WWP multiple cause diagram animated tutorial

This multiple cause diagram contains text, arrows and shapes, including circles. In this description the term “label” refers to text in the diagram, and the term “phrase” refers to text in the audio description or transcript. 

Page	Transcript	Description	
Page 1	The WWP summary suggests many factors or events which might act as starting points for tracing paths of causality and consequence. Examples include the spread of invasive species to South Africa, water conflicts, ecosystem degeneration, and post-apartheid policy on natural resources. You can probably think of others. Each example would provide a very rich and interesting source for exploration, but I’d need more information in order to generate meaningful multiple cause diagrams.
	Four rectangular shapes appear on the page.
Inside each of these four shapes is a central label, with arrows pointing to and from other points, represented by question marks. 
The labels are: “spread of invasive species”, “water conflicts”, “ecosystem degeneration” and “post-apartheid policy on natural resources”. These are highlighted when they are mentioned in the audio description.	
Page 2	You also need to be cautious in assigning factors as being causal rather than simply influential. Claims of causality often require more information or evidence. This is why influence diagramming is often considered as providing ‘safer ground’ for mapping. In developing the multiple cause diagram we’ll explore the causes and consequences associated with the implementation of the WWP. 	The page goes blank. 
The label “Working for Water Programme (WWP)” appears, with two arrows pointing from it to the labels “introduction of water charges” and “water policy”.
Over this, the label “Influence diagram or Casual diagram” appears. At the phrase “This is why influence diagramming is often considered…”, a tick symbol appears next to “Influence diagram” and a question mark appears next to “Causal diagram”. 	
Page 3	The first task is to identify the immediate causes for the implementation of the programme. These appear to relate to economic, social, political and ecological drivers associated with post-apartheid South Africa.	The page goes blank.
The central label “Implementation of Working for Work Programme (WWP)” appears. A number of labels with arrows pointing to the central label appear: “pressure from environmentalists”, “inability to provide quality water for all”, “impoverished black South Africans”, “high rural black unemployment”, “post-apartheid demand for stakeholder participation” and “availability of government resources”.	
Page 4	It’s then possible to trace back further causal factors associated with each of the immediate causes. The spread of invasive species seems to be particularly important and so I’ve encircled it. Another key factor for the WWP is the availability of government resources to support the programme.	A number of additional labels and arrows appear.
Pointing at “impoverished black South Africans” is the label “apartheid governance ’48-‘94”. 
Pointing at “availability of government resources” is an arrow from the label “development of rural economy”.
Pointing at “inability to provide quality water for all” is an arrow from the label “poor water quantity and availability”. Pointing at “poor water quantity and availability” and the label “reduced bioversity” are arrows from the label “ecosystem degeneration”. Pointing at “ecosystem degeneration” is an arrow from the label “spread of invasive species”. Pointing at “spread of invasive species” is an arrow from the label “failure of conventional sector-based agricultural development”.
At the phrase “the spread of invasive species” a circle appears around that label.
At the phrase “Another key factors for the WWP” a circle appears around “availability of government resources”.	
Page 5	After tracing the direct and indirect lines of causality, it’s then possible to begin identifying the immediate and less immediate consequences of the programme. Job creation, as well as environmental protection, are perhaps the most important consequences for the programme.	A number of additional labels and arrows appear.
Four new points appear with arrows pointing from the central label “Implementation of Working for Water Programme (WWP)”. These are: “improved biodiversity, quality and quantity of water”, “revenue from products arising from clearance”, “artisan skills developed” and “job creation to remove invasive species”.
From “improved biodiversity, quality and quantity of water” arrows point to the new label “rising costs of implementation” and to “availability of government resources”.
From “revenue from products arising from clearance” an arrow points to “development of rural economy”.
From “artisan skills developed” an arrow points to “development of rural economy”.
From “job creation to remove invasive species” an arrow points to “development of rural economy”.
A new label “economic return for invasive species cultivation” appears with an arrow pointing to “spread of invasive species”.
From “reduced biodiversity” an arrow points to “pressure from environmentalists”.

At the phrase “Job creation, as well as environmental protection”, circles appear around the labels “job creation to remove invasive species”, “revenue from products arising from clearance” and “improved biodiversity, quality and quantity of water”.	
Page 6	Next it’s possible to explore how some of the variables affect each other to generate feedback loops. There are two types of these. Firstly, reinforcing feedback loops where variable change triggers a cycle of reinforcing change. For example, ‘implementation of WWP’ leads to ‘improved biodiversity…’ which leads to ‘availability of government resources’ which again leads to further implementation of WWP.	At the phrase “For example…”, a series of labels and their connecting arrows is highlighted in stages. The central label “Implementation of Working for Water Programme (WWP)” is highlighted, then both the arrow pointing to and the label “improved biodiversity, quality and quantity of water”, then the arrow pointing to and the label “availability of government resources”, then the arrow that points back to the central label.	
Page 6 plus – reinforcing loops		A number of other reinforcing loops highlighting different areas of the diagram are displayed on the page, numbered from 1 to 4. These are described below.

Reinforcing loop 1 is described above.
Reinforcing loop 2 highlights the central label to “artisan skills developed” to “development of rural economy” to “availability of government resources” and back to the central label.
Reinforcing loop 3 highlights the central label to “revenue from products arising from clearance” to “development of rural economy” to “availability of government resources” and back to the central label.
Reinforcing loop 4 highlights the central label to “job creation to remove invasive species” to “development of rural economy” to “availability of government resources” and back to the central label.	
Page 7	A second type of feedback loop is where change in one variable in the loop leads to an opposite change in the next variable. The resultant ‘loop’ signals an opposing change. These loops consist of arrows that might require labelling. For example, the rising costs of implementing WWP may inhibit further investment. Other oppositional changes and loops might be identified by adding the verb ‘reduces’ on a causal link.	The central label, the labels “improved biodiversity, quality and quantity of water” and “rising costs of implementation” and the arrows connecting them are highlighted. 
Another arrow appears, pointing from “rising costs of implementation” to “availability of government resources”. This arrow is labelled “inhibits”. 
At the phrase “Other oppositional changes and loops…”, the label “reduces” is added to a number of arrows over the whole diagram:  the arrow pointing from “ecosystem degeneration” to “economic return for invasive species cultivation”; the arrows pointing from “job creation to remove invasive species” to “spread of invasive species”, “impoverished black South Africans” and “high rural black unemployment”.	
Page 7 plus- oppositional loops		A number of other oppositional loops highlighting different areas of the diagram are displayed on the page, numbered from 5 to 10. These are described below.

Oppositional loop 5 is described above, highlighting the links from the central label “Implementation of WWP”, to “improved biodiversity…” to “rising costs of implementation” and “availability of government resources”.
Oppositional loop 6 highlights the central label, to “job creation to remove invasive species”, the arrow labelled “reduces” pointing to “high rural black unemployment” and back to the central label.
Oppositional loop 7 highlights the central label to “job creation to remove invasive species”, the arrow labelled “reduces” pointing to “impoverished black South Africans” and back to the central label.
Oppositional loop 8 highlights the central label to “job creation to remove invasive species”, the arrow labelled “reduces” pointing to “spread of invasive species” to “ecosystem degeneration” to “reduced biodiversity” to “pressure from environmentalists” and back to the central label.
Oppositional loop 9 highlights the central label to “job creation to remove invasive species”, the arrow labelled “reduces” pointing to “spread of invasive species” to “ecosystem degeneration” to “poor water quantity and availability” to “inability to provide quality water for all” and back to the central label.
Oppositional loop 10 highlights the label “spread of invasive species” to “ecosystem degeneration”, the arrow labelled “reduces” pointing to “economic return for invasive species cultivation” and back to “spread of invasive species”.	
Page 8	On a multiple cause diagram, it’s the loops that provide important clues as to where intervention might be appropriate. For example, the loop from WWP to ‘revenue from…’ to ‘development of rural economy’ to ‘availability…’ back to WWP suggests that strategies to increase revenue from clearance products might be a useful point of intervention.	All highlighting disappears.
The following loop is highlighted: from the central label, to “revenue from products arising from clearance” to “development of rural economy” to “availability of government resources” back to the central label.	
Page 9	I went through a number of versions and lots of scrap paper before achieving my final diagram. One of my earlier sketches is shown here. There are a number of difficulties with this version. First, there are lines crossing, which make it difficult to read.

I then had to try and arrange the elements of the diagram to avoid any possible confusion.

The diagram is also too congested with too many variables. One way to deal with this is to identify variables that might be of a similar type and to cluster them together.

Whilst removing some variables, it also struck me that other important variables were missing.	The page goes blank.
At the phrase “One of my earlier sketches…” another version of the multiple cause diagram is shown. This description will first cover the arrows and labels pointing from the central label, and their further links; and then the arrows and labels pointing at the central label, and their further links.

The central label is the same as before: “Implementation of Working for Water Programme (WWP)”. From the central label six arrows point away to the labels: “legislation on water charges (’97)”, “improved quality and quantity of water”, “rising costs of implementation”, “artisan skills developed”, “revenue from products arising from clearance” and “job creation to remove invasive species” (which is circled).

From “legislation on water charges (’97)” there are two arrows pointing to the labels “preferential water charges for landowners cultivating invasive species” and “revenue from water charges”. From “revenue from water charges” an arrow points to the label “funds made available”. From "preferential water charges…" an arrow points to "high economic return for invasive species cultivation".
From “improved quality and quantity of water” there is an arrow pointing to “increased international profile”.
From “rising costs of implementation” there is an arrow, pointing to “funds made available".
From “revenue from products arising from clearance” “artisan skills developed” and from “job creation to remove invasive species”, arrows point to “development of rural economy”, from which an arrow points to “funds made available”.

There are 5 arrows pointed at the central label: “inability to provide quality water for all”, “ecosystem degeneration”, “policy on water as common property resource (’98)”, “post-apartheid demand for stakeholder participation" and “high rural black unemployment”.

From “ecosystem degeneration” two arrows point to the labels “poor water quality” and “poor water availability”. Two arrows point to “ecosystem degeneration” from the labels “spread of invasive species” and “failure of conventional sector-based agricultural development”.
From the label “failure of conventional…”, a further arrow points to “spread of invasive species”. There are arrows pointed at these two labels from the label "high economic return for invasive species cultivation".
From the label "spread of invasive species" an arrow points to the label "cultural preference for non-native species". A further arrow points to this label from "apartheid governance '48-'94", which also points to "impoverished black South Africans".
Please note that a number of the direction arrows are overlapping in this diagram.

At the phrase “there are lines crossing”, the arrows that are overlapping are highlighted, then the highlight fades.
At the phrase “One way to try and deal with this”, the labels “poor water quality” and “poor water availability” are highlighted and merge to form a new label: “poor water quality and availability”. This label has one arrow pointing to it from “ecosystem degeneration” and has another arrow pointing to “inability to provide quality water for all”.

At the phrase “whilst removing some variables”, a number of new labels and arrows appear on the diagram. From the label “ecosystem degeneration” an arrow pointing to the label “reduced biodiversity” with a question mark, a further arrow pointing to “pressure from environmentalists” and another question mark, and an arrow pointing back to the central label appear. Another label with an arrow pointing to the central label also appears: “availability of government resources”. This label has two arrows pointed at it from “development of rural economy” and “rising costs of implementation” (this arrow is labelled “inhibits” with a question mark).
From the label “improved quality and quantity of water” an arrow pointing to the label “more WWP projects” and a further arrow pointing to “rising costs of implementation” appear.	
Page 10	In drafting a multiple cause diagram you need to think about presentational issues, such as avoiding crossed lines and having too many variables. You also need to think about substantive issues. Are all the key variables present? Are some variables less important? Check if any variables can be removed.

Are the suggested variables perhaps more of ‘influence’ rather than ‘cause’? Make sure the causal links are clear to you or to others. Looking at the final draft, what questions occur to you about the presentational aspects? How might you present different variables? What about the substantive elements? For example, which feedback loop is particularly important as a possible focus for future intervention to improve the success of WWP?	At the phrase “Are all the key variables present?” the labels “reduced biodiversity”, “pressure from environmentalists”, “more WWP projects”, and “availability of government resources” are highlighted and then the highlight fades.

At the phrase “Are some variables less important”, the labels “cultural preference for non-native species”, “legislation on water charges (’97)”, “increased international profile” and “policy on water as common property resource (’98)” are highlighted, and then the highlight fades. 

At the phrase “Looking at the final draft” the previous version of the multiple cause diagram is displayed, with the arrows labelled “reduces” and “inhibits” described above.	
Summary	Summary

1 Identify the event to be explored and write this down on lower half of paper.

2 Note the various direct immediate agencies of change (variables or other ‘events’) that brought about the event using arrows to indicate causal connections.

3 Trace indirect less-immediate agencies of change as sub-causes by continually working backwards from the main event.

4 Similarly, explore any consequences (either intended or unintended) arising from the chosen event and map these out as variables/ events on your diagram.

5 Identify and indicate with arrows whether variables/ events might be causally interconnected. Label any arrows that have an inhibiting or reducing effect.

6 Encircle those variables or events that you feel are particularly significant.

7 Identify any causal loops either inhibiting or reinforcing activities shown on your diagram.