What do you mean by values? Integration of social with biophysical knowledge in the development of a landscape decision support system

被引:8
作者
Ford, Rebecca M. [1 ]
Rawluk, Andrea [1 ]
Williams, Kathryn J. H. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Melbourne, Sch Ecosyst & Forest Sci, Melbourne, Vic 3010, Australia
关键词
Decision support system; Knowledge integration; Interdisciplinarity; Values; Forest and fire management; ECOSYSTEM SERVICES; MANAGEMENT; INTERDISCIPLINARY; CHALLENGES; ACCEPTABILITY; FRAMEWORK; POLICY; RISK;
D O I
10.1016/j.envsci.2021.08.011
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Environmental decision-making is recognised as requiring integration of biophysical and social knowledge, but integration of knowledges based in different epistemic assumptions is challenging. We used an action research approach to observe integration in the development of a landscape decision support system (DSS) for forest and fire management in Victoria, Australia. We found two different knowledge integration processes, conceptuallydriven to shape the structure of the DSS and technically-driven through modelling. Project framing dominated by biophysical sciences and technically-driven integration presented a barrier to many potential social science contributions that could connect a DSS with the surrounding social and decision contexts. Nonetheless, some conceptually-driven integration occurred when social researchers contributed their analysis of values of the public to the DSS design. The need for this integration emerged through initial conflict over disciplinary understandings of 'value'. While initially uncomfortable, this opened the way to differentiate knowledge related to the term and to negotiate some conceptual synthesis and an agreed multidisciplinary list of values to structure the DSS. Technically-driven integration occurred through incorporation of social and biophysical metrics in model software. Our research highlights that bridging concepts such as values and related frameworks act as boundary objects that help in overcoming barriers to integration between social and biophysical knowledge. Integration is itself a potential boundary object and early discussions to differentiate and clarify how the term is understood can help in designing interdisciplinary processes. Critically, projects need adequate time for interdisciplinary differentiation, tolerance amongst the team for uncomfortable conversations, and leadership that fosters interdisciplinary interactions to achieve a high degree of knowledge integration.
引用
收藏
页码:656 / 664
页数:9
相关论文
共 47 条
[1]   Core values underpin the attributes of forests that matter to people [J].
Anderson, Nerida ;
Ford, Rebecca M. ;
Bennett, Lauren T. ;
Nitschke, Craig ;
Williams, Kathryn J. H. .
FORESTRY, 2018, 91 (05) :629-640
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2003, ECOSYSTEMS HUMAN WEL
[3]  
[Anonymous], 1990, Landscape Journal, DOI [DOI 10.3368/LJ.9.1.1, DOI 10.3368/LJ.9.1.1
[4]  
1-8]
[5]   Doing integration in catchment management research: Insights into a dynamic learning process [J].
Ayre, Margaret ;
Nettle, Ruth .
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & POLICY, 2015, 47 :18-31
[6]   Enhancing research collaborations: Three key management challenges [J].
Bammer, Gabriele .
RESEARCH POLICY, 2008, 37 (05) :875-887
[7]   Organizational Learning and the Sustainability Community of Practice: The Role of Boundary Objects [J].
Benn, Suzanne ;
Edwards, Melissa ;
Angus-Leppan, Tamsin .
ORGANIZATION & ENVIRONMENT, 2013, 26 (02) :184-202
[8]   Integrating Indigenous Ecological Knowledge and Science in Natural Resource Management: Perspectives from Australia [J].
Bohensky, Erin L. ;
Butler, James R. A. ;
Davies, Jocelyn .
ECOLOGY AND SOCIETY, 2013, 18 (03)
[9]   'What do you mean?' The importance of language in developing interdisciplinary research [J].
Bracken, L. J. ;
Oughton, E. A. .
TRANSACTIONS OF THE INSTITUTE OF BRITISH GEOGRAPHERS, 2006, 31 (03) :371-382
[10]   The evolution of ecosystem services: A time series and discourse-centered analysis [J].
Chaudhary, Sunita ;
McGregor, Andrew ;
Houston, Donna ;
Chettri, Nakul .
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & POLICY, 2015, 54 :25-34