Identification

Title

Connecting local ecological knowledge and Earth system models: Comparing three participatory approaches

Abstract

<p><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width:0px;color:rgb(51, 51, 51);display:inline !important;float:none;font-family:Optima, sans-serif;font-size:20px;font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;orphans:2;text-align:start;text-decoration-color:initial;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-thickness:initial;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;widows:2;word-spacing:0px;">In this article we analyze participatory approaches used in three research studies where local ecological knowledge (LEK) and Earth system models (ESMs) were combined to deepen our understanding of human-environment systems and produce usable data tools for decision making. In all three cases, the combination of these complimentary types of knowledge produced richer data about the environmental conditions being studied. In the first, participants used LEK to identify ways that an ESM-produced fire simulation differs from usual seasonal patterns. In the second, participants used LEK to adapt and apply regional climate projections to the specifics of local microclimates. And in the third, participants’ ecological knowledge identified important local ecosystem processes that were not currently represented in ESMs, including the distinct roles of various vegetation in local hydrology, as well as fuel loading conditions for predicting wildfire intensity. Although all three cases demonstrate how combining LEK and ESM data improves collaborative understandings of human-environment processes, we also found that key differences in the participatory approaches we used, particularly as regards timing and type of participation from local communities, produced three different sets of outcomes. Specifically, as our cases move from less (first case) to more (third case) participation and knowledge integration, the outcomes move beyond combining ESM and LEK knowledge and toward changing the design and configuration of ESMs themselves with insights from LEK. However, we simultaneously find that these deeper levels of integration require multiyear relationships between researchers and communities, agreements on data sovereignty for communities, and community’s involvement in designing and instigating the project, which are not necessary to achieve lower levels of integration. In all three cases, we found that communities are willing to participate in this work when relationships of trust have been built, data privacy and sovereignty is agreed upon and carefully protected, and epistemic differences are respected.</span></p>

Resource type

document

Resource locator

Unique resource identifier

code

https://n2t.net/ark:/85065/d7wq0833

codeSpace

Dataset language

eng

Spatial reference system

code identifying the spatial reference system

Classification of spatial data and services

Topic category

geoscientificInformation

Keywords

Keyword set

keyword value

Text

originating controlled vocabulary

title

Resource Type

reference date

date type

publication

effective date

2016-01-01T00:00:00Z

Geographic location

West bounding longitude

East bounding longitude

North bounding latitude

South bounding latitude

Temporal reference

Temporal extent

Begin position

End position

Dataset reference date

date type

publication

effective date

2024-12-01T00:00:00Z

Frequency of update

Quality and validity

Lineage

Conformity

Data format

name of format

version of format

Constraints related to access and use

Constraint set

Use constraints

Limitations on public access

None

Responsible organisations

Responsible party

contact position

OpenSky Support

organisation name

UCAR/NCAR - Library

full postal address

PO Box 3000

Boulder

80307-3000

email address

opensky@ucar.edu

web address

http://opensky.ucar.edu/

name: homepage

responsible party role

pointOfContact

Metadata on metadata

Metadata point of contact