Explore the vast range of titles available.

The content, structure, and distribution of mental models can be elicited and measured using a variety of methods. In this article we explore a method for eliciting mental models within the context of water use and management in South Africa. This method is consensus analysis, a technique developed in cognitive anthropology. We used it to analyze qualitative data from semistructured interviews, pilesorts, and questionnaires to test quantitatively the degree of sharing and diversity of mental models within and across social groups. The consensus analysis method focused on comparing the mental models of two key stakeholder groups in the Crocodile River catchment in South Africa, i.e., conservationists and irrigators, to better understand the level of consensus between these groups. We specifically investigated the level of agreement regarding: (1) major water users of the Crocodile River, (2) causes of the current problems with flows in the river, (3) consequences of the river not flowing, and 4) priorities for future use. We discuss the results and examine the strengths and challenges of consensus analysis for eliciting and measuring mental models. We also evaluated the usefulness of this method in assisting natural resource managers to identify strategies for improving integrated management of water resources.

Social scientists, and scholars in related interdisciplinary fields, have critiqued resilience thinking’s oversimplification of social dimensions of coupled social-ecological systems. Resilience scholars have countered with “where is the ecology” in social analyses? My aim is to contribute to current efforts to strengthen inter- and transdisciplinary debate and inquiry between the social-ecological resilience community and the social sciences. I synthesize three social science perspectives, which stress the complex, dynamic, and multiscalar interconnections between the biophysical and social realms in explaining social-environmental change, and which place both the social and ecology centre stage in their analyses: materio-spatial world systems analysis, critical realist political ecology, and actor-network theory. By integrating, in a nondeterministic and nonessentialist manner, the biophysical environment into social inquiries (integrative approaches) or by altogether abolishing the ecology/nature and human/culture divide (hybrid perspectives), these three social-science perspectives are well placed to foster stronger inter- and transdisciplinary ties with social-ecological resilience. Materio-spatial world systems analysis is highly compatible with resilience thinking. The emphasis on world systems structures and processes offers the potential to enrich resilience analyses of global environmental change, global governance and stewardship, planetary boundaries, and multiscale resilience. Critical realist political ecology offers avenues for more in-depth interdisciplinary inquiries around local/traditional/indigenous knowledge systems and power. It also challenges resilience scholars to incorporate critical analyses of resilience’s core concepts and practices. Actor-network theory proposes a very different starting point for understanding and assessing social-ecological resilience. Its focus on “resilience-in-the-making” offers unique insights but also pushes the conceptual boundaries of resilience thinking.

As we are confronted with mounting evidence of the profound and potentially irreversible impacts of human activities on the planet the need to engage across a range of ways of knowing and doing becomes increasingly urgent. The intersection and interdependence of human-environment systems is seen by scholars, policy makers, and other stakeholders as providing a promising vehicle for bridging understandings and guiding actions toward a more sustainable future. Growing attention is thus being focused on social-ecological resilience. There is widespread agreement that we need integrative research that transcends disciplinary boundaries and embraces ideas from the natural and social sciences. This crossdisciplinary engagement has gained momentum over the years, as evidenced in the expansion in number and scope of integrative work presented at the Resilience conferences since 2008 and related publications. This special feature emerged in response to this mounting crossdisciplinary appetite and the opportunity to open up a discussion about how and in what ways this collaboration can be strengthened moving forward.

The mass media has ensured that the challenging and complex phenomenon of climate change now has the household familiarity of a brand name. But what is it that is understood by climate change, and by whom? What frame of reference is drawn upon to communicate meaningfully about climate change? Do particular subgroups within our society hold different understandings, or have the debate and the prolific dissemination of information about this issue coalesced around a core perception or image of what climate change is? To answer these questions, we conceptualized climate change within the theory of social representations as emergent socially constructed knowledge. We analyzed word association data collected in Australia from persons identifying as having a scientific, government, or general public background (N= 3300). All respondents were asked to write the first words that came to mind when they thought about climate change. Comparative analyses of the word associations reveal that respondents from different backgrounds define climate change in different ways. The results suggest that there is a common core set of concepts shared by the different groups, but there are also a great many differences in how climate change is framed and conceived by respondents. The results are discussed in relation to what they imply for responses to climate change by these social groups and in relation to interventions designed to encourage climate adaptation.

Technical assessments of vulnerability and/or risk are increasingly being undertaken to assess the impacts of climate change. Underlying this is the belief that they will bring clarity to questions regarding the scale of institutional investments required, plausible adaptation policies and measures, and the timing of their implementation. Despite the perceived importance of technical assessments in 'evidence-based' decision environments, assessments cannot be undertaken independent of values and politics, nor are they capable of eliminating the uncertainty that clouds decision-making on climate adaptation As such, assessments can trigger as many questions as they answer, leaving practitioners and stakeholders to question their value. This paper explores the value of vulnerability/risk assessments in climate change adaptation planning processes as a catalyst for learning in four case studies in Southeastern Australia. Data were collected using qualitative interviews with stakeholders involved in the assessments and analysed using a social learning framework. This analysis revealed that detailed and tangible strategies or actions often do not emerge directly from technical assessments. However, it also revealed that the assessments became important platforms for social learning. In providing these platforms, assessments present opportunities to question initial assumptions, explore multiple framings of an issue, generate new information, and galvanise support for collective actions. This study highlights the need for more explicit recognition and understanding of the important role social learning plays in climate change vulnerability assessments and adaptation planning more broadly.

This paper traces the perceived linkages between sources of water quality deterioration, impact on human wellbeing and the institutions responsible for dealing with the sources and impacts. The DPSIR (Driving forces-Pressure-State-Impact-Response) framework is used as a guide for data collection and to structure responses and the emerging themes. The web of linkages, as perceived by residents, is then compared with current institutional arrangements across different relevant sectors. Taking a case study and exploratory research approach, eleven residents of Whitsunday shire, Queensland, Australia were interviewed about their perceptions of water related issues. This was followed by an analysis of current water management institutions for the region. Significant gaps were found between community concerns regarding water quality and actual institutional arrangements responsible for managing water use and quality. Residents perceived their local government body (Shire Council) as accountable for responding to water-related pressures and impacts in their Shire, whereas the responsibility falls primarily on government agencies and organisations at a regional, state and national level. Improved communication between the council and residents is needed to close these gaps in understanding. Moreover, incorporation of local perceptions and values regarding water pressure, impacts and preferred use into the development of institutional arrangements for water management is suggested.

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 crossover 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.