Abstract
Hyperlocal relationships are internet-enabled interactions in a common locale. They are opening new frontiers for geographically based, community-oriented, and civically engaged action. However, the influences of virtual interactions over procedural aspects of sustainability projects are not fully theorized. To fill this gap, we examine whether anticipating the use of social media re-shapes how the community voice method (CVM) intervenes in deliberative spaces associated with waterway sustainability in Milwaukee, Wisconsin (USA). CVM is a video-based participatory research approach designed to foster inclusive and community-focused planning. Like most visual methods, it originated before the wide availability of interactive web 2.0 technologies. Our working hypothesis is that the intention to engage the public through online fora creates a new group of stakeholders who are poorly understood. As a result of analyzing field notes, audio-visual recordings of participants, and other documents, we find that anticipating the use of social media shapes all aspects of participation, including: awareness of context, group dynamics, interventions, outcomes of concern. Concern for the opinions and perspectives of hyperlocal participants re-shapes recommendations about how to align research projects with community needs and planning deliberation. Social media is an important outlet for the work, but changed the placement of video products in relation to waterway sustainability plans, especially with respect to environmental justice. We conclude by proposing a framework for hyperlocal sustainability research that appropriately emphasizes justice.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Figure by Cutts (2019a); available at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.6851120 under a CC-BY4.0 license
Figure by Cutts (2019b); available at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.6851135 under a CC-BY4.0 license
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adobe Inc (2016) Premiere Pro CC version 11.0. http://www.adobe.com
Afzalan N, Muller B (2018) Online participatory technologies: opportunities and challenges for enriching participatory planning. J Am Plan Assoc 84(2):162–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2018.1434010
Agyeman J, Evans T (2003) Toward just sustainability in urban communities: building equity rights with sustainable solutions. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 590:35–53. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-090052
Agyeman J, Schlosberg D, Craven L, Matthews C (2016) Trends and directions in environmental justice: from inequity to everyday life, community, and just sustainabilities. Annu Rev Environ Resour 41:321–340. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-090052
Banks S, Armstrong A, Carter K, Graham H, Hayward P, Henry A, Holland T, Holmes C, Lee A, McNulty A, Moore N, Nayling N, Stokoe A, Strachan A (2013) Everyday ethics in community-based participatory research. Contemp Soc Sci 8(3):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2013.769618
Bieluch KH, Bell KP, Teisl MF et al (2017) Transdisciplinary research partnerships in sustainability science: an examination of stakeholder participation preferences. Sustain Sci 12:87–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0360-x
Blackstock KL, Kelly GJ, Horsey BL (2007) Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability. Ecol Econ 60:726–742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.05.014
Botts L, Muldoon P (2005) Evolution of the Great Lakes water quality agreement. Michigan State University Press, East Lansing
Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3(2):77–101
Bray L, Cutts BB (2019) Water connects Milwaukee—discussion guide. NC State University. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.6845297
Burkholder C, MacEntee K (2016) Exploring the ethics of the participant-produced archive: the complexities of dissemination. In: Warr D, Guillemin M, Cox S, Waycott J (eds) Ethics and visual research methods: theory, methodology, and practice. Palgrave Macmillan US, New York, pp 211–224
Büscher B (2014) Nature 2.0: exploring and theorizing the links between new media and nature conservation. N Media Soc 18:726–743. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814545841
Carter ED (2014) Environmental justice 2.0: new Latino environmentalism in Los Angeles. Local Environ 21:3–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2014.912622
Chavez V, Israel B, Allen AJ, DeCarlo MF, Lichtenstein R, McGranaghan R (2004) A bridge between communities: video-making using principles of community-based participatory research. Heal Pract 5:395–403. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524489903258067
Chen Y-W, Milstein T, Anguiano C et al (2012) challenges and benefits of community-based participatory research for environmental justice: a case of collaboratively examining ecocultural struggles. Environ Commun 6:403–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2012.698291
Cohen M, Wiek A (2017) Identifying misalignments between public participation process and context in urban development. Chall Sustain 5(2):11–22. https://doi.org/10.12924/cis2017.05020011
Cumming G, Holland D (2013) Growing local/buying local: challenging pessimism and social division through narratives of possibility. Prog Plan 2013:42–45
Cumming G, Norwood C (2012) The community voice method: using participatory research and filmmaking to foster dialog about changing landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 105:434–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.01.018
Cutts BB (2019a) Community voice method [figure]. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.685112
Cutts BB (2019b) Transformations in CBPR for local sustainability driven by social media [figure]. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.6851135
Cutts BB, Sinclair KM, Strauch MA, Slivnick B, Emmons Z (2015) Environmental justice and emerging information communication technology: a review for U.S. natural disaster management. Environ Justice 8(4):144–150. https://doi.org/10.1089/env.2015.0012
Cutts BB, Greenlee AJ, Prochaska NK, Chantrill CV, Contractor AB, Wilhoit JM, Abts N, Hornik K (2018a) Is a clean river fun for all? Recognizing social vulnerability in watershed planning. PLoS One 1:1–21. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0196416
Cutts BB, Greenlee AJ, Hornik K (2018b) Water connects Milwaukee. NC State University. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.6845297
English PB, Richardson MJ, Gar On-Galvis C (2018) From crowdsourcing to extreme citizen science: participatory research for environmental health. Annu Rev Public Health 39:335–350. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth
EPA (2016) About the Great Lakes legacy act. https://www.epa.gov. Accessed 15 Dec 2018
Evans M, Foster S (2009) Representation in participatory video: some considerations from research with Métis in British Columbia. J Can Stud 43:87–108. https://doi.org/10.1353/jcs.0.0054
Fletcher R (2017) Gaming conservation: nature 2.0 confronts nature-deficit disorder. Geoforum 79:153–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2016.02.009
Foucault M (2012) Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison. Sheridan A (transl), 2nd edn. Vintage Books, New York
Friends of Lincoln Park (2018) Friends of Lincoln Park. http://lincolnparkfriends.org/. Accessed 18 Dec 2018
Friese S (2011) ATLAS.ti version 7. Berlin: ATLAS.ti scientific software development GmbH
Gubrium AC, Hill AL, Flicker S (2014) A situated practice of ethics for participatory visual and digital methods in public health research and practice: a focus on digital storytelling. Am J Public Health 104:1606–1614. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301310
Harrison JL (2017) ‘We do ecology, not sociology’: interactions among bureaucrats and the undermining of regulatory agencies’ environmental justice efforts. Environ Sociol 3:197–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2017.1344918
Holifield R (2004) Neoliberalism and environmental justice in the United States environmental protection agency: translating policy into managerial practice in hazardous waste remediation. Geoforum 35:285–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2003.11.003
Holifield R, Williams KC (2014) Urban parks, environmental justice, and voluntarism: the distribution of friends of the parks groups in Milwaukee county. Environ Justice 7:70–76. https://doi.org/10.1089/env.2013.0043
Hornik K, Cutts B, Greenlee A (2016) Community theories of change: linking environmental justice to sustainability through stakeholder perceptions in Milwaukee (WI, USA). Int J Environ Res Public Health 13:979. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13100979
Hurlbert M, Gupta J (2015) The split ladder of participation: a diagnostic, strategic, and evaluation tool to assess when participation is necessary. Environ Sci Policy 50:100–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.01.011
Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant (2018) Lincoln Park—Milwaukee Estuary area of concern. https://www.greatlakesmud.org. Accessed 15 Dec 2018
London JK, Schwarz K, Cadenasso ML et al (2017) Weaving community-university research and action partnerships for environmental justice. Action Res 16:173–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750316678915
Loorbach D, Frantzeskaki N, Thissen WH (2011) A transition research perspective on governance for sustainability. In: Jaeger CC, Tàbara JD, Jaeger J (eds) European research on sustainable development. Transformative science approaches for sustainability, vol 1. Springer, Berlin, pp 73–90
Lower E, Cutts B, Wilson R, Williams J, Norris C, Lutsch K, Zouras J., O’Loughlin M, Lyu N, Zhu K, Fang D, Greenlee A (2015a) Urban environmental equity field report 2: perceptions of fish in the Milwaukee estuary AOC. Great Lakes Mud. https://www.greatlakesmud.org/lincoln-park—milwaukee-estuary-aoc.html. Accessed 03 Dec 2018
Lower E, Cutts B, Hornik K, Greenlee A (2015b) Urban environmental equity field report 3: the Estabrook Dam. Great Lakes Mud. https://www.greatlakesmud.org/lincoln-park—milwaukee-estuary-aoc.html. Accessed 03 Dec 2018
Lower E, Cutts B, Wilson R, Greenlee A (2015c) Urban environmental equity field report 4: responding to stakeholder uncertainty in the Milwaukee estuary AOC. Great Lakes Mud. https://www.greatlakesmud.org/lincoln-park—milwaukee-estuary-aoc.html. Accessed 03 Dec 2018
Mayan MJ, Daum CH (2016) Worth the risk? Muddled relationships in community-based participatory research. Qual Health Res 26:69–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315618660
Metzgar ET, Kurpius DD, Rowley KM (2011) Defining hyperlocal media: proposing a framework for discussion. N Media Soc 13:772–787. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810385095
Miller TR (2013) Constructing sustainability science: emerging perspectives and research trajectories. Sustain Sci 8:279–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-012-0180-6
Miller TR, Wiek A, Sarewitz D et al (2013) The future of sustainability science: a solutions-oriented research agenda. Sustain Sci 9:239–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-013-0224-6
Minkler M, Vasquez VB, Tajik M, Petersen D (2008) Promoting Environmental Justice through community-based participatory research: the role of community and partnership capacity. Health Educ Behav 35:119–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198106287692
Mistry J, Berardi A, Bignante E, Tschirhart C (2015) Between a rock and a hard place: ethical dilemmas of local community facilitators doing participatory research projects. Geoforum 61:27–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.02.010
Neely EF (2014) Risk communication in social media. In: Arvai J, Rivers L III (eds) Effective Risk communication. Routledge, London, pp 143–164
Nolan K, Bosman J (2017) Milwaukee officer is acquitted in killing of Sylville Smith. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com. Accessed 15 Dec 2018
Norwood C, Cumming G (2012) Making maps that matter: situating GIS within community conversations about changing landscapes. Cartogr Int J Geogr Inf Geovis 47:2–17. https://doi.org/10.3138/carto.47.1.2
Nulman E, Özkula SM (2016) Environmental nongovernmental organizations’ digital media practices toward environmental sustainability and implications for informational governance. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 18:10–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.04.004
Pohl C, Rist S, Zimmermann A, Fry P, Gurung GS, Schneider F, Speranza CI, Kiteme B, Boillat S, Serrano E, Hirsch Hadorn G, Wiesmann U (2010) Researchers’ roles in knowledge co-production: experience from sustainability research in Kenya, Switzerland, Bolivia and Nepal. Sci Public Pol 37(4):267–281. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234210X496628
Roberts K (2018) World water day: Milwaukee’s initiative calls on cities to become water centric cities [blog post]. ICLEI—local governments for sustainability. http://icleiusa.org/world-water-day-milwaukees-initiative-calls-on-cities-to-become-water-centric-cities/. Accessed 15 Dec 2018
Salas-Zapata WA, Rios-Osorio LA, Trouchon-Osorio AL (2012) Typology of scientific reflections needed for sustainability science development. Sustain Sci 8:607–612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-012-0183-3
Stokols D (2018) Confronting complex social problems. Academic, London
Wallerstein N, Duran B (2010) Community-based participatory research contributions to intervention research: the intersection of science and practice to improve health equity. Am J Public Health 100(Suppl 1):S40–S46. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2009.184036
U.S. Census Bureau (2017) Quick facts: Milwaukee city, Wisconsin. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/milwaukeecitywisconsin/PST045217. Accessed 15 Dec 2018
Wiek A, Talwar S, O’Shea M, Robinson J (2014) Toward a methodological scheme for capturing societal effects of participatory sustainability research. Res Eval 23:117–132. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvt031
Wilson R, Cutts B, Lower E, Williams J, Norris C, Lutsch K, Zouras J, O’Loughlin M, Lyu N, Zhu K, Fang D, Greenlee A (2015) Urban environmental equity project field report 1: issues, stakeholders, and equity in Milwaukee’s urban river management. Great Lakes Mud. https://www.greatlakesmud.org/lincoln-park—milwaukee-estuary-aoc.html. Accessed 03 Dec 2018
Wittmayer JM, Schäpke N (2014) Action, research and participation: roles of researchers in sustainability transitions. Sustain Sci 9:483–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-014-0258-4
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge funding from Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant, Grant No. NA14OAR4170095 “Mapping Social Vulnerability in EPA-designated Areas of Concern” Effort by CAN was funded by USEPA Great Lakes Restoration Initiative through USGS Award Number G16AP00001. The opinions and findings presented here are those of the authors alone. The authors would also like to thank all interview and focus group participants as well as the following individuals who provided invaluable help with creating the documentaries and discussion guides and/or conceptual discussions: Sara Barker, Betsy Breyer, Laura Bray, Ann Brummitt, Adam Carr, Carolina Chantrill, Annie Contractor, Ryan Holifield, Jeanette Lim, Jonathan London, El Lower, Jaeleen Mendoza, Jenna Minser, Jachin Moore, Deidre Peroff, Natalie Prochaska, Sierra Taliaferro, Nancy Smebak, Juliana McMillan-Wilhoit, and Rachael Wilson.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Handled by: Arnim Wiek, Arizona State University, USA.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cutts, B.B., Greenlee, A.J., Hornik, K. et al. Hyperlocal sustainabilities: theorizing action research for sustainability in the digital age. Sustain Sci 15, 315–331 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00694-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00694-9