No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The use of landholder typologies to aid the development, implementation, and monitoring natural-resource management (NRM) policies and programs has increased considerably during the past decade. This article explores the potential for using such typologies for a variety of NRM and rural and regional development applications. Review of typology use further suggests that there is potential to refine the way that typologies are developed and applied to better aid NRM, farming systems analyses, and rural and regional development. Before typologies will be adopted more widely, a number of theoretical and methodologic issues must be addressed. These include the following questions: (1) Which criteria and methods should or can be used to classify landholders? (2) How should studies across spatial and temporal scales be integrated? (3) How should multiple and single industry studies be integrated to gain the most value from research? We argue that quantitative research techniques are well suited to provide an underlying structure for landholder typologies, and qualitative research techniques are useful for developing understanding of the nature of variation within and between landholder types. We argued further that because of the potential utility and breadth for the application of landholder typologies, a nested set of landholder typologies could be developed that are coordinated at the national, regional, and local geographic levels, with repeated measures used to track the evolution with time of landholder practices, management values, and socioeconomic characteristics.

Many collaborative and communicative environments use notions of "space" and spatial organisation to facilitate and structure interaction. We argue that a focus on spatial models is misplaced. Drawing on understandings from architecture and urban design, as well as from our own research findings, we highlight the critical distinction between "space" and "place". While designers use spatial models to support interaction, we show how it is actually a notion of "place" which fram-es interactive behaviour. This leads us to re-evaluate spatial systems, and discuss how "place", rather than "space", can support CSCW design.