Modeling and understanding social–ecological knowledge diversity

Abstract

The concept of social-ecological knowledge diversity (SEKD) provides a novel way of examining coupled human-environment interactions-it acknowledges differences in knowledge, values, and beliefs of stakeholder groups within social-ecological systems (SES). Thus, understanding and measuring SEKD is an essential component of sustainable management with implications for conflict resolution, collective action and policymaking. However, methods to efficiently define and model knowledge diversity are still underdeveloped. Using a semiquantitative cognitive mapping approach, we collected and analyzed stakeholder-specific knowledge and perceptions of the Western Baltic cod fishery to model SEKD. Results demonstrate substantial variation in perceptions across different individuals and social groups. SEKD was evident in (a) distinctive meanings attached to social factors relative to ecological factors, (b) causal relationships underlying the understanding of SES dynamics, and (c) social impacts of ecological changes on ecosystems (and vice versa). By identifying and representing knowledge-specific disparities in SES frameworks, our model explicitly improves the understanding of human-environment interactions with implications that could help reduce conflicts and legitimize management plans.

Do social identity and cognitive diversity correlate in environmental stakeholders? A novel approach to measuring cognitive distance within and between groups

“…maps were converted to digital weighted directed graphs and corresponding adjacency matrices using www.mentalmodeler.org) and sent back to the interviewees for validation. We described in details the cognitive map elicitation protocol elsewhere [ 45 ] and in S1 File .…”

The ‘Cod-Multiple’: Modes of Existence of Fish, Science and People

“…In general, different understandings and framings of a system can be explained by the fact that people interact in very different ways with the system itself or system components such as fish species that are, for example, directly (practicing fishing) or indirectly (modeling fish distribution) related to the biological system. These different ways of generating knowledge lead stakeholders to develop different perspectives on and understandings of the biological 'workings' of natural resources-or in our case, WB cod [68]-and the resulting management options [17].…”

“…Consequently, methodological, theoretical and practical approaches have been explored. These, for example, focused the attention on (i) the social dimensions of management options [13][14][15], (ii) the perception of different stakeholder groups [16,17] and (iii) the framing of fishers with regard to management structures and measures bearing an impact on their everyday lives [18]. Moreover, the research on ocean literacy characterizes approaches in the area of local ocean knowledge disclosing the aspect that these dimensions could considerably contribute to ocean citizenship and stewardship, including other interest groups or resource users such as fishers [19].…”

“…However, objective scientific knowledge also supposedly came under scrutiny [24]. This critical perspective on the epistemilogicization has fueled coconstructive management approaches [25], among which the co-development of qualitative models [26] or mental mapping procedures [17] represent more recent approaches.…”

Marine Protected Areas: At the Crossroads of Nature Conservation and Fisheries Management

“…In this respect, Yletyinen et al (2018) investigated the driving factors and consequences of fishing strategy diversification among Swedish fishers within a first-of-its-kind social-ecological network study in a Baltic Sea fisheries context. Describing social-ecological networks via mental models, Schwermer et al (2021) examined coupled human-nature interactions in the Western Baltic cod fishery incorporating the perspectives of multiple stakeholder groups. These approaches could be used and adapted to further incorporate the human dimension (see above) in the often mainly ecologically driven marine policies, such as Natura 2000 and the CFP, as well as the MPA process in general.…”