Matching Items (4)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

152323-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Sustainability visioning (i.e. the construction of sustainable future states) is considered an important component of sustainability research, for instance, in transformational sustainability science or in planning for urban sustainability. Visioning frees sustainability research from the dominant focus on analyzing problem constellations and opens it towards positive contributions to social innovation

Sustainability visioning (i.e. the construction of sustainable future states) is considered an important component of sustainability research, for instance, in transformational sustainability science or in planning for urban sustainability. Visioning frees sustainability research from the dominant focus on analyzing problem constellations and opens it towards positive contributions to social innovation and transformation. Calls are repeatedly made for visions that can guide us towards sustainable futures. Scattered across a broad range of fields (i.e. business, non-government organization, land-use management, natural resource management, sustainability science, urban and regional planning) are an abundance of visioning studies. However, among the few evaluative studies in the literature there are apparent deficits in both the research and practice of visioning that curtails our expectations and prospects of realizing process-based and product-derived outcomes. These deficits suggests that calls instead should focus on the development of applied and theoretical understanding of crafting sustainability visions, enhancing the rigor and robustness of visioning methodology, and on integrating practice, research, and education for collaborative sustainability visioning. From an analysis of prominent visioning and sustainability visioning studies in the literature, this dissertation articulates what is sustainability visioning and synthesizes a conceptual framework for criteria-based design and evaluation of sustainability visioning studies. While current visioning methodologies comply with some of these guidelines, none adhere to all of them. From this research, a novel sustainability visioning methodology is designed to address this gap to craft visions that are shared, systemic, principles-based, action-oriented, relevant, and creative (i.e. SPARC visioning methodology) and evaluated across all quality criteria. Empirical studies were conducted to test and apply the conceptual and methodological frameworks -- with an emphasis on enhancing the rigor and robustness in real world visioning processes for urban planning and teaching sustainability competencies. In-depth descriptions of the collaborative visioning studies demonstrate tangible outcomes for: (a) implementing the above sustainability visioning methodology, including evaluative procedures; (b) adopting meaningful interactive engagement procedures; (c) integrating advanced analytical modeling, sustainability appraisal, and creativity enhancing procedures; and (d) developing perspective and methodological capacity for long-range sustainability planning.
ContributorsIwaniec, David (Author) / Wiek, Arnim (Thesis advisor) / Childers, Daniel L. (Committee member) / Lant, Timothy (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013
154066-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Landscape restoration is a global priority as evidenced by the United Nations’ 2020 goal to restore 150 million hectares of land worldwide. Restoration is particularly needed in estuaries and their watersheds as society depends on these environments for numerous benefits. Estuary restoration is often undermined by social-ecological scale mismatch, the

Landscape restoration is a global priority as evidenced by the United Nations’ 2020 goal to restore 150 million hectares of land worldwide. Restoration is particularly needed in estuaries and their watersheds as society depends on these environments for numerous benefits. Estuary restoration is often undermined by social-ecological scale mismatch, the incongruence between governing units and the bio-physical resources they seek to govern. Despite growing recognition of this fact, few empirical studies focus on scale mismatches in environmental restoration work. Using a sub-basin of Puget Sound, Washington, U.S.A., I analyze scale mismatches in estuary restoration. I take a network science approach because governance networks can bridge scale mismatches. I combine quantitative social network analysis (SNA), geographic information systems (GIS), and qualitative interview analysis.

Spatial network analysis reveals several areas with weak scale mismatch bridging networks. These weak social networks are then compared to ecological restoration needs to identify coupled social-ecological restoration concerns. Subsequent study investigates jurisdictional and sectoral network integration because governance siloes contribute to scale mismatch. While the network is fairly well integrated, several sectors do not interact or interact very little. An analysis of collaboration reasons disentangles the idea of generic collaboration. Among three relationship types considered, mandated relationships contribute almost 5.5 times less to perceived collaboration productivity than shared interest relationships, highlighting the benefits of true collaborations in watershed governance. Lastly, the effects of scale mismatch on individual restoration projects and landscape level restoration planning are assessed through qualitative interview analysis. Results illustrate why human-environment processes should be included in landscape restoration planning. Social factors are not considered as constraints to restoration but rather part of the very landscape fabric to be restored. Scale mismatch is conceptualized as a complex social-ecological landscape pattern that affects the flow of financial, human, and natural capital across the landscape. This represents a new way of thinking about scale mismatch and landscape restoration in complex multi-level governance systems. In addition, the maps, network diagnostics, and narratives in this dissertation can help practitioners in Puget Sound and provide proofs of concepts that can be replicated elsewhere for restoration and broader conservation sciences.
ContributorsSayles, Jesse Saemann (Author) / Turner II, B L (Thesis advisor) / Childers, Daniel L. (Committee member) / Janssen, Marco A (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2015
157791-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Sustainability research and action in communities should be holistic, integrating sociocultural, biogeophysical, and spiritual components and their temporal and spatial dynamics toward the aim of co-creating thriving living systems. Yet scientists and practitioners still struggle with such integration. Regenerative development (RD) offers a way forward. RD focuses on shifting the

Sustainability research and action in communities should be holistic, integrating sociocultural, biogeophysical, and spiritual components and their temporal and spatial dynamics toward the aim of co-creating thriving living systems. Yet scientists and practitioners still struggle with such integration. Regenerative development (RD) offers a way forward. RD focuses on shifting the consciousness and thinking underlying (un)sustainability as well as their manifestation in the physical world, creating increasingly higher levels of health and vitality for all life across scales. However, tools are nascent and relatively insular. Until recently, no empirical scientific research studies had been published on RD processes and outcomes.

My dissertation fills this gap in three complementary studies. The first is an integrative review that contextualizes regenerative development within the fields of sustainability, sustainable design and development, and ecology by identifying its conceptual elements and introducing a regenerative landscape development paradigm. The second study integrates complex adaptive systems science, ecology, sustainability, and regenerative development to construct and pilot the first iteration of a holistic sustainable development evaluation tool—the Regenerative Development Evaluation Tool—in two river restoration projects. The third study builds upon the first two, integrating scientific knowledge with existing RD and sustainable community design and development practices and theory to construct and pilot a Regenerative Community Development (RCD) Framework. Results indicate that the RCD Framework and Tools, when used within a regenerative landscape development paradigm, can facilitate: (1) shifts in thinking and development and design outcomes to holistic and regenerative ones; (2) identification of areas where development and design projects can become more regenerative and ways to do so; and (3) identification of factors that potentially facilitate and impede RCD processes. Overall, this research provides a direction and tools for holistic sustainable development as well as foundational studies for further research.
ContributorsGibbons, Leah Veronica (Author) / Cloutier, Scott A (Thesis advisor) / Coseo, Paul J (Committee member) / Childers, Daniel L. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2019
157750-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Participatory approaches to policy-making and research are thought to “open up” technical decision-making to broader considerations, empower diverse public audiences, and inform policies that address pluralistic public goods. Many studies of participatory efforts focus on specific features or outcomes of those efforts, such as the format of a participatory event

Participatory approaches to policy-making and research are thought to “open up” technical decision-making to broader considerations, empower diverse public audiences, and inform policies that address pluralistic public goods. Many studies of participatory efforts focus on specific features or outcomes of those efforts, such as the format of a participatory event or the opinions of participants. While valuable, such research has not resolved conceptual problems and critiques of participatory efforts regarding, for example, their reinforcement of expert perspectives or their inability to impact policy- and decision-making. I studied two participatory efforts using survey data collected from participants, interviews with policy makers and experts associated with each project, and an analysis of project notes, meeting minutes, and my own personal reflections about each project. Both projects were based one type of participatory effort called Participatory Technology Assessment (pTA). I examined how project goals, materials, and the values, past experiences, and judgments of practitioners influenced decisions that shaped two participatory efforts to better understand how practitioners approached the challenges associated with participatory efforts.

I found four major themes that influenced decisions about these projects: Promoting learning; building capacity to host pTA events; fostering good deliberation; and policy relevance. Project organizers engaged in iterative discussions to negotiate how learning goals related to dominant ideas from policy and expert communities and frequently reflected on the impact of participatory efforts on participants and on broader socio-political systems. Practitioners chose to emphasize criteria for deliberation that were flexible and encompassing. They relied heavily on internal discussions about materials and format, and on feedback collected from participants, policy makers, and other stakeholders, to shape both projects, though some decisions resulted in unexpected and undesirable outcomes for participant discussions and policy relevance. Past experience played a heavy role in many decisions about participatory format and concerns about deliberative or participatory theory were only nominally present. My emphasis on understanding the practice of participatory efforts offers a way to reframe research on participatory efforts away from studying ‘moments’ of participation to studying the larger role participatory efforts play in socio-political systems.
ContributorsWeller, Nicholas, Ph.D (Author) / Childers, Daniel L. (Thesis advisor) / Bennett, Ira (Committee member) / Coseo, Paul (Committee member) / Klinsky, Sonja (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2019