Integrating Stakeholder Knowledge Through a Participatory Approach and Semi-Quantitative Analysis for Local Watershed Management

Abstract

Watersheds are threatened by numerous issues, such as climate change, population growth, urban expansion, and industrial development. These issues are complex and interconnected, and effectively addressing them requires integrating the values, knowledge, and expertise of various governing bodies, local organizations, and community members, all of whom have their own viewpoints and priorities. The current study employs a participatory approach and systems lens to engage different stakeholders in the complexity of watershed issues and management approaches. Using participatory modeling and semi-quantitative scenario analysis techniques, the study identifies relationships among watershed values, challenges, and strategies as well as the dynamics of these relationships. A fuzzy cognitive map was developed, which consists of 53 nodes (i.e., 13 values, 12 challenges, and 28 strategies) and 113 connections. Biodiversity, mental health, and sense of place emerged as key values, as they exhibited high centrality values when analyzing the system, and challenges like invasive species and urban sprawl were found to exert considerable impacts on these values. Strategies such as establishing and expanding greenspace, community stewardship, and governance-based interventions were identified as critical for addressing watershed challenges and enhancing watershed values. The study identified a series of governance-based strategies that focus on resource allocation, participatory governance, and institutional collaboration to address watershed management challenges as well as a set of engagement-based strategies that focus on environmental communication and public awareness. The study demonstrates the potential that participatory modeling and semi-quantitative analysis techniques can have for integrating both tangible, measurable values and intangible, difficult-to-measure values into planning and policymaking. The research reinforces the idea that local governments play a critical role in fostering inclusive and collaborative watershed management strategies.

1. Introduction

Watersheds consist of complex social–ecological systems that are integral to sustaining life and maintaining the health and well-being of ecosystems and human societies [1,2,3,4]. Healthy watersheds support a wide range of ecological services, including water purification, flood regulation, wildlife habitat, and the provision of resources for human livelihoods and economic activities [5,6,7]. However, watersheds are facing growing threats that put their health and essential ecosystem services at risk, and it is critical for communities to explore ways of understanding and increasing resilience against such threats.

Climate change is a major threat to the health of watersheds across the world. Climate change-induced variations in precipitation and temperature affect hydrological processes in ways that lead to altered streamflow, increased sedimentation, and nutrient imbalances that degrade water quality and aquatic ecosystems [8,9,10]. Urbanization is another major threat to watersheds, as it results in pollution in habitats and disruptions to natural flow patterns [11,12]. The compounding and interacting effects of multiple anthropogenic pressures has led to significant ecological crises, necessitating new approaches to environmental management that address this complexity [13,14]. As Sadeghi et al. [15] argue, balancing conservation efforts with economic imperatives requires a consideration of cultural and economic factors, suggesting that narrowly focused interventions may fail to address broader systemic challenges. Accordingly, holistic and integrated approaches to watershed management and governance are needed [16], which prioritize long-term ecological health while accommodating diverse societal needs.

Integrated watershed management emerged as an effective approach to address these interconnected challenges. Rooted in the principles of sustainability, integrated watershed management incorporates social, economic, and environmental considerations to facilitate comprehensive approaches to enhancing and maintaining watershed health [17,18]. Unlike conventional management approaches that narrowly focus on water resources, integrated watershed management expands its scope to include forests, land use, human activities, and other considerations [19,20]. Integrated watershed management also includes considerations around geographical integration with scholars and experts in the field emphasizing the importance of understanding the connections between upland and downstream areas to ensure equitable resource distribution and to mitigate conflicts (e.g., [21]).

A key aspect of integrated watershed management is that it involves community engagement and participation, which fosters stakeholder ownership of conservation efforts and ensures that local perspectives are reflected in decision-making processes [22,23]. Including diverse stakeholders and rights holders in watershed management and governance, such as Indigenous communities, local governments, and non-governmental organizations, enriches the decision-making process by enabling the application of traditional and local ecological knowledge along with scientific expertise [24,25]. In addition, participatory approaches to watershed management and governance enhance the legitimacy of governance processes while also leveraging collective knowledge and commitment to address complex challenges effectively.

Integrated watershed management faces several barriers that limit its effectiveness and implementation. For instance, Worte [26] identified that in the Canadian province of Ontario, siloed governments, resource constraints, and a lack of coordination among stakeholders have prevented the implementation of comprehensive, integrated watershed management. Other barriers and challenges include a low prioritization of disaster risk reduction and (generally speaking) difficulties around aligning immediate local needs with long-term environmental objectives [27]. A recurring issue in integrated watershed management is an inadequate engagement of marginalized communities and the failure to address public apathy toward engaging in governance and planning efforts [28,29]. Similarly, limited community participation and poor coordination across government agencies and non-governmental organizations create barriers to effective participatory governance, making it challenging to integrate watershed management into broader planning efforts [30].

Integrated watershed management requires navigating the complex interplay of social, ecological, and institutional factors, making it essential to involve all stakeholders and rights holders in planning and decision-making. By aligning monitoring and management efforts with local priorities, participatory approaches to planning, management, and governance ensure that decision-making processes are responsive to place-based contexts and build trust among stakeholders (e.g., [31]). Participatory modeling is a potentially powerful tool for meeting this need, as it provides a means for diverse stakeholders to co-develop systems models that integrate their knowledge, values, and interests in environmental planning processes [32,33,34]. Participatory modeling processes can foster stakeholder ownership of environmental plans and management strategies, leverage diverse expertise, and facilitate shifts from top–down governance to more inclusive approaches that reflect the priorities and perspectives of local community members [35].

Participatory modeling is a useful technique for understanding and addressing “wicked problems”, such as determining how to preserve ecosystem services while also satisfying development needs in decision-making processes [36]. Participatory modeling is a flexible technique that has demonstrated value in a variety of contexts. For example, it has been used for flood risk management to identify vulnerabilities, assess trade-offs from different management strategies, and prioritize interventions collaboratively [37]. As another example, participatory modeling has been employed to engage stakeholders in the development of place-based solutions for sustainable water use in semi-arid basins [38].

As explained by Barbrook-Johnson and Penn [39], participatory modeling is used to create systems maps that illuminate complex relationships around an issue and can be applied to guide informed decision making. This approach to cognitive mapping facilitates stakeholder participation in planning and management, as they help to co-develop decision-support models that incorporate diverse knowledge, interests, and values [40,41]. These models can be used for decision support by serving as a basis for systems-based scenario modeling—that is, examining how various environmental management strategies or local development approaches can result in different outcomes through systems interactions and effects (e.g., [26]). Although useful, such quantitative modeling exercises can be challenging due to their data needs [42].

An alternative approach to participatory systems analysis that addresses these data issues while allowing for a wider variety of systems elements and outcomes to be explored is fuzzy cognitive mapping [43]. Fuzzy cognitive mapping is a semi-quantitative modeling technique, which is based on “fuzzy logic” and involves stakeholders drawing and rating the strengths of systems relationships for purposes of modeling systems dynamics associated with different strategies/scenarios [44]. Fuzzy cognitive mapping has been used in a range of participatory research studies on scenario planning, including those related to coastal management [45], urban planning [46], wildlife hunting [44], and urban energy systems [47].

While the benefits of participatory modeling (and broadly participatory planning and management) are evident, challenges exist, such as difficulties in reaching consensus and translating conceptual models into actionable strategies (e.g., [48]). Additionally, capturing and addressing complex regional-scale issues requires balancing ambitious goals with realistic incentives for stakeholders [49]. This study engages with these issues by pursuing two research objectives: (1) to engage and capture local stakeholders’ perspectives on watershed values, challenges, and strategies using participatory modeling, and (2) to apply a systems lens and fuzzy logic scenario techniques to identify interconnections and dynamics among these values, challenges, and strategies in the watershed. Through the use of participatory modeling, systems thinking, and semi-quantitative scenario analysis techniques, this research explores ways of developing a comprehensive understanding of the complexities surrounding watershed issues and strategies (as understood by a range of local stakeholders and actors) in order to inform integrated watershed planning and management.

2. Methodology

This study uses the Millstream Creek Watershed (British Columbia, Canada) as a case study, and it employs a systems lens and participatory approach to elucidate the intricate connections among watershed issues, values, and strategies. The project uses participatory modeling techniques to engage residents, local government, local watershed groups and non-profits in this research effort with the aim of producing tools (i.e., fuzzy cognitive map) and useful knowledge for addressing complex, real-world problems. Note that this study is part of a larger research project: Systems-based Visualization Tools for Integrated Watershed Management (www.triaslab.ca/watershed, accessed on 20 March 2025). The larger project experiments with the use of systems thinking and interactive visualizations as tools for supporting integrated watershed management. The research activities of this larger project include participatory modeling, participatory mapping, mental visualization exercises, and visualization development. This paper reports on only the participatory modeling work, and more details on the other aspects of the project can be found in [50].

2.1. Study Area

The Millstream Creek Watershed is located in the Capital Regional District, British Columbia, Canada (see Figure 1). The watershed encompasses an area of approximately 26 square kilometers, and it is primarily situated in the municipalities of the Districts of Highlands and Langford with smaller portions extending into the municipalities of Colwood and View Royal. Millstream Creek originates in the Gowlland Range and empties into Esquimalt Harbor [51].

The Millstream Creek Watershed is characterized by a diverse landscape that includes both natural and urban environments. It features coastal Douglas fir ecosystems, which are unique and endangered ecosystems located exclusively on southeast Vancouver Island, the Gulf Islands, and the southwest coast of British Columbia. These ecosystems consist of diverse habitats, including Douglas fir forests, Garry oak woodlands, wetlands, and estuaries, which support distinctive plant, animal, and fungal communities found nowhere else in the world. The Millstream Creek Watershed ecosystem supports a variety of vegetation, including Douglas fir, western red cedar, grand fir, arbutus, Garry oak, and red alder along with understory flora such as salal and sword fern [52].

The Millstream Creek Watershed plays a crucial role in regional water management, biodiversity conservation, and community recreation. Local governments and non-governmental organizations are committed to preserving the watershed’s health and ecological resilience in the face of urban development pressures and climate change impacts [51,52]. However, the watershed faces mounting challenges, such as increasing population growth and related urbanization, climate change impacts (e.g., rising temperatures and extreme heat events), and industrial activity near certain areas of the watershed. These issues interact and compound to contribute to reduced water volumes, biodiversity loss, and ecological degradation.

2.2. Data Collection and Fuzzy Cognitive Map Development

The participatory modeling exercise was conducted in a series of workshops held in March 2024. A total of 43 people were invited via email, and 16 accepted the invitation and participated in the modeling exercise. The participants were local residents with various forms of involvement in the stewardship and decision-making processes related to the Millstream Creek Watershed, including local government, non-profit organizations, consultancy, and local watershed groups. The workshops were conducted over two separate days, with a third session added to accommodate an additional participant. Participants grouped themselves into mapping teams during the sessions, forming clusters based on familiarity or shared interests, which supported open dialogue and collaborative reflection. A total of six fuzzy cognitive maps were developed: Maps 1, 2, and 4 included three participants each; Map 3 included four participants; Map 5 had two participants; and Map 6 had one participant.

Each session began with an overview of the project objectives, which was followed by participants signing consent forms and receiving materials for the exercise. Note that prior to the research workshop series, a test workshop was conducted with a total of 7 participants, including students and faculty members of the researchers’ host institution, to gain feedback on how to improve the workshop instructions and activities.

For the main workshop, the participatory modeling exercise began with organizing the participants into small groups of two to three people to develop a fuzzy cognitive map. A fuzzy cognitive map (FCM) represents the behavior of complex systems through causal reasoning [44] and serves as a visual representation of a belief system within a specific domain [53]. As graph-based cognitive models, FCMs support knowledge representation and reasoning by illustrating relationships between key system components, including causal feedback loops [54]. Additionally, an FCM can be used as an elicitation tool to collect and organize knowledge and to allow individuals to share their experiences and understandings [55]. These cognitive maps capture the structure and dynamics of a system by computing the “strength of impact” between elements in a mental model and the influence of different elements on the system [56].

In this workshop, participants were asked to identify key values essential to the health and well-being of the watershed and its communities using a large sheet of paper. They then identified challenges that threaten these values and visually mapped the relationships between values and challenges to illustrate the nature of these threats. Following this, participants discussed watershed management and governance strategies to mitigate the challenges and protect or enhance the values. The strategies were documented on the large sheet of paper, and connections were drawn by participants to show how they addressed specific challenges and protected/enhanced values.

Participants rated their confidence in each system relationship (i.e., connection) on a scale from 1 (low) to 10 (high). These ratings helped quantify their confidence in how strongly one system component influenced another, such as the perceived effectiveness of a strategy in addressing a particular challenge. The process resulted in a series of fuzzy cognitive maps, capturing the identified values, challenges, strategies, and their weighted connections. The fuzzy cognitive maps reflect the collective construction of knowledge, emerging through the shared perspectives of participants and reinforcing the collaborative nature of the mapping process [47]. The exercise concluded with a plenary session where each group presented their fuzzy cognitive map and the relationships among values, challenges, and strategies in the map.

The workshop resulted in a series of fuzzy cognitive maps that captured stakeholder perspectives on and understandings of the key values, challenges, and potential strategies for improving the health of the Millstream Creek Watershed. Lists of the system nodes (i.e., the system elements/components) and edges (i.e., the system relationships/connections) were created in MS Excel, and master lists were created by aggregating the common nodes and edges. Ratings assigned to the connections were aggregated through mean averages in cases where connections between two particular nodes appear in more than one fuzzy cognitive map. The master edge list consisted of a table where each row represents a connection, specifying the source node in one column (i.e., “from”), the target node in another column (i.e., “to”), and the confidence level in the system relationship in the final column (i.e., “weight”). The master edge table was used to develop an aggregated fuzzy cognitive map. The table was imported into Kumu, an online system visualization tool, to develop a visualized fuzzy cognitive map. The resulting system visualization presents the relationships among all nodes, and it provides a comprehensive picture of the system, as characterized by the research participants.

2.3. Network and Scenario Analysis

The aggregated fuzzy cognitive map data were imported into FCMapper, a macro-enabled MS Excel tool to generate an adjacency matrix in an XLSX file format. This matrix was then uploaded to Mental Modeler for network and scenario analysis. The purpose of the network analysis was to examine the structure of the system and the role of different nodes in the system dynamics using metrics such as centrality, in-degree, and out-degree. Centrality measures the connectivity of a node in a system, in-degree captures the number of connections directed toward a node, and out-degree reflects the number of connections directed outward from a node.

Mental Modeler was used for scenario analysis to examine the effect of different strategies on the system. Scenario analysis involved a process referred to as “clamping”, where strategy-based nodes are activated by assigning them a value of 1 and other nodes are assigned a value of 0. This process maximizes the influence of the clamped nodes on the system, which allows for an assessment of their effect on other nodes in the system [56].

The Mental Modeler software uses the hyperbolic tangent activation function, which is a nonlinear transformation that highlights the influence of activated nodes on the system [57]. The degree of effect, denoted by (s), is measured on a scale from −1 to +1, where negative values indicate a balancing or reducing effect and positive values indicate a reinforcing or increasing effect. Each strategy-based node was individually clamped in this study, and the numbers of nodes influenced by the strategies were observed. Of the 28 strategy-based nodes, those with the highest influence on the system were selected for scenario analysis, and these nodes served as the basis for the scenarios in the scenario modeling exercise (i.e., the scenarios captured the possible outcomes of implementing different watershed management and governance strategies). The scenario modeling exercise examined how activated nodes influenced other values, challenges, and strategies within the system to identify their potential role in watershed management efforts.

3. Results

3.1. Systems Components

The fuzzy cognitive map (see Figure 2) developed in this study consisted of 53 nodes (i.e., 13 values, 12 challenges, and 28 strategies) and 113 edges. A complete node list along with network analysis metrics (i.e., centrality, in-degree, and out-degree) is provided in Supplementary Materials Table S1. The identified values represent environmental, social, and cultural priorities. These values include biodiversity, aesthetics, sustainable coexistence (between humans and nature), mental and physical health, nostalgia, sense of place, reconciliation, Indigenous rights, inclusion, respect, trust, and caring in terms of watershed stewardship. Environmental challenges noted include invasive species, pollution, and urban development with the latter relating to tensions between economic development and ecological health. Flooding, climate change, and land use were also identified as challenges along with competing interests among diverse stakeholders with different priorities and perspectives within the system.

Participants proposed a variety of strategies to address the challenges and protect/enhance the watershed values, including those related to community engagement, policy development, and on-the-ground interventions. Community outreach and storytelling were highlighted as effective tools for building public awareness of watershed issues and mobilizing collective action. Climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving resilience, respectively, were also emphasized.

Participants identified governance-related strategies, such as improving policy clarity and facilitating cross-jurisdictional communication. These approaches were considered essential for building coordination and collaboration among local governments and stakeholders in decision-making processes. Funding mechanisms were also discussed as critical for supporting implementation efforts and ensuring the sufficient availability of financial resources. Co-management and community stewardship initiatives were identified as strategies to promote shared responsibility for watershed health. Education and awareness campaigns were noted as essential for equipping stakeholders with the knowledge to make informed decisions and take meaningful actions toward improving the watershed health. Regulation and enforcement were discussed as strategies in ways that emphasized the importance of legal frameworks and accountability mechanisms to address issues like pollution and unsustainable development.

3.2. Systems Dynamics

3.2.1. Challenges and Values

The fuzzy cognitive map (see Figure 3) and edge weights (w) reveal that biodiversity is impacted by several challenges such as accessibility (w = −0.9), climate change (w = −0.7), development pressure (w = −0.8), invasive species (w = −1), pollution (w = −0.9), urban sprawl (w = −0.9), and weak governance (w = −0.9). The magnitude of negative symbols on these edge weights suggests there was high confidence among the participants that these challenges/issues significantly threaten biodiversity with invasive species posing the strongest adverse effect. A complete edge list, including source and target nodes along with confidence ratings, is provided in Supplementary Materials Table S2.

The fuzzy cognitive map shows that pollution adversely affects mental health (w = −0.8) and physical health (w = −0.9), capturing how pollution can impact the well-being of community members and stakeholders. Other cases of challenges impacting values include how competing interests negatively affect Indigenous rights (w = −0.7), which reflects how development activities and environmental management efforts can conflict with cultural values and needs. In contrast, accessibility shows a positive influence on the sense of place (w = 0.8), emphasizing its role in building connection and identity within communities. In other cases, values were also found to mitigate challenges and issues. For instance, respect has a negative connection with accessibility (w = −1), indicating that the absence of respect increases accessibility in ways that may potentially harm ecosystems.

3.2.2. Strategies and Challenges

The fuzzy cognitive map (see Figure 4) demonstrates how challenges exert adverse effects on strategies. For example, urban sprawl forms strong negative connections with multiple strategies, such as greenspace (w = −0.9), stream resilience efforts (w = −0.8), and climate adaptation (w = −0.8). Similarly, weak governance exerts strong negative effects on values, such as ecosystem services (w = −0.8) and water quality and volume (w = −0.75), which demonstrates its pervasive role in limiting the effectiveness of resource management efforts. Climate change also exerts considerable pressure on strategies and values, negatively impacting ecosystem services (w = −0.7), greenspace (w = −0.7), and water quality and volume (w = −0.6). Development pressure (w = −1) and land use (w = −0.7) further intensify threats to water quality and volume (respectively, w = −1 and w = 0.7).

3.2.3. Strategies and Values

The fuzzy cognitive map (see Figure 5) illustrates positive connections among strategies and values, emphasizing the importance of targeted interventions for improving community well-being and environmental sustainability. Strategies like improving/expanding greenspace strongly enhance key values, such as biodiversity (w = 0.9), physical health (w = 0.9), and mental health (w = 0.8). Similarly, community stewardship significantly supports mental health (w = 0.9) and Indigenous rights (w = 0.8), demonstrating its importance in improving well-being and respecting the values and needs of rights holders.

Education and awareness contribute to the values of respect (w = 0.9) and sustainable coexistence (w = 0.7), which reflect its role as strategies for building community values and common vision. Community outreach forms positive relationships with respect (w = 0.9), sense of place (w = 0.7), and caring (w = 0.5). TEK (i.e., traditional ecological knowledge) has a strong positive connection with sense of place (w = 1), implying that it has a critical role in fostering and maintaining cultural and environmental identity. Other strategies, such as rehabilitation (w = 0.8) and resource availability (w = 0.8), have strong positive effects on biodiversity, while regulation and enforcement contribute to both biodiversity (w = 0.6) and sustainable coexistence (w = 0.8). Additionally, small-scale action plays a significant role in enhancing mental health (w = 0.9). These findings emphasize how strategies can effectively reinforce values to achieve sustainable and inclusive outcomes.

The fuzzy cognitive map reveals how values can support strategies; for example, biodiversity forms positive relationships with climate adaptation (w = 0.9) and greenspace (w = 0.4). Similarly, the value of “caring” forms strong connections with conservation (w = 1), which represents the role that caring and compassionate perspectives has for motivating efforts to preserve natural resources and protect ecosystems. The value of respect positively impacts conservation (w = 0.8) and education and awareness (w = 0.8), reflecting how respect can promote and spur strategies that promote environmental stewardship and community understanding.

3.2.4. Values, Challenges and Strategies

The fuzzy cognitive map reveals how certain challenges are interconnected, including strong positive effects exerted by development pressure and the professional reliance model on industry (each with a strength of w = 1). These relationships, respectively, capture how unchecked development and reliance on biased professional practices can exacerbate industrial impacts on the environment. Similarly, weak governance contributes to the spread of invasive species (w = 0.8) with this relationship relating to how weak conservation policy and government oversight impacts local capacity for managing ecological disturbances in the watershed. Urban sprawl forms strong links with climate change (w = 0.7) and pollution (w = 0.7), which captures how such a development pattern contributes to both GHG emissions and the degradation of air and water quality. Additionally, impacts from invasive species exhibit a strong connection with pollution (w = 0.8).

The fuzzy cognitive map highlights the interconnections between strategies. Climate adaptation connects to stream resilience efforts (w = 0.9), and co-management opportunities significantly enhance cross-jurisdictional communication (w = 0.8) and storytelling (w = 0.8), demonstrating how collaborative work and narrative-driven communication can foster stakeholder alignment. Education and awareness serve as a key strategy strongly connected to conservation (w = 1), community outreach (w = 0.3), and water quality and volume (w = 0.7), which indicates how education can be used to support and propel a variety of different watershed management strategies. Funding directly supports resource availability (w = 1), and leadership exhibits an especially strong influence on vision (w = 1) while also supporting other strategies like community outreach (w = 0.6) and funding (w = 0.7). Additionally, strategies like greenspace and rehabilitation contribute to water management (respectively, w = 0.8 and w = 0.7). Finally, municipal task forces significantly boost strategies such as education and awareness (w = 0.7), regulation and enforcement (w = 0.9), and water quality and volume (w = 0.8).

As with the challenges and strategies, the fuzzy cognitive map highlights the interconnectedness of values. Aesthetic values form strong connections with sense of place (w = 1), which demonstrates the role that visual elements play in supporting place identity and cultural, spiritual, and emotional relationships with the watershed. Respect strongly influences inclusion (w = 1), while inclusion also positively influences respect (w = 0.8), highlighting a reciprocal relationship between the two. Trust and reconciliation are also bidirectionally connected (w = 0.9 in both directions), which highlights the importance of trust building in fostering reconciliation and vice versa. Biodiversity supports physical health (w = 0.3), which relates to how ecological health is beneficial for human well-being.

3.3. Scenario Analysis

The scenarios were defined by identifying the most impactful nodes in the system, which involved activating the strategies one by one to determine the degree of effect (s) on other nodes. The scenario analysis in Mental Modeler revealed eight key strategy-based nodes, which were considered to be “key” due to having a high degree of influence over the system in terms of each affecting n > 20 nodes when clamped and activated. A complete list of strategy-based nodes and the number of nodes they impact in the scenario analysis is provided in Supplementary Materials Table S3.

The identified strategy-based nodes were subsequently categorized into two groups of interventions: governance-based strategies and engagement-based strategies. The governance-based interventions were strategies that centered on resource allocation, participatory governance, and developing governmental groups to examine and address watershed management challenges, including (1) co-management opportunities, (2) the involvement of organizations, (3) municipal task force, and (4) funding. The engagement-based interventions focused on environmental communications and raising awareness about watershed issues and the importance of environmental stewardship, including (1) community outreach, (2) education and awareness, (3) signage, and (4) storytelling.

3.3.1. Engagement-Based Strategies (Community Outreach, Storytelling, Signage, Education)

The system simulation of the engagement-based strategies scenario (see Figure 6) revealed both positive and negative impacts. Among the positive impacts, climate change mitigation was most affected by community outreach (s = 0.52) and storytelling (s = 0.41), which reflects the role that these strategies in addressing climate challenges. Similarly, caring exhibited strong positive responses to community outreach (s = 0.34) and storytelling (s = 0.24), indicating the potential these strategies can have for fostering community values. Additionally, sense of place (which includes cultural and place identity) was seen to be enhanced by community outreach (s = 0.45) and storytelling (s = 0.28). Finally, environmental strategies like greenspace and water management were enhanced by community outreach and storytelling (respectively, s = 0.33 and s = 0.32).

The strategies also exerted effects on challenges. Weak governance showed notable negative impacts from community outreach (s = −0.39) and storytelling (s = −0.26), suggesting that engagement-focused strategies could potentially help address governance-related challenges. Similarly, ecological issues such as invasive species were negatively affected by community outreach (s = −0.15) and storytelling (s = −0.12), and additionally, community outreach and education and awareness negatively affected pollution and flooding.

3.3.2. Governance-Based Strategies (Co-Management, Municipal Task Force, Jurisdictional Communication, Enforcement)

The scenario analysis of the governance-based strategies (see Figure 7) revealed the involvement of organizations to be a highly influential strategy with respect to positively affecting community outreach (s = 0.58), reconciliation (s = 0.86), and cross-jurisdictional communication (s = 0.66). These findings highlight the role that actively involving/including non-governmental organizations in planning and policymaking can have for fostering collaboration and improving community and governance outcomes. Similarly, the municipal task force strategy exhibited a strong effect on regulation and enforcement (s = 0.72) and water quality and volume (s = 0.42), emphasizing its effectiveness in addressing environmental and policy-related challenges. Funding had a strong positive impact on resource availability (s = 0.76), reflecting its role in improving capacity to enable watershed management interventions.

Challenges like weak governance were negatively influenced by the involvement of organizations (s = −0.31) and co-management opportunities (s = −0.23). Environmental challenges such as invasive species and pollution also exhibited negative responses across all governance strategies. Among these responses, funding exhibited the highest negative effect on invasive species (s = −0.17).

4. Discussion

The current study engaged local government and stakeholders in a systems-based exercise for exploring the implications and complex dynamics of different watershed management strategies. The research used participatory modeling techniques, facilitating model building using simple and relatable prompt questions related to local social and environmental values, watershed concerns and challenges, and current and potential interventions. The questions and workshop activities were designed to be able to engage a wide diversity of people to increase inclusivity in the modeling process and allow stakeholders with varying levels of expertise to contribute effectively. Such an approach to participatory modeling offers a collaborative and transparent method for participants to co-develop a complex system modeling exercise that can be used to support integrated planning and policymaking.

As demonstrated in this study, the use of semi-quantitative methods, participatory modeling, and systems thinking provides a means for including subjective, difficult-to-measure values in quantitative system modeling work. By incorporating often subjective and intangible values (such as respect, sense of place, and caring) into decision-support models, planning and policymaking can be based on a holistic understanding of complex systems. Such values are rooted in personal and cultural contexts and meanings, which makes them difficult to quantify; however, they are nonetheless important considerations when developing plans, policies, and strategies that recognize and incorporate what is important to stakeholders, rightsholders, and community members. Through the use of semi-quantitative system modeling techniques, such intangible values can be examined alongside measurable outcomes, which multiple scholars have identified as important for effective environmental decision making in the context of addressing complex socio-ecological challenges [58,59,60].

The analysis presented in this study both confirmed well-established relationships and revealed unanticipated or unobvious relationships within the watershed system. As examples of the former, the fuzzy cognitive map showed the positive impacts of greenspace development on biodiversity, mental health, and physical health, which aligns with widely documented benefits of green spaces in urban and ecological contexts [61,62]. Examples of unanticipated relationships include caring, which shows a strong influence on conservation efforts, suggesting that relational values such as empathy and stewardship play an important role in promoting ecological protection. Similarly, the link between aesthetics and sense of place highlights how the visual and cultural appreciation of natural spaces strengthens community identity and belonging. By incorporating holistic modeling exercises, planners and decision-makers can integrate considerations related to well-understood and easy-to-measure environmental outcomes with vaguer and less-understood cultural and relational dimensions of ecosystem services.

Through the use of system simulations and scenario analysis, the study revealed cascading system effects, where effects exerted on one system component significantly influenced others in different ways. For instance, education and awareness positively influenced respect, which in turn exerted positive effects on sustainable coexistence and community stewardship. Such ripple effects include that investments in public education campaigns can result in multiple benefits for sustainability objectives [63,64,65]. Weak governance and urban sprawl emerged as barriers, undermining the effectiveness of key strategies, such as establishing and expanding greenspace development, water quality protection, and climate adaptation. Addressing these challenges requires improving the robustness and effectiveness of governance through the adoption of adaptive and collaborative management practices that emphasize coordination across stakeholders and jurisdictions. Additionally, the sustainable management of watersheds depends on integrating responsible natural resource use, institutional coordination, and long-term funding mechanisms [66].

When conducting participatory planning exercises such as the one in this study, local government and planners should assume a dual role as both facilitators of and participants in the exercises. As facilitators, planners can employ engaging participatory processes into events such as local council meetings, community engagement sessions, and/or regional planning initiatives to improve understanding around the complexities of local sustainable development issues and approaches. As participants, planners bring essential knowledge related to local resources, development priorities, and governance challenges. This dual role of planners as facilitators and participants aligns with policy directives emphasizing collaborative governance, mutual learning, and information sharing as pathways to inclusive and effective decision making.

Integrated watershed management requires governance approaches that rely on participatory planning and collaborative leadership. Encouraging active citizenry and facilitating communication among elected officials, technical experts, and residents can bridge the gaps between policy objectives and on-ground realities [67,68]. Research has demonstrated how institutional support for and alignment with community-driven initiatives can help address challenges associated with the allocation of scarce resource allocation and engagement of diverse stakeholder groups [25]. Using workshops with activities such as participatory modeling, communities can bring together and integrate a range of stakeholder needs and values while also enhancing institutional and community coordination.

Study Limitations

The study has multiple limitations. The use of the semi-quantitative approach, while valuable for capturing nuanced and context-specific insights, introduces a degree of subjectivity that limits the broader generalizability of the systems model to other watersheds and communities. The semi-quantitative techniques employed in this study involved assigning connection strengths based on participant perspectives, knowledge, and experiences. Future research should also involve the use of measurable environmental data, such as water quality indicators (e.g., pH, turbidity, nutrient levels), biodiversity indices, streamflow data, and temperature variations, to complement qualitative findings and enhance the robustness of the system analysis.

Another limitation involves the participant diversity (or lack thereof). The in-person nature of the workshop, while valuable for fostering engagement and collaboration, limited the inclusion of a broader range of stakeholders. Greater efforts are needed to involve underrepresented groups, such as Indigenous communities, local industries, and marginalized populations. Relatedly, Nugroho et al. [66] emphasize the importance of interactive participation to ensure the development of locally relevant solutions. Future studies should include a mix of in-person, hybrid, and fully virtual workshop formats, along with targeted outreach strategies, to broaden participation and the representation of diverse voices and perspectives.

5. Conclusions

This study demonstrates the value of using systems thinking and participatory modeling to understand and address the complex dynamics within the Millstream Creek Watershed. By engaging stakeholders and visualizing relationships among values, challenges, and strategies, the study reveals both well-established and unobvious system relationships that influence the health of the watershed. Biodiversity, mental health, and a sense of place were found to be key watershed critical values that are threatened by challenges such as urban sprawl, climate change, invasive species, and weak governance. Strategies like establishing and expanding greenspace, education and awareness programs, and governance-based interventions demonstrate their potential to enhance these values and address systemic challenges.

The study highlights the importance of incorporating both tangible outcomes (e.g., biodiversity and water quality) and intangible values (e.g., respect, caring, and sense of place) into decision-making processes. Semi-quantitative methods provide a means for this type of incorporation of values and for creating a holistic and inclusive understanding of watershed dynamics. Additionally, cascading effects and feedback loops identified through the fuzzy cognitive map highlight the interconnectedness of interventions, illustrating how targeted strategies can drive systemic change. Finally, the study indicates that planners and environmental managers should assume roles as both facilitators of and active participants in participatory planning exercises to ensure that planning and policymaking reflect diverse perspectives and priorities.

The study has limitations, including the subjectivity of semi-quantitative methods and limited participant diversity. Addressing these limitations requires broader stakeholder inclusion, the use of measurable environmental data, and hybrid engagement approaches. Future research can build and improve upon this study by taking such actions to address the limitations.