132 DISCUSSION Across the 6 e-tools, all of which focus on UGI manage- ment by stewards in New York City, we find evidence of all three types of knowledge being exchanged, with most interactions focused on the uptake of systems knowledge. Tool creators viewed systems knowledge as a precursor to target and transformative knowl- edge, suggesting familiarity with place and situation is needed before acting. The development of target knowledge was an aspiration for some tools, while others created intentional activities and platforms that allowed users to share their own targets and browse the vision of others. Finally, 2 tools engage with transformative knowledge by creating platforms to share information on how to make change. Below, these results are discussed and framed by the various processes of knowledge exchange. Knowledge Brokering and Curation Many of the e-tools serve as digital knowledge bro- kers by synthesizing knowledge from various sources to build a knowledge pool and making it more widely accessible. As Bodin et al. (2006) explain, brokers play the role of “translating” knowledge across networks and they are not just sharers of knowledge but also producers of a new kind of “brokered knowledge.” Some of the cases act as passive knowledge brokers in that they synthesize knowledge from various groups and allow for users to create connections between themselves if they so desire. STEW-MAP allows users to search and find contact information for groups with whom they may want to connect. The NYC Street Tree map can also connect individual stewards to local organizations who are equipped with resources to support stewards. In this way, both maps are not directly making connections, but rather providing a directory of sorts that allows groups to connect across the network. ioby acts as a more “active” knowledge broker by matchmaking between knowledge holders and project leaders. ioby uses its online platform to broker and operationalize community-generated knowl- edge. In some of these cases, knowledge can be shared through both the use of the e-tool itself and by strengthening existing off-line networks. ioby, STEW- MAP, and the NYC Street Tree map are creating spaces for existing networks of stewards and community activists to network with and learn from one another. One of the key functions of social-ecological memory is the perpetuation of continuity in an SES, ©2022 International Society of Arboriculture Plitt et al: Assessing the Potential of E-Tools for Urban Green Infrastructure which is a key factor for maintaining urban ecosys- tem health (Andersson and Barthel 2016). Many of the cases could be seen as assisting in maintaining ecosystem continuity through the collection and dis- semination of data describing the social-ecological system. Visionmaker NYC, for example, allows users to see the historical landscape ecology of NYC while imagining their own ecological designs. The digitiza- tion and distribution of this historical data serve as one method of preserving knowledge of ecological functioning. Furthermore, the publicly stored collec- tive visions of users can be seen as another format of knowledge now stored in a digital “cloud memory.” E-tools have the potential to create new pathways for linking current and future land use to longer time frames and larger scales and processes through the documentation, digitization, and dissemination of social-ecological data. However, as Andersson and Barthel (2016) warn, “In the current time of fast change and easy access to ‘knowledge,’ some social networks of information and some types of ideologies often become dominant in highly politicized situations.” Certainly, some of the e-tools have the potential to dominate other forms of knowledge such as local tacit or other scientific knowledge due to their highly accessible nature, and their utility as memory carriers should be further studied to avoid losing redundancy within the SES. Knowledge Accessibility A large amount of system knowledge is available to users on the e-tools, much of which could inform cur- rent or potential stewards of UGI. Digital tools have the advantage of hosting large amounts of complex data, often reflecting systems knowledge, and are accessible to many more people across space and time in comparison with more traditional “analog” forms of exchanging knowledge about social-ecological systems such as trainings, workshops, and peer-to-peer learning (Anderson 2008). This is of particular inter- est because stewards tend to be a fairly homogenous group in NYC (Fisher et al. 2010), which can lead to an inequitable distribution of UGI resources. There- fore, e-tools have the potential to share knowledge between people of more diverse demographic and socioeconomic statuses and drive more equitable dis- tribution of UGI. However, the complex and data-rich environments created by some of the e-tools may not encourage
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
