E-Participation Requires Systems Intelligence: Conservation of the Atlantic Forests in Northeast Brazil
Paula Siitonen1, Raimo P. Hämäläinen1 and Marcelo Tabarelli2

Helsinki University of Technology
Systems Analysis Laboratory
P.O. Box 1100, 02015 HUT, Finland
E-mails: paula.siitonen@hut.fi, raimo@hut.fi
Tel. +358-9-451 3064, fax +358-9-451 3096

2 Universidade Federal de Pernambuco
 Centro de Sciências Biológias, Departamento de Botânica
Av. Moraes Rego s/n, Cidade Universitária, 50670901 Recife, PE-Brasil
E-mails:mtrelli@ufpe.br
Abstract 
Internet provides a new interesting channel for participation processes. However, it is important to recognize that before any kind of e-participation method is applied the process is almost always preceded by a preparatory phase, which can be the most crucial one for the success of the process. Here we describe a project where the overall process is considered with the new systems intelligence approach applied all along it. 
Systems intelligence (Saarinen and Hämäläinen, 2004) refers to intelligent behavior of individual in the context of systems with interactions and feedbacks. In systems intelligent approach, a person is lead to understand the situation as a system and herself as an active part in it; her own impact on the system and impacts of the other parts in the system on her. 
The project aims to design a process to support the development of a sustainable landscape in the Atlantic Forests in Northeast Brazil. This 56 400 km2 region is a distinctive center of species endemism (Silva and Tabarelli, 2000). Remaining 3 % of the forests consist of small fragments. According to Silva and Tabarelli (2000), a landscape composed by interconnected fragments of thousands of hectares is needed for key-species survival. The sustainable landscape can be reached only if the strategy considers the different goals of the stakeholders (Tabarelli et al., 2004).
 The development the Systems Intelligence approach to environmental decision making in the Systems Analysis Laboratory has grown out of the many decision analytic participation processes carried out on energy (Hämäläinen, 1988), nuclear emergencies (Sinkko et al., 2004), water resources management (Marttunen and Hämäläinen, 1995; Hämäläinen et al., 2001; Mustajoki et al., 2004; Väntänen and Marttunen, 2005) and forest conservation planning (Siitonen et. al., 2002). The starting point of the Systems Intelligent Participation Process (Siitonen and Hämäläinen, 2004) is the understanding of the fact that people’s reactions are driven not only by the facts but also by the participation process itself, i.e. in ways of communication and interaction. Initially, the situation is framed as a collaborative process to learn more together instead of conflict management (see e.g. Wondellock and Yaffee, 2000; Daniels and Walker, 2001). The process focuses on the definition of a common goal and innovative ways to reach it beyond individual interests. The process aims to create positive trust and cooperation among the participants by using dialogue and avoiding conflict oriented thinking and behavior. The approach includes working with the participants’ values and goals (see e.g. Hämäläinen et al., 2001; Siitonen et al., 2002) as well as with their relationships and reactions without an initial identification of the interest groups and their goals and perspectives. 
The case project in Brazil is still ongoing. Up to date we have carried out the first facilitated sessions (see e.g. Slotte and Hämäläinen, 2003; Mustajoki et al., 2004) so that the participants would understand the situation as a system with interactions and feedbacks between people and between the forest ecosystem. The approach was first applied with the Brazilian team members who are scientists currently involved in the process. After that it was applied with some key-stakeholders such as lands owners and local society. The facilitator (P. Siitonen) started the process by introducing the situation as a collaborative learning process to reach mutual benefits. First, the facilitator led participants to define a common goal: a shared vision of a desired future. After that a situation analysis was carried out. In the sessions, the common goal was structured into fundamental objectives such as species survival, and means objectives such as total area and connectivity of habitats, and actions to produce these such as restoration. Three preliminary strategy alternatives – status quo, situation by law and a jointly improved alternative– have been created. 
Decision support tools, GIS and ecological modeling (Siitonen et al., 2002; Hämäläinen 2003; Siitonen et al. 2005) have been and will be used to analyze the preliminary strategy alternatives and for the visualization of impacts. Internet will be used for the communication between the project team and the participants in different geographical locations. The process will be evaluated in terms of what was achieved and also what was not created, including the changes in the participants’ way of thinking. 
References
Daniels, S. E., Walker, G.B. (2001).Working through environmental conflict. The collaborative learning approach. Praeger, London. 
Hämäläinen, R.P. (1988). Computer assisted energy policy analysis in the Parliament of Finland. Interfaces 18:12-23.
Hämäläinen, R. P, Kettunen E., Marttunen M., Ehtamo H. (2001). Evaluating a framework for multi-stakeholder decision support in water resources management. Group Decision and Negotiation 10:331-353.
Hämäläinen, R.P. 2003. Decisionarium - Aiding Decisions, Negotiating and Collecting Opinions on the Web. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 12(2-3): 101-110.
Marttunen, M., Hämäläinen, R. P. (1995). Decision analysis interviews in environmental impact assessments. European Journal of Operational Research 87:551-563.
Mustajoki, J., Hämäläinen, R.P., Marttunen, M. (2004). Participatory multicriteria decision analysis with Web-HIPRE: a case of lake regulation policy. Environmental Modelling and Software. 19:537-547.
Saarinen E., Hämäläinen R.P. (2004). Connecting engineering thinking with human sensitivity. In Systems intelligence-Discovering hidden competence in human actions and organizational life, R.P. Hämäläinen and E. Saarinen (Eds.), Systems Analysis Laboratory Research Reports A88:9-37.
Siitonen, P., Hämäläinen R.P. (2004). From conflict management to systems intelligence in forest conservation decision making. In Systems intelligence-Discovering hidden competence in human actions and organizational life, R.P. Hämäläinen and E. Saarinen (Eds.), Systems Analysis Laboratory Research Reports A88:199-214.
Siitonen, P., Tanskanen, A., Lehtinen, A. (2002). Method for selection old-forest reserves. Conservation Biology 16:1398-1408.
Siitonen, P., Lehtinen, A., Siitonen, M. (2005). Effects of edges on distribution, abundance and regional persistence of wood-rotting fungi. Conservation Biology 19:250-260.
Silva, J. M. C., Tabarelli, M. (2000). Tree species impoverishment and the future flora of the Atlantic forest of northeast Brazil. Nature 404: 72-74.
Sinkko, K., Hämäläinen, R.P., Hänninen R. (2004). Experiences in methods to involve key players in planning protective actions in the case of a nuclear accident. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 109:127-132.
Slotte, S., Hämäläinen, R.P. (2003). Decision structuring dialogue. Systems Analysis Laboratory Research Reports E13. 
Tabarelli, M., Silva, J. M. C. , Cascon C. (2004). Forest fragmentation, synergism and the impoverishment of neotropical forests. Biodiversity and Conservation 13:1419-1425. 
Väntänen A., Marttunen, M. (2005). Public involvement in multiobjective water level regulation projects –Evaluating the applicability of public involvement methods. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 25:281-304.
Wondellock, J. M., Yaffee S. (2000). Making collaboration work. Lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Island Press, Washington D.C.

Related Web links
Authors’ home pages: 
	Paula Siitonen: http://www.sal.hut.fi/Personnel/Homepages/PaulaS.html
	Raimo P. Hämäläinen: http://www.raimo.hut.fi
Project Web pages:
Conservation of Atlantic Forests in Northeast Brazil: http://www.environment.sal.hut.fi/brazil
SAL – Environmental Decision Making and Participation: http://www.environment.sal.tkk.fi