Ecological Economics 80 (2012) 15–24

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Ecological Economics

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate /eco lecon

Methodological and Ideological Options

Sustainability and climate adaptation: Using Google Earth to engage stakeholders

Laura Stocker ⁎, Gary Burke, Deborah Kennedy, David WoodCurtin University Sustainability Policy Institute (CUSP), Curtin University, 3 Pakenham Street, Fremantle, Western Australia, 6160, Australia

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 8 9266 9037; fax:E-mail addresses: L.Stocker@curtin.edu.au (L. Stocke

Gary.Burke@postgrad.curtin.edu.au (G. Burke), D.Kenne(D. Kennedy), D.Wood@curtin.edu.au (D. Wood).

0921-8009/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. Alldoi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.024

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 24 January 2011Received in revised form 23 April 2012Accepted 30 April 2012Available online 15 June 2012

Keywords:SustainabilityClimate changeCoastal adaptationParticipatory GIS mappingScience–policy interfaceGoogle Earth

This action-research project aimed to test a participatory mapping methodology using Google Earth to deve-lop shared understandings among participants about sustainability and climate change. The process focusedon improving knowledge uptake and enabling dialogue among participants in order to develop adaptationstrategies for Rottnest Island, off the Western Australian coast. Project results indicate increased levels ofknowledge and commitment to active involvement in sustainability and climate change issues. Commonthreads came together in a coherent set of recommendations that will contribute to ongoing climate changeand sustainability planning by the Rottnest Island Authority. Major conclusions drawn include: the useful-ness of Google Earth for participatory planning for climate adaptation and sustainability; the methodologyenables social, economic, ecological and cultural layers to be considered without any having primacy; caremust be taken to ensure knowledge and power differential are managed effectively; and, the methodologybrought together stakeholders and scientists to co-produce knowledge and decisions.

© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Curtin University Sustainability Policy (CUSP) Institute undertooka ‘Sustainability and Climate Change’ action-research workshop withthe Rottnest Island Authority (RIA) and its stakeholders. The aim ofthe action-research project was to develop and test a participatorymapping methodology using Google Earth that would enable sharedunderstandings of the sustainability and climate change issues facingRottnest Island and collaborative identification of strategic pathwaysforward for the Island.

The outputs of the workshop were both process and product. Theprocess focussed on providing scientific information to participatingstakeholders, and enabling dialogue around sustainability and climatechange issues among stakeholders, who collectively identified theplaces of importance, concerns about those places and strategic oradaptive pathways to address their concerns. The product is a reportof the outcomes of the workshop, including issues and adaptive stra-tegies. From an action point of view, the results will contribute to on-going climate change and sustainability planning by RIA. They willinform the 20 Year Vision and implementation of the Rottnest IslandManagement Plan (RIMP).

From a research point of view, we are interested in how the up-take of science, especially climate science, by decision-makers canbe improved to enhance sustainability. To achieve sustainability werequire a range of new or adapted theoretical concepts, research

+61 8 9266 9031.r),dy@curtin.edu.au

rights reserved.

tools, and policy frameworks. In particular, place-based sustainabilityresearch, and the subsequent formulation and implementation ofpolicies and plans, requires relational, transdisciplinary, participatoryapproaches. Achieving sustainability requires creative ways ofknowing and thinking together, and new ways of representing andnegotiating perspectives.

Below we outline a participatory mapping process that usesGoogle Earth to engage stakeholders. We begin by identifying thestudy site, Rottnest Island, and the manifold dimensions of its sustai-nability and climate change concerns. Second, we present the varioustheoretical dimensions key to our sustainability research methodolo-gy: complexity and inter-dimensionality; social norms; attention toplace; adaptive action-research-learning; climate science uptake andparticipatory Geographical Information Systems (GIS). Third, wedescribe the workshop process, and finally we analyse its strengthsand weaknesses.

2. Study Site

Rottnest Island, or Wadjemup as it is known to the IndigenousNyungars, is 12 km long (12618 ha in area) and lies 20 km off thecoast of Perth in Western Australia (WA). Surrounded by the clear,warm, turquoise waters of the Indian Ocean, it is very low-lyingwith a maximum height above current sea level of 43 m. During thelast ice age it was connected to the mainland but, as sea levels rose,this connection was flooded. There are still cultural stories amongthe Nyungars about the time when their ancestors lived on whatwas then a peninsula, and what happened when the sea levels rose.During early days of colonisation by Britain, the Island was a prisonfor Indigenous people with a tragic deaths-in-custody record. The

16 L. Stocker et al. / Ecological Economics 80 (2012) 15–24

Island also has a significant military history as it played a lookout roleduring both world wars, and an interesting maritime history resultingfrom the numerous ships that are wrecked around its reefs.

Rottnest Island has unique ecological value, including being hometo a small, endangered and charismatic species of marsupial, the‘quokka’. Rottnest's terrestrial habitats include a system of low lyingsalt lakes, brackish swamps, woodlands and heath. The Island lies atthe confluence of the warm southward Leeuwin Current and the cool-er northward Capes current, resulting in the unusual and spectacularco-occurrence of large brown seaweed and corals on the same island.It is an A Class Nature Reserve and the marine waters are partiallyprotected by a marine park.

Access is by ferry, private boat or small plane. No private cars areallowed on the Island. There is a small settlement on the Island withshops, amenities and houses occupied by Island workers. There is alsoa variety of accommodation types for visitors including hotel, cottagesand camping. It is a highly popular holiday destination and playgroundfor Perth families who come to snorkel, fish, bike-ride, play golf, sail,hike, drink and eat. Thus the Island has powerful cultural value in thelives, histories and imaginations of the WA population.

The Island experiences a lot of visitor pressure and there are heavyclaims on its resources. The trampling of dunal vegetation and the de-cline of marine water quality is easily observable. The water supply ofRottnest, a small island, is limited by the low, and ever-declining,rainwater supply. Rainfall in the south west of WA has significantlydeclined since the mid-twentieth century (Feng et al., 2010). Winter(May–October) average rainfall has declined 15–20% since the mid-1970's (Feng et al., 2010). Annual run-off into Perth dams has de-clined in stepwise fashion from 338 GL pre-1974 to 57.7 GL since2006. In 2010 the runoff was only 10 GL. Rottnest's rainfall patternsreflect this trend. A desalination plant at Rottnest augments rainwatersupply by turning sea water into potable drinking water. The onlysources of native electricity on the Island are solar and wind, whichare plentiful; a wind turbine currently produces 35% of the Island'ssupply and takes the pressure off liquid petroleum fuels as the mainsource. In addition to all these factors, Rottnest Island now mustdeal with climate change impacts.

The governance body is the Rottnest Island Authority (hereafterRIA). The RIA reports to the WA Minister for Tourism. The RIA Boardconsists of a chair and five other members appointed by the WAGovernor on the nomination of the Minister for Tourism. Board mem-bership is comprised individuals with commercial, built heritage andenvironmental conservation expertise, and recreational experienceon the Island. The RIA aims to make the Island a model of sustain-ability by managing visitor pressure, increasing recycling, minimisingfossil fuel usage, generating power from the wind turbine and col-lecting rainwater. The RIA also seeks to reconcile with the IndigenousNyungars over past injustices. Efforts to maintain the cultural, builtand natural environment are hampered by the fact that funding isderived solely from visitor fees.

3. Theoretical Frame

Researchers play a significant role in framing their research andthereby influencing the research outcomes (Barreteau et al., 2007),whether this frame is conscious or not. The present workshop wasframed at the request of the Rottnest Island Authority around sustain-ability and climate change. However, in choosing the methodologywe had several priorities. The principal choice was to use participato-ry mapping. Participatory mapping has some parallels with other par-ticipatory techniques such as participatory modelling (e.g., Barreteauet al., 2007; Stocker et al., 2011) which also function as vehicles fordeliberation and engagement but the present approach differs inthat it seeks to be spatially explicit. Such an approach is useful in con-texts where the sustainability of places is under consideration. Wealso made a variety of other framing choices which are set out below.

3.1. Complexity and Inter-dimensionality

Sustainability is a complex and inter-dimensional phenomenonrequiring research approaches for policy and planning that canrespond to these characteristics (Dovers, 2009; Star and Griesemer,1989; Wood and Stocker, 2009). Sustainability research then shouldbe post-normal (Guimarães-Pereira and Funtowicz, 2006) wherethe process of knowledge production is broadened beyond the scien-tific community to take in a greater diversity of actors and a morecomprehensive scope of work including values (Harris, 2007). Sus-tainability research should also take a transdisciplinary approach tocreate a holistic response (Dray et al., 2007; Meppem, 2000;Polimeni, 2006) whereby ecological, economic, social and cultural di-mensions and the interactions among these are accounted for (Kane,1999). The mapping process we present here explicitly uses all four ofthese layers without privileging any one layer over another. It allowsall four layers and their potential for interactivity or tension to bevisible simultaneously.

3.2. Norms and Power

When faced with competition among specific interests, groupsand needs, especially those pressing in the short term, sustainabledevelopment policy-makers often have to grapple with tendenciesof governments to reduce and downgrade normative commitment(O'Toole, 2004).

Sustainability action-research is normative in several ways. First,sustainability is normative in its intent, and contains at its centre con-cerns of intergenerational and intragenerational equity, ecologicalcare, respect of cultural diversity and peace (Robinson, 2004;Spangenberg, 2004). It incorporates moral dimensions such as con-cern for other species and future generations into the policy process.

Second, the principle of equity is applied to participatory researchprocesses, wherein participants of differing levels of positional powerhave an equal right to express their views. McCall (2003) suggeststhat local knowledge may be the only resource that the poorestgroups control, thus engaging in this process has much potential forempowerment. Where there is a mixture of stakeholders with arange of positional power, the process can potentially serve as a sociallevelling exercise if it is well facilitated because stakeholders all havesome tacit or professional knowledge to offer (Stocker, 1996).

At the same time, we need to recognise that the participatory pro-cess itself is post normal and flaws and caveats are inherently a partof this process and will influence its results. A range of differences inwealth, power, status, knowledge and communicative power betweenactors can potentially distort the participatory process and reinforceparticular views. For example, participatory methodsmay empower af-fluent, well organised groups at the expense of others (Wheeler, 2004).Strategic behaviour of actors who have strong and fixed agenda can in-fluence the outcomes of a process (Dray et al., 2007).

Third, sustainability research should account for social and cultur-al norms rather than simply the positive ‘facts’ of the situation(Church et al., 2010; Griffiths, 2007; Netherwood et al., 2006).

3.3. Place

While the processes of climate change are global, the impactsmanifest locally. We will need to respond to these impacts withplace-based strategies for effective adaptation and sustainability.Place-based approaches can mobilise and foster local knowledge tobuild strategies attuned to local conditions and greater understandingand commitment to sustainability objectives (Kemp et al., 2005).

The important role that place plays in sustainability research,policy and planning processes has been discussed by a number ofauthors (Moore, 1997; Beatley, 2004; Wheeler, 2004; Netherwoodet al., 2006; Stocker and Burke, 2006; Relph, 2008, 311). Vanclay

17L. Stocker et al. / Ecological Economics 80 (2012) 15–24

(2008) states that place is generally conceived as biophysical spaceimbued with cultural and social significance. Place-based researchenables access to the participants' tangible and substantive under-standings of the economic, social, cultural and ecological dimensionsof sustainability and the intersections of these that are essential tosustainability (Moore, 1997).

The research methodology we present in this paper is place-based.It maps placial attributes and identifies through participants' livedexperiences a suite of practical, locally relevant ideas about how sus-tainability could be advanced and about the barriers that currentlyexist. The research process explores the economic, social, culturaland ecological layers of place and how they synergise with orantagonise each other.

3.4. Dynamic Action-Learning-Research

O'Toole (2004, pp. 51–52) notes that there is a need for “continuouslearning, in broad social forums rather than merely on technical detailsamong experts; and institutional arrangements to move problem-solving along practical paths while also facilitating such learningamong diverse stakeholders in adaptive decision-making. These fea-tures are mutually supportive, even if they are marginal themes inthe scholarship on the implementation of public programmes”.

Sustainable development is a dynamic process of action, learningand research. Our Google Earth mapping process enables ‘learningfor sustainability’, a term used by Wooltorton (2006) to describe aparticipative learning approach for sustainability outcomes whereone learns how to turn knowledge into action. Learning for sustain-ability involves first and second order thinking: first order thinkingdevelops new insights into solutions to address policy problems; sec-ond order thinking develops new insights into the problem itself andthe decision making context (van de Kerkhof and Wieczorek, 2005).The process fosters mutual learning about the various meanings ofplaces, each other's concerns and possible solutions (Netherwood etal., 2006). Learning for sustainability is widely considered necessaryfor sustainability outcomes (Wooltorton, 2006).

3.5. Climate Science Uptake by Governance

A wide range of structural, functional, cultural and political attri-butes of conventional scientific practice and decision-making impedeboth dialogue at the science–governance interface and science uptakeby decision makers (Bradshaw and Borchers, 2000; Jäger, 2009;McNie, 2007; Morss et al., 2005; Tribbia and Moser, 2008).

In considering how the uptake of science can be increased to en-hance sustainability, we turn to Cash et al. (2002) who argue that in-formation and knowledge capable of improving decision-makingabout the management of complex environmental systems musthave the three attributes of credibility, salience and legitimacy, all ofwhich can only emerge from close and continual interactionsamong knowledge users and producers. Credibility refers to the reli-ability of scientific and technical evidence and arguments. Users ofscientific and technical information have to be convinced that it wasproduced in a scientifically rigorous process by credible researchers.Salience refers to the relevance of the information to the user'sneeds. Salience is more likely to be assured if users are included inall stages of the process to ensure their interests are incorporated.Legitimacy refers to the acceptability of the process for producing in-formation — in particular, the fair treatment of stakeholder's diversevalues, beliefs and interests. All three attributes exist in a tensionwhere efforts to enhance one invariably diminish another. Balancingthese attributes is challenging but essential for an effectiveknowledge-governance interface (Jäger, 2009).

Four institutional processes stand out as being able to effectivelyharness science and technology for sustainability by ensuring sa-lience, credibility and legitimacy across boundaries. These processes

are convening, translation, collaboration and mediation. Conveningconnotes the process of bringing parties together for face-to-face con-tact. This is hypothesized to be an important process, as it forms thebackground for relationships of trust and mutual respect. Bringingknowledge makers and decision makers together is a first step in en-abling a constructive dialogue. Translation can be literal and/or met-aphorical in order to provide information across boundaries oflanguage, assumptions and experiences for example. Collaborationis the process of co-producing knowledge by experts and decision-makers. Mediation represents and evaluates the different interestsin such a way that the parties involved perceive fairness and proce-dural justice. These processes must all be present but will be in differ-ent mixes in different systems (Cash et al., 2006b).

We note that each component of the overall process is likely to en-hance dialogue at the science–governance interface and science up-take. For example, convening addresses structural disjunctions; thatis, the physical and operational separation of scientific and decision-making realms that limit interactions to an ad hoc and crises bases.Translation addresses cultural discontinuities between scientists anddecision makers such as divergent methods and processes, under-standing of concepts and work practices. Collaboration enables scien-tists to expand their function beyond knowledge-making to includedecision-making. Conversely, decision makers can enjoy a first-handunderstanding of the science that they use for decision making. Medi-ation can address political and social conflicts and culturaldiscontinuities.

The work of Cash et al. (2006b) analyses practice in multi-partyengagements of boundary organisations. Boundary organisations arethose social and organisational arrangements that play an intermedi-ary role between knowledge production and decision-making (in dif-ferent domains and levels), with a view to achieving co-operation inrelation to a shared objective (Cash et al., 2006a; Guston, 2001;Lorenzoni et al., 2007). They can be organisations specifically createdto provide this function or exist within larger organisations (Cash etal., 2006a). Boundary organisations bring together actors from bothsides of a boundary to co-produce knowledge and decision-making.Boundary organisations tend to operate over a period of time with aconsistent composition of partners. In this respect, as a once offevent, our action-research workshop with the RIA probably fallsshort of a boundary organisation and more closely resembles ‘bound-ary spanning’ (McNie et al., 2008) or ‘knowledge brokering’ (Ward etal., 2009) whereby uniquely placed individuals bridge the variousboundaries between stakeholders and facilitate the linkages betweenknowledge and action. Boundary spanners are translators in the sensethat they are fluent in the languages of both sides of the boundary(McNie et al., 2008). In addition to translating information, boundaryspanners facilitate communication andmediate across the boundariesof the different domains.

Boundary objects are products of boundary organisations andboundary spanning. The idea of a boundary object was introducedin a seminal paper by Star and Griesemer (1989, 393) to refer to ‘ob-jects’ which may either be concrete or abstract, which are “both plas-tic enough to adapt to local needs and the constraints of the severalparties employing them, yet robust enough to maintain commonidentity across sites”. Examples of boundary objects include datasets, maps, reports and models. As well as physical artefacts, bound-ary objects are now also said to include discourses and processes(Wenger, 2000).

In the current Google Earth mapping process we tried to fulfil thefour functions of a boundary organisation: bringing stakeholders to-gether face to face; translating climate science and sustainability in-formation into accessible formats; collaborating to co-produceknowledge about impacts on and futures for Rottnest Island; andusing experienced facilitators to ensure that all voices were heardand represented fairly. This work produced a multifaceted map –

the boundary object – around which relationships were strengthened

18 L. Stocker et al. / Ecological Economics 80 (2012) 15–24

and energised, action mobilised and ultimately improved conditionsfor the implementation of sustainability policies.

3.6. Participatory GIS Mapping

Participatory processes in decision-making and governance are in-tegral to sustainable development and premised on the assumptionthat ‘ordinary’ people have the capacity to “sufficiently understandcomplex technical issues to engage in rational deliberation and part-ner in decision-making” and that this process will result in decisionsin the ‘highest public interest’ (Hartz-Karp, 2007). Participation is im-portant for diversity of input (Rammel and van den Bergh, 2003; Starand Griesemer, 1989), inclusivity (Sarkissian et al., 2009, pp 191–226) transparency (Star and Griesemer, 1989), feedback, as well asthe key trademarks of good governance: legitimacy, credibility, effica-cy and implementability (Cash et al., 2002; Meadowcroft, 2004).

Sustainability mapping and planning should be undertaken by across section of the community or relevant stakeholder set in orderto enhance the intersubjective power of the exercise. By sharingtheir comparable but diverse experiences and viewpoints, partici-pants are less likely to produce a map that is prone to individualbias or gaps in knowledge. By using overlays and Google Earth, map-ping can become more dynamic and interactive. Google Earth pro-vides locally relevant information and user-friendly interactivitythat can enhance novice or lay users' experiences (Patterson, 2007).Virtual Globes other than Google Earth may be used but we used Goo-gle Earth because of its ready availability and cross-platform capacity(Schultz et al., 2008).

As noted by McCall (2003), such a tool provides advantages overpaper mapping such as a staggered level of detailed images, the abil-ity to mark up places, add imagery and information, as well as utiliseinformation already added to the database— allowing for the creationof a multifaceted map. If participatory, it can give minority groups avoice and be very empowering (McCall, 2003).

The term ‘participatory GIS’ was coined in the mid-1990's and isgenerally associated with the use of GIS for community engagement(Rinner et al. 2008). Participatory GIS has been employed aroundthe world as a tool for community engagement, especially in local re-source management and neighbourhood planning. Participatory GISenables participants to analyse land and resource use issues, raisesawareness and knowledge of sustainability and fosters good gover-nance incorporating the principles of participation, equity and trans-parency (McCall, 2003).

Early support for an online approach to participatory GIS camefrom UK research where this method was found to inform and engagethe public effectively (Kingston et al., 2000). The advantages of theonline approach are that it enables greater community participation,access, empowerment and ownership of spatial planning issueswhilst incorporating local knowledge and improving local gover-nance processes (McCall, 2003). Purely online tools reduce the issuesof geographical access and time barriers. However, an online-only ap-proach may lead to ‘awareness’ rather than active engagement inchange or stewardship (McCall, 2003).

As foreshadowed above, themappingmethod presented here aims togenerate a collaborative understanding of the sustainability attributes,concerns and adaptive solutions for a place using participatory processesto deliberate about sustainability and climate change impacts.

Themethodwas derived from theWestern Australian EMU(Ecosys-tem Management Understanding) project that developed in theGascoyne Murchison rangelands (Pringle et al., 2003) and was adaptedby the authors for teaching and learning about sustainability (Stockerand Burke, 2006, 2009). The present method is being used in otherlocal government areas along the south west coast of WA as part ofthe Coastal Collaboration Cluster research and a comparison of its appli-cation will be written up as a separate paper. The present method in-volves the use of transparent overlays on a map of the area under

investigation. On each layer, participants map places of ecological, cul-tural, social and economic value. Where there are synergies amongthe four layers, sustainability ‘hotspots’ are said to exist (Stocker andBurke, 2006, 2009). This information is then transferred to GoogleEarth and elaborated through further discussion and place-markingconcerns and adaptive pathways (Stocker and Burke, 2006, 2009).

As with many forms of knowledge, any given map presupposes andgives primacy to certain kinds of knowledge. Ifwe are not careful, amapcan be seen to represent that knowledge as truth. This is especially sowith maps created from satellite images which are photographs andtherefore can appear to be objective representations. However, on anymap, some details are shown and some are hidden; some places andborders are named and some are un-named. These choices, and manyothers made by cartographers, contribute to a map's status as a socialconstruction of knowledge. Sometimes maps explicitly representvalues and norms, for example, the Google Earth ‘Global Awareness’layer which features information about endangered species, develop-ment, aid and human rights. Crampton (2001) identifies the ‘epistemic’break that occurred towards the end of the 20th century when, due tothe challenges of scholars like Harley (1989), cartography ceased tobe seen purely as a communication system, and came to be seen as afield of power relations; maps were no longer seen to represent stable,known data but rather as exploratory environments in which knowl-edge is constructed.

Taking this argument even further, mapping as a qualitative re-search methodology has been promoted by Powell (2010) expresslyfor its ability to evoke relationships between place, lived experience,and community. Powell (2010) argues that “mapping highlights anddisplays the ways in which place configures a sense of self in relationto historical, geographical, and localized environments. Because of itsability to evoke the senses, maps highlight the involuted relationshipsbetween self and place and the ways in which self and place are mu-tually constitutive and relational” (Powell, 2010).

Our methodology is a variant form of Public Participatory GISwhere the general community, including marginalised groups andpeople with specialist knowledge, is included in the mapping process(Dunn, 2007). The method allows for interaction and discussion be-tween participants, can be applied in a variety of situations and scales,collects both empirical and experiential data and utilises visual andanalytical skills rather than conventional literacy skills enablingwider community participation (Stocker and Burke, 2006, 2009). Al-though using a methodology in which the participants are membersof the general community is clearly democratic, the current action-research process was specifically about engaging decision-makingstakeholders in the first instance.

The mapping process used in this research is explicitly directed to-wards documenting the normative visions of sustainability and cli-mate adaptation, and enabling these to be expressed in response tothe best available science. It thus seeks to bring together scientific in-formation with stakeholders' values. It seeks to engage people direct-ly around attributes of places that they recognise as important,without giving precedence to any norm, perspective or stakeholderregardless of positional power. It is the challenging job of skilled facil-itators and scribes to ensure that as many perspectives as possible arediscussed, negotiated and recorded.

The current mapping methodology is qualitative and interpretive.The qualitative results however can be linked back to quantitative data-bases for correlation and analysis via GIS technology. This research ap-proach then is neither completely objective nor completely subjectiveas per an individual's experience. Rather it is relational (Mannheim,1936) and inter-subjective (Eden et al., 1981): resultant knowledge isa co-production based on specialist knowledge, participants' relation-ships to and knowledge of Rottnest Island, and also on the discussionsthat create emergent, negotiated knowledge. Knowledge thus generat-ed includes the norms and values of the participants around the tables.However, the many different subjective views that come together to

19L. Stocker et al. / Ecological Economics 80 (2012) 15–24

form our negotiated intersubjective results help overcome both indi-vidual bias and/or gaps in knowledge. This methodology offers a differ-ent way of producing knowledge (Meppem and Bourke, 1999).

4. Methodology

4.1. Stakeholder Participation

Curtin University researchers designed theworkshop in consulta-tion with the RIA. Around 50 participants attended the workshop, in-cluding: RIA members, staff, the business community, volunteers,Indigenous representatives and state agency representatives andsubject experts from Advisory Committees. The RIA selected partici-pants on the basis of their close working associations with RottnestIsland. The aim was to represent a wide variety of associations withthe Island.

Participants were seated in six tables of eight, each with a facilita-tor from the CUSP Institute. Each table was assigned one zone ofRottnest Island for the day's activities. Each table had a physicalmap of its designated zone and a Google Earth map showing thatzone uploaded to a laptop. Fig. 1 shows the Zones used.

4.2. Important Places, Their Attributes and Uses

In order to get participation happening quickly, an icebreaker andthe first participatory exercise followed the Welcome speeches.Participants at tables were asked to identify important places atRottnest Island, their attributes and uses. On the physical base mapthey used a series of four plastic overlays to work through, respectively,

Fig. 1. Zones of Rottnest Islan

the ecological, social, cultural and economic uses and attributes of impor-tant places in their zone. The definitions of the four layers are set outbelow.

Economic layer (blue thumbtack): includes places where peopleearn or spend money; all phases of the life cycle of production/consumption/waste disposal; shops, ferry terminal, bus tours, galleries,and museums.

Social layer (red thumbtack): includes places where people meet,‘belong’, or organise to meet their needs such as hospital, police sta-tion, pub, bike racks, bus system, ferry jetty, accommodation, boatingand other recreational activities.

Ecological layer (green thumbtack): includes places that have nat-ural ecosystem values or that protect ecosystems; beaches, bush,recycling plant, and wind turbine.

Cultural layer (black thumbtack): includes places of special mean-ing; Indigenous sites, historical sites, performance areas, museums,galleries, pubs, and interpretation.

The facilitator then entered this information using the same layersin Google Earth. Fig. 2 shows the participants undertaking thisactivity.

At the end of this stage, the tables shared their findings in a plena-ry session so everyone could see the whole of Island picture.

By placing the four transparent layers on top of each other, or by turn-ing on all four layers in Google Earth, the participants could see that therewere certain areaswhere therewas activity in several of the layers. Theseareas we designated Sustainability Hotspots and they became the focusof the subsequent mapping exercises. Data from these layers will beavailable in kmz format to inform detailed planning during developmentof RIMP environment and recreation strategies.

d used in the workshop.

20 L. Stocker et al. / Ecological Economics 80 (2012) 15–24

4.3. Specialist Speakers

We chose specialist speakers who would respond explicitly to theworkshop frame of sustainability and climate change. Specialistspresented a series of short talks on sustainability principles, climatechange scenarios and likely climate impacts for Rottnest Island. Keyclimate change trends and projections include: warmer and drierconditions, rising sea levels, and more extreme erosive events suchas storm high tides. These will make Rottnest very vulnerable tocoastal erosion and ground water changes.

4.4. Concerns about Sustainability Hotspots

At this stage, using the maps and Google Earth at the tables again,participants were guided by a set of questions in which they wereasked to identify and discuss any concerns about each hotspot.These questions were:

• What is the impact/threat you are concerned about?• What is affected?• Who is affected?• What changes are irreversible?• What changes and risks are high priority?

The facilitator at each table recorded participants' responses to thequestions in Google Earth, in a new Concerns Layer. The concernsthey raised were about climate change and a variety of other pres-sures. The concerns were derived from specialist talks and fromtheir own experience as stakeholders. Group discussions did not fol-low the set questions very closely.

A spokesperson for each table reported their findings back to aplenary session.

4.5. Adaptive Strategies

At this stage, once again at the tables with maps and Google Earth,participants identified adaptive strategies and actions that could betaken to ameliorate causes of concern at each hotspot. The facilitatorat each table recorded the participants' responses in Google Earth,creating a new Adaptive Strategies layer. Adaptive responses couldbe technical, educational or strategic in nature.

Fig. 2. Participants begin the o

A spokesperson for each table reported their findings back to aplenary session.

4.6. Final Plenary — Proposed Adaptive Strategies

In the final plenary session, the common threads of all the con-cerns and the respective adaptive strategies were drawn together.After each table had reported, the whole group was asked to identifythe common threads among the tables; these were recorded on thewhiteboard in real time.

5. Results

5.1. Climate Change Vulnerability

Rottnest Island is highly vulnerable to coastal erosion and inunda-tion, declining rainfall, reduced groundwater supplies, changes inocean currents and increasing temperatures. The impacts of thesepressures will be felt on the marine and terrestrial environments,on the built environment and on visitor usage patterns. Participantsidentify Rottnest Island as a focal site that should attract and concen-trate climate change research and careful, detailed, adaptive planningfor the Island and key areas.

5.2. Knowledge about Climate Change

Participants are concerned that public knowledge about sustain-ability and the impacts of climate change on Rottnest Island is low.They suggest that an interpretive centre that can present researchfindings from (Section 4.6.1) above should be developed. This centrewould feature best available and relevant sustainability and climatechange knowledge in relation to Rottnest Island and would thus edu-cate the general public.

5.3. Bushland and Lakes

The health of the remnant bushland, lakes and associated faunaare a key concern, especially in the centre of the island where declin-ing rainfall is having an impact. Whilst rehabilitation of the bushlandsis desirable, there may be insufficient recharge to meet the needs of

verlay mapping process.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Very Low Low Average High Very High

How would you rate yourgeneral knowledge of climate change and sustainability issue (before the workshop)?

How would you rate yourgeneral knowledge of climate change and sustainability issues (afterthe workshop)?

Fig. 3. Self-rated levels of knowledge before and after the workshop.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Very Low Low Average High Very High

How would you rate your level of concern about climate change and sustainability issues (before the workshop)?

How would you rate your level of concern about climate change and sustainability issues (afterthe workshop)?

Fig. 4. Self-rated levels of concern before and after the workshop.

21L. Stocker et al. / Ecological Economics 80 (2012) 15–24

rehabilitation and human usage whilst keeping water levels up tothe freshwater lakes. A better understanding of the water balance(recharge/discharge, extraction and water use by vegetation) of theIsland is needed. Priority should be given to the health of freshwaterlakes.

5.4. Visitor Pressure

Visitor pressure is a key concern at some hotspots. Participants be-lieve that the large numbers of visitors at these sites are degradingthe environment and reducing quality of visitor experience. Partici-pants want to see visitor pressure managed by spreading it out acrossalternate sites. Special care needs to be taken at the West End to pro-vide protection and interpretation but not too much additional infra-structure, because of its status as the ‘pristine’ part of the Islandexperience.

5.5. Boating

The increasing numbers of boats visiting Rottnest Island createspressures on marine and coastal infrastructure and the environment.Participants would like to see this trend managed for growth. A strat-egy is to reduce the amount of anchoring permitted and increase inthe number of moorings available; the creation of a marina in theKingstown/army jetty area could be desirable.

5.6. Accommodation

Accommodation which has been built close to the sea's edge isnow very vulnerable to coastal erosion and inundation. Participantssuggest that it should be relocated inland, away from beaches, andthat the new accommodation be developed as eco-accommodation,featuring increased density, passive solar design, PV cells and waterefficiency.

5.7. Infrastructure

At many hotspots, infrastructure is decaying, according to partici-pants. Critical infrastructure should be identified, maintained and fur-ther decay prevented.

5.8. Governance

Lack of funding is a constraint to many of the above adaptive strat-egies. The strategic solution suggested in the workshop is to concen-trate on particular themes for funding purposes. These themesinclude:

• the unique geological heritage of the Island;• the cultural heritage, including military and pastoral histories, andpre-colonial and post-colonial Aboriginal history; and

• the unique but changing marine ecology of the Island's waters.

5.9. Vision

There is a need for a more clearly articulated long-term vision forRottnest Island in the context of future pressures such as climatechange and increased visitation.

6. Participant Satisfaction and Changes in Awareness

‘Before and after’ surveys in the form of structured questionnaireswere administered to participants to assess their experiences of theworkshop. We asked about self-rated levels of knowledge, concernand behaviour. We received 22 completed surveys at the end of theworkshop. Self-rated knowledge levels increased as a result of the

workshop, with most participants rating their knowledge levels ashigh or very high after the workshop (Fig. 3).

Self-rated levels of concern about climate change and sustainabil-ity were already fairly high and did not change much as a result of theworkshop (Fig. 4). This result could reflect a situation in which it wasmostly concerned participants who attended the workshop.

Self-rated levels of active involvement in climate change and sus-tainability activities showed an increase as a result of the workshop(Fig. 5). This was an interesting result as it suggests that it was partic-ipants' low levels of knowledge not their levels of concern that hadpreviously limited the sustainability of participants' activities atRottnest Island.

Participants were asked which were the most useful and interest-ing aspects of the workshop and which activities helped develop ashared understanding of climate change and sustainability in thegroup (Fig. 6). Frequencies sum to more than 22 as some participantsindicated more than one category. Marginal comments in surveys andfrequencies presented below showed the great value of the specialisttalks in providing concise and clear information specifically aboutRottnest Island. Many respondents also emphasised how much theyenjoyed interacting with the wide range of participants and perspec-tives represented at the tables, and appreciated being included in theworkshop. The Google Earth mapping activities were also popular as aworkshop process: different stages interested different participants.One of the most instructive results is that, overall, different partici-pants liked different aspects of the workshop. This result relates part-ly to the range of backgrounds of the various participants. However, italso underscores what is known well in educational theory, which isthat people learn in different ways. It is thus important to have visual,aural and interactive dimensions in a workshop where a range oflearning styles is likely to be present.

Very low Low Average High Very High

What is your level of active involvement in climate change and sustainability activities in your role at Rottnest (before the workshop)?

What level of active involvement in climate change and sustainabilityactivities will you have at Rottnest (after the workshop)?

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Fig. 5. Self-rated levels of active involvement in climate change and sustainability ac-tivities before and after the workshop.

22 L. Stocker et al. / Ecological Economics 80 (2012) 15–24

Participants' comments also reveal an issue that was both astrength and a weakness of the overall process and derived fromtwo factors. First, the social, cultural, economic and ecological layersare treated as of equal importance in the present methodology: noone layer is privileged over another. Second, there were very differentlevels of knowledge and experience of sustainability and climatechange among the participants yet the methodology treatedeveryone's ideas as having equal validity and importance. However,one participant considered that his area of expertise, hydrology, wasof fundamental primacy because the water balance is central to thecarrying capacity of the whole Island; whereas issues such as culturalinterpretation, he argued, do not affect the viability of the Island op-eration overall. From this point of view, it is a weakness of the meth-odology not to favour the more ‘fundamental’ biophysical issues. Onthe other hand, the very intent of the methodology is not to privilegeany one of the four layers, or any participant's viewpoint. It is com-mon for the physical scientists and engineers to claim primacy fortheir fields over the social and cultural dimensions of an issue, yet itis the latter dimensions that actually create meaning and value fromthe physical world (Griffiths, 2007) and therefore have the power toengage people's attention and support for the physical dimensions.Of course, it is also common for economists to claim primacy fortheir field and certainly this is a dominant feature of our contempo-rary policy landscape. Hence, the methodological approach of notfavouring any one field or layer is maintained: all layers are relevantto a holistic understanding of sustainability, and therefore all needto be considered in adaptive strategies.

A closely related point was that one or two more knowledgeableand experienced participants wanted to take the discussions to agreater level of technical detail than was possible given the range of

Specialist talks about climate change and sustainability (20)

Interacting with other participantswith a range of perspectives (18)

Overview of island and general increase in knowledge (2)

Mapping place, concern and adaptive strategies (12)

Fig. 6. Aspect or activity in the workshop that participants considered most interestingand useful.

participants and indeed the overall aim of the workshop; this wasfrustrating for them. However, the advantage of drawing on a widerange of collected expertise was that these knowledgeable partici-pants were able to help provide greater substance to the table discus-sions and help inform the whole process in terms of detail.

7. Discussion and Conclusions

The theoretical frame we developed for this research paperincluded the key aspects of: complexity and inter-dimensionality,norms and power, place, dynamic action-learning-research, climatescience uptake by governance and participatory GIS mapping. Overall,the workshopworked very well as a process for bringing a wide rangeof participants together to share insights and understandings aboutsustainability and climate change on Rottnest Island. Participants'comments taken together show a high level of satisfaction with theworkshop. Many were delighted to be invited and to participate, insome cases for the first time, in planning for the future of Rottnest Is-land. Overall, the level of knowledge about sustainability and climatechange, and the commitment to take further action in this regard, in-creased conspicuously as a result of the workshop. This learning wasnot just simple absorption of information but involved learning forsustainability, including first and second order thinking. First orderthinking developed new insights into solutions to address substantivepolicy issues such as tourism pressure, climate change and biodiversi-ty loss; second order thinking developed new insights into thedecision-making context by framing the issues within sustainabilityand considering governance as part of the discussion, that is an ele-ment of reflexive governance was introduced into the workshop pro-cess. The process generated spatially explicit data; in addition, thecommon threads from the hotspots in each of the six zones cametogether into a coherent set of overall recommendations.

With respect to the different levels of power among participants,we observed the need for facilitators to ensure the opinions of peoplewith positional power did not dominate discussions. Furthermore,frank and open discussion was more likely to emerge where peopleleft their positional power at the door.

In terms of participatory GIS, the ‘flashy’ visual nature of GISoutputs can be experienced as distracting and/or concealing andtherefore generate concerns about accountability and transparency(McCall, 2004). This is because the map appears to have objective sta-tus and people can be easily convinced of this power and forget toconsider the values that have not been expressed (McCall, 2004). Bycontrast, the maps created during this Google Earth mapping arenot meant to be an objective or comprehensive assessment of thevalue of the area, but rather an intersubjective assessment thatdepends entirely on the participants present around the tables. Inour case, we had around 50 stakeholders from a wide range ofperspectives, who by sharing their comparable experiences are lesslikely to produce a map result that is prone to individual bias orgaps in knowledge.

Decision-makers also generally appreciate speed in delivery ofinformation but a participatory mapping process is time-intensive.As McCall (2003; McCall 2004) states, when GIS is involved, the out-put may be fast, but the inputs are not, because it takes time to coor-dinate participants and gather, check and integrate their information.In our workshop, Placemarking comments into Google Earth was verytime-intensive and fiddly, despite the fact that a tailor-made templatewas developed and used to enter comments for the four layers andthe various workshop stages. Smaller groups at the tables and/oradditional trained scribes would have made this process more consis-tent and less stressful.

In terms of science uptake by decision-makers, the workshoputilised the processes of convening, translating, collaborating andme-diating (Cash, Borck et al. 2006). We brought stakeholders togetherface to face in an open, egalitarian and participatory forum. We

23L. Stocker et al. / Ecological Economics 80 (2012) 15–24

translated climate science and sustainability information into accessi-ble formats using top scientists who were also excellent communica-tors. We encouraged collaboration in the form of the co-production ofknowledge about impacts on and futures for Rottnest Island. Finally,the ‘mediation’ aspect of the workshop fell to the facilitators whotried to ensure that all voices were heard and represented fairly,and conflict was resolved satisfactorily. Groups were not required toarrive at consensus on highly specific details; rather, facilitatorsaimed to help negotiate and document a range of concerns and adap-tive solutions. In some cases, further research is indicated, for exam-ple, where there were conflicting views or incomplete evidence. Inthe case of the water balance of the Island, further research has al-ready been commissioned. In terms of science uptake by decision-makers as an outcome of the workshop, the RIA now proposes the fol-lowing measures:

• A climate change vulnerability assessment will be conducted toconfirm claims and/or identify the need for additional information

• Relevant research that contributes to sustainability and climate ad-aptation will be encouraged

• A sustainability/climate adaptation module as part of proposedRottnest Museum redevelopment will be considered

• Expansion of the ‘Sustainable Rottnest’ education programme to in-clude community education and climate change issues will beconsidered

• Research on groundwater, rainfall and freshwater seeps, fauna andseeps, revegetation effects on groundwater to provide informationto enhance wetland conservation will be considered

• Sustainable visitor research and boating visitor research recom-mendations will be implemented to reduce visitor pressure

• Potential climate change impacts on infrastructure will be consid-ered during planning maintenance, upgrades and replacement

• Opportunities will be sought for nature-based, cultural heritage, In-digenous, and geo-tourism sponsorship, partnerships and revenue.

Ongoing research will determine to what extent and in what waysthese proposals are implemented.

Role of the Funding Source

This project received funding from the Rottnest Island Authority.This project also received funding from, and contributes to, the re-search of the Coastal Collaboration Cluster. The Coastal CollaborationCluster is funded by the CSIRO Wealth from Oceans and Climate Ad-aptation Flagships. The funding sources were not involved in the col-lection, analysis or interpretation of data, or in the writing of thisarticle or decision to submit for publication.

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the project commission and also theworkshop participation by the Rottnest Island Authority, and the sup-port and participation of John Tedesco, Manager Planning and Gover-nance. Karen Majer played an important role in liaising between theRIA and CUSP in the planning phase of the project. The table facilita-tors played a highly challenging role and made tremendous efforts.They were: Carmen Elrick, Carolyn Hofmeester, Deb Kennedy, DinnyLaurence, Karen Majer and Brian Peddie. We thank the specialistspeakers for their valuable contributions: Carmen Elrick, Matt Eliot,Patrick Ward, Boyd Wykes and Russ Babcock. Additional support tothe workshop was provided by Jordan Faletti and Ewa Szczepaniak.The maps were prepared by David Robertson at the RIA.

The authors are also grateful for the comments of two anonymousreviewers on an earlier draft of this paper.

References

Barreteau, O., Le Page, C., Perez, P., 2007. Contribution of simulation and gaming to nat-ural resource management issues: an introduction. Simulation and Gaming 38 (2),185.

Beatley, T., 2004. Native to Nowhere: Sustaining Home and Community in a Global age.Island Press, Washington, DC.

Bradshaw, G.A., Borchers, J.G., 2000. Uncertainty as information: narrowing the science–policy gap. Ecology and Society 4 (1), 7.

Cash, D., Borck, J., Patt, A., 2006. Countering the loading-dock approach to linking sci-ence and decision making: comparative analysis of El Nino/Southern Oscillation(ENSO) forecasting systems. Science, Technology & Human Values 31 (4),465–494.

Cash, D., Clark, W., et al., 2002. Salience, credibility, legitimacy and boundaries: linkingresearch, assessment and decision making. KSG Working Papers Series RWP02-046, pp. 1–24.

Cash, D.W., Adger, W.N., et al., 2006a. Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance andinformation in a multi-level world. Ecology and Society 11 (2), 8.

Cash, D.W., Borck, J.C., et al., 2006b. Countering the loading-dock approach to linkingscience and decision making comparative analysis of El Niño/Southern Oscillation(ENSO) forecasting systems. Science Technology, & Human Values 31 (4),465–494.

Church, J.A., Woodworth, P.L., et al., 2010. Understanding Sea-level Rise and Variability.Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Singapore.

Crampton, J.W., 2001. Maps as social constructions: power, communication and visual-ization. Progress in Human Geography 235–252.

Dovers, S., 2009. Normalizing adaptation: editorial. Global Environmental Change 19,4–6.

Dray, A., Perez, P., et al., 2007. Who wants to terminate the game? The role of vestedinterests and metaplayers in the ATOLLGAME experience. Simulation Gaming 38(4), 494–511.

Dunn, C., 2007. Participatory GIS — a people's GIS? Progress in Human Geography 31,616–637.

Eden, C., Jones, S., et al., 1981. The intersubjectivity of issues and issues of intersubjec-tivity. Journal of Management Studies 18 (1), 37–47.

Feng, J., Li, J., et al., 2010. A monsoon-like southwest Australian circulation and its rela-tion with rainfall in southwest Western Australia. Journal of Climate 23 (6),1335–1353.

Griffiths, T., 2007. The humanities and an environmentally sustainable Australia. Aus-tralian Humanities Review 43 (December).

Guimarães-Pereira, A., Funtowicz, S., 2006. Knowledge representation and mediationfor transdisciplinary frameworks: tools to inform debates, dialogues and delibera-tions. International Journal of Transdisciplinary Research 1 (1), 34–50.

Guston, D.H., 2001. Boundary organisations in environmental policy and science: an in-troduction. Science, Technology and Human Values 26 (4), 399–408.

Harley, J.B., 1989. Deconstructing the map. Cartographica 26, 1–20.Harris, G., 2007. Seeking Sustainability in an Age of Complexity. Cambridge University

Press, New York.Hartz-Karp, J., 2007. How and why deliberative democracy enables co-intelligence and

brings wisdom to governance. Journal of Public Deliberation 3 (1).Jäger, J., 2009. The governance of science for sustainability. In: Adger, N., Jordan, A.

(Eds.), Governing Sustainability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.142–158.

Kane, M., 1999. Sustainability concepts: from theory to practice. In: Kohn, J. (Ed.), Sus-tainability in Question: The Search for a Conceptual Framework. Edward Elgar,Cheltenham.

Kemp, R., Parto, S., et al., 2005. Governance for sustainable development: moving fromtheory to practice. International Journal of Sustainable Development 8 (1/2), 12–30.

Kingston, R., Carver, S., et al., 2000. Web-based public participation geographical infor-mation systems: an aid to local environmental decision-making. Computers, Envi-ronment and Urban Systems 24 (2), 109–125.

Lorenzoni, I., Jones, M., et al., 2007. Climate change, human genetics, and post-normality in the UK. Futures 39 (1), 65–82.

Mannheim, K., 1936. Ideology and Utopia: An Introduction to the Sociology of Knowl-edge. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.

McCall, M.K., 2003. Seeking good governance in participatory-GIS: a review of process-es and governance dimensions in applying GIS to participatory spatial planning.Habitat International 27 (4), 549–573.

McCall, M.K., 2004. Can participatory-GIS strengthen local-level spatial planning? Sug-gestions for Better Practice. Dept. of Urban & Regional Planning andGeoInformation Management, Enschede, The Netherlands.

McNie, E.C., 2007. Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands:an analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environmental Science &Policy 10 (1), 17–38.

McNie, E.C., van Noordwijk, M., et al., 2008. Boundary organizations, objects, andagents: linking knowledge with action in agroforestry watersheds. Report of aworkshop held in Batu, Malang, east java, Indonesia 26–29 July 2007. CID GraduateStudent and Research FellowWorking Paper No.34, Centre for International Devel-opment at Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, and ICRAF Working Paper No.80.World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi, Kenya.

Meadowcroft, J., 2004. Participation and sustainable development: modes of citizen,community and organisational involvement. In: Lafferty, W.M. (Ed.), Governancefor Sustainable Development : The Challenge of Adapting Form to Function.Edward Elga, Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, Mass, pp. 162–190.

Meppem, T., 2000. The discursive community: evolving institutional structures forplanning sustainability. Ecological Economics 34 (234), 47–61.

24 L. Stocker et al. / Ecological Economics 80 (2012) 15–24

Meppem, T., Bourke, S., 1999. Different ways of knowing: a communicative turn to-ward sustainability. Ecological Economics 30 (3), 389–404.

Moore, S., 1997. Place' and sustainability: research opportunities and dilemmas. Con-ference of the Australia Association for Social Research. Charles Sturt University,Wagga Wagga (Centre for Rural Social Research).

Morss, R.E., Van Wilhelm, O.V., et al., 2005. Flood risk, uncertainty, and scientific infor-mation for decision making: lessons from an interdisciplinary project. AmericanMeteorological Society 86 (11), 1593–1601.

Netherwood, K., Buchanan, J., et al., 2006. Values education for relational sustainability:a case study of Lance Holt school and friends. Sharing Wisdom for Our Future: En-vironmental Education in Action Bunbury, Western Australia. Australian Associa-tion for Environmental Education, Sydney.

O'Toole, Jr., L.J., 2004. Implementation theory and the challenge of sustainable develop-ment: the transformative role of learning. In: Lafferty, W.M. (Ed.), Edward Elgar,Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, Mass., pp. 32–60.

Patterson, T., 2007. Google Earth as a (Not Just) Geography Education Tool. Journal ofGeography 106, 145–152.

Polimeni, J.M., 2006. Transdisciplnary research: moving forward. International Journalof Transdisciplinary Research 1 (1), 1–3.

Powell, K., 2010. Making sense of place: mapping as a multisensory research method.Qualitative Inquiry 16 (7), 539–555.

Pringle, H., Tinley, K., et al., 2003. The gascoyne–murchison strategy: a people centredapproach to conservation in arid western Australia. African Journal of Range & For-age Science 20 (2), 80–88.

Rammel, C., van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., 2003. Evolutionary policies for sustainable develop-ment: adaptive flexibility and risk minimising. Ecological Economics 47 (2–3),121–133.

Relph, E., 2008. A pragmatic sense of place. In: Vanclay, F., Higgins, M., Blackshaw,A. (Eds.), Making Sense of Place. National Museum of Australia Press, Canberra,pp. 311–323.

Rinner, C., Kessler, C., Andrulis, S., 2008. The use of Web 2.0 concepts to support delib-eration in spatial decision-making. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems32 (5), 386–395.

Robinson, J., 2004. Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable devel-opment. Ecological Economics 48, 369–384.

Sarkissian, W., Shore, Y., Vajda, S., Wilkinson, C., 2009. Kitchen Table Sustainability:Practical Recipes for Community Engagement with Sustainability. Earthscan,London.

Schultz, R., Kerski, J., et al., 2008. The Use of virtual globes as a spatial teaching tool withsuggestions for metadata standards. Journal of Geography 107, 27–34.

Spangenberg, J., 2004. Sustainability beyond environmentalism: the missing di-mensions. Governance for Sustainable Development (GoSD) Working Paper.2. 28 pp.

Star, S.L., Griesemer, J.R., 1989. Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary ob-jects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's museum of vertebrate zoology,1907–39. Social Studies of Science 19 (3), 387–420.

Stocker, L.J., 1996. Community science and community scientists: their role in conser-vation. In: Saunders, D.A., Craig, J., Mattiske, E. (Eds.), Nature Conservation 4: TheRole of Networks. Surrey Beatty & Sons Ltd, Chipping Norton, Australia.

Stocker, L., Burke, G., 2006. Overlay mapping— a methodology for place-based sustain-ability education. In: Wooltorton, S., Marinova, D. (Eds.), Sharing Wisdom for OurFuture: Environmental Education in Action. Australian Association for Environ-mental Education, Sydney.

Stocker, L., Burke, G., 2009. Teaching sustainability with overlay mapping and GoogleEarth. Teaching and learning for global graduates: Proceedings of the 18th Annu-al Teaching Learning Forum, 29–30 January 2009. Curtin University ofTechnology.

Stocker, L., Kennedy, D., Metcalf, S., Dambacher, J., Middle, G., Wood, D., 2011. Model-ling coastal governance in the South West of WA: complexity, collaboration andclimate adaptation. MODSIM 2011 International Congress on Modelling and Simu-lation. Modelling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand, Perth, Aus-tralia, pp. 2996–3002.

Tribbia, J., Moser, S.C., 2008. More than information: what coastal managers need toplan for climate change. Environmental Science & Policy 11 (4), 315–328.

Vanclay, F., 2008. Place matters. In: Vanclay, F., Higgins, M., Blackshaw, A. (Eds.), Mak-ing Sense of Place. National Museum of Australia Press, Canberra, pp. 2–11.

van de Kerkhof, M., Wieczorek, A.J., 2005. Learning and stakeholder participation intransition processes towards sustainability: methodological considerations. Tech-nological Forecasting and Social Change 72 (6), 733–747.

Ward, V.L., House, A.O., et al., 2009. Knowledge brokering: exploring the process oftransferring knowledge into action. BMC Health Services Research 9 (12), 1–6.

Wenger, E., 2000. Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization 7(2), 225–246.

Wheeler, S., 2004. Planning for Sustainability: Creating Livable, Equitable, and Ecolog-ical Communities. Routledge, New York, NY.

Wood, D., Stocker, L., 2009. Coastal adaptation to climate change: Towards reflexivegovernance. The International Journal of Science in Society 1 (3), 137–145.

Wooltorton, S., 2006. A participatory approach to learning sustainability. In: Leal-Filho,W. (Ed.), Innovation, Education and Communication for Sustainable Development.Peter Lang, New York.