Emerging Stakeholder Relations in Participatory ICT Design: Renegotiating the Boundaries of Sociotechnical Innovation in Forest Biosecurity Surveillance
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Citizen-Enhanced General Surveillance
1.2. Applied Social Research in Biosecurity Technologies
1.3. Designing New Technologies with Stakeholders
2. Background
2.1. New Zealand’s Biosecurity System
2.2. Enhancing Biosecurity Surveillance
Research Aims
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Processes Developed
- Building skills for engaging stakeholders
- Offering practical experience of research
- Connecting through existing networks.
3.2. Data Collection Methods
4. Results
4.1. Conceptual Models
4.1.1. A Description of the Future-Realist Model
4.1.2. Stakeholder Engagement in Technology Design
4.2. General Surveillance Workshop Outcomes
4.2.1. The Tool/Technology Platform
- Observer contact details
- Date/Time
- Location
- Image
- immediate reporting: engagement with the user, acknowledgement of submission, timely identification, ‘other’ observations, BNZ follow-up if required;
- longer-range reporting: performance reporting for a region or sector--context-sensitive to audience group/sector relevance, spatial location, regional/sector comparison, messaging/alert effectiveness.
4.2.2. Exploring Existing Networks
4.3. Post-Workshop Potential User Survey
A Generic Users’ Model
4.4. A Rationale for the Constructionist Engagement Framework
5. Discussion
5.1. Research Reflections
5.2. Implications
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
References
- O’Brien, L.; Marzano, M.; White, R.M. ‘Participatory interdisciplinarity’: Towards the integration of disciplinary diversity with stakeholder engagement for new models of knowledge production. Sci. Public Policy 2013, 40, 51–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marzano, M.; White, R.; Jones, G. Enhancing socio-technological innovation for tree health through stakeholder participation in biosecurity science. In Human Dimensions in Forest and Tree Health; Urquhart, J., Potter, C., Marzano, M., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- White, R.M.; Young, J.; Marzano, M.; Leahy, S. Prioritising stakeholder engagement for forest health, across spatial, temporal and governance scales, in an era of austerity. For. Ecol. Manag. 2018, 417, 313–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hill, L.; Jones, G.; Atkinson, N.; Hector, A.; Hemery, G.; Brown, N. The £15 billion cost of ash dieback in Britain. Curr. Biol. 2019, 29, R315–R316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marzano, M.; White, R.; Jones, G. A Learning Platform for early detection of tree pests and pathogens: Excellent theory, challenging in practice? In Proceedings of the RGS-IBG Annual International Conference, London, UK, 30 August–2 September 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Strand, T.; Rolando, C.; Richardson, B.; Gous, S.; Bader, M.; Hammond, D. An aerial spot-spraying technique: A pilot study to test a method for pest eradication in urban environments. Springerplus 2014, 3, 750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lambert, S.; Waipara, N.; Black, A.; Mark-Shadbolt, M.; Wood, W. Indigenous Biosecurity: Māori Responses to Kauri Dieback and Myrtle Rust in Aotearoa New Zealand. In The Human Dimensions of Forest and Tree Health: Global Perspectives; Urquhart, J., Marzano, M., Potter, C., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 109–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Black, A.; Mark-Shadbolt, M.; Garner, G.; Green, J.; Malcolm, T.; Marsh, A.; Ropata, H.; Waipara, N.; Wood, W. How an Indigenous community responded to the incursion and spread of myrtle rust (Austropuccinia psidii) that threatens culturally significant plant species—A case study from New Zealand. Pac. Conserv. Biol. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carnegie, A.; Nahrung, H. Post-Border Forest Biosecurity in Australia: Response to Recent Exotic Detections, Current Surveillance and Ongoing Needs. Forests 2019, 10, 336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stenlid, J.; Oliva, J.; Boberg, J.; Hopkins, A. Emerging Diseases in European Forest Ecosystems and Responses in Society. Forests 2011, 2, 486–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mills, P.; Dehnen-Schmutz, K.; Ilbery, B.; Jeger, M.; Jones, G.; Little, R.; MacLeod, A.; Parker, S.; Pautasso, M.; Pietravalle, S.; et al. Integrating natural and social science perspectives on plant disease risk, management and policy formulation. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2011, 366, 2035–2044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vaz, A.S.; Kueffer, C.; Kull, C.A.; Richardson, D.M.; Schindler, S.; Munoz-Pajares, A.J.; Vicente, J.R.; Martins, J.; Hui, C.; Kuhn, I.; et al. The progress of interdisciplinarity in invasion science. Ambio 2017, 46, 428–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Vitousek, P.M.; D’Antonio, C.M.D.; Loope, L.L.; Rejmanek, M.; Westbrooks, R. Introduced species: A signficant component of human-caused global change. N. Z. J. Ecol. 1997, 21, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
- Luizza, M.; Wakie, T.; Evangelista, P.; Jarnevich, C. Integrating local pastoral knowledge, participatory mapping, and species distribution modeling for risk assessment of invasive rubber vine (Cryptostegia grandiflora) in Ethiopia’s Afar region. Ecol. Soc. 2016, 21, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- N’Guyen, A.; Hirsch, P.E.; Adrian-Kalchhauser, I.; Burkhardt-Holm, P. Improving invasive species management by integrating priorities and contributions of scientists and decision makers. Ambio 2016, 45, 280–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Marzano, M.; Fuller, L.; Quine, C. Barriers to management of tree diseases: Framing perspectives of pinewood managers around Dothistroma Needle Blight. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 188, 238–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Biosecurity Act. Power of Inspection; Biosecurity Act: Wellington, New Zealand, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Shackleton, R.T.; Richardson, D.M.; Shackleton, C.M.; Bennett, B.; Crowley, S.L.; Dehnen-Schmutz, K.; Estevez, R.A.; Fischer, A.; Kueffer, C.; Kull, C.A.; et al. Explaining people’s perceptions of invasive alien species: A conceptual framework. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 229, 10–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- MPI. Government Industry Agreement for Biosecurity Readiness and Response: Annual Report 2017/2018; GIA Secretariat: Pastoral House, Wellington, New Zealand, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Ogilvie, S.; McCarthy, A.; Allen, W.; Grant, A.; Mark-Shadbolt, M.; Pawson, S.; Richardson, B.; Strand, T.; Langer, E.R.L.; Marzano, M. Unmanned aerial vehicles and biosecurity: Enabling participatory-design to help address social licence to operate issues. Forests 2019, 10, 695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jasanoff, S. Future imperfect: Science, technology, and the imaginations of modernity. In Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power; Jasanoff, J., Kim, S., Eds.; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2015; pp. 1–33. [Google Scholar]
- Sein, M.; Henfridsson, O.; Purao, S.; Rossi, M.; Lindgren, R. Action design research. MIS Q. 2011, 35, 37–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kampf, C. Extending Sociotechnical Design to Project Conception: Knowledge Communication Processes for Situating Technology. Int. J. Sociotechnol. Knowl. Dev. (IJSKD) 2009, 1, 47–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarat St Peter, H. Communicating User Experience: “Wicked” Problems, Patchwork Personas, and the ICTD Project Lifecycle. Int. J. Sociotechnol. Knowl. Dev. (IJSKD) 2015, 7, 14–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mulgan, G. The process of social innovation. Innovations 2006, 1, 145–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mulgan, G.; Tucker, S.; Rushanara, A.; Sanders, B. Social Innovation: What Is It, Why It Matters and How It Can Be Accelerated; Said Business School: Oxford, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Geels, F.W. The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2011, 1, 24–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Trade Organization. The WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement): Text of the Agreement; World Trade Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- International Plant Portection Convention, Secretarial. Framework for pest risk analysis. In International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, ISPM 2; Food and Agriculture Orgnaisation of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Goldson, S.L.; Bourdôt, G.W.; Brockerhoff, E.G.; Byrom, A.E.; Clout, M.N.; McGlone, M.S.; Nelson, W.A.; Popay, A.J.; Suckling, D.M.; Templeton, M.D. New Zealand pest management: Current and future challenges. J. R. Soc. N. Z. 2015, 45, 31–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Acosta, H.; White, P. Atlas of Biosecurity Surveillance; Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry: Wellington, New Zealand, 2011.
- Brockerhoff, E.; Liebhold, A.; Richardson, B.; Suckling, D. Eradication of invasive forest insects: Concepts, methods, costs and benefits. N. Z. J. For. Sci. 2010, 40, S117–S135. [Google Scholar]
- Liebhold, A.; Berec, L.; Brockerhoff, E.; Epanchin-Niell, R.; Hastings, A.; Herms, D.E.A. Eradication of Invading Insect Populations: From Concepts to Applications. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2016, 61, 335–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Cooney, R.; Lang, A. Taking Uncertainty Seriously: Adaptive Governance and International Trade. Eur. J. Int. Law 2007, 18, 523–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colunga-Garcia, M.; Haack, R.; Magarey, R.; Borchert, D. Understanding trade pathways to target biosecurity surveillance. NeoBiota 2013, 18, 103–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marzano, M.; Allen, W.; Haight, R.; Holmes, T.; Keskitalo, E.C.H.; Langer, E.L.; Shadbolt, M.; Urquhart, J.; Dandy, N. The role of the social sciences and economics in understanding and informing tree biosecurity policy and planning: A global summary and synthesis. Biol. Invasions 2017, 19, 3317–3332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Potter, C.; Urquhart, J. Tree disease and pest epidemics in the Anthropocene: A review of the drivers, impacts and policy responses in the UK. For. Policy Econ. 2016, 79, 61–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Froud, K.; Oliver, T.; Bingham, P.; Flynn, A.; Rowswell, N. Passive surveillance of new exotic pests and diseases in New Zealand. In Surveillance for Biosecurity: Pre-Border to Pest Management; Froud, K.J., Popay, A.I., Zydenbos, S.M., Eds.; New Zealand Plant Protection Society: Paihia, New Zealand, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Zealand, B.N. Biosecurity2025 Direction Statement for New Zealand’s Biosecurity System; Ministry for Primary Industries—Manatū Ahu Matua; New Zealand Government: Wellington, New Zealand, 2016.
- Earl, L.; Gould, B.; Bullians, M.; Vink, D.; Acosta, H.; Stevens, P.; Bingham, P. Strengthening New Zealand’s passive surveillance system. In Proceedings of the Food Safety, Animal Welfare & Biosecurity, Epidemiology & Animal Health Management, and Industry Branches of the NZVA; VetLearn Foundation: Palmerston North, New Zealand, 2016; pp. 81–85. [Google Scholar]
- Allen, W.; Grant, A.; Earl, L.; MacLellan, R.; Waipara, N.; Mark-Shadbolt, M.; Ogilvie, S.; Langer, E.R.L.; Marzano, M. The use of rubrics to improve integration and engagement between biosecurity agencies and their key partners and stakeholders: A surveillance example. In Human Dimensions in Forest and Tree Health; Urquhart, J., Potter, C., Marzano, M., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Pidgeon, N.; Harthorn, B.; Satterfield, T. Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions and Communication: Emerging Technologies, Emerging Challenges. Risk Anal. 2011, 31, 1694–1700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogers-Hayden, T.; Pidgeon, N. Moving engagement “upstream”? Nanotechnologies and the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering’s inquiry. Public Underst. Sci. 2007, 16, 345–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wallis, P.J.; Bosomworth, K.; Harwood, A.; Leith, P. Charting the emergence of a ‘knowing system’ for climate change adaptation in Australian regional natural resource management. Geoforum 2017, 84, 42–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mauser, W.; Klepper, G.; Rice, M.; Schmalzbauer, B.S.; Hackmann, H.; Leemans, R.; Moore, H. Transdisciplinary global change research: The co-creation of knowledge for sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2013, 5, 420–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Temper, L.; Del Bene, D. Transforming knowledge creation for environmental and epistemic justice. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2016, 20, 41–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Järvinen, P. Action Research is Similar to Design Science. Qual. Quant. 2007, 41, 37–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Apgar, J.M.; Allen, W.; Albert, J.; Douthwaite, B.; Paz Ybarnegaray, R.; Lunda, J. Getting beneath the surface in program planning, monitoring and evaluation: Learning from use of participatory action research and theory of change in the CGIAR Research Program on Aquatic Agricultural Systems. Action Res. 2017, 15, 15–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Norman, D.A. Some observations on mental models. In Mental Models; Genter, D., Stevens, A., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1983; pp. 7–14. [Google Scholar]
- Papantoniou, B.; Soegaard, M.; Reinhard Lupton, J.; Gokturk, M.; Trepes, D.; Knemeyer, D.; Svoboda, E.; Memmel, T.; Folmer, E.; Gunes, H.; et al. The Glossary of Human Computer Interaction: 23. Mental Models. Available online: https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/book/the-glossary-of-human-computer-interaction/mental-models (accessed on 24 August 2019).
- Leventon, J.; Fleskens, L.; Claringbould, H.; Schwilch, G.; Hessel, R. An applied methodology for stakeholder identification in transdisciplinary research. Sustain. Sci. 2016, 11, 763–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Geels, F.W.; Schot, J. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Res. Policy 2007, 36, 399–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sovacool, B.K.; Hess, D.J. Ordering theories: Typologies and conceptual frameworks for sociotechnical change. Soc. Stud. Sci. 2017, 47, 703–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mumford, E. The story of socio-technical design: Reflections on its successes, failures and potential. Inf. Syst. J. 2006, 16, 317–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morhpy, T. Choosing the Stakeholder Engagement Approach. Source: Engaging Stakeholders—A Strategy for Stakeholder Engagement. Available online: https://www.stakeholdermap.com/stakeholder-engagement.html#ment (accessed on 21 July 2019).
- Smolinski, M.S.; Crawley, A.W.; Olsen, J.M.; Jayaraman, T.; Libel, M. Participatory Disease Surveillance: Engaging Communities Directly in Reporting, Monitoring, and Responding to Health Threats. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2017, 3, e62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gilmour, J.; Beilin, R.; Sysak, T. Biosecurity risk and peri-urban landholders—Using a stakeholder consultative approach to build a risk communication strategy. J. Risk Res. 2011, 14, 281–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Billgren, C.; Holmén, H. Approaching reality: Comparing stakeholder analysis and cultural theory in the context of natural resource management. Land Use Policy 2008, 25, 550–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reed, M.S.; Graves, A.; Dandy, N.; Posthumus, H.; Hubacek, K.; Morris, J.; Prell, C.; Quinn, C.H.; Stringer, L.C. Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 1933–1949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Metcalf, G. Creating social systems. In Social Systems Design; Metcalf, G., Ed.; Springer: London, UK, 2014; pp. 1–36. [Google Scholar]
- Healy, S. Extended peer communities and the ascendance of post-normal politics. Futures 1999, 31, 655–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pawson, S.; Sullivan, J.; Grant, A. Expanding general surveillance of invasive species by integrating citizens as both observers and identifiers. J. Pest Sc. Rev. in preparation.
- Zhu, K.; Kraemer, K.; Gurbaxani, V.; Xu, S. Migration to Open-Standard Interorganizational Systems: Network Effects, Switching Costs, and Path Dependency. Mis Q. 2006, 30, 515–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schot, J.; Geels, F.W. Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: Theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2008, 20, 537–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nelson, R.; Winter, S. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change; Belknap Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
- Bijker, W. Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Berkhout, F.; Smith, A.; Stirling, A. Socio-technological regimes and transition contexts. In System Innovation and the Transition to Sustainability: Theory, Evidence and Policy; Elzen, B., Geels, F., Green, K., Eds.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2004; pp. 48–75. [Google Scholar]
- Turner, J.; Williams, T.; Nicholas, G.; Foote, J.; Rijswijk, K.; Barnard, T.; Beechener, S.; Horita, A. Triggering system innovation in agricultural innovation systems: Initial insights from a community for change in New Zealand. Outlook Agric. 2017, 46, 125–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mulder, K. Innovation for sustainable development: From environmental design to transition management. Sustain. Sci. 2007, 2, 253–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grant, A.; Ison, R.; Faggian, R.; Sposito, V. Enabling Political Legitimacy and Conceptual Integration for Climate Change Adaptation Research within an Agricultural Bureaucracy: A Systemic Inquiry. Syst. Pract. Action Res. 2018, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Kerkhoff, L.; Pilbeam, V. Understanding socio-cultural dimensions of environmental decision-making: A knowledge governance approach. Environ. Sci. Policy 2017, 73, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lancaster, A.; Yeats, D. Establishing Academic-Industry Partnerships: A Transdisciplinary Research Model for Distributed Usability Testing. Int. J. Sociotechnol. Knowl. Dev. 2016, 8, 29–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Data Collection Method | Purpose of Method | Process Followed | Outcomes Provided |
---|---|---|---|
Meetings | early engagement, diverse perspectives | iterative discussion, review, feedback | critical elements, agreed boundaries, managing expectations, mitigating risks |
Workshop | co-design aspects, define success, understand improvements | discuss style and minimum requirements, understand potential use, scope function and form | minimum data requirements, stakeholder environments/networks mapped, co-design team formed |
Survey | broader engagement, exploring benefits, extending networks | questions co-designed, guided conversations, participant implemented | pest detection reactions, technologies in use, information shared, desired feedback, reporting constraints |
Data Collection Method | Type of Participant | Number of Participants |
---|---|---|
Meetings | Sectors | 4 |
Ministries | 2 | |
Iwi | 3 | |
Workshop | Industries | 8 |
Agencies | 4 | |
Companies | 2 | |
Survey | Industries | 29 |
Agencies | 8 | |
Communities | 3 |
Sector/Agency | Identification and Reporting | Potential Tool Users | Possible ‘Triaging’ Observations |
---|---|---|---|
Forestry | specialist contract forest health observers, Forest Biosecurity Committee (FBC) members, some forest managers, NZ Farm Forestry Association interested members, scientists working in forestry | Industry via PineNet | scientists at Scion/Manaaki Whenua Landcare pathology/entomology, specialist contract forest health observers, Forest Biosecurity Committee members |
Kiwifruit | growers, extension officers, contractors (some), orchard managers, technical advisors, Kiwi Wine Health (KVH) monitoring teams | farmers, contractors, farm consultants, intelligent advisors, influential adopters | technical staff in KVH/Zespri, Quality Assurance on post-harvest, Plant and Food research/Crown Research Institutes |
Dairy | sector-specific biosecurity managers, some DairyNZ staff members | farmers, contractors, farm consultants, intelligent advisors, influential adopters | scientists AgResearch |
Wine | sector-specific biosecurity managers | growers, vineyard managers, contractors, seasonal workers | |
Apples and Pears NZ | sector-specific biosecurity managers | growers, orchard managers, contractors, seasonal workers, packhouses—quality |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Grant, A.; Pawson, S.M.; Marzano, M. Emerging Stakeholder Relations in Participatory ICT Design: Renegotiating the Boundaries of Sociotechnical Innovation in Forest Biosecurity Surveillance. Forests 2019, 10, 836. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10100836
Grant A, Pawson SM, Marzano M. Emerging Stakeholder Relations in Participatory ICT Design: Renegotiating the Boundaries of Sociotechnical Innovation in Forest Biosecurity Surveillance. Forests. 2019; 10(10):836. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10100836
Chicago/Turabian StyleGrant, Andrea, Stephen M. Pawson, and Mariella Marzano. 2019. "Emerging Stakeholder Relations in Participatory ICT Design: Renegotiating the Boundaries of Sociotechnical Innovation in Forest Biosecurity Surveillance" Forests 10, no. 10: 836. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10100836