Supporting personal world-views in an envisioning system

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2004.06.014Get rights and content

Abstract

This paper describes an envisioning system (EvS) designed to help rural communities contemplate landscape level changes. Simulations and models project current conditions into the future according to the constraints of scenario-based planning and available land use choices. Possible futures are represented through visual (2D, 3D and iconic) indicators. This paper defines four distinct world-views (romantic, pastoral, ecological, and economic) and then reviews system design in the light of these views. Two key system aspects discussed are the indicators of environmental conditions, and the styles of data presentation. A developed EvS was tested in two public workshops. In one the world-views were explicitly introduced, and in the second they emerged naturally through exploration of futures. Our findings suggest that awareness and understanding of four major world-views can help plan and evaluate major software systems while also providing a convenient structure for analysis of results.

Introduction

Communities want to control their destinies. They struggle, however, dealing with complex, incomplete, compartmentalized and contradictory information about their communities and about possible futures. Yankelovich (1991) describes this phenomenon as a crisis in governance and suggests that a clear vision of possible goals and outcomes provides one of the most effective means to engage in the social learning and meaningful action communities need to realize their goal of controlling their destinies. Software products such as What if? (Klosterman, 2001) and CommunityViz (Kwartler and Bernard, 2001) assist communities exploring and envisioning possible future conditions and the consequences of planning decisions. This paper describes an envisioning system (EvS) designed to help rural communities contemplate landscape level changes. Simulations and models project current conditions into the future according to the constraints of scenario-based planning and available land use choices. Possible future conditions are represented visually through maps, visual simulations and indicator icons. The goal of an EvS is to help community members negotiate desired future conditions and implement policies which shape land use changes that produce these desired conditions.

An EvS differs from a Decision Support System (DSS) following the reasoning of Brail and Klosterman (2001). The goals of EvS are longer range than typical for DSS and less analytical. EvS is less directed towards identifying best solutions and more directed towards identifying achievable directions. EvS attempts to facilitate collaboration rather than enable executive decisions.

There exist important and considerable challenges to collecting, modeling, maintaining, and displaying the enormous amounts of data required of an EvS. This paper focuses on the qualities of system architecture that are critical to engaging stakeholders. For an EvS to be effective it must engage stakeholders in the envisioning process about their community. If stakeholders are alienated or excluded, then the vision will be partial and efforts to implement that vision may be resisted.

People interpret information through their world-views (Gundersen, 1995, Michael, 1995). If we wish to engage people and provide them with the means to understand the consequences of their behaviors, so as to create desired futures, then we face three distinct tasks: (1) allow their world-views to be represented, (2) help them see the world through eyes of other stakeholders, and (3) facilitate negotiations about possible futures. To accomplish these tasks, people must have some control over the language (including modes of presentation and communication) and indicators used to represent the environment and future scenarios. Information systems that merely transfer or represent someone else's (e.g., an analyst's) world-view, or present information in a format which is not suitable for the particular user, are insufficient to motivate community engagement and promote change.

We identify two major factors of EvS architecture that may affect stakeholder participation: the indicators of environmental conditions, and the data presentation styles. The purpose of this paper is threefold: (1) to describe these factors and why they may affect stakeholder participation, (2) to propose a world-view framework for anticipating the different stakeholder preferences and thus enabling some system development to proceed prior to stakeholder involvement, and (3) to illustrate these issues through a case study of a developed EvS (Stock and Bishop, 2002) as used in community workshops.

Section snippets

Indicators

Indicators are the heart-and-soul of an EvS. They represent the environmental conditions that are modeled, simulated, or otherwise projected into the future. They are the topic of stakeholder discussions. They define and constrain the decision space because futures characterized by conditions other than these indicators cannot be projected, considered, and negotiated. What indicators of environmental quality should an envisioning system forecast? This question presents perhaps the most

World-views

Envisioning systems must enable stakeholders to evaluate the consequences of potential actions and envision possible futures. Such functionality cannot be implemented in real-time, during the negotiations, but must be built into the system. Data collection, model testing, and interface building are required. A method for identifying most appropriate presentation and interface modes and outcome indicators prior to stakeholder involvement is needed. One possible solution is to anticipate probable

Setting

In Stock and Bishop (2002) we introduced an EvS developed for the Cudgewa Valley in north-eastern Victoria, Australia. The focus area is 16 by 16 km. It is primarily farming land in the valley bottom and lower slopes with forest on the ridges. There is a large private pine plantation and some farmers are developing both hard (Eucalypt) and soft (Pinus) wood plantations. In the north-west is Burrawa-Pine Mountain National Park, but it is infrequently visited. In Cudgewa town (population about

Outcomes

Two workshops were held in our Cudgewa Valley study area in late 2003. In these workshops various scenarios for the valley were discussed and evaluated with stakeholders. About 20 people attended on each occasion. Most were members of the local ‘Landcare’ group. They were given a brief introduction to the technology and to the plans for the evening. A representative of the regional catchment management authority led the workshops. In the first workshop management scenarios were explicitly

Conclusion

This paper describes the design and initial testing of an envisioning system intended to help communities explore and evaluate possible futures. Participants in the first workshops interacted with the envisioning system and were able to construct and evaluate alternative futures. The structure and presentation of alternative futures seems critical. Constructing initial scenarios based on world-views seems a useful way to increase the likelihood that important stakeholders' concerns will be

Acknowledgments

The development of the envisioning system was funded by Land and Water Australia (project UME-65). Bruce Hull's time in Melbourne was supported by a University of Melbourne Visiting Fellow grant.

References (22)

  • G. Bergquist et al.

    Post decision assessment

  • D.B. Botkin

    Discordant Harmonies: A New Ecology for the Twenty-First Century

    (1990)
  • R.K. Brail et al.

    Planning Support Systems: Integrating Geographic Information Systems and Visualization Tools

    (2001)
  • X. Chen et al.

    Community exploration of changing landscape values: the role of the virtual environment

  • T.R. Dunlap

    Nature and the English Diaspora: Environment and History in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand

    (1999)
  • S. Ervin

    Intra-medium and inter-media constraints

  • A.G. Gundersen

    The Environmental Promise of Democratic Deliberation

    (1995)
  • R.K. Klosterman

    The What if? planning support system

  • M. Kwartler et al.

    CommunityViz: an integrated planning support system

  • D.N. Michael

    Barriers and bridges to learning in a turbulent human ecology

  • S.T.A. Pickett et al.

    The Ecological Basis of Conservation: Heterogeneity, Ecosystems, and Biodiversity

    (1997)
  • Cited by (23)

    • Agriculturisation and trade-offs between commodity production and cultural ecosystem services: A case study in Balcarce County

      2017, Journal of Rural Studies
      Citation Excerpt :

      The perception of respondents about an increasingly individualistic and materialistic society corroborates the change in people's view. This view goes from a “romantic” and “pastoral” notion (sensu Bishop et al., 2005), where nature is seen as a place for recreation and contemplation and provides a way of life that nourishes the rural culture and values, towards a more “utilitarian” view where nature is seen as a resource to be used. Since people interpret landscapes and the services provided by them according to their beliefs, knowledge and interests (Musacchio, 2013; Nassauer, 1995a; Tempesta, 2010), the loss or weakening of previous beliefs, practices and cultural knowledge may be the reason why actual decisions are more orientated to short term economic benefits.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1

    This paper was prepared while Bruce Hull was a Visiting Fellow in Melbourne. His usual address is the Department of Forestry, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, USA.

    View full text