Narratives of sustainability in digital media: An observatory for digital narratives
In: Futures: the journal of policy, planning and futures studies, Band 142, S. 103016
4 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Futures: the journal of policy, planning and futures studies, Band 142, S. 103016
In environmental participatory modeling (PM), both computer and non-computer-based modeling techniques are used to aid participatory problem description, solution, and decision-making actions in environmental contexts. Although many PM case studies have been published, few efforts have sought to systematically describe and understand dominant PM processes or establish best practices for PM. As a first step, we have reviewed a random sample of environmental PM case study articles (n = 60) using a novel PM process evaluation instrument. We found that significant work likely remains for PM to fully support participatory and integrated planning processes. While PM reports systematically address knowledge integration and learning, they often neglect the facilitation of a multi-value perspective within a democratic process, and the integration across organizations within a governance system. If not reported, we suspect these aspects are also neglected in practice. We conclude with key research and practice issues for improving PM as an approach for real-world participatory planning and governance.
BASE
Participatory Modeling (PM) is becoming increasingly common in environmental planning and conservation, due in part to advances in cyberinfrastructure as well as to greater recognition of the importance of engaging a diverse array of stakeholders in decision making. We provide lessons learned, based on over 200 years of the authors' cumulative and diverse experience, about PM processes. These include successful and, perhaps more importantly, not-so-successful trials. Our collective interdisciplinary background has supported the development, testing, and evaluation of a rich range of collaborative modeling approaches. We share here what we have learned as a community of participatory modelers, within three categories of reflection: a) lessons learned about participatory modelers; b) lessons learned about the context of collaboration; and c) lessons learned about the PM process. First, successful PM teams encompass a variety of skills beyond modeling expertise. Skills include: effective relationship-building, openness to learn from local experts, awareness of personal motivations and biases, and ability to translate discussions into models and to assess success. Second, the context for collaboration necessitates a culturally appropriate process for knowledge generation and use, for involvement of community co-leads, and for understanding group power dynamics that might influence how people from different backgrounds interact. Finally, knowing when to use PM and when not to, managing expectations, and effectively and equitably addressing conflicts is essential. Managing the participation process in PM is as important as managing the model building process. We recommend that PM teams consider what skills are present within a team, while ensuring inclusive creative space for collaborative exploration and learning supported by simple yet relevant models. With a realistic view of what it entails, PM can be a powerful approach that builds collective knowledge and social capital, thus helping communities to take charge of their future and address complex social and environmental problems.
BASE
System-of-systems approaches for integrated assessments have become prevalent in recent years. Such approaches integrate a variety of models from different disciplines and modeling paradigms to represent a socioenvironmental (or social-ecological) system aiming to holistically inform policy and decision-making processes. Central to the system-of-systems approaches is the representation of systems in a multi-tier framework with nested scales. Current modeling paradigms, however, have disciplinary-specific lineage, leading to inconsistencies in the conceptualization and integration of socio-environmental systems. In this paper, a multidisciplinary team of researchers, from engineering, natural and social sciences, have come together to detail socio-technical practices and challenges that arise in the consideration of scale throughout the socioenvironmental modeling process. We identify key paths forward, focused on explicit consideration of scale and uncertainty, strengthening interdisciplinary communication, and improvement of the documentation process. We call for a grand vision (and commensurate funding) for holistic system-of-systems research that engages researchers, stakeholders, and policy makers in a multi-tiered process for the co-creation of knowledge and solutions to major socio-environmental problems. ; National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC) under the National Science Foundation [DBI-1639145]; Australian Government Research Training Program (AGRTP) ScholarshipAustralian Government; ANU Hilda-John Endowment Fund; USDAUnited States Department of Agriculture (USDA); ARSUnited States Department of Agriculture (USDA)USDA Agricultural Research Service [58-3091-6-035]; Texas A&M AgriLife Research; Key Program of NSF of China [41930648]; NSFNational Science Foundation (NSF) [EEC 1937012] ; Published version ; This work was supported by the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC) under funding received from the National Science Foundation DBI-1639145. The primary author (Takuya Iwanaga) is supported through an Australian Government Research Training Program (AGRTP) Scholarship and a top-up scholarship from the ANU Hilda-John Endowment Fund. Hsiao-Hsuan Wang and Tomasz E. Koralewski acknowledge partial support from USDA, ARS Agreement No. 58-3091-6-035 with Texas A&M AgriLife Research, titled `Areawide pest management of the invasive sugarcane aphid in grain sorghum, regional population monitoring and forecasting.' Min Chen is supported by the Key Program of NSF of China (No. 41930648). John Little acknowledges partial support from NSF Award EEC 1937012. The authors would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers and Prof. Randall Hunt (USGS) for their constructive feedback and comments. The authors additionally thank Faye Duchin and Adrian Hindes for comments provided on an earlier draft. ; Public domain authored by a U.S. government employee
BASE