Wilderness perception mapping : a geographic information systems (GIS) approach to the application of wilderness perceptions to protected areas management in New Zealand

Increasing demands for wilderness experiences, principally through outdoor recreation and tourism, are creating an ever greater need for careful management of natural and pristine areas in order to preserve the natural ecological processes of an area while also permitting appropriate wilderness use. This study addresses these pressures by emphasising the application of varying perceptions of wilderness within a geographic information systems (GIS) framework as an approach to balancing the ecological and experiential conditions that characterise wilderness environments. The specific objective is to delimit the spatial extent of multiple perceptions of wilderness, held by backcountry users, as a means of improving the effectiveness of management approaches, via a GIS framework . A wilderness perception mapping (WPM) methodology is operationalised through two alternative approaches. The first method applies perceptions of wilderness settings, from an attitudinal scale, and maps the spatial extent of these perceptions . This is achieved through a direct overlay process using GIS. The second method utilises multivariate techniques which enable a weighted overlay process to be performed. The initial results obtained from employing the WPM methodology are examined through the application of the two approaches to a case-study, namely North-West Nelson in the South Island of New Zealand. The end products for each approach provide new and useful information that has applicability to both management and research. After comparing the end products, the results for the first method are further analysed with respect to protected areas management. The role and implications of WPM are discussed with reference to wilderness management in North- West Nelson and in New Zealand, and to protected areas management at a broader level

Weaving Indigenous and Sustainability Sciences: Diversifying our Methods (WIS2DOM) Workshop

The report is organized into five sections: Part I outlines the strengths and limitations of sustainability science in sustaining resilient landscapes; provides a brief introduction to the development of sustainability science over the past two decades; addresses the strengths identified by participants (a transdisciplinary approach, systems framework, scientific method and measurement); as well as the weaknesses (politics of science, economics of sustainability management, scalar applications of sustainability science). Part II identifies the strengths and limitations of Indigenous science in sustaining resilient landscapes; provides a brief introduction to the development of Indigenous science within the academy over the past two decades; address the strengths identified by participants (deep-spatial knowledge, long-term observations, an ethos of reciprocal appropriation); as well as the weaknesses (issues related to translation, finding common ground). Part III explores successful collaborations between Indigenous and sustainability sciences in sustaining resilient landscapes; relevant theoretical work on Indigenous science and traditional ecological knowledge are referenced alongside participants’ contributions. Part IV discusses protocols necessary for successful collaborations between Indigenous and sustainability sciences in sustaining resilient landscapes; participant discussions regarding research protocols, principles and practices are described. Part V contains recommendations to Indigenous and sustainability scientists as well as to funding agencies, including NSF, for fostering collaboration between Indigenous communities and scholars and sustainability scientists, encouraging Indigenous community research leadership with an emphasis on mentoring future Indigenous scholars, and further discussions and research into appropriate research principles, protocols, and practices in order to aid collaborations.This report summarizes the findings of the February 13-16, 2013 workshop, entitled Weaving Indigenous and Sustainability Sciences to Diversify our Methods (WIS2DOM), held in Olympia, Washington at The Evergreen State University’s Longhouse. The workshop was funded by an NSF grant from the Arctic Social Sciences Program to Drs. Jay T. Johnson and Renee Pualani Louis, University of Kansas; and Andrew Kliskey, University of Alaska-Anchorage. The purpose of the workshop was to challenge key thinkers in the areas of Indigenous and sustainability sciences to cultivate mutually conducive and appropriate principles, protocols, and practices that address our common concern to sustain resilient landscapes in the midst of rapid environmental change. The WIS2DOM workshop brought together an internationally diverse set of Indigenous academics and community scholars with non-Indigenous academics interested in advancing this discussion. Workshop participants were asked to address the following four questions in their short papers and workshop deliberations: 1. What are the strengths of these two paradigms of science in sustaining resilient landscapes? 2. What are the limitations of these two paradigms of science in successfully sustaining resilient landscapes? 3. How can these two paradigms collaborate in their efforts toward sustaining resilient landscapes? 4. What protocols will aid in the collaboration of these two paradigms toward sustaining resilient landscapes?National Science Foundatio

Social Influence and Decision-Making: Evaluating Agent Networks in Village Responses to Change in Freshwater

This paper presents a model, using concepts from artificial neural networks, that explains how small rural communities make decisions that affect access to potable freshwater. Field observations indicate that social relationships as well as individual goals and perceptions of decision makers have a strong influence on decisions that are made by community councils. Our work identifies three types of agents, which we designate as alpha, beta, and gamma agents. We address how gamma agents affect decisions made by community councils in passing resolutions that benefit a village\'s collective access to clean freshwater. The model, which we call the Agent Types Model (ATM), demonstrates the effects of social interactions, corporate influence, and agent-specific factors that determine choices for agents. Data from two different villages in rural Alaska and several parameter sensitivity tests are applied to the model. Results demonstrate that minimizing the social significance and agent-specific factors affecting gamma agents\' negative compliance increases the likelihood that communities adopt measures promoting potable freshwater access. The significance of this work demonstrates which types of communities are potentially more socially vulnerable or resilient to social-ecological change affecting water supplies.Agent-Based Modeling, Artificial Neural Network, Social Network, Social Influence, Resilience, Freshwater

Contrasting stakeholder and scientist conceptual models of food-energy-water systems: a case study in Magic Valley, Southern Idaho

One of the factors for the success of simulation studies is close collaboration with stakeholders in developing a conceptual model. Conceptual models are a useful tool for communicating and understanding how real systems work. However, models or frameworks that are not aligned with the perceptions and understanding of local stakeholders can induce uncertainties in the model outcomes. We focus on two sources of epistemic uncertainty in building conceptual models of food-energy-water systems (FEWS): (1) context and framing; and (2) model structure uncertainty. To address these uncertainties, we co-produced a FEWS conceptual model with key stakeholders using the Actor-Resources-Dynamics-Interaction (ARDI) method. The method was adopted to specifically integrate public (and local) knowledge of stakeholders in the Magic Valley region of Southern Idaho into a FEWS model. We first used the ARDI method with scientists and modellers (from various disciplines) conducting research in the system, and then repeated the process with local stakeholders. We compared results from the two cohorts and refined the conceptual model to align with local stakeholders’ understanding of the FEWS. This co-development of a conceptual model with local stakeholders ensured the incorporation of different perspectives and types of knowledge of key actors within the socio-ecological systems models

We Didn\u27t Cross the Border; the Border Crossed Us : Informal Social Adaptations to Formal Governance and Policies by Communities Across the Bering Sea Region in the Russian Far East and United States

Territorially isolated villages along the shores of the U.S. and Russian Bering Sea live with stark political lines dividing a region that shares a common history, heritage, and contemporary existence. It is also a region whose environmental security is threatened by common changes occurring throughout the area but for whom possible responses to these changes are shaped by the policies and politics of the countries in which they reside. This paper is based on the experience from an international observing network, the Community Observing Network for Adaptation and Security (CONAS), which provides rare insights on how political context, across the remote and unique region of the Bering Sea, shapes the realities of a People and how informal social institutions have adapted as a result

We Didn\u27t Cross the Border; the Border Crossed Us : Informal Social Adaptations to Formal Governance and Policies by Communities Across the Bering Sea Region in the Russian Far East and United States

Territorially isolated villages along the shores of the U.S. and Russian Bering Sea live with stark political lines dividing a region that shares a common history, heritage, and contemporary existence. It is also a region whose environmental security is threatened by common changes occurring throughout the area but for whom possible responses to these changes are shaped by the policies and politics of the countries in which they reside. This paper is based on the experience from an international observing network, the Community Observing Network for Adaptation and Security (CONAS), which provides rare insights on how political context, across the remote and unique region of the Bering Sea, shapes the realities of a People and how informal social institutions have adapted as a result

An Alternative Futures Approach to Green Infrastructure Planning for an Increasing Population

In 2017, the U.S. Census Bureau announced Idaho to be the fastest growing state by population in the country. As these trends continue, this growth can have various impacts on socio-ecological systems such as increased development, pressure exerted on agricultural production, and increased effects of urban stream syndrome. Various scenarios, driven by stakeholders, can help effectively guide the designs of our green infrastructure networks. This project evokes stakeholder-defined key issues addressed within a National Science Foundation (NSF) funded project in Idaho’s Magic Valley. Innovations at the Nexus of Food, Energy, and Water Systems (INFEWS) is an interdisciplinary research initiative seeking to address issues concerning drought, water demand, water quality, and food security by using a stakeholder-driven alternative futures framework (Steinitz 2012). Researchers within the project seek to operationalize stakeholder-driven assumptions for various scenarios utilizing the planning and suitability of effective Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Magic Valley in Idaho. The project will utilize an alternative futures methodology to interpret and represent rural and urban green infrastructure interventions at various locations within the watershed. This approach has the potential to operate at various scales and, through this project, we seek to construct the narrative at both the landscape and the site scale. The results aim to provide policy makers, planners, developers, and landscape architects about siting various BMP types through a framework for planning and design. These outputs will also depict modeled landscape change via various scenario solutions. The stakeholder group will substantiate plausible solutions and scenarios for the Valley, which will guide the green infrastructure network. Once validated, we will focus on the siting of three different structural BMP networks to address water quality, water quantity, soil health, and inclusion of public green space

Sustainable Agriculture for Alaska and the Circumpolar North: Part I. Development and Status of Northern Agriculture and Food Security

Alaska is food insecure, importing the vast majority of its agricultural products and commodities and maintaining a minimal year-round food supply. Much of the circumpolar North, with some notable exceptions, is also food insecure and similarly reliant on foods imported from outside regions. The stark differences in food policies, food security, and overall production that exist between individual countries and regions of the circumpolar North are likely due to variability in their physical and social environments, their varying agrarian histories (e.g., Old World vs. New World), and their different first-hand experiences with food insecurity, often during wartime. Alaska’s agricultural history is unique, having progressed through periods of exploration and expansion and having experienced both success and failure. Agriculture exists today in Alaska as an underdeveloped natural resource – based industry that has been shaped by historical events and developmental processes and continually influenced by a host of environmental and socioeconomic factors. Continued interaction between stakeholders, agencies, and others will help the industry to progress to the point of meeting increasing food demands and improving food security.L’Alaska est aux prises avec l’insécurité alimentaire en ce sens que l’État importe la grande majorité de ses produits et marchandises agricoles et qu’il maintient un approvisionnement alimentaire minime à l’année. Malgré quelques exceptions remarquables, une grande partie du Nord circumpolaire souffre d’insécurité alimentaire et dépend de produits alimen­taires importés d’autres régions. Les importantes différences qui existent en matière de politiques alimentaires, d’insécurité alimentaire et de production générale entre les pays et les régions du Nord circumpolaire sont vraisemblablement attribuables aux divers environnements physiques et sociaux, à leur histoire agraire variée (celle de l’Ancien Monde par opposition à celle du Nouveau Monde) et à leurs différentes expériences directes en matière d’insécurité alimentaire, plus particulièrement en temps de guerre. L’histoire agricole de l’Alaska est unique, ayant passé par des périodes d’exploration et d’expansion, et connu tant des réussites que des échecs. De nos jours, l’agriculture en Alaska est une industrie sous-développée de ressources naturelles qui a été façonnée par des événements historiques et des processus développementaux, continuellement influencée par une panoplie de facteurs environnementaux et socioéconomiques. Les efforts collectifs déployés par les parties prenantes, les organismes et d’autres parties aideront cette industrie à progresser au point de pouvoir répondre à la demande croissante de nourriture et d’améliorer la sécurité alimentaire

Sustainable Agriculture for Alaska and the Circumpolar North: Part III. Meeting the Challenges of High-Latitude Farming

Agriculture is a severely underdeveloped industry in Alaska and throughout most of the Subarctic. Growers and entrepreneurs must overcome a diverse set of challenges to achieve greater sustainability in northern communities where resilience is threatened by food insecurity and challenges to northern agriculture have limited the industry. However, several field-based or social policy solutions to problems of high-latitude agriculture have been proposed or are being put into practice. Field-based solutions include the use of special infrastructure or farm management strategies to extend the short growing season, improve soil quality, integrate appropriate pest and irrigation management practices, and further develop the livestock sector. Social and policy solutions are resolutions or decisions reached by stakeholders and government, often through cooperative interaction and discussion. These solutions stem from meaningful discussion and decision making among community members, organizations, agencies, and legislators. Social and policy solutions for Alaska include addressing the high costs of land and the preservation of agricultural lands; improved markets and market strategies; more appropriate funding for research, education and infrastructure; and other integrative or cooperative efforts. Collectively, these solutions will work to improve the outlook for sustainable agriculture in Alaska.En Alaska et dans une grande partie des régions subarctiques, l’agriculture est une industrie extrêmement sous-développée. Les producteurs et les entrepreneurs doivent surmonter un ensemble de défis variés pour donner lieu à une plus grande durabilité dans les collectivités nordiques, là où la résilience est menacée par l’insécurité alimentaire et où les défis caractérisant l’agriculture nordique imposent des restrictions à l’industrie. Cependant, plusieurs solutions apportées sur le terrain ou par le biais de politiques sociales vis-à-vis des problèmes touchant l’agriculture en haute latitude ont été proposées ou sont en train d’être mises en pratique. Parmi les solutions apportées sur le terrain, notons le recours à une infrastructure particulière ou à des stratégies de gestion agricole visant à prolonger la courte saison de croissance, à améliorer la qualité du sol, à intégrer des méthodes de gestion de l’irrigation et des organismes nuisibles, et à mettre davantage l’accent sur le secteur de l’élevage du bétail. Les solutions en matière de politiques sociales prennent la forme de résolutions ou de décisions prises par les parties prenantes et le gouvernement, souvent en collaboration et à la lumière de discussions. Ces solutions découlent de discussions et de prises de décisions importantes entre les membres des collectivités, les organisations, les agences et les législateurs. Les solutions de politiques sociales de l’Alaska portent notamment sur le coût élevé de la terre et la conservation des terres agricoles, sur l’amélioration des marchés et des stratégies de commercialisation, sur la nécessité d’obtenir des sources de financement plus adéquates pour la recherche, l’éducation et l’infrastructure, ainsi que sur d’autres efforts d’intégration et de coopération. Ensemble, ces solutions permettront d’améliorer la conjoncture de l’agriculture durable en Alaska