Dataset Information

The Actor in 4 dimensions: A relevant methodology to analyze local environmental governance and inform Ostrom's social-ecological systems framework.

ABSTRACT: This paper presents the Actor in 4 dimensions (A4D) model as a complementary tool to the Social-ecological systems framework (SESF) in order to better integrate individual and groups' representations into local environmental governance analysis. As the A4D is based on actors' representations of their social-ecological system (SES) and of its governance, it mainly informs the Actors subsystem of the SESF, even if it can also give useful insights for other framework's sub-systems. We define the SESF actor's sub-tiers and the corresponding A4D indicators and highlight the complementarity between both approaches in order to operationalize the SESF. This parallel is exemplified by the case of Maio island (a small-scale fishing community in Cape Verde). Our comparison also highlights other assets of the A4D methodology for the advancement of environmental governance's study. •The A4D allows actors' participation and discussion on the SES and analyses common and divergent discourses and values between actors.•The A4D points to power relations by integrating strong, weak and absent actors in its analysis.•By highlighting subjective and reflexive elements, the A4D complements the SESF in their common attempt to analyze SES.

SUBMITTER: Dancette R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6700404 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Actor in 4 dimensions: A relevant methodology to analyze local environmental governance and inform Ostrom's social-ecological systems framework.

Dancette Raphaëlle R Sebastien Léa L

MethodsX 20190731

This paper presents the Actor in 4 dimensions (A4D) model as a complementary tool to the Social-ecological systems framework (SESF) in order to better integrate individual and groups' representations into local environmental governance analysis. As the A4D is based on actors' representations of their social-ecological system (SES) and of its governance, it mainly informs the <i>Actors</i> subsystem of the SESF, even if it can also give useful insights for other framework's sub-systems. We define ...[more]

PMID: 31453115

Similar Datasets

Project description:Non-technical summaryOur analysis shows that the framing of social vulnerability is shaped by a narrow definition of resilience, focusing on post-disaster return and recovery responses. This perspective does not account for the dynamism and non-stationarity of social-ecological systems (SES) which is becoming increasingly important in the face of accelerating environmental change. Incorporating social-ecological resilience into social vulnerability analysis can improve coastal governance by accounting for adaptation and transformation, as well as scale and cross-scale interactions.Technical summarySocial vulnerability analysis has been unable to deliver outcomes that reflect the reality of vulnerability and its consequences in an era characterised by accelerating environmental change. In this work, we used critical discourse analysis and key informant interviews to understand different framings of social vulnerability in coastal governance and management, globally and in New Zealand. We found that the framing of system vulnerability could vary depending on the definition of resilience adopted, which has critical ramifications for coastal governance of linked systems of humans and nature. We found that the framing of social vulnerability in coastal governance is mainly influenced by engineering, community and disaster resilience, focusing on return and recovery governance responses to environmental change (e.g. hurricanes, wildfires). Instead, we suggest a novel perspective based on social-ecological resilience, which more accurately reflects the dynamics of linked systems of humans and nature (SES). This revised perspective, general vulnerability, accounts for the dynamics of Earth's systems across various spatial and temporal scales in the face of accelerating environmental change. Accounting for social-ecological resilience and its core aspects (i.e. panarchy, adaptation and transformation) is essential for informing coastal governance of SES (Do we adapt? or Do we transform the SES?).Social media summarySocial-ecological resilience is essential for social vulnerability analysis in the face of accelerating environmental change.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Health research has scientific, social and political impacts. To achieve such impacts, several institutions need to participate; however, health research funding institutions are seldom nominated in the literature as essential players. The attention they have received has so far focused mainly on their role in knowledge translation, informing policy-making and the need to organise health research systems. In this article, we will focus solely on the governance of national health research funding institutions. Our objectives are to identify the main functions of governance for such institutions and actionable governance functions. This research should be useful in several ways, including in highlighting, tracking and measuring the governance trends in a given funding institution, and to forestall low-level governance. METHODS:First, we reviewed existing frameworks in the grey literature, selecting seven relevant documents. Second, we developed an integrated framework for health research funding institution governance and management. Third, we extracted actionable information for governance by selecting a mix of North American, European and Asian institutions that had documentation available in English (e.g. annual report, legal status, strategy). RESULTS:The framework contains 13 functions - 5 dedicated to governance (intelligence acquisition, resourcing and instrumentation, relationships management, accountability and performance, and strategy formulation), 3 dedicated to management (priority-setting, financing and knowledge transfer), and 5 dedicated to transversal logics that apply to both governance and management (ethics, transparency, capacity reinforcement, monitoring and evaluation, and public engagement). CONCLUSIONS:Herein, we provide a conceptual contribution for scholars in the field of governance and health research as well as a practical contribution, with actionable functions for high-level managers in charge of the governance of health research funding institutions.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Designing implementation interventions to change the behaviour of healthcare providers and other professionals in the health system requires detailed specification of the behaviour(s) targeted for change to ensure alignment between intervention components and measured outcomes. Detailed behaviour specification can help to clarify evidence-practice gaps, clarify who needs to do what differently, identify modifiable barriers and enablers, design interventions to address these and ultimately provides an indicator of what to measure to evaluate an intervention's effect on behaviour change. An existing behaviour specification framework proposes four domains (Target, Action, Context, Time; TACT), but insufficiently clarifies who is performing the behaviour (i.e. the Actor). Specifying the Actor is especially important in healthcare settings characterised by multiple behaviours performed by multiple different people. We propose and describe an extension and re-ordering of TACT to enhance its utility to implementation intervention designers, practitioners and trialists: the Action, Actor, Context, Target, Time (AACTT) framework. We aim to demonstrate its application across key steps of implementation research and to provide tools for its use in practice to clarify the behaviours of stakeholders across multiple levels of the healthcare system. METHODS AND RESULTS:We used French et al.'s four-step implementation process model to describe the potential applications of the AACTT framework for (a) clarifying who needs to do what differently, (b) identifying barriers and enablers, (c) selecting fit-for-purpose intervention strategies and components and (d) evaluating implementation interventions. CONCLUSIONS:Describing and detailing behaviour using the AACTT framework may help to enhance measurement of theoretical constructs, inform development of topic guides and questionnaires, enhance the design of implementation interventions and clarify outcome measurement for evaluating implementation interventions.

Project description:BackgroundGrowing interest in public involvement in health research has led to organisational and policy change. Additionally, an emerging body of policy-oriented scholarship has begun to identify the organisational and network arrangements that shape public involvement activity. Such developments suggest the need to clearly conceptualise and characterise public involvement in health research in terms of governance.MethodsWe drew on an established health research system framework to analyse governance functions related to public involvement, adapting scoping review methods to identify evidence from a corpus of journal papers and policy reports. We drew on the logics of aggregation and top down configuration, using a qualitative interpretive approach to combine and link findings from different studies into framework categories.ResultsWe identified a total of 32 scholarly papers and 13 policy reports (n = 45 included papers) with relevance to governance for public involvement. Included papers were broadly consonant in identifying the need for activity to specify and support public involvement across all four governance functions of stewardship, financing, creating and sustaining resources, and research production and use. However, different visions for public involvement, and the activity required to implement it and achieve impact, were particularly evident with respect to the stewardship function, which seeks to set overall directions for research while addressing the potentially competing demands of a system's many constituents.ConclusionsA governance perspective has considerable value for public involvement in health research systems, supporting efforts to coordinate and institutionalise the burgeoning public involvement enterprise. Furthermore, it highlights challenges for what is, ultimately, a highly political intervention, suggesting that diverse publics must be both involved within health research systems and enrolled as governors of them.

Dataset Information

The Actor in 4 dimensions: A relevant methodology to analyze local environmental governance and inform Ostrom's social-ecological systems framework.

Publications

The Actor in 4 dimensions: A relevant methodology to analyze local environmental governance and inform Ostrom's social-ecological systems framework.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets