4.7 Article

Ambiguity in social ecological system understanding: Advancing modelling of stakeholder perceptions of climate change adaptation in Kenya

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL MODELLING & SOFTWARE
Volume 141, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2021.105054

Keywords

Ambiguity; Social ecological systems; Fuzzy cognitive maps; Climate change adaptation; Participatory modelling

Funding

  1. Dutch partners of the SENSES project (NWO) [438.17.810]
  2. BMBF (DE)
  3. BMWFW (AT)
  4. NWO (NL)
  5. FORMAS (SE)
  6. European Union [690462]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study shows that ambiguity significantly impacts SES representation in climate change adaptation. Current understanding of the influences of ambiguity on SES representation is limited, and more advanced methods are needed to handle and represent ambiguity in SES.
Climate change adaptation requires understanding of complex social ecological systems (SESs). One source of uncertainty in complex SESs is ambiguity, defined as the range and variety of existing perceptions in and of an SES, which are considered equally valid, resulting in a lack of a unique or single system understanding. Current modelling practices that acknowledge the presence of ambiguity in SESs focus on finding consensus with stakeholders; however, advanced methods for explicitly representing and aggregating ambiguity in SESs are underdeveloped. Moreover, understanding the influences of ambiguity on SES representation is limited. This paper demonstrates the presence and range of ambiguities in endogenous and exogenous system drivers and internal relationships based on individual fuzzy cognitive maps derived from stakeholder perceptions of climate change adaptation in Kenya and introduces an ambiguity based modelling process. Our results indicate that acknowledging ambiguity fundamentally changes SES representation and more advanced methods are required.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available