Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 48(2): March 2022 coded based on the three knowledge types, and finally, the transcripts were coded based on emergent themes identified during the first two rounds of coding. RESULTS The following results are structured around the three types of knowledge presented earlier in the paper: system knowledge, target knowledge, and transfor- mative knowledge. Findings related to each of the types of knowledge are discussed below. System Knowledge Common among almost all the tools investigated was the sharing of system knowledge. In fact, this is stated as a primary goal of most of the e-tools. The type of system knowledge varied across the cases. However, certain patterns and overlaps in specific social-ecological information were observed. Before addressing these classifications of system knowledge, it is important to explain that ioby is an outlier. While it is not exchang- ing system knowledge, per se, a pillar of its platform is elevating the role of locally held system knowledge and creating pathways for action in communities. As an ioby representative explained, “We were kind of founded with the idea that neighbors know best,…but they often lack the resources…so we can really serve as a bridge for people who already have the ideas and have the network and have the motivation and need a foothold.” ioby’s model is built around the concept that there is a wealth of system knowledge within communities, and its platform helps build and share target and tran- sitional knowledge in order to operationalize change. We will examine ioby’s role in elevating and sharing locally held knowledge further when discussing tar- get and transitional knowledge. Structure and Function of UGI Several of the e-tools including the Natural Areas map, the NYC Street Tree map, and Visionmaker NYC focused on exchanging knowledge about the spatial distribution, ecological composition, and function of green infrastructure in New York City. These included the location, species, and size of trees; the location and ecological composition of natural areas; and the past and present ecological mosaic of the city at a landscape scale. Sharing this information was, for the 129 most part, motivated by the fact that the agency had a data set and saw value in sharing this data to the pub- lic. Furthermore, the developers of e-tools that were created by or related to the municipal government saw that there was value in open data, not only to edu- cate the public about UGI resources but also to create a more transparent relationship between UGI manag- ers and the public to drive data quality. As a developer of the NYC Street Tree map explained: “We all want to have up-to-date data on street trees. We can do that partly by surfacing it, sun lighting it and making sure it’s available in a way that people can really understand how it’s being used…so it’s really starting with the idea that the value in the data itself for managing the urban forest comes from making sure that more and more people are invested in how it’s being used.” The above quote illustrates an understanding that simply providing open data to the public does not cre- ate investment or accountability. The developers of the e-tool worked to present the data and develop functionalities in the tool that would foster interest and investment in the urban forest by its users. In addition to the content and configuration of UGI, 2 of the tools also focused on defining and describing threats to specific ecologies. The Natural Areas map outlines threats such as invasive species and herbivory. The Healthy Trees, Healthy Cities (HTHC) app presents a pest detection protocol devel- oped by the US Forest Service to help users identify and detect harmful pests that plague urban trees. Management Regimes The 2 e-tools developed by or in partnership with municipalities, the Natural Areas map and the NYC Street Tree map, also had a function of sharing data on the management of green infrastructure. In both cases, the two apparent goals of sharing this type of data were to create transparency in government and reveal the extent and necessity of these management activities. The developers explain that, often, the pub- lic perceives UGI such as trees as self-sustaining enti- ties. They expressed that in cities, many people don’t understand how highly planned and managed UGI is, as it resembles more “emergent” natural systems that people may be more familiar with. For this reason, sharing data on how much planning, effort, and fund- ing is needed to maintain various UGI was a key desired learning outcome for the users. ©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
