# Welcome Welcome to the CitiObs Citizen Observatory Participation Dynamics Toolkit! The CO Participation Dynamics Toolkit is here to support your CO in building and sustaining strong stakeholder relationships. It offers practical resources to address conflicts, strengthen cooperation, and foster trust across the groups involved.​ # About This toolkit is part of the **CitiObs** project. CitiObs (*Enhancing Citizen Observatories for healthy, sustainable, resilient and inclusive cities*) is a EU Project aimed at fostering inclusive, diverse, and stable citizen participation in the observation, monitoring, and protection of urban environments. The CO Participation Dynamics Toolkit empowers Citizen Observatories to build strong, trustworthy partnerships, navigate complex decisions, balance diverse perspectives, resolve conflicts constructively, increase data relevance, and identify sources of friction, ultimately fostering collaboration and collective growth. # Why this Toolkit? The success of COs relies on the active participation and commitment of all related stakeholders. COs can be seen as spaces for participants to meet and work together as they discuss and try to solve shared environmental problems. Key elements of a CO are the systems they have for tracking data, their resources, the activities they do, their shared values about the world/their community, the members’ expectations, and trust among the members. Each CO stakeholder interprets the concepts of participation and governance through their own role and ideological lens and in connection with their own values. \ There can sometimes be a lack of trust between the key actors in a CO (Hager et al., 2021) and clashes of expectations or motivations, such as regarding the timing, the types of results that a CO can deliver, the uptake of CO data in decision making, and subsequent changes in policy (Wehn and Almomani, 2019). The CitiObs ‘CO Participation Toolkit’ provides the means to avoid or navigate such clashes (or even controversies, such as whether air quality policies result at any governance level) with tools and methods to strengthen the triangle of trust, - the mutual trust between citizens, institutions (authorities), and civil society - which is the key to COs achieving their full potential. The resulting, final toolkit is structured as follows: * What are participation dynamics in a Citizen Observatory? * How can we examine/understand the participation dynamics in our Citizen Observatory? * How can we improve participation dynamics in our Citizen Observatory? * *How can we (re)build trust and cultivate cooperation between stakeholders participating in the citizen observatory?* * *How can we ensure that the views and interests of all stakeholders are taken into account?* * *How can we manage decision making within our citizen observatory in the face of* *uncertainty and complexity?* * *How can we manage and resolve conflicts between stakeholders in our citizen observatory?* * *How can we identify the root causes of problems with stakeholder interactions in our citizen observatory?* * *How can we ensure uptake of CO- generated data?* # What are participation dynamics in a Citizen Observatory? ## **Why is it relevant?** ## What are participation dynamics in a CO? {% columns %} {% column width="50%" %} Participation dynamics in your CO refer to the different ways participants, stakeholders, and the CO initiative engage and interact with one another. In other words, participation dynamics describe what it means to participate in a CO (Gharesifard et al., 2019). There is a range of participation levels within citizen engagement projects, based on factors such as the degree of involvement and engagement of participants in the different activities that the CO undertakes (Bonney et al., 2009a; Haklay, 2015; Kullenberg and Kasperowski, 2016). Some COs may require in-depth participant involvement in the design, running and monitoring of activities, while others involve participants only in data collection. It is therefore important to understand the level of participation expected of participants when examining participation dynamics. The explicit or implicit goals and objectives of a CO provide a key reference point when aiming to understand participation dynamics. {% endcolumn %} {% column width="50%" valign="middle" %} >

Deep Dive: >
Participation Dynamics

> > \ > As outlined in an analysis by Gharesifard et al. (2019) during the Ground Truth 2.0 project, participation dynamics are diverse, and can be impacted by a range of factors, such as the goals and objectives of COs, extent of participation, geographic scope, participant groups, effort required to participate, support offered for participation, communication patterns, and methods of engagement. > {% endcolumn %} > {% endcolumns %} To make participation dynamics more tangible, we outline the following aspects as entry points for understanding: * Effort and support: what participants are required to do to take part, and how this is facilitated * Participant groups: how participants come together, collaborate, and organise within the CO * Activities: the kinds of tasks participants are involved in (e.g., data collection, analysis, decision-making) * Outcomes: how participation links to both individual benefits and the broader goals of the CO {% columns %} {% column width="50%" valign="middle" %} Τhe **effort** required to participate and the **support** offered for participation are two interrelated factors that significantly influence participation dynamics. The level of effort needed from participants, such as time, expertise, or monetary investments, can impact their willingness and ability to engage in the CO. Simultaneously, the support provided by the initiative's organisers (or other community members), including communication methods, user-friendly platforms, incentives, and training materials, can enhance participants' engagement and facilitate their active involvement in the initiative (Conrad and Daoust, 2008; Ciravegna et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2014; Gharesifard and Wehn, 2016). {% endcolumn %} {% column width="50%" valign="middle" %} >

Deep Dive: >
Communication Patterns

> > Communication patterns within a CO significantly shape participation dynamics. The initiative often acts as a medium for facilitating communication between various stakeholders, and understanding existing communication channels and information flow patterns is essential. Identifying patterns of unidirectional, bidirectional, or interactive communication helps assess how the CO affects and mediates interaction among participants, data aggregators, and policymakers (Liu et al., 2014; Wehn et al., 2015). > {% endcolumn %} > {% endcolumns %} **Participant groups** play a crucial role in shaping participation dynamics in your CO. As the name suggests, participants groups are the groups of individuals, organisations, or stakeholders who are actively involved in various aspects of the CO, including data collection, sharing, analysis, and utilising outputs for decision-making processes. Understanding the composition of participant groups allows for a deeper understanding of inclusion, representation, and potential gaps in stakeholder involvement, which can ultimately influence the effectiveness and outcomes of the initiative (Wehn et al., 2015; Ciravegna et al., 2013; Conrad and Daoust, 2008). >

Deep Dive: Geographic Scope

> > Geographic scope plays a significant role in influencing participation dynamics in a CO. The breadth of focus of an initiative determines the range of stakeholders involved and affected by the initiative, thus impacting the potential pool of participants. Changes in the geographic scope, whether due to growth or a shift in focus, can alter the composition and engagement **Methods of participation** in your CO are vital factors influencing participation dynamics. Different modes of communication and decision-making, such as expressing preferences, developing preferences, deliberating and negotiating, and utilising technical expertise, shape how participants interact within the CO. Analysing these methods before and after the initiation of your CO (as explained in the following section 3.2) provides insights into how participants previously engaged in discussions and decisions related to the environmental issue at hand and how the CO may have influenced or altered these interactions (Fung, 2006; Wehn et al., 2015). ## **References** Bonney, R., Ballard, H., Jordan, R., McCallie, E., Phillips, T., Shirk, J., & Wilderman, C. C. (2009). *Public participation in scientific research: Defining the field and assessing its potential for informal science education. A CAISE inquiry group report.* Online Submission. Ciravegna, F., Huwald, H., Lanfranchi, V., & Wehn de Montalvo, U. (2013, June 23–27). *Citizen observatories: The WeSenseIt vision.* Presentation at the INSPIRE Conference, Florence, Italy. Conrad, C. T., & Daoust, T. (2008). Community-based monitoring frameworks: Increasing the effectiveness of environmental stewardship. *Environmental Management, 41*(3), 358–366. Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance. *Public Administration Review, 66*(s1), 66–75. Gharesifard, M., & Wehn, U. (2016). To share or not to share: Drivers and barriers for sharing data via online amateur weather networks. *Journal of Hydrology, 535,* 181–190. Gharesifard, M., Wehn, U., & van der Zaag, P. (2019). What influences the establishment and functioning of community-based monitoring initiatives of water and environment? A conceptual framework. *Journal of Hydrology, 579,* 124033. Haklay, M. (2015). *Citizen science and policy: A European perspective.* Woodrow Wilson Center, Commons Lab. Kullenberg, C., & Kasperowski, D. (2016). What is citizen science? A scientometric meta-analysis. *PLOS ONE, 11*(1), e0147152. Liu, H.-Y., Kobernus, M., Broday, D., & Bartonova, A. (2014). A conceptual approach to a citizens’ observatory: Supporting community-based environmental governance. *Environmental Health, 13,* 107. Roy, H. E., Pocock, M. J. O., Preston, C. D., Roy, D. B., Savage, J., Tweddle, J. C., & Robinson, L. D. (2012). *Understanding citizen science and environmental monitoring: Final report on behalf of UK-EOF.* NERC Centre for Ecology & Hydrology and Natural History Museum. Wehn, U., Rusca, M., Evers, J., & Lanfranchi, V. (2015). Participation in flood risk management and the potential of citizen observatories: A governance analysis. *Environmental Science & Policy, 48,* 225–236. # How can we examine/understand the participation dynamics in our Citizen Observatory? ## **Why is it relevant?** Examining and understanding the participation dynamics in your citizen observatory (CO) is important for several reasons. It allows CO participants or advisors to gain insight into the level of engagement, commitment, and involvement of (other) participants, which are crucial factors in the success and effectiveness of your CO. By understanding the dynamics of participation, you will be able to: * Identify strengths and weaknesses of the CO, * Explore potential gaps in stakeholder representation, * Develop strategies to enhance inclusion and active engagement. Also, examining participation dynamics helps assess the impact of the observatory on decision-making processes, policy development, and environmental management. By understanding how fellow participants interact, communicate, and contribute, CO leaders and advisors can evaluate the effectiveness of the observatory in empowering citizens and influencing environmental outcomes. Lastly, examining CO participation dynamics provides valuable knowledge for the continuous improvement and evolution of the CO, enabling the adoption and refinement of approaches, communication methods, and support systems to foster meaningful and sustained participation in environmental monitoring, planning, and management. ## **How can this be done?** To address the question of how participation dynamics in your CO can be examined, we draw on two complementary frameworks: the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework and the framework for characterising social cohesion (Fonesca et al., 2019). To broadly understand and conceptualise participation dynamics in citizen observatories, your CO can use the IAD framework (Ostrom, 2009). By applying the IAD framework, CO leaders and advisors can gain a deeper understanding of participation dynamics within the CO, identify both barriers and facilitators of participation, and develop strategies to foster more effective and inclusive citizen engagement in your CO’s activities. {% columns %} {% column %} In the case of CitiObs, this often concerns air quality but also cover other environmental issues like water quality and noise pollution. In the context of your CO, the IAD framework can help you identify the key actors, their roles, and the rules governing their interactions. It allows for an examination of the design principles and governance structures that shape participation, as well as the external factors such as social norms, power dynamics, and resource constraints that influence engagement. By applying the IAD framework, you can gain a deeper understanding of the participation dynamics within your CO, identify barriers and facilitators of participation, and develop strategies to foster effective and inclusive engagement of fellow participants in the observatory's activities (find out more about inclusive engagement in the [Leave-No-One-Behind Toolkit (LNOB) Toolkit](https://inclusivity.toolkit.citiobs.eu/)). {% endcolumn %} {% column valign="middle" %} >

Deep Dive: >
IAD Framework

> > The framework focuses on analysing the institutional arrangements and collective action processes that influence the behaviour of individuals and groups within a specific context related to common pool natural resources. In other words, both the rules and the ways people interact in a given setting. It also considers other factors that shape how communities manage shared resources. > {% endcolumn %} > {% endcolumns %} Another way to understand participation dynamics is through the concept of **social cohesion**. If the participation within your CO is weak, this framework offers a starting point to check in with the other factors that could be having a negative impact. Social cohesion or group cohesion refers to a strong sense of community and a known place for oneself within the group or the integration of the individual and the community (Friedkin, 2004). It is within that meeting point of the individual and the group, in this case your CO, that participation dynamics can be observed, understood, and strengthened.

Framework to characterize social cohesion (Fonseca et al., 2019)

In the case of COs, they can be understood as the institution made up of rules, processes, established principles, while the community is the group of individuals who make up the CO. In this framework we see that participation of the individual is a necessary factor to building social cohesion within the CO and it is also influenced by the other factors such as the relationships within the CO, the CO’s success, and conflict management. Participation dynamics are then the interactions of all these factors, enabling or hindering one another. In other words, for the CO to have strong social cohesion, it would also mean that there are positive and effective participation dynamics playing out. To make use of the social cohesion framework by Fonseca et al., we encourage you to look at participation dynamics across three connected dimensions. First, consider the institutional side of the CO - the rules, processes, and decision-making structures that shape how people can take part. Next, pay attention to the community dimension - the quality of relationships, networks, and trust that hold the group together. Finally, reflect on the individual level - the motivations, perceptions, and sense of value that participants bring with them. By working through these three dimensions, you can begin to see whether participation is being strengthened or limited, and identify practical ways to build stronger social cohesion within your CO. > >

Deep Dive: Applying the IAD

> > > > To apply the IAD, Strandburg, Frischmann, and Madison (2017) developed a set of questions, known as the Knowledge Commons Framework and Representative Research, in order to apply the framework to Knowledge Commons. The Knowledge Commons refers to the collective resources and knowledge that are available to a community and are managed and shared by that community and as such is closely related to the core concept and characteristics of COs. > > > > This framework is meant to be used by CO leaders, practitioners, and researchers who wish to better understand participation dynamics in their COs. By working through the questions, you can explore how rules, community members, resources, and governance processes interact to shape participation. For instance, imagine a CO where citizens pool environmental data: the framework would help you examine what resources are shared (data), how they are governed (rules and processes), and how participation is enabled or hindered (roles and motivations of members). > > > > These following guiding questions can also be adapted to reflect on participation dynamics in COs, as follows: > > > > 1. Background context > > * What is the broader context (legal, cultural, social, political) of this particular CO? > > * What is the default status of the resources in this context (e.g., are they considered private, public, patented, copyrighted, open)? > > 2. Attributes - Resources > > * What resources are pooled and how are they created or obtained? > > * What are the characteristics of the resources? Are they rival or nonrival, (• Rival resources can be used up or depleted (e.g., water, funds). Nonrival resources can be shared without loss (e.g., data, knowledge)] tangible or intangible? Is there shared infrastructure? > > * What technologies and skills are needed to create, obtain, maintain, and use the resources? > > 3. Attributes – Community Members > > * Who are the community members and what are their roles? > > * What are the degree and nature of openness with respect to each type of CO member and the general public? > > 4. Attributes - Goals and Objectives > > * What are the goals and objectives of the CO and its members, including obstacles or dilemmas to be overcome? > > * What are the history and narrative of the CO? > > 5. Governance > > * What are the relevant **action arenas** ((the settings where decisions are made and interactions occur) and how do they relate to the goals of the CO and the relationships among various types of participants and with the general public > > * What are the governance mechanisms (e.g., membership rules, resource contribution or extraction standards and requirements, conflict resolution mechanisms, sanctions for rule violation)? ## **References** Fonseca, X., Lukosch, S., & Brazier, F. (2019). Social cohesion revisited: A new definition and how to characterize it. *Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 32*(2), 231–253. Friedkin, N. E. (2004). Social cohesion. *Annual Review of Sociology, 30*(1), 409–425. Ostrom, E. (2009). The institutional analysis and development framework and the commons. *Cornell Law Review, 95,* 807–815. Strandburg, K. J., Frischmann, B. M., & Madison, M. J. (2017). The knowledge commons framework. In K. J. Strandburg, B. M. Frischmann, & M. J. Madison (Eds.), *Governing medical knowledge commons* (pp. 9–18). Cambridge University Press. # How can we improve the participation dynamics in our Citizen Observatory? This section focuses on hands-on improvement in CO participation dynamics in distinct key improvement areas (e.g. rebuilding trust, ensuring inclusion, managing conflict). Each improvement area begins with a short explanation of why it is relevant, followed by practical approaches and tools that users can apply directly in their CO. # How can we (re)build trust and cultivate cooperation between stakeholders participating i the CO? ## **Why is it relevant?** (Re)building trust and cooperation among the participants of your CO is central to success and effectiveness. Trust serves as the foundation for meaningful collaboration, open communication, and active engagement. When fellow participants trust each other and your CO and the purpose of participation, they are more willing to contribute their knowledge, expertise, and resources, creating a fertile ground for collective problem-solving and decision making. Trust also enhances cooperation by fostering a sense of shared purpose and mutual respect, enabling participants to work together towards common goals. Crucially, it also increases the perceived levels of transparency and accountability, because when participants see information being openly shared, commitments being followed up, and rules applied consistently, they are more likely to view their CO’s decisions and actions as fair and legitimate. This strengthened legitimacy, in turn, increases the likelihood that the CO’s outcomes are taken seriously in policy and governance processes. By building trust and cooperation, you can create a supportive and inclusive environment that encourages active participation, generates innovative solutions, and strengthens the overall impact and sustainability of your CO. ## **How can this be done?** When participants come together without a shared history, trust cannot be assumed; it must be intentionally established. The absence of trust often shows up as distance, uncertainty, or indifference, and a lack of confidence that collaboration will be meaningful. In these situations, the first step is to demonstrate reliability through consistent and transparent actions. Small but visible commitments, such as following up on agreed tasks or sharing information openly, signal that the process is dependable. Creating opportunities for participants to get to know each other’s roles, motivations, and contributions further reduces uncertainty and builds familiarity. Low-stakes interactions, such as informal dialogues, co-learning sessions, or collaborative problem-scoping, help establish reciprocity without putting participants at risk. By gradually layering dependability, openness, and recognition, participants begin to see that their engagement matters. This foundation transforms absence of trust into initial confidence, upon which deeper collaboration can grow. | Existing (adapted) approaches | Featured tools | | ------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | A. Collaborative culture-building | Open communication using tools which maps organisational culture | | B. Empathy and vulnerability recognition | Roles clarification session - generate empathy and understand vulnerabilities. Relationship mapping and repair workshops using WINFY method/tool | | C. Acknowledging mistrust | Mapping trust erosion by ‘mapping the timeline of broken trust’, | ### *A. **Collaborative culture-building*** This approach involves bringing together various actors and public agencies to participate in decision-making processes that aim to achieve consensus and manage expectations (Ansell & Gash, 2008). This type of approach is often used to overcome issues with uncertain and disputed solutions. They can help build consensus or compromise when different groups have different perspectives, or when there are significant differences among the people involved in their beliefs about how to handle a particular issue or task (Gerlak & Heikkila, 2011). A variety of factors can influence the success and effectiveness of collaborative culture-building. Face-to-face discussion, trust building, and creating commitments and shared understanding contribute to the sustainability of such approaches (Ansell & Gash, 2008). Suitable leadership models or methods should also be in place, to manage conflict and monitor objectives (Bianchi, Nasi & Rivenbank, 2021). All of these tools are best conducted in-person, and in a place that is comfortable for the participants (which leads to increased accessibility and feelings of trust). Here, open communication plays a crucial role in building transparency and fostering trust and cooperation among participants of your CO. By establishing transparent channels and nurturing meaningful exchanges, you can cultivate an atmosphere of collaboration and engagement. Along with communication channels you should also keep in mind: a) communication styles ; b) language use , and c) audience. Because different language and style may be needed for different audiences. Complex language may not be accessible to some people, while simplistic language may be perceived as condescending by others. Therefore, several approaches can be taken in order to leverage open communication practices to build trust and cooperation. ***Open communication practice*** ensures the active involvement of stakeholders, including citizen participants, from the beginning. If done successfully, it may not only address ethical concerns of citizen science projects but also, create a greater willingness among participants to contribute data that they may consider private (Eleta et al., 2019; Skarlatidou et al., 2019). Effective communication strategies can be created by identifying the needs, goals, and expectations of participants early on and maintaining ongoing two-way communication. In that regard, [Mapping Organizational Culture](https://gamestorming.com/mapping-organizational-culture/) serves as a tool that helps shift focus from judgement to exploration where the participants explore and jointly identify your CO’s culture through deep reflection. By openly understanding the group culture, needed change becomes clear and more easily justified. This tool can help your CO understand how they have been interacting and communicating and, in doing so, it becomes clear where there is a need to adopt different practices of open communication. >

Deep Dive:
Strategyzer Culture Map

> > The Strategyzer Culture Map is a visual tool that helps groups explore how their behaviours, outcomes, enablers, and blockers shape organisational culture. By mapping these elements together, participants can identify what supports or hinders collaboration and agree on changes needed to build a desired culture. Together, these four lenses help groups quickly spot patterns in how their culture works and where change is needed. **Steps:** 1. **Prepare the Culture Map template** - Draw Strategyzer Culture Map layout featuring four key quadrants: 1. Behaviours (actual actions and interactions) 2. Outcomes (results of those behaviours) 3. Enablers (factors supporting behaviours) 4. Blockers (factors preventing positive behaviour or change) 2. **Individual reflection** - Ask participants to individually fill in each quadrant with sticky notes, focusing first on observed behaviours, then on their outcomes, followed by enablers and blockers. Encourage specific, story-based examples, not generalizations. 3. **Small-group clustering and discussion** - Form small groups to cluster notes on the shared template, spotting patterns or contradictions. They should discuss how certain behaviours lead to specific outcomes, and what enablers or blockers influence them. 4. **Full-group synthesis** - As one group, review the clusters and explore contrasts between current and desired states. Discuss: 1. Which behaviours foster collaboration? 2. Which outcomes signify health or dysfunction? 3. What cultural enablers can be strengthened? 4. Which blockers need addressing? 5. **Define desired culture** - Use insights to collaboratively map out aspirational cultural traits, such as transparent dialogue, shared leadership, or inclusive decision-making. Map how new behaviours could lead to different outcomes, supported by new enablers. 6. **Integrate into practice (living document)** - Place the resulting map in prominent meeting spaces or digital platforms where the CO convenes. Regularly revisit and update the map to assess progress, reinforce commitments, and adapt practices as needed.

Example of a Culture Map
Source: https://jwokittel.medium.com/the-culture-map-64baef6fd576

### ***B. Empathy and vulnerability recognition*** Recognising and naming feelings such as betrayal, powerlessness, and abandonment is a necessary step to build trust, because it validates lived experience and opens a path to emotional healing and renewed collaboration (Awan, 2014). Empathy in practice means creating facilitated spaces where people can safely voice harms and vulnerabilities, and where leaders and convenors respond with care, transparency, and follow-through; this signals respect and helps participants re-engage (Awan, 2014). In low-trust contexts across government, expert, and social relations, empathetic facilitation within deliberative processes is especially important: it reduces defensiveness, builds social capital among stakeholders, and strengthens the perceived legitimacy of decisions (Tsang, Burnett, Hills, & Welford, 2009). One tool that can put this into practice (i.e. cultivate empathy and understanding) is the [What I Need From You (WINFY)](https://www.sessionlab.com/methods/what-i-need-from-you-winfy) activity. This group activity is designed to help people working together in different roles clearly communicate what they need from others for the organization/system/group to succeed. In doing so, the struggles and goals of others are illuminated and the interdependency of the group is highlighted. Through greater clarity about the different individual efforts happening in the CO, relationships can be strengthened and a greater willingness among fellow participants to help meet the collective needs of the CO can be established. **Steps:** 1. **Set the invitation** - Frame the exercise around a shared goal (e.g., “What do we need from each other to make this observatory work?”). Clarify that responses must be “Yes,” “No,” “I will try,” or “Whatever” (meaning more clarity is needed). 2. **Cluster reflection** - Small groups generate a list of their key needs from other groups, then select two priority needs and nominate a spokesperson. 3. **Sharing needs** - Spokespeople gather in a central circle and state their cluster’s two needs aloud. Other groups listen and take notes - no responses at this stage. 4. **Crafting responses** - Spokespeople return to their groups to decide on responses to each request using the four allowed answers. 5. **Structured replies** - Spokespeople reconvene in the central circle and deliver their group’s responses to each request, without debate or elaboration. 6. **Debrief** - As a whole group, reflect on the process using “What? So What? Now What?”: - *What happened? So, what insights emerged about needs and vulnerabilities? Now what actions can we take to strengthen mutual support?* WINFY externalises unspoken needs and vulnerabilities in a structured way that minimises defensiveness. By enabling participants to hear and respond clearly to each other’s requests, it fosters empathy, mutual recognition, and collective responsibility. This strengthens trust and enhances willingness to collaborate in the CO. ### ***C. Acknowledging mistrust*** Trust building and repair begins with explicitly recognising the presence of mistrust, deficit of trust and the harm it has caused. Rather than bypassing or suppressing tensions, acknowledging them validates the experiences of stakeholders and opens the possibility for dialogue. Trust repair is a two-way process where all parties engage to rebuild confidence in one another, which cannot happen unless past issues are recognised (Kim, Dirks, and Cooper, 2009). This perspective enables different sides to better understand each other’s positions, which is essential for repairing strained relationships (Williams, 2010). Furthermore, participatory governance and emotional healing depend on naming the feelings of betrayal and abandonment that accompany broken trust, so that constructive processes of recovery can begin (Awan 2014). In participatory settings such as COs, openly acknowledging mistrust lays the foundation for genuine engagement, emotional healing, and cooperative rebuilding of relationships. One way to begin repairing trust is by openly acknowledging where it has been shaken or broken. This can be done **b*****y mapping the timeline of broken trust***, a participatory tool in which participants anonymously or collectively place moments on a shared timeline where they experienced trust being built, shaken, or broken in the CO process. The activity draws on timeline mapping methods that demonstrates how visualising life events in sequence helps participants narrate sensitive experiences, identify resilience, and gain agency in reflecting on their past (Kolar et al., 2017). By using this method for trust repair, the timeline becomes a safe way to externalise experiences of distrust without attributing blame to individuals. It enables participants to collectively identify patterns, missed opportunities for repair, and underlying dynamics that may otherwise remain hidden. This adaptation also considers that trust repair in conflict-affected contexts requires processes that explicitly recognise past violations and invite dialogue about unmet expectations (Kappmeier et al., 2021). By using the timeline not only to record incidents but also to facilitate reflection sessions, the activity provides a structured means of acknowledging past wounds while re-establishing a shared narrative. In this way, the collectiv*e* ‘*mapping the timeline of broken trust’ tool, serves* both as a diagnostic tool to identify when trust was weakened and as a reparative tool to support rebuilding it.: It helps participants see trust as a dynamic relational history and creates a foundation for moving forward together.

Mapping broken trust
Source: https://www.tatianatoutikian.com/trust-timeline

**Steps:** 1. **Introduce the purpose gently** - Explain that the activity is not about blaming individuals but about *understanding the shared journey of trust* within the CO. Emphasise that trust is dynamic — it is built, sometimes shaken, and sometimes broken — and that acknowledging these shifts is the first step in repair. 2. **Individual reflection (gentle entry)** - Provide participants with sticky notes or cards. Invite them to recall *significant moments* in the CO process (positive or difficult). Ask them to write these moments down in *neutral terms* (what happened, not why). Afterwards, introduce colour coding: Green = trust built; Yellow = trust shaken; Red = trust broken. Make it optional for participants to assign a colour if they feel comfortable. 3. **Collective mapping** - Collect the notes and place them along a large visual timeline (on a wall, flipchart, or digital board). Cluster similar moments together to make patterns visible. Ensure anonymity if participants prefer, by having facilitators post the notes. 4. **Guided reflection session** - Facilitators lead a dialogue around the emerging timeline: What patterns do we see? Where did trust strengthen, and where did it fracture? Were there missed opportunities for repair? What do these moments reveal about underlying dynamics, such as communication gaps, power imbalances, or lack of follow-through? 5. **Harvesting insights** - Encourage the group to identify: *Resilience factors* (what helped rebuild or maintain trust despite challenges). *Repair opportunities* (moments where action could have helped but were missed). *Shared commitments* for moving forward (how participants want to prevent repetition). 6. **Closing with care** - Since recalling broken trust can surface vulnerability, facilitators should close with an affirming round: each participant shares *one thing they commit to contribute* toward strengthening trust in the CO going forward. ## **Additional resources** The Action Participatory Science Toolkit Against Pollution (Action Project, 2022) provides a range of tools to support Citizen Science and Citizen Observatories, including guidelines for open and impactful communication and dissemination The Impact Journey Approach (MICS, 2022) provides a methodology for co-evaluation, which is inclusive of a range of stakeholders and aims to promote understanding of CO aims and impacts Wehn and Almomani (2019), as part of the Ground Truth 2.0 project, developed a framework on incentives and barriers influencing how stakeholders share, harmonise, and use data in policy-making. Wehn et al. (2015) present a conceptual framework for governance analysis within COs, useful to understand the role and authority of citizens and to track governance changes resulting from COs.. The *WeSenseIt Incentives and Barriers framework* outlines factors that either facilitate or hinder citizen engagement in weather observatories, helping to design strategies for ICT-enabled participation. The organigraph tool developed by (Durrant et al., 2022) can be used to understand stakeholder power dynamics, and to identify stakeholder groups that are underrepresented and less connected to the decision-making process. The Ground Truth 2.0 co-design approach (Wehn & Pfeiffer, 2019) offers a framework that ensures participant involvement in the design of COs, ensuring that CO processes are designed by all and allows for joint learning ## **References** Anderson, A. A., Williams, E., Long, M., Carter, E., & Volckens, J. (2020). Organizationally based citizen science: Considerations for implementation. *Journal of Science Communication, 19*(3), A01. Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. *Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18*(4), 543–571. Awan, S. (2014). *Rebuilding trust in community colleges through leadership, emotional healing and participatory governance* (Doctoral dissertation, Pepperdine University). ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Bianchi, C., Nasi, G., & Rivenbark, W. C. (2021). Implementing collaborative governance: Models, experiences, and challenges. *Public Management Review, 23*(11), 1581–1589. Bodin, Ö. (2017). Collaborative environmental governance: Achieving collective action in social-ecological systems. *Science, 357*(6352), eaan1114. Bonney, R., Phillips, T. B., Ballard, H. L., & Enck, J. W. (2016). Can citizen science enhance public understanding of science? *Public Understanding of Science, 25*(1), 2–16. Bowser, A., Shilton, K., Preece, J., & Warrick, E. (2017, February). Accounting for privacy in citizen science: Ethical research in a context of openness. In *Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing* (pp. 2124–2136). Association for Computing Machinery. Bradley, Q. (2012). A ‘performative’ social movement: The emergence of collective contentions within collaborative governance. *Space and Polity, 16*(2), 215–232. DITOS Consortium. (2019). *Citizen science in UK environmental policy* (DITOS Policy Brief 7). Eleta, I., Clavell, G. G., Righi, V., & Balestrini, M. (2019). The promise of participation and decision-making power in citizen science. *Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 4*(1), 1–11. Gerlak, A. K., & Heikkila, T. (2011). Building a theory of learning in collaboratives: Evidence from the Everglades Restoration Program. *Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21*(4), 619–644. Jennings, H., Slade, M., Bates, P., Munday, E., & Toney, R. (2018). Best practice framework for patient and public involvement (PPI) in collaborative data analysis of qualitative mental health research: Methodology development and refinement. *BMC Psychiatry, 18,* 213. Kappmeier, M., Pinfari, M., & Pruitt, L. J. (2021). Trust, confidence, and cooperation in conflict contexts: Toward a framework for trust-building in peace negotiations. *Negotiation Journal, 37*(1), 7–39. Kim, P. H., Dirks, K. T., & Cooper, C. D. (2009). The repair of trust: A dynamic bilateral perspective and multilevel conceptualization. *Academy of Management Review, 34*(3), 401–422. Kolar, K., Ahmad, F., Chan, L., & Erickson, P. G. (2017). Timeline mapping in qualitative interviews: A study of resilience with marginalized groups. *International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16*(1), 1–12. Linke, A., & Zerfass, A. (2011). Internal communication and innovation culture: Developing a change framework. *Journal of Communication Management, 15*(4), 332–348. MICS. (2022). *I want to measure the impacts of citizen science projects... by co-evaluating via impact journeys.* Paleco, C., García Peter, S., Salas Seoane, N., Kaufmann, J., & Argyri, P. (2021). Inclusiveness and diversity in citizen science. In S. Hecker, M. Haklay, A. Bowser, Z. Makuch, J. Vogel, & A. Bonn (Eds.), *The science of citizen science* (p. 261). Springer. Robinson, L. D., Cawthray, J. L., West, S. E., Bonn, A., & Ansine, J. (2018). Ten principles of citizen science. In S. Hecker, M. Haklay, A. Bowser, Z. Makuch, J. Vogel, & A. Bonn (Eds.), *Citizen science: Innovation in open science, society and policy* (pp. 27–40). UCL Press. Skarlatidou, A., Suskevics, M., Göbel, C., Prūse, B., Tauginienė, L., Mascarenhas, A., ... & Wyszomirski, P. (2019). The value of stakeholder mapping to enhance co-creation in citizen science initiatives. *Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 4*(1), 1–12. Tsang, S., Burnett, M., Hills, P., & Welford, R. (2009). Trust, public participation and environmental governance in Hong Kong. *Environmental Policy and Governance, 19*(2), 99–114. Wehn, U., & Almomani, A. (2019). Incentives and barriers for participation in community-based environmental monitoring and information systems: A critical analysis and integration of the literature. *Environmental Science & Policy, 101,* 341–357. Wehn, U., Ajates, R., Fraisl, D., Gharesifard, M., Gold, M., Hager, G., ... & Wood, C. (2021). Capturing and communicating impact of citizen science for policy: A storytelling approach. *Journal of Environmental Management, 295,* 113082. Wehn, U., & Pfeiffer, E. (2019). *Deliverable D1.13: Guidelines for citizen observatories and future recommendations.* Ground Truth 2.0. Williams, M. (2010). Building and rebuilding trust: Why perspective taking matters. In R. M. Kramer & A. E. Tenbrunsel (Eds.), *Trust and distrust in organizations: Dilemmas and approaches* (pp. 365–393). Russell Sage Foundation. # How can we ensure that the views and interests of all stakeholders are taken into account? ## **Why is it relevant?** As a CO, your aim is to engage and involve the broader public in the knowledge co-production. Therefore, it is crucial for you to ensure that the views and interests of all participants are considered in decision-making processes. By incorporating diverse perspectives, your CO can generate a more comprehensive and representative understanding of the issues at hand, while also promoting inclusivity, transparency, and democratic decision-making, fostering ownership and empowerment among participants. Additionally, different people bring unique knowledge, expertise, and experiences that can contribute to more robust and innovative solutions. By valuing and integrating the viewpoints of all individuals involved, you can enhance the relevance, credibility, and effectiveness of the CO, ultimately leading to better-informed decisions and positive societal outcomes. ## **How can this be done?** Meaningful inclusion requires more than simply inviting participation; it demands careful attention to how diverse perspectives and interests are recognised and integrated. **Joint problem-framing** anchors the process by ensuring that issues are co-defined rather than imposed, taking everyone’s views into account from the outset. This prevents tokenism and lays the groundwork for shared accountability. **Consensus-seeking** activities provide structured spaces for participants to negotiate differences and identify common ground, aligning with analytic–**deliberative inclusion** approaches that strengthen ownership of outcomes. Power mapping further supports this by making visible which interests and perspectives are prioritised, exposing asymmetries that can otherwise undermine legitimacy. Finally, it is essential to identify and include missing or marginalised voices; methods for this are detailed in the [Leave-No-One-Behind Toolkit (LNOB) Toolkit.](https://inclusivity.toolkit.citiobs.eu/) | Existing (adapted) approaches | Featured tools | | ------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | |
  1. Joint framing
| Joint problem identification sessions using Stakeholder Salience Mapping | |
  1. Seeking Consensus
| Consensus-building workshops using 1-2-4 All activity | |
  1. Deliberate inclusion
| Power Mapping using Chapati Diagrams | ### ***A. Joint framing*** Joint framing emphasises the co-definition of problems, goals, and priorities at the outset of a CO. This early-stage collaboration generates shared language, clarifies expectations, and reduces the risk of tokenistic participation. It also builds ownership, as participants see their concerns reflected in the project’s agenda. Co-framing processes thus anchor inclusivity in the design of the observatory, rather than as an add-on (Nogueira, Bjørkan, & Dale, 2021). One way to facilitate joint framing is through **Stakeholder Salience Mapping**. In this activity, participants collaboratively identify all relevant stakeholder groups and then assess them along three dimensions: power (their ability to influence decisions), legitimacy (the appropriateness of their involvement), and urgency (the immediacy of their claims). Plotting stakeholders against these dimensions creates a shared visual map of who is most visible, who may be overlooked, and where tensions or gaps in representation exist (Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997). In a CO, this process opens explicit discussion on how different voices are weighed, helping to rebalance attention toward marginalised groups and ensure that their views are not overshadowed by more powerful actors. **Steps:** 1. **Brainstorm stakeholder groups** - Begin with an open list of all groups, organisations, and individuals who are (or could be) affected by the issue. Encourage participants to think beyond the usual suspects, including marginalised or less-visible actors. 2. **Introduce the salience criteria** - Explain the three dimensions: 1. *Power*: ability to influence the outcome. 2. *Legitimacy*: appropriateness of involvement (socially or morally recognised). 3. *Urgency*: immediacy and criticality of the claim. 3. **Assess each stakeholder** - In small groups or plenary, discuss and rate each stakeholder against the three criteria (using cards, sticky notes, or a digital board). 4. **Plot stakeholders on a salience map** - Place stakeholders visually in a grid/diagram, showing which groups score high/low on power, legitimacy, and urgency. 5. **Reflect collectively** - Facilitate a discussion: Who dominates? Who is missing or undervalued? What tensions arise? Highlight where inclusion efforts need to be strengthened. 6. **Design actions for balance** - Agree on practical steps, e.g. targeted outreach to under-represented groups, rotating facilitation, or quota-setting in follow-up activities. The results can guide you and your fellow participants in designing follow-up measures, such as targeted outreach to missing groups, dedicated dialogue sessions for less powerful voices, or rotating facilitation methods to ensure balanced input. In this way, joint framing supported by salience mapping ensures that the views and interests of all participants are not only acknowledged but meaningfully integrated into decision-making processes.

Diagram to map and assess stakeholders
Source: https://www.deepfriedbrainproject.com/2017/09/salience-model-for-stakeholder-classification.html

Use this diagram to map and assess stakeholders by their power, legitimacy, and urgency, helping you identify which voices are most salient and where inclusion efforts may be needed. ### ***B. Seeking consensus*** Consensus-seeking focuses on building common ground among participants who may hold divergent perspectives and interests. The aim is not necessarily to achieve unanimous agreement, but to create mutual understanding and workable compromises. Deliberative approaches, such as consensus conferences provide structured forums where evidence, values, and trade-offs are discussed openly. These processes foster transparency and shared ownership of outcomes, making decisions more robust and acceptable. The [1-2-4-All activity](https://www.liberatingstructures.com/1-1-2-4-all/) can facilitate a nuanced conversation about the different opinions that exist on a variety of different issues/topics. Rather than needing a binary yes/no or agree/disagree response from participants, this activity offers space for a spectrum of opinions and CO participants can see the layers of agreement that already exist; this creates space for compromise even when complete consensus is not possible. **Steps:** 1. **Pose the framing question** - Present a clear, open-ended question relevant to the issue (e.g., “What criteria should guide the prioritisation of monitoring activities in our CO?”). 2. **Individual reflection** - Each participant notes their initial thoughts independently, ensuring all voices are captured from the start. 3. **Pair discussion** - Participants share their reflections in pairs, finding commonalities and differences. 4. **Group of four** - Pairs join with another pair to compare perspectives, synthesise emerging agreements, and note areas of divergence. 5. **Whole-group sharing (All)** - Small groups share their key points with the plenary. Facilitators cluster responses to show overlapping concerns, layers of agreement, and remaining tensions. 6. **Synthesis and compromise -** Facilitators highlight shared ground and invite discussion on workable compromises. Points of disagreement are acknowledged but reframed as resources for further dialogue rather than obstacles. Participants see how their individual perspectives connect to wider patterns of agreement. The method makes visible where consensus already exists, and where compromise can be built, while ensuring that no single voice dominates the process. This layered approach fosters legitimacy, inclusivity, and collective ownership of decisions. ### ***C. Deliberate inclusion*** Deliberate inclusion involves intentionally bringing forward perspectives and viewpoints that are often overlooked or given less priority. This requires moving beyond open invitations to participation and instead actively seeking out underrepresented positions, whether they are marginalised by socio-economic barriers, cultural norms, or entrenched power dynamics. In the context of a CO, this might include groups such as residents from low-income areas, young people, the elderly, informal community groups, or others whose perspectives are often less visible compared to institutional or more powerful actors. Mapping whose perspectives dominate and whose are absent helps identify these gaps. In doing so, diverse perspectives can meaningfully inform decision-making. Such practices not only broaden the range of knowledge considered but also strengthen the legitimacy of the CO by showing that all viewpoints are valued in shaping outcomes (Burgess et al., 2007; Cornwall, 2008; Reed et al., 2009). One inclusive mapping method is the [Chapati Diagrams Activity,](https://commonslibrary.org/leaderful-organizing-tool-chapati-power-diagrams/) which is a participatory tool for visually mapping stakeholder relationships and power dynamics. The process validates the opinions of all participants and encourages negotiation and compromise, ensuring no group or individual is ignored in discussions and decision-making. Using this tool can act as a check for your CO to ensure that not one group or individual is dominating discussions and can help call people in to give more attention to certain groups/individuals. **Steps:** 1. **Frame the activity** - Begin with a short input on *understanding power* — explain that circles will represent people or groups, and their *size* shows perceived power. Clarify that the aim is not to criticise but to surface perceptions of influence and voice within the system. 2. **Form small groups** - Divide participants into groups of 4 -6. Provide each group with paper, scissors, and markers. 3. **Create the chapatis (circles)** - Each group cuts circles of different sizes from paper. Each circle is labelled with the name of a stakeholder (individual, group, or institution). Larger circles = more perceived power; smaller circles = less perceived power. 4. **Arrange the circles** - Groups place the circles on a large sheet (or floor/board). Proximity to the centre (the issue or CO) indicates closeness of involvement; distance shows exclusion or weak connection. Overlaps can be used to indicate collaboration or shared influence. 5. **Debrief in small groups** - Groups discuss what the arrangement reveals: Who dominates? Who is marginalised or missing? How do overlaps reflect alliances? 6. **Whole-group reflection** - Each group shares their chapati diagram with everyone. Facilitators invite discussion on differences between groups’ perceptions. 7. **Careful processing** - Acknowledge that some participants may feel exposed if they are represented as having “too much” or “too little” power. Allow time to unpack these feelings, clarify intentions, and frame the outcome as collective learning, not judgement. 8. **Identify follow-up actions** - Use the insights to design deliberate inclusion strategies, e.g. giving more space to quieter actors, targeted outreach to missing groups, or mechanisms to rebalance influence in the CO. The chapati diagrams make perceptions of power visible in a tangible, embodied way. By cutting, sizing, and positioning circles, participants externalise difficult dynamics, opening space for negotiation and empathy. With careful facilitation, the exercise validates experiences of marginalisation and creates a practical basis for more inclusive engagement in your CO. ## **Additional resources** The D-CENT Toolbox (D-CENT, unknown) provides a range of tools that can be used to lower the barrier to participant engagement in decision making, including open-source software for citizen notifications, collaborative policy making and electronic voting. The Inclusive Civic Engagement Toolkit for Governments (Inclusion International, 2015) seeks to address the various barriers faced by marginalised and underrepresented groups in exercising their right to participate in civic engagement and political processes. The Community Engagement Good Practice Guide (The Policy Project, 2020) provides guidelines for adopting effective community engagement practices, including the involvement of a broad range of stakeholders in decision-making processes The organigraph tool (Durrant et al., 2022) can be used to understand stakeholder power dynamics, and to identify stakeholder groups that are underrepresented and less connected to the decision-making process. ## **References** Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. *Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35*(4), 216–224. Bellamy, R., Chilvers, J., & Vaughan, N. E. (2016). Deliberative mapping of options for tackling climate change: Citizens and specialists ‘open up’ appraisal of geoengineering. *Public Understanding of Science, 25*(3), 269–286. Burgess, J., Stirling, A., Clark, J., Davies, G., Eames, M., Staley, K., & Williamson, S. (2007). Deliberative mapping: A novel analytic–deliberative methodology to support contested science–policy decisions. *Public Understanding of Science, 16*(3), 299–322. Cornwall, A. (2008). Unpacking “participation”: Models, meanings and practices. *Community Development Journal, 43*(3), 269–283. Einsiedel, E. F., & Eastlick, D. L. (2000). Consensus conferences as deliberative democracy: A communications perspective. *Science Communication, 21*(4), 323–343. Evans, M., & Terrey, N. (2016). Co-design with citizens and stakeholders. In N. Cartwright & E. Montuschi (Eds.), *Evidence-based policy making in the social sciences* (pp. 243–262). Policy Press. Hager, G., Gold, M., Wehn, U., Ajates, R., See, L., Woods, M., ... & Fritz, S. (2021). Onto new horizons: Insights from the WeObserve project to strengthen the awareness, acceptability and sustainability of citizen observatories in Europe. *Journal of Science Communication, 20*(6), A01. Jensen, C. B. (2005). Citizen projects and consensus-building at the Danish Board of Technology: On experiments in democracy. *Acta Sociologica, 48*(3), 221–235. Kothari, A., & Wathen, C. N. (2017). Integrated knowledge translation: Digging deeper, moving forward. *Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 71*(6), 619–623. Nogueira, L. A., Bjørkan, M., & Dale, B. (2021). Conducting research in a post-normal paradigm: Practical guidance for applying co-production of knowledge. *Frontiers in Environmental Science, 9,* 699397. Reed, M. S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., ... & Stringer, L. C. (2009). Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. *Journal of Environmental Management, 90*(5), 1933–1949. University of Sussex. (2004a). *The deliberative mapping approach.* University of Sussex. (2004b). *Citizens’ panels in deliberative mapping: A user guide.* University of Sussex. (2004c). *Using the multi-criteria mapping (MCM) technique.* Wehn, U., Rusca, M., Evers, J., & Lanfranchi, V. (2015). Participation in flood risk management and the potential of citizen observatories: A governance analysis. *Environmental Science & Policy, 48,* 225–236. # How can we manage decision making within our CO in the face of uncertainty and complexity? ## **Why is it relevant?** In contexts of uncertainty, change, and complexity, decision making within your CO becomes more challenging as there are multiple unknowns, rapidly changing circumstances, and intricate interconnections between various factors. This often creates hesitation, fragmented responses, or reliance on narrow expertise in decision-making processes. By gaining insights into effective decision-making strategies, you can navigate these complexities and make informed choices that address emerging issues and maximise the impact of your CO. This understanding allows for adaptive and flexible decision making, enabling your CO to respond promptly to new information, adapt strategies, and engage stakeholders in a way that is responsive to evolving needs and dynamics. Additionally, managing decision making under uncertainty and complexity requires careful risk assessment, integration of diverse knowledge sources, and the ability to balance short-term actions with long-term goals, ultimately leading to more resilient and sustainable outcomes within your CO. ## **How can this be done?** Addressing this challenge requires practices that both structure and legitimise decision-making while leaving room for adaptation. One way is through adaptive management, operationalised by an iterative Plan–Do–Check–Act cycles, which allow participants to incorporate new information, monitor outcomes, and adjust strategies accordingly. A second approach is polycentric decision-making, supported by multi-level negotiation platforms that create parallel arenas for deliberation and coordination across scales, ensuring that no single perspective dominates and that interdependencies is explicitly addressed. Finally, deliberative resilience can be fostered through structured deliberation methods such as Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), which help participants systematically weigh diverse values and uncertainties, making disagreements transparent and productive rather than paralysing (Stirling, 2008). Together, these tools operationalise decision-making as an iterative, inclusive, and adaptive process that can hold complexity rather than collapse under it. | Existing (adapted) approaches | Featured tools | | ----------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | A. Adaptive management | Flexible and iterative approach to decision-making within the CO using Plan–Do–Check–Act (PDCA cycle) - also known as the Deming or Shewhart cycle | | B. Polycentric negotiation | Create multiple parallel spaces where different actors can advance solutions, which can later be aligned using Scenario building workshops | | C. Deliberative resilience | Accepting that disagreement itself can be productive, and focus on building the capacity to stay engaged despite unresolved differences using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). | ### ***A. Adaptive management*** Adopting an adaptive management approach can greatly support decision making within your CO, particularly when operating under conditions of high uncertainty and complexity. Adaptive management approaches emphasise flexible and iterative processes that allow for continuous monitoring, evaluation of outcomes, and adjustment of strategies based on new information and changing circumstances (Williams & Brown., 2018). This approach enables your CO to respond to uncertainties and complexities effectively, ensuring that decisions remain relevant and impactful. Key to adaptive management is the development of a comprehensive monitoring strategy. Data on environmental conditions and CO activities (for example, sensor measurements, observations, or reported events) should be regularly collected, monitored, and reviewed, allowing for monitoring protocols and action plans to be adjusted if required. This iterative process enables your CO to adapt its strategies based on emerging patterns, challenges, and opportunities, ensuring that decision making remains evidence-based and responsive to the dynamic nature of the observed system (Levin et al., 2013). A variety of tools have been identified for the implementation of adaptive management (Norton, 2018). However, commonly all approaches share four concrete, iterative steps: **Plan, Do, Monitor, Learn** (Webb et al., 2017). This cyclical approach to adaptive management incorporates a learning cycle, highlighting the importance of using lessons learned from previous stages to inform the next.

Plan, Do, Monitor, Learn Adaptive Management approach (Webb et al., 2017)

This tool taps into these iterative learning principles is a six-step activity, that aims to promote creativity when dealing with uncertainty, risk and change (Nyberg, 1999). This tool provides a structured process to simultaneously implement and evaluate actions, and to modify or refine future activities as needed. **Steps:** 1. **Problem Assessment** – Problems (with decision making in your CO in contexts of uncertainty, change, and complexity) can be identified in a variety of ways. One approach is to use facilitated workshops, in which participants define the scope of the issue. Participants can integrate existing knowledge about the system or issue and explore potential outcomes of different actions. To evaluate which actions are most likely to achieve management objectives, explicit forecasts are generated. This process also helps identify crucial gaps in understanding that hinder outcome prediction. 2. **Design** – Creating a plan and monitoring program that offer reliable feedback on the effectiveness of chosen actions. Ideally, the plan should address the identified gaps in understanding from Step 1. Proposed plans or designs should be assessed based on factors such as costs, risks, informativeness, and their ability to meet management objectives. 3. **Implementation** – Implementing the plan 4. **Monitoring** – Focusing on tracking indicators to determine the efficacy of actions in meeting management objectives. It also involves testing the hypothesized relationships that formed the basis for the initial forecasts. 5. **Evaluation** – Comparing actual outcomes to the earlier forecasts, and the reasons behind any disparities are analysed and interpreted. 6. **Adjustment** – Modifying practices, objectives, and the forecast models based on new insights gained. The understanding acquired in each of these six steps may lead to a re-evaluation of the problem, generation of new questions, and exploration of alternative options, forming an ongoing cycle of improvement. Such tools have considerable overlap with co-evaluation tools, such as the MICS Impact Journey Approach (Wehn, Gharesifard & Somerwill, 2021). This outlines a methodology for citizen science or CO projects to incorporate a wide range of stakeholders in iterative problem identification, and impact assessment. This tool is comprised of three steps. **Steps:** 1. **Context analysis** – During this stage, stakeholders can reflect on the context in which the initiative is being established and identify pathways of change, desired outcomes and impacts. Relevant stakeholders are identified, and political, environmental, social, and economic contexts are evaluated. 2. **Development and validation of an impact journey map** – Relevant domains of change, expected impacts, and expected outcomes are drafted in this stage. Based on this, strategies for achieving desired changes are formulated, and cause and effect relationships are identified. Key impacts are then operational by the stakeholders. 3. **Developing an impact monitoring strategy/continuing co-evaluation** – Indicators and methods for measuring indicators are identified, and an overall plan for monitoring and evaluation of citizen science impact is created. If required, context analysis is conducted again at regular intervals to ascertain if the strategy is still appropriate. The [Plan–Do–Check–Act (PDCA) cycle](https://www.lean.org/lexicon-terms/pdca/), (also called the Deming Cycle) is a classic iterative management method for continuous learning and improvement. It’s often used in adaptive management, governance, and citizen science because it provides a simple, yet structured way to deal with uncertainty. **Steps:** 1. **Plan:** identify a problem, set objectives, and design an intervention or action plan. 2. **Do:** implement the plan on a small scale or pilot basis. 3. **Check:** monitor and evaluate the outcomes against the objectives, looking for successes, failures, and unintended effects. 4. **Act:** adjust the plan, scale up what works, and revise or abandon what does not, before beginning the cycle again. This cyclical process ensures that decision-making isn’t static but is continually updated in light of new evidence and experiences. In governance contexts, it helps stakeholders experiment safely, learn collectively, and adapt strategies over time rather than locking into rigid solutions. ### ***B. Polycentric negotiation*** Polycentric negotiation refers to the practice of creating multiple, overlapping spaces for discussion where authority and decision-making are shared. Instead of relying on a single authority, negotiations unfold across levels (community, municipal, regional) and between sectors (civil society, government, academia). This approach draws from polycentric governance theory, which highlights that complex problems are better addressed through interconnected centres of decision-making that can adapt, experiment, and learn from one another (Ostrom, 2010). In your CO, polycentric negotiation helps prevent dominance by a single person/group and provides space for all voices to enter discussions. It creates opportunities for alignment across scales while respecting contextual diversity, making agreements more robust and legitimate. One practical tool to support this approach is **scenario-building workshops**. These workshops allow each group to map out possible future pathways and outcomes in a structured way. The results from different groups can then be compared, aligned, and synthesised to build a shared direction across the CO. **Steps:** 1. **Identify critical drivers and uncertainties** shaping their system (e.g. water scarcity, budget constraints, institutional mandates). 2. **Develop multiple plausible scenarios** by combining these drivers into contrasting but realistic trajectories. 3. **Map sector-specific responses** to each scenario, enabling participants from different governance levels to stress-test their strategies against those of others. 4. **Compare and align pathways across groups**, highlighting interdependencies, synergies, and potential conflicts. 5. **Agree on robust strategies** that can hold across multiple futures, ensuring flexibility and resilience. This tool is widely used in environmental governance. For example, the U.S. National Park Service [facilitated scenario workshops](https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/70216838) in Acadia National Park, where communities, scientists, and managers co-developed climate futures and aligned them into adaptive management plans. These workshops bring representatives from each decision-making space together to co-develop and compare future scenarios. As explained by [SessionLab](https://www.sessionlab.com/blog/scenario-planning/), scenario planning involves guiding groups through the process of identifying key uncertainties, crafting alternative storylines, and stress-testing assumptions – creating future-ready, resilient strategies rather than predicting a single outcome. ### ***C. Deliberative resilience*** Deliberative resilience involves fostering the capacity of participatory processes to withstand disagreement, tension, and uncertainty without collapsing. Rather than aiming for quick consensus, deliberative resilience emphasises the value of open discussion as part of problem-solving. It encourages stakeholders to keep engaging even when discussions are difficult, thereby normalising conflict as part of democratic practice. In COs, this means designing spaces where participants can confront trade-offs, revisit assumptions, and adapt solutions over time. By cultivating resilience in deliberation, your CO can move beyond fragile agreements and instead develop adaptive pathways that can evolve as new information, values, and uncertainties emerge. The ability to navigate disagreement constructively can be strengthened through [Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis](https://www.toolshero.com/decision-making/multiple-criteria-decision-analysis-mcda/) (MCDA). MCDA provides a structured process for identifying, comparing, and weighing different perspectives and options. By turning conflicting viewpoints into systematically assessed criteria, MCDA ensures that differences are not dismissed or suppressed but recognised as legitimate inputs for decision-making. Through conducting an MCDA participants learn to acknowledge and respect different viewpoints and accept that difference is inevitable and can be constructive. Through the analysis participants will give structure to the different opinions and options that exist and develop a system for considering these and moving forward with a dynamic framework to help manage decisions. **Steps:** 1. **Define the decision context** - Clarify the problem, objectives, and scope of the decision. 2. **Identify stakeholders and perspectives** - Ensure relevant actors are involved; gather their values and concerns. 3. **Generate alternatives/options** - List the possible courses of action or solutions to be assessed. 4. **Develop decision criteria** - Identify the dimensions along which options will be evaluated (e.g., cost, equity, environmental impact). 5. **Weight the criteria** - Determine the relative importance of each criterion, often through stakeholder input. 6. **Score the alternatives** - Assess how well each option performs against each criterion. 7. **Aggregate the results** - Combine scores and weights to compare alternatives transparently. 8. **Conduct sensitivity analysis** - Test how robust the results are to changes in weights, scores, or assumptions. # How can we manage and meaningfully resolve conflicts between stakeholders in our CO? ## **Why is it relevant?** Learning how to effectively manage and resolve conflicts between participants in your CO is crucial for ensuring the success and sustainability of these initiatives. Conflict is a natural occurrence when diverse individuals and groups come together, each with their own interests, perspectives, and expectations. By understanding conflict management strategies, you can help your CO address disagreements in a constructive manner and: * prevent conflicts from escalating and hindering progress, * promote transparency, trust, and mutual respect among stakeholders, * enhance the overall credibility and legitimacy of your CO, by demonstrating a commitment to fair and inclusive decision-making processes. ## **How can this be done?** Conflict is an inevitable part of collaborative governance, but it need not derail cooperation; when addressed constructively, it can clarify differences and strengthen relationships. This can be done through a graduated set of practices that match the intensity of the conflict: direct negotiation empowers parties to co-create solutions (Fisher & Ury, 2011); mediation introduces a neutral facilitator to balance power asymmetries and guide dialogue (Moore, 2014); and arbitration provides rule-based decisions that ensure legitimacy when consensus cannot be reached (Moura & Teixeira, 2009). Embedding such practices in the CO creates structured ways of turning potentially destructive conflict into constructive engagement. | Existing (adapted) approaches | Featured tools | | ------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | A. Facilitated and rule-based resolution |

i) Negotiation,

ii) Mediation, and

iii) Arbitration

| ### *A. Facilitated and rule-based resolution* Conflicts that cannot be resolved through direct discussion may require the involvement of neutral facilitators or mediators to guide dialogue and balance power asymmetries, or more formal arbitration processes to ensure fair and binding outcomes. Such approaches provide structure, legitimacy, and impartiality, helping participants to de-escalate disputes and reach sustainable agreements (Moore, 2014). ### *Negotiation* Negotiation is a widely used and cost-effective method of resolving disputes in the construction industry, allowing the involved parties to maintain control over the resolution process. To achieve a successful negotiated settlement in a conflict, four key characteristics should be met: fairness, efficiency, wisdom, and stability (Moura & Teixera, 2009). Fairness ensures that all parties have an equal opportunity to present their perspectives and interests. Efficiency focuses on reaching a resolution in a timely and cost-effective manner. Wisdom involves making informed decisions based on sound judgment and expertise. Stability aims to establish a durable and long-lasting resolution that minimises the likelihood of further conflicts arising. By incorporating these characteristics into the negotiation process, a positive outcome can be achieved for all parties involved. Negotiations are often divided into two types: cooperative and competitive. Cooperative negotiation, also known as win/win negotiation, involves a different approach compared to competitive negotiation. Each approach has fundamental elements that should be taken into consideration:

Approaches for different negotiation types (Fisher and Ury, 1991)

| Cooperative Negotiations: | Competitive Negotiations | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | |
  1. Separate people from the problem: View the other person as someone with whom you can solve a problem, not the opponent. Don't personalize the situation.
  2. Focus on interests, not positions: The underlying interests are what truly matter for effective problem-solving. Concentrate on understanding the reasons behind a demand and seek solutions that address these interests.
  3. Generate options for mutual gains: Explore ways of expanding the benefits for all parties involved. Seek creative solutions that enhance mutual benefits.
  4. Use objective criteria: Rely on mutually accepted and objective criteria to evaluate the outcomes of the negotiations, promoting fairness and legitimacy.
  5. Consider the best alternative to a negotiated agreement: By considering the alternatives, you can better understand the value of finding a mutually acceptable agreement and avoid potential drawbacks.
|
  1. Refrain from launching personal attacks and instead adopt an impartial perspective.
  2. Actively listen to and acknowledge the opposing viewpoint, striving to find areas of agreement.
  3. Focus the discussion on finding solutions that meet the interests of both sides.
  4. Utilise the other party's ideas as a foundation to facilitate their agreement.
  5. Present proposals in a way that makes it challenging for the other party to refuse.

| These elements for the different approaches to negotiations are accompanied by a list of thirteen principles for a negotiator: 1. Establish commonly accepted facts. 2. Separate people from problems. 3. Base your position on principles, even if your opponent tries to make it personal. 4. Emphasise equality principles. 5. Ask questions instead of making statements. 6. Explore the principles of the other side. 7. Listen, rephrase, and clarify your points. 8. Take time to consider the problem and prepare your response; avoid making immediate decisions. 9. Present your reasons before proposing. 10. Present your proposition as a fair solution. 11. Share your perspectives on the consequences of reaching an agreement or not. 12. Give the other side an opportunity to influence the outcome of the negotiation process. 13. Conclude the negotiation in a conciliatory manner, even if you do not fully feel it. ### *Mediation* Mediation is a conflict resolution process in which a neutral third party, known as a mediator, assists individuals involved in a conflict to negotiate and reach a mutually acceptable agreement (Moore, 2014). There are strong ties between negotiation and mediation, and the two approaches are often used in conjunction (Currie et al., 2017), particularly when those involved in the dispute are not familiar with common patterns of behaviour in conflicts or be aware of the various options for resolving their differences (Bollen & Euwema, 2013). In order to structure and implement mediation processes, a six-step process is often used. **Steps:** 1. **Introductory Remarks:** The mediator facilitates introductions, creates a non-threatening environment, and establishes their neutrality, while outlining the participants' roles and briefly addressing the main issue. 2. **Statement of the Problem by the Parties:** Each party is given an opportunity to present their story, allowing them to frame the issues and providing the mediator with emotional information. 3. **Information Gathering:** The mediator employs open-ended questions, active listening, and summarising to delve into the emotional undercurrents and build rapport between the parties. 4. **Problem Identification:** The mediator strives to find common goals and identify the issues that can be settled or prioritised for resolution. 5. **Bargaining and Generating Options/Reaching an Agreement:** Through various methods like caucus sessions or proposals, the mediator facilitates option generation, negotiation, and the exploration of potential solutions leading to a final agreement that resolves the conflict. 6. **Reaching an agreement:** Private sessions with each party separately are conducted to accelerate negotiations, allowing for confidential discussions, brainstorming, and the surfacing of underlying fears to find common ground and possible solutions. ### *Arbitration* Arbitration is a way to solve disagreements in a formal and controlled manner. Instead of going to court, those involved in the dispute agree to have a private person or a group of people called arbitrators decide on the outcome of the conflict. These arbitrators are qualified, impartial and chosen by both parties involved or by a mutual agreement. Here is a four-steps approach to the arbitration process (Moura and Teixera, 2009): **Steps:** 1. The parties agree to settle any current or future disputes through arbitration. This is called the arbitration agreement. 2. The conflicting parties choose an arbitrator or a group of arbitrators together. 3. The arbitration procedure begins when one of the parties takes the initiative to address the dispute. 4. The final stage is the award and enforcement of the arbitrator's decision. This decision is typically considered binding and cannot be changed, except in specific circumstances mentioned previously. ## **Additional resources** The **Community Engagement Good Practice Guide (The Policy Project, 2020)** provides guidelines for adopting effective community engagement practices, including the management of conflict situations amongst stakeholders. The **WeObserve Cookbook (WeObserve Consortium, 2021)** provides comprehensive support for CO practitioners, including specific pages on stakeholder management ## **References** Bollen, K., & Euwema, M. (2013). Workplace mediation: An underdeveloped research area. *Negotiation Journal, 29*(3), 329–353. Currie, D., Gormley, T., Roche, B., & Teague, P. (2017). The management of workplace conflict: Contrasting pathways in the HRM literature. *International Journal of Management Reviews, 19*(4), 492–509. Fisher, R., Ury, W. L., & Patton, B. (2011). *Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in.* Penguin. Moore, C. W. (2014). *The mediation process: Practical strategies for resolving conflict.* John Wiley & Sons. Moura, H. M., & Teixeira, J. C. (2009). Managing stakeholders conflicts. In *Stakeholder management* (p. 286). # How can we identify root causes of CO stakeholder issues and develop effective solutions? How can we identify the root causes of problems with stakeholder interactions in our citizen observatory and develop more effective and sustainable solutions? ## **Why is it relevant?** The interactions between participants serve as the backbone of effective COs, enabling the engagement and collaboration of diverse individuals, groups, and organisations to address pressing socio-environmental challenges. By investigating the root causes behind problems arising in these interactions, you can gain valuable insights into the fundamental systemic barriers that impede fruitful collaboration and engagement. Such comprehension empowers participants to address these core issues directly, rather than merely treating the surface-level symptoms. You can develop strategies and approaches that foster enhanced participant interactions, facilitating the formation of robust partnerships, fostering trust, and establishing an inclusive and empowering environment. This, in turn, unlocks the full potential of participants and paves the way for more impactful and sustainable outcomes. ## **How can it be done?** Symptoms of participant tensions - such as recurring disputes or lack of follow-through, often mask deeper systemic problems that remain unaddressed. **Collective reflexivity** enables you and fellow participants to probe these underlying causes by critically examining your own assumptions and by recognising the interdependencies that shape interactions. This can be done through causal loop diagrams and problem-tree analysis, which make visible the feedback and systemic drivers that reproduce tensions. Regular reflection spaces, including reflexive monitoring in action, institutionalise learning cycles that continually question and adapt underlying practices. By embedding systemic thinking into everyday governance, your CO can move beyond treating symptoms to addressing root causes, thereby generating solutions that are both adaptive and sustainable. | Existing (adapted) approaches | Featured tools | | ----------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | A. Collective reflexivity |

i) Problem tree methods, Force-field analysis,

ii) Causal loop diagrams, and

iii) 5 WHYS

| ### ***A. Collective reflexivity*** Identifying the root causes of problems in participant interactions requires moving beyond immediate symptoms, such as disagreements in meetings or resistance to decisions, and probing the deeper structures that generate these tensions. Collective reflexivity provides a way for participants to critically examine their assumptions, values, and practices, as well as the institutional and cultural contexts that shape them. Importantly, it draws on systemic thinking, encouraging participants to map interdependencies between actors, institutions, and socio-ecological dynamics that reproduce conflicts or exclusions. By reflecting together, participants are supported to confront uncomfortable questions, recognise underlying power imbalances, and expand their worldviews beyond entrenched positions. This practice helps uncover systemic drivers, such as knowledge hierarchies, historical mistrust, or procedural rigidity, that might otherwise remain hidden. Reflexivity is not a one-off exercise but a continuous process of learning, questioning, and adaptation embedded throughout the CO. In this sense, it fosters a culture of openness and responsiveness, where failures and tensions are treated as opportunities for collective learning rather than setbacks. Research in sustainability and governance shows that such reflexive processes, grounded in systemic perspectives, are key to developing solutions that are not only more effective in addressing immediate challenges but also more sustainable because they tackle underlying causes and reconfigure relationships between interconnected elements of the system (Voß & Kemp, 2006). There are many ways to practice collective reflexivity and since it is an ongoing and cyclical process, it is best to try out different methods at different times to see what works best for your CO. A [problem tree analysis](https://mspguide.org/2022/03/18/problem-tree/) uses the visual aid of a tree with its roots to identify the underlying cause of a problem as well as the impacts of that problem. This exercise encourages your CO to go beyond the surface issue and frustration and can help transform the situation. **Steps:** 1. Draw a large tree with trunk, roots, and branches on a board or flipchart. 2. Place the **main problem** in the trunk. 3. Ask participants: *What causes this problem?* Write each cause on a card and place it among the roots. 4. Ask: *What effects does this problem have?* Write each effect and place it on the branches. 5. Discuss connections: link specific roots to branches. 6. Reflect collectively: *Which root causes are most fundamental? Which effects are most damaging?*

Problem tree analysis
Source: www.iisd.org/csconservation/conflict_tree.aspx

Another method for identifying the root cause of an issue is an activity called the [5 WHYS.](https://sixsigmastudyguide.com/5-whys/) This activity is simple but yields insightful results. It is specifically designed to trigger deep reflection on one topic so as to move past the initial assumptions that exist and identify the real source of the issue so that solutions can target that root problem. **Steps:** 1. Write the problem clearly at the top of a page or board. 2. Ask: *Why is this happening?* Record the first answer. 3. Ask: *Why?* of that answer. 4. Repeat the process up to five times (or until participants agree they’ve reached the root cause). 5. Review the chain of answers together and highlight the most fundamental cause(s).

5 WHYS
Source: https://www.mlean.com/fr/blog/what-are-the-5-whys/

Another useful tool is a [force-field analysis,](https://creately.com/blog/strategy-and-planning/force-field-analysis/) which is a common tool for change-management. By collaboratively identifying the driving and restraining forces at play in your initiative/CO strategies for increasing the drivers and reducing the restrainers can be built, helping to create sustainable solutions to ongoing problems. **Steps:** 1. **Draw the framework** - Take a large sheet or whiteboard. Draw a vertical line down the middle. Write the objective or desired change at the top of the page. 2. **List the driving forces** - On the left-hand side, write down all the factors that support or push towards the change. Use short phrases or keywords. 3. **List the restraining forces** - On the right-hand side, write down the factors that hold back or resist the change. Encourage participants to include practical barriers, cultural resistance, or resource gaps. 4. **Assess strength of forces** - Next to each factor, draw an arrow pointing towards the centre line. The length or thickness of the arrow should reflect the strength of the force (weak, medium, strong). 5. **Compare the balance** - Step back and look at both sides. Ask: Which drivers are strongest? Which restrainers are most critical? 6. **Plan strategies** 1. Discuss how to: Increase the influence of key driving forces. Reduce, remove, or adapt the restraining forces. 2. Note specific actions, responsible actors, and timelines. 7. **Revisit and adapt** - Return to the force-field chart at intervals. Update it as conditions change or new forces appear. [Causal-loop diagrams](https://creately.com/usage/causal-loop-diagram-template/) can also be used to foster reflection and root problem identification, leading toward sustainable solutions. This type of diagram specifically helps identify feedback loops in a system illuminating what reinforces organizational behaviours. Once these dynamics are identified, it becomes possible to transform the situation for lasting change.

Fishbone Diagram

The Fishbone Diagram helps groups visually map out all possible causes of a problem (not just the obvious ones), so they can identify root causes and plan solutions more effectively. Source: # How can we ensure uptake of CO-generated data? ## **Why is it relevant?** If you want to ensure uptake of CO-generated data, you need to demonstrate its quality, reliability, and relevance. By doing so, you help participants see the value of their contributions, give policymakers confidence to base decisions on the data, and enable researchers to incorporate it into scientific analysis. Showing both robustness and potential impact is key to building the trust needed for wider use. ## **How can it be done?** You can build or strengthen trust in CO-generated data by combining scientific rigour with practices that make the data socially meaningful. This means ensuring data quality, while also recognising citizen contributions, communicating uncertainties openly, and presenting results in accessible formats such as visualisations or dashboards. By doing so, you help stakeholders see the data as both credible and relevant, which increases its legitimacy and use in decision-making. | Existing (adapted) approaches | Featured tools | | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Building legitimacy and credibility in data through communication and recognition |

i) Feedback and recognition mechanisms - Showcasing small wins / celebratory events,

ii) Data storytelling and visualisation platforms to make results relatable using CSTIA, and

iii) Boundary objects such as Dashboards that can be understood and used across stakeholder groups.

| ### ***A. Building legitimacy and credibility in data through communication and recognition*** Data uptake depends not only on technical quality but also on whether it is perceived as legitimate and aligned with the needs and values of stakeholders. Recognition of citizen contributions, transparent communication of uncertainties, and accessible presentation formats help to build trust in CO-generated data and strengthen its social legitimacy (Tsang et al., 2009). By valuing contributors and making data relatable, you encourage stakeholders to see your CO’s outputs as credible and worth integrating into decision processes. One way is by ensuring that participants see their efforts acknowledged and celebrated, since recognition strengthens legitimacy and sustains engagement. This can be done ***by feedback and recognition mechanisms*** that go beyond technical validation and create moments of visibility and pride for participants. *Showcasing small wins* in newsletters or social media posts highlights how individual contributions add up to broader outcomes, reinforcing the sense of collective achievement. *Organising celebratory events -* such as community gatherings, award ceremonies, or exhibitions of citizen-collected data, provides opportunities for recognition in public settings and builds social capital among participants. Recognition can also be embedded into platforms themselves, for instance by *naming contributors on dashboards* or issuing certificates of participation. An example of this is in flood-risk observatories such as WeSenseIt, citizens were shown in real time how their rainfall observations updated official flood maps, and community events were used to celebrate their role in improving preparedness. Research on participatory governance underscores that such recognition is not merely symbolic: it enhances perceived fairness, strengthens trust, and signals that citizens’ efforts are valued and consequential (Fung, 2006). In this way, celebration becomes both a motivational tool and a means of consolidating the legitimacy of CO-generated data. A second way is by making data accessible and relatable across audiences. This can be done by using ***data storytelling*** and visualisation platforms such as participatory GIS, story maps, and the Citizen Science Impact Story Telling Approach (CSISTA). CSISTA incorporates testimonials and provides a structured process for practitioners to generate and communicate impact stories of citizen science initiatives (Wehn et al., 2021). Using the CSISTA Impact Inquiry Instrument, leaders collect qualitative data on realised and potential policy and decision-making impacts, thereby gaining insight into the initiative’s influence. Practitioners then define their storytelling goals, select the appropriate storytelling instrument (Impact Brief or Impact Narrative), and craft concise or narrative stories that effectively convey policy impacts to broader audiences. In this way, CSISTA not only enhances accessibility but also explicitly links citizen-generated data to societal and governance outcomes. Storytelling and impact assessment tools have been shown to improve both understanding and uptake by bridging technical information with shared cultural meanings and decision-making needs. Finally, uptake also relies on data being credible and usable across institutional and community boundaries. This can be done ***by creating boundary objects such as dashboards or joint monitoring reports**,* which translate complex, heterogeneous datasets into accessible and actionable formats. Dashboards function as shared ‘translation devices’ that allow different stakeholder groups to engage with the same information from their own perspectives. For policymakers, dashboards provide aggregated indicators and visual summaries that can be quickly integrated into decision processes (Kitchin, Lauriault,& McArdle; 2015); for community members, they offer transparent access to raw data, interactive maps, or time series that validate local experiences. When co-designed with users, dashboards serve not only as technical artefacts but also as platforms for negotiation, enabling iterative discussion around what data means and how it should be acted upon. In this way, they embody the credibility–legitimacy–salience framework, ensuring that data is scientifically robust, socially trusted, and directly relevant to governance. A practical example comes from flood risk citizen observatories in Europe, where dashboards provided real-time rainfall and water-level data collected by citizens and sensors. Policymakers used aggregated flood-risk indicators for emergency planning, while residents accessed localised alerts and maps to take precautionary action. Similarly, in air-quality observatories such as [Luftdaten (now Sensor.Community)](https://samenmeten.rivm.nl/dataportaal/), dashboards displaying community-collected particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10) have been used by both local governments and neighbourhood groups to press for clean-air interventions. These cases show how dashboards, when participatory in design, enable citizen-generated data to travel across boundaries, becoming trusted inputs in both community action and institutional decision-making. ## **References** Action Project. (2022). *Action participatory science toolkit against pollution.* Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. *Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50*(2), 179–211. D-CENT. (n.d.). *The D-CENT toolbox.* Durrant, L. J., Vadher, A. N., Sarač, M., Başoğlu, D., & Teller, J. (2022). Using organigraphs to map disaster risk management governance in the field of cultural heritage. *Sustainability, 14*(2), 1002. Fonseca, X., Lukosch, S., & Brazier, F. (2019). Social cohesion revisited: A new definition and how to characterize it. *Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 32*(2), 231–253. Friedkin, N. E. (2004). Social cohesion. *Annual Review of Sociology, 30*(1), 409–425. Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance. *Public Administration Review, 66*(s1), 66–75. Inclusion International. (2015). *Inclusive civic engagement toolkit for governments.* Lauriault, T. P., & McArdle, G. (2015). Knowing and governing cities through urban indicators, city benchmarking and real-time dashboards. *Regional Studies, Regional Science, 2*(1), 6–28. Mayer, K., & Schuerz, S. (2022). Citizen social science: A promising approach for more participation in knowledge production and decision making (Version 1). Zenodo. OECD. (2015). *OECD principles on water governance.* OECD. (2018). *Implementing the OECD principles on water governance: Indicator framework and evolving practices.* OECD Publishing. OECD. (2022). *OECD guidelines for citizen participation processes.* OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing. Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., Papadakos, P., Bernarda, G., Papadakos, T., & Smith, A. (2014). *Value proposition design.* John Wiley & Sons. Ostrom, E. (1990). *Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action.* Cambridge University Press. Ostrom, E. (2005). *Understanding institutional diversity* (Vol. 8540). Princeton University Press. Ostrom, E. (2015). *Governing the commons.* Cambridge University Press. The Policy Project. (2020). *Good practice guide for community engagement.* Voß, J. P., & Kemp, R. (2006). Sustainability and reflexive governance: Introduction. In J. P. Voß, D. Bauknecht, & R. Kemp (Eds.), *Reflexive governance for sustainable development* (pp. 3–28). Edward Elgar. Wehn, U., & Almomani, A. (2019). Incentives and barriers for participation in community-based environmental monitoring and information systems: A critical analysis and integration of the literature. *Environmental Science & Policy, 101,* 341–357. Wehn, U., Almomani, A., Giller, O., Pfeiffer, E., Vranckx, S., Kesbergen, A., Gil-Rolàn, E., & Tejada Skoglund, S. (2019). *D1.8 Updated report on incentives and barriers.* Ground Truth 2.0. Wehn, U., Rusca, M., Evers, J., & Lanfranchi, V. (2015). Participation in flood risk management and the potential of citizen observatories: A governance analysis. *Environmental Science & Policy, 48,* 225–236.