|
|
|
PDF
|
|
Type:
|
Journal Article |
|
Author:
|
Lynam, Timothy; Mathevet, Raphael; Etienne, Michel; Stone-Jovicich, Samantha; Leitch, Anne; Jones, Natalie; Ross, Helen; Toit, Derick Du; Pollard, Sharon; Biggs, Harry; Perez, Pascal |
|
Journal:
|
Ecology and Society |
|
Volume:
|
17 |
|
Page(s):
|
|
|
Date:
|
2012 |
|
URI:
|
https://hdl.handle.net/10535/8569
|
|
Sector:
|
Theory
Water Resource & Irrigation |
|
Region:
|
Africa
Europe |
|
Subject(s):
|
consensus
water management
human-environment interaction
modeling
|
|
Abstract:
|
"Although the broad concept of mental models is gaining currency as a way to explore the link between how people think and interact with their world, this concept is limited by a theoretical and practical understanding of how it can be applied in the study of human-environment relationships. Tools and processes are needed to be able to elicit and analyze mental models. Because mental models are not directly observable, it is also important to understand how the application of any tools and processes affects what is measured. Equally important are the needs to be clear on the intent of the elicitation and to design the methods and choose the settings accordingly. Through this special edition, we explore how mental models are elicited using two approaches applied in two case-study regions. We analyze two approaches used in the Crocodile River catchment of South Africa: a graphically based approach, i.e., actors, resources, dynamics, and interactions (ARDI); and an interview- or text-based approach, i.e., consensus analysis (CA). A further experiment in the Rhone Delta (Camargue), France, enabled us to test a cross-over between these two methods using ARDI methodology to collect data and CA to analyse it. Here, we compare and explore the limitations and challenges in applying these two methods in context and conclude that they have much to offer when used singly or in combination. We first develop a conceptual framework as a synthesis of key social and cognitive psychology literature. We then use this framework to guide the enquiry into the key lessons emerging from the comparative application of these approaches to eliciting mental models in the two case regions. We identify key gaps in our knowledge and suggest important research questions that remain to be addressed."
|