Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-bkrcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-17T16:36:46.845Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Virtually Expert: Modes of Environmental Computer Simulation Modeling

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 November 2014

Catharina Landström  and
Sarah J. Whatmore
Catharina Landström
Affiliation:
School of Geography and the EnvironmentUniversity of OxfordOxford, United Kingdom E-mail: catharina.landstrom@ouce.ox.ac.uk
Sarah J. Whatmore
Affiliation:
School of Geography and the EnvironmentUniversity of OxfordOxford, United Kingdom E-mail: sarah.whatmore@ouce.ox.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Argument

This paper challenges three assumptions common in the literature on expertise: that expertise is linearly derived from scientific knowledge; that experts always align with the established institutional order; and that expertise is a property acquired by individuals. We criticize these ideas by juxtaposing three distinct expert practices involved with flood risk management in England. Virtual engineering is associated with commercial consultancy and relies on standardized software packages to assess local flood inundation. Mathematical experimentation refers to academic scientists creating new digital renderings of the physical dynamics of flooding. Participatory modeling denotes research projects that aim to transform the relationships between experts and local communities. Focusing on different modes of modeling we contribute an analysis of how particular models articulate with specific politics of knowledge as experts form relationships with flood risk management actors. Our empirical study also shows how models can contribute to re-distribution of expertise in local flood risk management.

Information

Type
Topical Section: Models at Work – Models in Decision Making
Information
Science in Context , Volume 27 , Issue 4 , December 2014 , pp. 579 - 603
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Barretau, Olivier, Bousquet, Francois, Millier, C., and Weber, J.. 2004. “Suitability of Multi-Agent Simulations to Study Irrigated System Viability: Application to Case Studies in the Senegal River Valley.” Agricultural Systems 80:255–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Ulrich. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Bocking, Stephen. 2004. Nature's Experts: Science, Politics and the Environment. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Callon, Michel, Lascoumes, Pierre, and Barthe, Yannick. 2009. Acting in an Uncertain World: An Essay on Technical Democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Collins, Harry M., and Evans, Robert. 2002. “The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience.” Social Studies of Science 32:235–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Defra (Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). 2009. “Appraisal of Flood and Coastal Erosion Management: A Defra Policy Statement.” London: Crown Copyright.Google Scholar
Defra and EA (Environmental Agency for England and Wales). 2004. “Reducing Uncertainty in River Flood Conveyance. Phase 2, Conveyance Manual.” Flood and Coastal Defence Research and Development Programme, Project Record W5A-057/PR/1. Bristol: Environment Agency.Google Scholar
Du, Jinkang, Qian, Li, Rui, Hanyi, Zuo, Tianhui, Zheng, Dapeng, Xu, Youpeng, and Xu, C.-Y.. 2012. “Assessing the Effects of Urbanization on Annual Runoff and Flood Events Using an Integrated Hydrological Modeling System for Qinhuai River Basin, China.” Journal of Hydrology 464–465:127–139.Google Scholar
EA. 2005. “Benchmarking of Hydraulic River Modelling Software Packages Project Overview.” R&D Technical Report: W5-105/TR0 Defra/Environment Agency Flood and Coastal Defence R&D Programme. Bristol: Environment Agency.Google Scholar
EA. 2009. “Desktop Review of 2D Hydraulic Modelling Packages.” Science Report: SC080035 Defra/Environment Agency, Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management R&D Programme. Bristol: Environment Agency.Google Scholar
EA and Defra. 2011. “Understanding the Risks, Empowering Communities, Building Resilience: The National Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy for England.” London: The Stationary Office.Google Scholar
Fischer, Frank. 2009. Democracy and Expertise. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haase, Dagmar. 2013. “Participatory Modelling of Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity in Flood Risk Management.” Natural Hazards 67:77–97.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, Sheila. 1990. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, Sheila. 2003. “Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science.” Minerva 41:223–244.Google Scholar
van Kouwen, Frank, Dieperink, Carel, Schot, Paul P., Wassen, Martin J.. 2009. “Computer-Supported Cognitive Mapping for Participatory Problem Structuring.” Environment and Planning A 41:63–81.Google Scholar
Knuutilla, Tarja. 2011. “Modelling and Representing: An Artefactual Approach to Model-Based Representation.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 42 (2):262–271.Google Scholar
Lane, Stuart N., Odoni, Nicholas A., Landström, Catharina, Whatmore, Sarah J., Ward, Neil, and Bradley, Susan. 2011. “Doing Flood Risk Science Differently: An Experiment in Radical Scientific Method.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 36:15–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landström, Catharina, Whatmore, Sarah J., Lane, Stuart N.. 2011. “Virtual Engineering: Computer Simulation Modelling for Flood Risk Management in England.” Science Studies 24:3–22.Google Scholar
Landström, Catharina, Whatmore, Sarah J., Lane, Stuart N., Odoni, Nicholas A., Ward, Neil, and Bradley, Susan. 2011. “Co-producing Flood Risk Knowledge: Redistributing Expertise in ‘Participatory Modelling.’” Environment and Planning A 43:1617–1633.Google Scholar
Morrison, Margaret, and Morgan, Mary. 1999. “Models as Mediating Instruments.” In Models as Mediators: Perspectives on Natural and Social Science, edited by Morgan, Mary and Morrison, Margaret, 10–37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nowotny, Helga. 2000. “Transgressive Competence: The Narrative of Expertise.” European Journal of Social Theory 3:5–21.Google Scholar
Odoni, Nicholas, and Lane, Stuart N.. 2010. “Knowledge-Theoretic Models in Hydrology.” Progress in Physical Geography 34:151–171.Google Scholar
Rip, Arie. 2003. “Constructing Expertise: In a Third Wave of Science Studies?” Social Studies of Science 33:419–434.Google Scholar
Sarhadi, Ali, Soltani, Saeed, Modarres, Reza. 2012. “Probabilistic Flood Inundation Mapping of Ungauged Rivers: Linking GIS Techniques and Frequency Analysis.” Journal of Hydrology 458–459:68–86.Google Scholar
Souchère, Véronique, Millair, Lauerent, Echeverie, Javier, Bousquet, François, Le Page, Christophe, and Etienne, Michel. 2010. “Co-Constructing with Stakeholders a Role-Playing Game to Initiate Collective Management of Erosive Runoff Risks at the Watershed Scale.” Environmental Modelling & Software 25:1359–1370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stengers, Isabelle. 2010. “Including Nonhumans in Political Theory: Opening Pandora's Box?” In Political Matter: Technoscience, Democracy, and Public Life, edited by Braun, Bruce and Whatmore, Sarah J., 3–34. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Sundberg, Mikaela. 2006. “Credulous Modellers and Suspicious Experimentalists? Comparison of Model Output and Data in Meteorological Simulation Modelling.” Science Studies 19:52–68.Google Scholar
Sundberg, Mikaela. 2009. “The Everyday World of Simulation Modeling: The Development of Parameterizations in Meteorology.” Science, Technology & Human Values 34:162–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, Stephen. 2001. “What Is the Problem with Experts?” Social Studies of Science 31:123–149.Google Scholar
Videira, Nuno, Antunes, Paula, Santos, Rui. 2009. “Scoping River Basin Management Issues with Participatory Modelling: The Baixo Guadiana Experience.” Ecological Economics 68:965–978.Google Scholar
Voinov, Alexey, and Bousquet, Francois. 2010. “Modelling with Stakeholders.” Environmental Modelling & Software 25 (11):1267–1281.Google Scholar
Voinov, Alexey, and Gaddis, Erica J. Brown. 2008. “Lessons for Successful Participatory Watershed Modeling: A Perspective from Modeling Practitioners.” Ecological Modelling 216:197–207.Google Scholar
Whatmore, Sarah J., and Landström, Catharina. 2010. “Manning's n: Putting Roughness to Work.” In How Well Do Facts Travel? The Dissemination of Reliable Knowledge, edited by Howlett, Peter and Morgan, Mary, 111–135. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Whatmore, Sarah J., and Landström, Catharina. 2011. “Flood-Apprentices: An Exercise in Making Things Public.” Economy and Society 40:582–610.Google Scholar
Winsberg, Eric. 2003. “Simulated Experiments: Methodology for a Virtual World.” Philosophy of Science 70:105–125.Google Scholar
Wynne, Brian. 2003. “Seasick on the Third Wave? Subverting the Hegemony of Propositionalism: Response to Collins & Evans (2002),” Social Studies of Science 33:401–417.Google Scholar
Wynne, Brian. 2006. “Public Engagement as a Means of Restoring Public Trust in Science: Hitting the Notes, but Missing the Music?” Community Genetics 9:211–220.Google Scholar
Wynne, Brian. [1982] 2011. Rationality and Ritual. Participation and Exclusion in Nuclear Decision-Making. Updated edition. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar