126 Plitt et al: Assessing the Potential of E-Tools for Urban Green Infrastructure but also the production of knowledge. Coproduction of knowledge is a process that can be nested under knowledge exchange and implies a process through which knowledge is produced through interaction with others. It often emphasizes the cooperation and the inclusion of multiple perspectives and backgrounds (Fazey et al. 2013). It is a term that allows for the inclusion of political goals, expectations, and societal norms that are inseparable from ways of knowing or accumulated knowledge (Muñoz-Erickson 2014). Knowledge brokers, which Bodin et al. (2006) describe as organizations or individuals that “gain access to many pieces of group-specific information captured inside the different groups, which allows the broker to synthesize a large knowledge pool…[and know] which groups or individuals to connect, how to con- nect them, and when,” can play a key role in knowl- edge coproduction within networks of diverse actors. How knowledge is exchanged can also affect how knowledge is accessed, consumed, generated, and applied. Science communication has traditionally focused on the information deficit model, whereby knowledge is disseminated in a one-way exchange (Ockwell et al. 2009). However, increasing knowledge coproduction opportunities, recognizing knowledge brokers, and increasing digital communication tools now offer two-way exchanges that can incorporate multiple voices and ways of knowing (Tengö et al. 2017; Falco and Kleinhans 2019; Norström et al. 2020). As such, civic science endeavors, which coproduce knowledge, offer a path forward for more effective science exchange (Simis et al. 2016). Urban Environmental Stewardship and Knowledge Civil society actors, or stewards, who engage in car- ing for local nature are often vital for the management of green infrastructure in cities (Connolly et al. 2013; Andersson et al. 2014). Urban environmental steward- ship (UES) practices such as community gardening, neighborhood tree planting, and habitat restoration help provision ES and maintain biodiversity in cities (Goddard et al. 2010; Pataki et al. 2011; Sassen and Dotan 2011; Elmqvist et al. 2013; Krasny et al. 2014). Further, active engagement in UES may lead to posi- tive outcomes for participants and their communities (Barthel 2006; Krasny and Tidball 2012; Andersson et al. 2014) and contribute to a larger civic environ- mental movement (Sirianni and Friedland 2005). ©2022 International Society of Arboriculture However, the capacity to actively steward is enabled by possessing all three types of knowledge, and in an increasingly modern society, urban residents may lack the experience, knowledge, skills, and access to engage in stewardship. Peçanha Enqvist et al. (2018) conceptualize stew- ardship across dimensions of knowledge, care, and agency, defining knowledge as basic information about the SES, drawn from a variety of knowledge systems (e.g., Western science, Indigenous knowledge, expe- riential knowledge). Literature suggests that UES knowledge is shared and exchanged at the interper- sonal level and through embodied experiences. McMillen et al. (2016) observed that community gar- den stewards shared and produced knowledge relating to horticultural practices, culinary expertise, and gar- den construction through a diverse process of collective communication, experimentation, and cooperation between gardeners. UES knowledge has also been described as collectively held memories about the structure, function, and/or change over time of the given landscape (Barthel et al. 2010). This “social -ecological memory” can be transferred between individuals and groups across spatial scales and over time through carriers. These carriers can include hab- its and routines; oral traditions; rules, regulations, and norms; physical artifacts; and external sources of knowledge (Andersson and Barthel 2016). In a study of stewardship knowledge exchanges, Silva (2017) found that stewards construct knowledge about prac- tices through their work, but that issues such as the prevalence of transient volunteers and staff result in knowledge transfer loss. Silva also found that it was difficult for stewards to internalize knowledge from outside sources, particularly if there was too much information offered at once or the knowledge could not be directly applied to stewardship practices. Digital Learning Environments There is a growing concern about the disconnect of urban, digitalized residents and the dynamics of the biosphere—in cities and outside—expressed as an ongoing extinction of experience (Soga and Gaston 2016) and a decreased feeling of agency over the local environment (Andersson et al. 2017). At the same time, technological solutions have the potential to dis- seminate and produce knowledge about UGI and offer a novel platform for participation in environmental management and decision-making (Møller et al. 2018).
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
