Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 48(2): March 2022 Knowledge in the context of this paper refers to the information about and understanding of the stewarded social-ecological system (SES). It also encompasses the concept of learning or the capacity to respond to and internalize system dynamics (Cundill et al. 2015). Traditionally, conventional scientific methods are the most widely recognized sources of knowledge for the planning and managing of UGI (Chapin et al. 2009; Hansen 2014). However, a growing body of literature explores and acknowledges the validity and impor- tance of more diverse knowledge systems. Local and Indigenous knowledge are now understood as key com- ponents for understanding and improving the gover- nance of ecosystems (Yli-Pelkonen and Kohl 2005; Ballard et al. 2008; Tengö et al. 2014; Whyte et al. 2016). Additionally, tacit, or experiential, knowledge, or knowledge gained from hands-on practice, is also understood as a key product of and means for stew- ardship (Cooke et al. 2016; Silva 2017). Sustainability transformation literature offers an extended typology of knowledge, referring to system, target, and trans- formative knowledge (Hadorn et al. 2006). In order to investigate and classify the knowledge exchanged using e-tools, we employ here a conception of knowledge systems (Partelow and Winkler 2016) focused on these three knowledge types and also drawing upon Elinor Ostrom’s diagnostic SES framework (Ostrom 2009). Partelow and Winkler (2016) apply these knowl- edge types to discuss what actors and change makers need to know to engage with or make changes to the system, which is often the goal of such e-tools. The three knowledge types are defined as follows (Figure 1): 125 System knowledge is objective knowledge of social- ecological subsystems and components as well as their interactions, functions, processes, and interrelated dynamics, including aspects in relation to risk, uncer- tainty, and resilience (Partelow and Winkler 2016). System knowledge can be thought of as more “tradi- tional” scientific-technical conceptions of the SES. This knowledge type is crucial for the governance of SES (Primmer et al. 2015), particularly when it can help to identify trade-offs between management for and production of various ES (de Groot et al. 2010). Target knowledge can be described as subjective perspectives and deliberative and/or experienced knowledge relating to the implications, targets, visions, desired directions, and outcomes for SES. This can include the concepts of human well-being, conserva- tion, justice, ethics, efficiency, and sustainability goals (Partelow and Winkler 2016). Target knowledge relates to system knowledge as it transitions beyond the under- standing of the SES toward playing a more operative role in society (Fischer et al. 2015). Target knowledge tends to be understood more at the local scale, as it is often iterated in the process of discussion and decision- making between local stakeholders. This type of knowledge helps to inform “socially relevant and accepted decisions” (Partelow and Winkler 2016) that would be challenging to formulate using system knowl- edge alone. Transformative knowledge is defined as the action- able pathways for implementing SES change and/or target knowledge through normative mechanisms such as policy, decision-making, education, commu- nication, participation, and motivation (Partelow and Winkler 2016). In a planning context, transformative knowledge can be used as a mechanism to help varied stakeholders realize different values and perspectives and demonstrate particular needs (Hauck et al. 2013; Karrasch et al. 2014). Figure 1. Three types of social-ecological system (SES) knowledge. This figure shows three classifications of knowl- edge as defined by Partelow and Winkler (2016). The knowl- edge types are not a hierarchy; they can exist in a system independent of one another, but considering the interplay between the three types of knowledge allows for an enriched understanding of an SES. Communicating and Exchanging Knowledge The effectiveness of any accumulated knowledge in a system depends greatly on how it is exchanged, who exchanges it, and how it is used. Here, we use the bidirectional term “knowledge exchange” in the place of learning, as it describes all “processes that gener- ate, share and/or use knowledge through various methods appropriate to the context, purpose, and par- ticipants involved” (Fazey et al. 2013). Specifically, this term encompasses both the sharing of knowledge ©2022 International Society of Arboriculture
March 2022
| Title Name |
Pages |
Delete |
Url |
| Empty |
Ai generated response may be inaccurate.
Search Text Block
Page #page_num
#doc_title
Hi $receivername|$receiveremail,
$sendername|$senderemail wrote these comments for you:
$message
$sendername|$senderemail would like for you to view the following digital edition.
Please click on the page below to be directed to the digital edition:
$thumbnail$pagenum
$link$pagenum
Your form submission was a success.
Downloading PDF
Generating your PDF, please wait...
This process might take longer please wait
