The Action-oriented Stakeholder Engagement for a Resilient Tomorrow (ASERT) framework: an effective, field-tested approach for engaging stakeholders

Abstract

The Action-Oriented Stakeholder Engagement for a Resilient Tomorrow (ASERT) framework enables a participatory approach for adaptation actions related to social-ecological resilience to sea level rise. This framework was field-tested in the Hampton Roads region of coastal Southeastern Virginia in 2016. Results show that structured public involvement, through collaborative sessions that couple geospatial and visualization tools with dialogic processes, improves the quality of information co-produced with stakeholders. The four key principles of ASERT—(1) an inclusive process, (2) an emphasis on gaining local knowledge and context, (3) integrated engagement, and (4) an explicit focus on incorporation of change mechanisms—can provide both policymakers and stakeholders with a dialogic approach that can better inform planning efforts to use local resources to build social-ecological resilience.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. Adger WN, Hughes TP, Folke C, Carpenter SR, Rockström J (2005) Social-ecological resilience to coastal disasters. Science 309(5737):1036–1039

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Aggett G, McColl C (2006) Evaluating decision support systems for PPGIS applications. Cartogr Geogr Inf Sci 33:77–92

    Google Scholar 

  3. Arvai JL (2003) Using risk communication to disclose the outcome of a participatory decision-making process: effects on the perceived acceptability of risk-policy decisions. Risk Anal 23(2):281–289

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bailey K, Grossardt T (2010) Toward structured public involvement: justice, geography and collaborative geospatial/geovisual decision support systems. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 100(1):57–86

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bailey K, Brumm J, Grossardt T (2002) Integrating visualization into structured public involvement: a case study of highway improvement in central Kentucky. Transp Res Rec 1817:50–57

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bailey K, Grossardt T, Ripy J, Toole L, Williams J, Dietrick J (2007) Structured public involvement in context-sensitive large bridge design using casewise visual evaluation: case study of section 2 of Ohio river bridges project. Transp Res Rec 2028:19–27

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bailey K, Blandford B, Grossardt T, Ripy J (2011) Planning, technology, and legitimacy: structured public involvement in integrated transportation and land-use planning in the United States. Environ Plann B Plann Des 38(3):447–467

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bailey K, Grossardt T, Ripy J (2012) Toward environmental justice in transportation decision making with structured public involvement. Transp Res Rec 2320:102–110

    Google Scholar 

  9. Banana E, Chitekwe-Biti B, Walnycki A (2015) Co-producing inclusive city-wide sanitation strategies: lessons from Chinhoyi, Zimbabwe. Environ Urban 27(1):35–54

    Google Scholar 

  10. Barabas J (2004) How deliberation affects policy opinions. Am Polit Sci Rev 98(4):687–701

    Google Scholar 

  11. Béné C, Mehta L, McGranahan G, Cannon T, Gupte J, Tanner T (2018) Resilience as a policy narrative: potentials and limits in the context of urban planning. Clim Dev 10(2):116–133

    Google Scholar 

  12. Berkes F, Folke C (1998) Linking sociological and ecological systems: management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bierbaum R, Smith J, Lee B, Blair A, Carter M, Chapin L et al (2013) A comprehensive review of climate adaptation in the United States: more than before, but less than needed. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 18(3):361–406

    Google Scholar 

  14. Biesbroek GR, Dupuis J, Wellstead A (2017) Explaining through causal mechanisms: resilience and governance of social-ecological systems. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 28:64–70

    Google Scholar 

  15. Blackmore C (2007) What kinds of knowledge, knowing and learning are required for addressing resource dilemmas? A theoretical overview. Environ Sci Policy 10(6):512–525

    Google Scholar 

  16. Bristow G, Healy A (2014) Regional resilience: an agency perspective. Reg Stud 48(5):923–935

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cheung W, Houston D, Schubert JE, Basolo V, Feldman D, Matthew R et al (2016) Integrating resident digital sketch maps with expert knowledge to assess spatial knowledge of flood risk: a case study of participatory mapping in Newport Beach, California. Appl Geogr 74:56–64

    Google Scholar 

  18. Coles E, Buckle P (2004) Developing community resilience as a foundation for effective disaster recovery. Aust J Emerg Manag 19(4):6–15

  19. Cutter SL, Barnes L, Berry M, Burton C, Evans E, Tate E, Webb J (2008) A place-based model for understanding community resilience to natural disasters. Glob Environ Chang 18(4):598–606

    Google Scholar 

  20. Fazey I, Gamarra J, Fischer J, Reed M, Stringer L, Christie M (2010) Adaptation strategies for reducing vulnerability to future environmental change. Front Ecol Environ 8(8):414–422

    Google Scholar 

  21. Few R, Brown K, Tompkins EL (2007) Public participation and climate change adaptation: avoiding the illusion of inclusion. Clim Pol 7:46–59

    Google Scholar 

  22. Folke C (2006) Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Glob Environ Chang 16(1):253–267

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ford JD, King D (2015) A framework for examining adaptation readiness. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 20(4):505–526

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ganapati S (2011) Uses of public participation geographic information systems applications in E-government. Public Adm Rev 71(3):425–434

    Google Scholar 

  25. Gharehgozli AH, Mileski J, Adams A, Von Zharen W (2016) Evaluating a “wicked problem”: a conceptual framework on seaport resiliency in the event of weather disruptions. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 121:65–75

    Google Scholar 

  26. Grossardt T, Bailey K, Brumm J (2003) Structured public involvement: problems and prospects for improvement. Transp Res Rec 1858:95–102

    Google Scholar 

  27. Gunderson L, Light SS (2006) Adaptive management and adaptive governance in the everglades ecosystem. Policy Sci 39(4):323–334

    Google Scholar 

  28. Head B, Alford J (2015) Wicked problems: implications for public policy and management. Adm Soc 47(6):711–739

    Google Scholar 

  29. Huitema D, Mostert E, Egas W, Moellenkamp S, Pahl-Wostl C, Yalcin R (2009) Adaptive water governance: assessing the institutional prescriptions of adaptive (co-) management from a governance perspective and defining a research agenda. Ecol Soc 14(1):26

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hukkinen J (2008) Sustainability networks: cognitive tools for expert collaboration in social-ecological systems. Routledge, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hung H-C, Chen L-Y (2013) Incorporating stakeholders’ knowledge into assessing vulnerability to climatic hazards: application to the river basin management in Taiwan. Clim Chang 120(1–2):491–507

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hung H-C, Yang C-Y, Chien C-Y, Liu Y-C (2016) Building resilience: mainstreaming community participation into integrated assessment of resilience to climatic hazards in metropolitan land use management. Land Use Policy 50:48–58

    Google Scholar 

  33. Jones S (2015) Mapping coastal risks and social vulnerability: principles and considerations. Retrieved 13th September 2017 from https://law.wm.edu/academics/programs/jd/electives/clinics/vacoastal/reports/SOVI- Priciples and Considerations.pdf

  34. Karpouzoglou T, Dewulf A, Clark J (2016) Advancing adaptive governance of social-ecological systems through theoretical multiplicity. Environ Sci Policy 57:1–9

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kettl D (2009) The next government of the United States: why our institutions fail us and how to fix them. W.W. Norton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  36. Leiss W (1996) Three phases in the evolution of risk communication practice. Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 545:85–94

    Google Scholar 

  37. Lépy E, Heikkinen HI, Karjalainen TP, Tervo-Kankare K, Kauppila P, Suopajärvi T, Ponnikas J, Siikamäki P, Rautio A (2014) Multidisciplinary and participatory approach for assessing local vulnerability of tourism industry to climate change. Scand J Hosp Tour 14(1):41–59

    Google Scholar 

  38. Levine AS, Feinholz CL (2015) Participatory GIS to inform coral reef ecosystem management: mapping human coastal and ocean uses in Hawaii. Appl Geogr 59:60–69

    Google Scholar 

  39. Lieske DJ (2015) Coping with climate change: the role of spatial decision support tools in facilitating community adaptation. Environ Model Softw 68:98–109

    Google Scholar 

  40. Lloyd MG, Peel D, Duck RW (2013) Towards a social–ecological resilience framework for coastal planning. Land Use Policy 30(1):925–933

    Google Scholar 

  41. MacEachren AM, Brewer I (2004) Developing a conceptual framework for visually-enabled geocollaboration. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 18(1):1–34

    Google Scholar 

  42. Mapedza E, Wright J, Fawcett R (2003) An investigation of land cover change in Mafungautsi Forest, Zimbabwe, using GIS and participatory mapping. Appl Geogr 23(1):1–21

    Google Scholar 

  43. Masini EB, Vasquez JM (2000) Scenarios as seen from a human and social perspective. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 65(1):49–66

    Google Scholar 

  44. McCoy ML, Scully PL (2002) Deliberative dialogue to expand civic engagement: what kind of talk does democracy need? Natl Civ Rev 91(2):117–135

    Google Scholar 

  45. Messmore T (2013) Gathering around the weTable. Oceanic & Atmospheric Research. Retrieved November 8, 2016 from http://research.noaa.gov/InDepth/Features/CurrentFeature/TabId/728/ArtMID/1884/ArticleID/10032/Gathering-around-the-weTable.aspx

  46. Mikulencak S, Jacob J (2011) The weTable: a tool for participatory GIS - setup and configuration for tabletop planning at public workshops (TAMU-SG-11-108). Texas Coastal Watershed Program. Retrieved November 8, 2016 from http://tcwp.tamu.edu/files/2012/06/TheweTablefactsheet-1011.pdf

  47. Moore SA, Brown G, Kobryn H, Strickland-Munro J (2017) Identifying conflict potential in a coastal and marine environment using participatory mapping. J Environ Manag 197:706–718

    Google Scholar 

  48. Moser SC, Ekstrom JA (2010) A framework to diagnose barriers to climate change adaptation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107(51):22026–22031

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Moser SC, Ekstrom JA (2011) Taking ownership of climate change: participatory adaptation planning in two local case studies from California. J Environ Stud Sci 1(1):63–74

    Google Scholar 

  50. Muro M, Jeffrey P (2008) A critical review of the theory and application of social learning in participatory natural resource management processes. J Environ Plan Manag 51(3):325–344

    Google Scholar 

  51. Nelson DR, Adger WN, Brown K (2007) Adaptation to environmental change: contributions of a resilience framework. Annu Rev Environ Resour 32(1):395–419

    Google Scholar 

  52. Nicholls R, Cazenave A (2010) Sea-level rise and its impact on coastal zones. Science 328(5985):1517–1520

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Nicholls RJ, Woodroffe CD, Burkett V, Hay J, Wong PP, Nurse L (2011) Scenarios for coastal vulnerability assessment. In: Wolanski E, McLusky DS (eds) Treatise on estuarine and coastal science, vol 12. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 289–303

    Google Scholar 

  54. Obrist B, Pfeiffer C, Henley R (2010) Multi-layered social resilience: a new approach in mitigation research. Prog Dev Stud 10(4):283–293

    Google Scholar 

  55. Olsen S (1993) Will integrated coastal management programs be sustainable; the constituency problem. Ocean Coast Manag 21(1):201–225

    Google Scholar 

  56. Palenchar MJ, Heath RL (2006) Responsible advocacy through strategic risk communication. In: Fitzpatrick K, Bronstein C (eds) Ethics in public relations: responsible advocacy. Sage, Thousand Oak, pp 131–154

  57. Preston BL, Yuen EJ, Westaway RM (2011) Putting vulnerability to climate change on the map: a review of approaches, benefits, and risks. Sustain Sci 6:177–202

    Google Scholar 

  58. Quick KS, Feldman MS (2011) Distinguishing participation and inclusion. J Plan Educ Res 31(3):272–290

    Google Scholar 

  59. Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  60. Reed M, Evely AC, Cundill G, Fazey IRA, Glass J, Laing A et al (2010) What is social learning? Ecol Soc 15(4):r1

    Google Scholar 

  61. Renn O, Schweizer PJ (2009) Inclusive risk governance: concepts and application to environmental policy making. Environ Policy Gov 19(3):174–185

    Google Scholar 

  62. Rittel H, Webber W (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4(2):155–169

    Google Scholar 

  63. Salter J, Robinson J, Wiek A (2010) Participatory methods of integrated assessment – a review. WIREs Clim Change 1:697–717

    Google Scholar 

  64. Schoch-Spana M, Franco C, Nuzzo JB, Usenza C (2007) Community engagement: leadership tool for catastrophic health events. Biosecur Bioterror 5(1):8–25

    Google Scholar 

  65. Smit B, Wandel J (2006) Adaptation, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability. Glob Environ Chang 16:282–292

    Google Scholar 

  66. Soja EW (2010) Seeking special justice. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis

    Google Scholar 

  67. Tompkins E, Few R, Brown K (2008) Scenario-based stakeholder engagement: incorporating stakeholders’ preferences into coastal planning for climate change. J Environ Manag 88(4):1580–1592

    Google Scholar 

  68. Tschakert P, Ricciardi V, Smithwick E, Machado M, Ferring D, Hausermann H, Bug L (2016) Situated knowledge of pathogenic landscapes in Ghana: understanding the emergence of Buruli ulcer through qualitative analysis. Soc Sci Med 150:160–171

    Google Scholar 

  69. Tulloch DL (2007) Many, many maps: empowerment and online participatory mapping. First Monday 12(2). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v12i2.1620

  70. Vogel C, Moser SC, Kasperson RE, Dabelko GD (2007) Linking vulnerability, adaptation, and resilience science to practice: pathways, players, and partnerships. Glob Environ Chang 17:349–364

    Google Scholar 

  71. Walters LC, Aydelotte J, Miller J (2000) Putting more public in policy analysis. Public Adm Rev 60(4):349–359

    Google Scholar 

  72. Wamsley T, Collier Z, Brodie K, Dunkin L, Raff D, Rosati J (2015) Guidance for developing coastal vulnerability metrics. J Coast Res 31(6):1521–1530

    Google Scholar 

  73. Wiseman J, Williamson L, Fritze J (2010) Community engagement and climate change: learning from recent Australian experience. Int J Clim Change Strategies Manag 2(2):134–147

    Google Scholar 

  74. Wolfe C (2015) Some objections to MacIntyre from deliberative democracy. Perspect Polit Sci 44(2):109–114

    Google Scholar 

  75. Yusuf JEW, St. John III B, Covi M, Nicula JG (2018) Engaging stakeholders in planning for sea level rise and resilience. J Contemp Water Res Educ 164:112–123

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juita-Elena (Wie) Yusuf.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yusuf, J.(., St. John, B., Rawat, P. et al. The Action-oriented Stakeholder Engagement for a Resilient Tomorrow (ASERT) framework: an effective, field-tested approach for engaging stakeholders. J Environ Stud Sci 9, 409–418 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-019-00556-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Stakeholder engagement
  • Participatory processes
  • Sea-level rise
  • Structured public involvement
  • Participatory mapping
  • Deliberative processes