38 It was enlighten by Hahn et al. 2006 that trust building and knowledge generation
are the central components to collaboration.
These lead to increase the local legitimacy for ecosystem management and to facilitate the identification and creation of win–win situations
and conflict resolution.
7.2. Re-assessing the model after its use in the workshop
To design a simulation model imposes to take positions on parameters’ choice, value and presentation. Analysing these choices a posteriori in light of participants’ reactions is
very interesting. Two sensitive points are enlighten below: the representation in the game of an information that is not accessible in reality the BSC subpopulation density, and
the removal of another one which exists in reality but was not included in the game the crab bank tool.
Inclusion of BSC subpopulations density. BSC subpopulation density was an unusual information as it is not a data that can be directly measured in reality. Its
availability during the gaming sessions induced perplexity among the players, as reflected by the doubt about their objective they expressed on the second day: ‘the aim of this new
game is it to increase the BSC subpopulations’ density?’ This question revealed the gap that can still exist between their understanding and perception of conservation stakes and
their interests. Moreover, it led to a common awareness and recognition of the key question in management: the balance between biological and social dynamics.
Non-inclusion of crab bank tool. Crab bank management solution was frequently mentioned by local stakeholders in our preliminary interviews, and a prototype was
recently started in Klongklud village. However, mechanisms and efficiency of crab banks are not assessed yet; and it could be noticed that Klongklud prototype remained not used.
Thus, we decided not to include it in the game to let stakeholders co-construct their representations from a free baseline, without imposing any options. Crab bank subject
was over-present in participants’ discussions during the workshop. Though, they did not all introduce it similarly. It was first only cited by Klongklud villagers individually while
it was then taken up by Thaclang villagers who reached an agreement on promoting the idea of a future project of implementation. Its absence from the game also allowed other
ideas to emerge, such as the setting up of a reserve area. In an objective of community- based resource management, management tools should be discussed collectively. Their
39 absence from the game, even if some are existing in reality, invites the participants to
clarify and justify collectively their opinions on these elements and by this way to share a common understanding that can be later on referred to in case the players request to
finally include a particular element. The collective decision to include a new element in the game and the discussions needed to specify how to concretely do it represent one way
to involve the participants of a participatory simulation workshop in the design of the model. Thus the modelling process becomes a co-modelling process. As a result,
participants gain a sense of ownership of the model, which progressively evolves as a shared and well accepted representation of the socio-ecosystem, paving the way toward
its collective management.
7.3. Collaboration between system expert and ComMod designers.
