Studying human-nature relations in aquatic social-ecological systems using the social-ecological action situations framework: how to move from empirical data to conceptual models

Abstract

Various analytical frameworks have been developed to examine the interactions between humans and nature in social-ecological systems (SES). When studies of SES do not make explicit how a framework is used to build conceptual models, they leave a black box for scholars aiming to use such frameworks. Our study highlights such a process, focusing on the analytical step of transitioning from empirical data to categories of the recently developed social-ecological action situations (SE-AS) framework. This framework, which proposes to study SES along configurations of action situations (AS), has so far been applied in few studies. Clarifying how data are analyzed and adapted within this framework is thus of relevance for anyone interested in using it. We compare two analytical methods used to identify AS configurations, each method serving for the analysis of one of two lake-catchment areas, located in Northern Germany and Canada. The first method is a qualitative interview content analysis based on text coding; the second is the analysis of causal loop diagrams (CLD) derived from interviews. Both data sources outline stakeholder social representations of their SES. We compare: (1) the suitability of the two analytical methods for identifying configurations of AS and their linkages, and (2) the potential and limitations of the SE-AS framework for assessing the inherent dynamics of emergent phenomena within SES. Our two-pronged data analysis methodology led to similar results despite the different analytical methods used. We conclude that the SE-AS framework can help illustrate different interactions within an SES while allowing for relatively simple, yet comprehensible system representations. We also identify challenges and limitations that we encountered. Challenges revolve around identifying AS and differentiating them from outcomes. Limitations include the representation of time and levels of governance, and weighting the relative importance of AS.