fit within a particular

context of relationships and culture should be a

dominant concern. Reed (2008) also argues for a

more process-based view of participation that

includes a culturally appropriate way to engage

relevant stakeholders.

Looking to the future, complementary studies,

incorporating additional theories and methods

from the cognitive sciences, might deepen the

understanding of the process of participation.

Research into decision making and group inter-

actions shows promise for understanding how

decisions are both social and cognitive events,

and how participation of often marginalized

groups might be improved by reducing biases

in how information is presented and processed.

Research on framing might suggest how certain

topics or themes come to dominate discussions,

to the exclusion of other viewpoints or options.

One element of our ongoing research in Brazil

is the strategic use of uncertainty by groups to

their advantage. In particular, the presentation

of uncertainty, and its links to different risks,

appears to be an important aspect of how water-

release is discussed, and thus is a factor in which

opinions come to dominate the decision process.

Studies on the use of technical language allow

for an exploration of how analytic information

like forecasts can be overshadowed by experien-

tial information, such as the memory of previous

years rains, because of affective connotations

and the differential way affects are processed and

stored (Marx et al., 2007). Participatory discussions

might allow group members to retranslate experi-

ential and analytic information into more access-

ible and relevant forms (Marx et al., 2007).

24 Peterson et al.


Research into non-project goals during parti-

cipation may provide a critical perspective into

how individuals make decisions that appear to

be at odds with models of rational economic

behaviour. Understanding social values and how

they relate to group goals and participation

should lead to greater knowledge about the

value of cooperation (or non-cooperation) for

various participants.

The work presented here suggests that partici-

pation is often a complex group process deeply

embedded in the social context, involving a

variety of ideas, motivations, goals and out-

comes. Future work can build upon these insights

to suggest how participation might become more

effective, particularly by reducing those inequal-

ities in participation that reduce the satisfaction

of participants and the efficacy of outcomes.

Current research on social processes and cogni-

tive biases may aid in this by suggesting how

social processes themselves present possibilities

for greater biases, but also opportunities for cor-

recting these.

Acknowledgements

Preparation of this article was facilitated by

US National Science Foundation Grants SES-

0345840 and SES-0435622, and US National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Grant

NA06GP0308, the Tinker Foundation, the Wenner

Gren Foundation, the Comitas Institute for

Anthropological Study (CIFAS), the International

Research Institute for Climate and Society (IRI),

the University of Miamis Abbess Center for

Ecosystem Science and Policy and the Sao Paulo

State Research Foundation (FAPESP). We acknow-

ledge the valuable comments provided by Roberta

Balstad, David Krantz and Elke Weber (co-directors

of the Center for Research on Environmental

Decisions, CRED). We thank Merit Kabugo and

Dorah Nanteza both of Makerere University for

their participation in the research in Uganda,

and Gina Maranto and Ed Sarachik. In Ceara, the

staff of the Limoeiro do Norte office of the Ceara

State Water Agency (COGERH), Francisco de Assis

de Souza Filho and Eduardo Savio Martins from

the Cearas Foundation for Meteorology and

Water Resources (FUNCEME), Joao Lucio Farias de

Oliveira from the National Department for Works

Against the Droughts (DNOCS), and the members

of the water committees of the Jaguaribe Valley.

Finally, we thank Jon Bialecki, the members of

the CRED lab and two anonymous reviewers for

constructive feedback on earlier versions of this

article.

Notes

1. The research informing this article was conducted by

the authors. Work in Ceara began in 2002 and con-

tinues; the Uganda project spanned 2 years, from

early 2005 to late 2006, including forecast dissemin-

ation during the 2006 SeptemberDecember and

the 2006 MarchMay rainy seasons. Both projects

involved audio and video analysis of interactions

during the participatory meetings, extensive inter-

views, focus groups and observations of interactions

in varied settings, including formal and informal

gatherings, by the authors. This mixed methods

approach allows us to examine processes of partici-

pation in a rare degree of detail.

2. Composed of the verb kukkiriza (to believe, to accept,

to assent, to say yes) and the suffix ganya (which

marks reciprocal action), the term nzikiriziganya

refers to the core Kiganda ideals of unity and harmony.

3. The trust of a whole group in the forecast may lead to

a decrease in diversity of planting characteristics

(crop type, date of planting etc.). Thus the vulner-

ability of a larger group to a wrong forecast may

be increased.

References

Agrawal, A. and Gibson, C., 1999. Enchantment and

disenchantment: the role of community in natural

resource conservation. World Development, 27(4).

629649.

Agrawal, A. and Gupta, K., 2005. Decentralization and

participation: the governance of common pool

resources in Nepals Terai. World Development, 33.

11011114.

Agrawala, S., Broad, K. and Guston, D., 2001. Integrat-

ing climate forecasts and societal decision making:



challenges to an emergent boundary organization.

Science Technology and Human Values, 26(4).

454477.

Agrawala, S. and Broad, K., 2002. Technology transfer

perspective on climate forecast applications. Research

in Science and Technology Studies: Knowledge and

Technology Transfer, M. D. Laet (ed.). Emerald

Group, Bingley, UK. 4569.

Archer, E., 2003. Identifying underserved end-user

groups in the provision of climate information.

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 84.

15251532.

Arnstein, S. R., 1969. A ladder of citizen participation.

Journal of the American Planning Association, 35(4).

216224.

Beierle, T. C. and Cayford, J., 2002. Democracy in Prac-

tice: Public Participation in Environmental Decisions.

Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, USA.

Bischoff, I., 2007. Institutional choice versus communi-

cation in social dilemmas: an experimental

approach. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organ-

ization, 61(1). 2036.

Blair, H., 2000. Participation and accountability at

the periphery: democratic local governance in six

countries. World Development, 28(1). 2139.

Botchway, K., 2001. Paradox of empowerment: reflec-

tions on a case study from Northern Ghana. World

Development, 29(1). 135153.

Broad, K. and Agrawala, S., 2000. The Ethiopia famine

uses and limits of seasonal climate forecasts. Science,

289(5485). 16931694.

Broad,K., Pfaff,A.P. andGlantz,M.H.,2002.Effectiveand

equitable dissemination of seasonal-to-interannual

climate forecasts: policy implications from the Peru-

vian fishery during El Nino 199798. Climatic

Change, 54(4). 415438.

Brody, S. D., Burby, R. J. and Godschalk, D. R., 2003.

Mandating citizen participation in plan making: six

strategic planning choices. Journal of the American

Planning Association, 69(3). 245.

Bryan, T., 2004. Tragedy averted: the promise of

collaboration. Society & Natural Resources, 17(10).

881896.

Buanes, A., Jentoft, S., Maurstad, A., Soreng, S. U. and

Karlsen, G. R., 2005. Stakeholder participation

in Norwegian coastal zone planning. Ocean and

Coastal Management, 48. 659669.

Campbell, L. M. and Vainio-Mattila, A., 2003. Participa-

tory development and community-based conserva-

tion: opportunities missed for lessons learned?

Human Ecology, 31. 417437.

Cardenas, J. C., 2005. Governing ourselves: rules from

the state, and from the people. Psychology,

Rationality, and Economic Behavior: Challenging Stan-

dard Assumptions, B. Agarwal and A. Vercelli (eds).

Palgrave, London, UK.

Cash, D. W., Borck, J. C. and Patt, A. G., 2006. Counter-

ing the loading-dock approach to linking science

and decision making. Science, Technology, and Human

Values, 31(3). 130.

Chambers, R. 2005. Ideas for Development. Earthscan,

London, UK.

Cleaver, F., 1999. Paradoxes of participation:

questioning participatory approaches to develop-

ment. Journal of International Development, 11(4).

597612.

Cooke, B. and Kothari, U. (eds), 2001. Participation: The

new tyranny? Zed Books, London, UK.

Costa, A. C. G., Kottak, C. P. and Prado, R. M., 1997. The

sociopolitical context of participatory development

in Northeastern Brazil. Human Organization, 56(2).

138146.

DaSilva, J., Garanganga, B., Teveredzi, V., Marx, S. M.,

Mason, S. J. and Connor, S. J., 2004. Improving epi-

demic malaria panning, preparedness and response

in Southern Africa. Malaria Journal, 3(1). 37.

Eversole, R., 2003. Managing the pitfalls of participa-

tory development: some insight from Australia.

World Development, 31. 781795.

Finan, T., 2003. Climate science and the policy

of drought mitigation in Ceara, Northeast Brazil.

Weather, Climate, Culture, S. Strauss and B. Orlove

(eds). Berg, New York, NY, USA. 203216.

Finan, T. J. and Nelson, D. R., 2001. Making rain,

making roads, making do: public and private adap-

tations to drought in Ceara, Northeast Brazil.

Climate Research, 19(2). 9196.

Fung, A. and Wright, E. O., 2003. Deepening Democ-

racy: Institutional Innovations in Empowered Partici-

patory Governance. Verso, London, UK & New York,

NY, USA.

Gaventa, J., 2004. Towards participatory governance:

assessing the transformative possibilities. Partici-

pation: From Tyranny to Transformation? S. Hickey

and G. Mohan (eds). Zed Books, London, UK.

Glantz, M., 2002. The role of the media in ENSO report-

ing. La Nina and its Impacts: Facts and Speculation, M.

Glantz (ed.). United Nations University Press, Tokyo,

Japan. 213218.

Hammer, G. L., Hansen, J. W., Phillips, J. G., Mjelde,

J. W., Hill, H., Love, A. and Potgieter, A., 2001.

Advances in application of climate prediction in

agriculture. Agricultural Systems, 70. 515553.

Hansen, J., 2002. Realizing the potential benefits of

climate prediction to agriculture: issues, approaches,

challenges. Agricultural Systems, 74. 309330.

26 Peterson et al.


Hansen, J., Marx, S. and Weber, E., 2004. The Role of

Climate Perceptions, Expectations and Forecasts in

Farmer Decision Making: The Argentine Pampas and

South Florida. International Research Institute for

Climate Predictions, Palisades, NY, USA.

Hickey, S. and Mohan, G. (eds), 2004. Participation:

From Tyranny to Transformation? Zed Books,

London, UK.

Ingram, K., Roncoli, C. and Kirshen, P., 2002. Opportun-

ities and constraints for farmers of West Africa

to use seasonal precipitation forecasts with

Burkina Faso as a case study. Agricultural Systems,

74. 331349.

IRI, 2000. Coping with the Climate: A Way Forward. Inter-

national Research Institute for Climate Prediction,

Pretoria, South Africa.

Kemper, K., Dinar, A. and Blomquist, W., 2005. Insti-

tutional and policy analysis of river basin decentral-

ization: the principle of managing water resources at

the lowest appropriate level when and why does it

(not) work in practice? World Bank, Washington,

DC, USA.

Kessler, B. L., 2004. Stakeholder Participation: A Synthesis

of Current Literature. National Marine Protected Areas

Center, Santa Cruz, CA, USA.

Kumar, S., 2002. Does participation in common

pool resource management help the poor? A social

cost-benefit analysis of joint forest management

in Jharkhand, India. World Development, 30(5).

763782.

Lemos, M. C., 2003. A tale of two policies: climate fore-

casting and drought relief in Ceara, Brazil. Policy

Sciences, 36. 101123.

Lemos, M. C., Finan, T., Fox, R., Nelson, D. and Tucker,

J., 2002. The use of seasonal climate forecasting in

policymaking: lessons from Northeast Brazil. Cli-

matic Change, 55. 479507.

Levinson, S. C., 1987. Pragmatics and the grammar of

anaphora. Journal of Linguistics, 23. 379434.

Luseno, W., McPeak, J., Barrett, C., Little, P. and Gebru,

G., 2003. Assessing the value of climate forecast

information for pastoralists: evidence from southern

Ethiopia and Northern Kenya. World Development,

31. 14771494.

Magalhaes, A. R., 2002. Climate, society and public

policy: how climate affects society, how society and

government respond to climate impacts. Climate

Affairs in Latin America: Climate Issues and Policy

Responses. Institute of Latin American Studies,

Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.

Marx, S. M., Weber, E. U., Orlove, B. S., Leiserowitz, A.,

Krantz, D. H., Roncoli, C. and Phillips, J., 2007. Com-

munication and mental processes: experiential

and analytic processing of uncertain climate infor-

mation. Global Environmental Change, 17. 4758.

Mascia, M. B., 2003. The human dimension of coal reef

marine protected areas: recent social science

research and its policy implications. Conservation

Ecology, 17(2). 630632.

McCrea, R., Dalgleish, L. and Coventry, W., 2005.

Encouraging use of seasonal climate forecasts by

farmers. International Journal of Climatology, 25.

11271137.

Michener, V. J., 1998. The participatory approach:

contradiction and co-option in Burkina Faso. World

Development, 26(12). 21052118.

Miller, C., 2001. Hybrid management: boundary organ-

izations, science policy, and environmental govern-

ance in the climate regime. Science, Technology and

Human Values, 26(4). 478500.

Mompati, T. and Prinsen, G., 2000. Ethnicity and parti-

cipatory development methods in Botswana: some

participants are to be seen and not heard. Develop-

ment in Practice, 10. 625637.

National Research Council, 2008. Public Participation in

Environmental Assessment and Decision Making, Panel

on Public Participation in Environmental Assessment

and Decision Making. National Academies Press,

Washington, DC, USA.

Neves, F., 2002. A seca na historia do Ceara. Uma Nova

Historia do Ceara, S. de Sousa (ed.). Edicoes Demo-

crito Rocha, Fortaleza, Brazil. 76102.

Nicholls, N. and Kestin, T., 1998. Communicating

climate. Climatic Change, 40. 417420.

NOAA/OGP, 1999. An Experiment in the Application of

Climate Forecasts: NOAA-OGP Activities Related to the

199798 El Nino Event. US Department of Com-

merce, Silver Spring, MD, USA.

Orlove, B. S. and Brush, S. B., 1996. Anthropology and

the conservation of biodiversity. Annual Review of

Anthropology, 25(1). 329352.

Orlove, B. S. and Kabugo, M., 2005. Signs and sight in

southern Uganda: representing perception in ordin-

ary conversation. Etnofoor, 18(1). 124141.

Orlove, B. S., Broad, K. and Petty, A. M., 2004. Factors

that influence the use of climate forecasts: evidence

from the 1997/98 El Nino event in Peru. Bulletin of

the American Meteorological Society, 85. 17351743.

Orlove, B., Roncoli, C., Kabugo, M. and Majugu, A.,

forthcoming. Indigenous climate knowledge in

southern Uganda: the multiple components of

a dynamic regional system. Climatic Change. DOI

10.1007/s10584-009-9586-2.

Ostrom, E., 2000. Collective action and the evolution

of social norms. Journal of Economic Perspectives,

14(3). 137158.



Parkins, J. and Mitchell, R., 2005. Public participation

as public debate: a deliberative turn in natural re-

source management. Society & Natural Resources,

18(6). 529540.

Patt, A., 2001. Understanding uncertainty: forecasting

seasonal climate for farmers in Zimbabwe. Risk

Decision and Policy, 6. 105119.

Patt, A. and Gwata, C., 2002. Effective seasonal climate

forecast applications: examining constraints for sub-

sistence farmers in Zimbabwe. Global Environmental

Change, 12. 185195.

Patt, A., Suarez, P. and Gwata, C., 2005. Effects of seas-

onal climate forecasts and participatory workshops

among subsistence farmers in Zimbabwe. Proceedings

of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(35). 12623

12628.

Peterson, N., forthcoming. Excluding to include:

(Non)participation in Mexican natural resource

management. Agriculture and Human Values.

Pfaff, A., Broad, K. and Glantz, M., 1999. Who benefits

from climate forecasts? Nature, 397. 645646.

Phillips, J. G., Makaudze, E. and Unganai, L., 2001.

Current and potential use of climate forecasts for

resource-poor farmers in Zimbabwe. Impacts of El

Nino and Climate Variability in Agriculture, C. Rosenz-

weig (ed.). American Society of Agronomy Special

Publication, Madison, Wisconsin. 87100.

Podesta, G., Letson, D., Messina, C., Royce, F., Ferreyra,

R., Jones, J., Hansen, J., Llovet, I., Grondona, M. and

OBrien, J., 2002. Use of ENSO-related climate infor-

mation in agricultural decision making in Argentina:

a pilot experience. Agricultural Systems, 74. 371392.

Pollnac, R. B., Crawford, B. R. and Gorospe, M. L. G.,

2001. Discovering factors that influence the success

of community-based marine protected areas in the

Visayas, Philippines. Ocean & Coastal Management,

44(1112). 683710.

Reed, M. S., 2008. Stakeholder participation for

environmental management: a literature review.

Biological Conservation, 141. 24172431.

Reuben, W. and Arevalo, B., 2005. Participation, social

accountability and transparency mechanisms in

development policy loans in Latin America, 2000

2003. World Bank, Washington, DC, USA.

Roncoli, C., 2006. Advances in ethnographic and parti-

cipatory approaches to research on farmers

responses to climate predictions. Climate Research,

33. 8199.

Roncoli, C., Ingram, K., Kirshen, P. and Jost, C., 2003.

Meteorological meanings: understandings of season-

al rainfall forecasts by farmers of Burkina Faso.

Weather, Climate and Culture, S. Strauss and B.

Orlove (eds). Berg, Oxford, UK. 181202.

Roncoli, C., Jost, C., Kirshen, P., Sanon, M., Ingram, K.,

Woodin, M., Some, L., Ouattara, F., Sanfo, J., Sia, C.,

Yaka, P. and Hoogenboom, G., 2009. From accessing

to assessing forecasts: an end-to-end study of partici-

patory forecast dissemination in Burkina Faso (West

Africa). Climatic Change, 92(3). 433460.

Roncoli, C., Orlove, B., Kabugo, M. and Waiswa, M.,

submitted. Cultural styles of participation in

farmers discussions of seasonal climate forecasts

in Uganda. Agriculture and Human Values.

Smith, P. D. and McDonough, M. H., 2001. Beyond public

participation: fairness in natural resource decision

making. Society & Natural Resources, 14(3). 239249.

Stephenson, G., 2003. The somewhat flawed theoretical

foundation of the extension service. Journal of Exten-

sion, 41(4). www.joe.org/joe/2003august/a1.shtml.

Stern, P. and Easterling, W., 1999. Making Climate Fore-

casts Matter. National Academy Press, Washington,

DC, USA.

Taddei, R., 2004. Notes on the social life of climate

forecasts a study of the case of Ceara. Gerenciamento

Integrado dos Recursos Hdricos com Incorporacao

da Previsao Climatica: da Informacao e Previsao

Climatica a` Reducao das Vulnerabilidades a`s Secas no

Semi-Arido Cearense, U. Lall and F. A. S. Filho (eds).

IRI/FUNCEME, Palisades, NY, USA and Fortaleza,

Brazil.

Taddei, R., 2005. Of clouds and streams, prophets and

profits: the political semiotics of climate and water

in the Brazilian Northeast. PhD dissertation. Depart-

ment of Anthropology, Columbia University, NY,

USA.

Taddei, R., 2008. A comunicacao social de informacoes

sobre tempo e clima: o ponto de vista do usuario.

Boletim da Sociedade Brasileira de Meteorologia

(BSBMET), Ago-Dez. 7686.

Taddei, R., 2009. The politics of uncertainty and the fate

of forecasters: climate, risk, and blame in Northeast

Brazil. Weather, Local Knowledge and Everyday Life:

Issues in Integrated Climate Studies, V. Jankovic and

C. Barboza (eds). MAST, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Taddei, R., forthcoming. Watered-down democratiza-

tion: modernization versus social participation in

water management in Northeast Brazil. Agriculture

and Human Values.

Taddei, R., Broad, K. and Pfaff, A., forthcoming. Inte-

grating climate and water management in Ceara: his-

torical background, social and legal structures, and

implications. Climate, Water and Society, U. Lall, F.

A. Souza Filho and R. Taddei (eds). IRI, Palisades,

NY, USA.

Terborgh, J., 2000. The fate of tropical forests: a matter

of stewardship. Conservation Biology, 14(5). 13581361.

28 Peterson et al.


Tyran, J. R. and Feld, L., 2002. Why People Obey the

Law: Evidence from the Provision of Public Goods.

Working Paper Series No. 651. CESifo, St. Gallen,

Switzerland.

Uphoff, N., 1992. Monitoring and evaluating popular

participation in World Bank-assisted projects.

Participatory Development and the World Bank: Poten-

tial Directions for Change, B. Bhatnagar and A. C.

Williams (eds). World Bank, Washington, DC,

USA. 135153.

Walker, J., Gardner, R., Herr, A. and Ostrom, E., 2000.

Collective choice in the commons: experimental

results on proposed allocation rules and votes. Econ-

omic Journal, 110(1). 212234.

Wester, P., Merrey, D. J. and de Lange, M., 2003. Bound-

aries of consent: stakeholder representation in river

basin management in Mexico and South Africa.

World Development, 31(5). 797812.

Williams, G., 2004. Towards a repoliticization of partici-

patory development: political capabilities and

spaces of empowerment. Participation: From Tyranny

to Transformation? S. Hickey and G. Mohan (eds).

Zed Books, London, UK.

Wilson,D.C.andMcCay,B. J., 1998.Howtheparticipants

talk about participation in Mid-Atlantic fisheries

management. Ocean& Coastal Management, 41.4161.

Young, M. I., 2000. Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford

University Press, Oxford, UK.

Ziervogel, G., 2004. Targeting seasonal climate forecasts

for integration into household level decisions: the

case of smallholder farmers in Lesotho. Geographical

Journal, 170. 621.



peterson&al_2010_participatory processes and climate forecast use

Documents