University of Manchester
Research methodology
and scale
Action based research
and scale
Effective scale for
intervention
Research methodology
considerations
Effective scale for
intervention
Research methodology
considerations
Micro-scale – Site
or ecotope level
Effective scale for
intervention
Research methodology
considerations
The paradox of scale - landscape as mediator
Effective scale for
intervention
Research methodology
considerations
Issues of scale are increasingly being recognized as important in research into social and natural phenomena, and in particular, in research that concerns ecological sustainability [1] and social participation. There are many factors that influence this shift.
Over the last three decades, there has been an increasing awareness that local actions can have regional and global effects, and in turn local environmental issues can be affected by regional and global environmental change. Many environmental problems have only become apparent over time, due to delays between cause and discernible effect. This lag is further complicated by the fact that global climate change, pollutants and ecological problems cross boundaries of scale, so that effects from a source of pollution or a human activity that intervenes in ecological processes may be manifested at a different level of scale than the cause (Gibson, Ostrom et al. 2000) . Scientists are gaining a better understanding of the inherently trans-media, trans-sectoral and trans-scale nature of many of the pollutants that are being released into the environment (Kidd 2000, pg. 356) .
As more and more governmental agencies, NGO’s, companies, communities and individuals are taking on management and planning polices with the themes of improving ecological integrity, social equity and long term economic vitality as their organizing principles, the concept of sustainable development [2] is gaining relevance as a research agenda. This has lead to a call for increasing integration of social science and natural science research. Interdisciplinary research of this kind has been hampered by problems of communication between disciplines. In their recent survey of the concept of scale and global environmental change, Gibson, Ostrom and Ahn state that the concept of scale is ‘one of the most important conceptual challenges to that union’, and suggest that this is partly due to different definitions and interpretations of scale and different methodological approaches used when dealing with complex subjects at different levels of scale (Gibson, Ostrom et al. 2000, pg. 236) .
At the same time as there is an increasing awareness of the importance of scale in research, shifts in technology are changing our relationship to data gathering and analysis at different levels of scale (Black, Strand et al. 1998) . The use of Geographic Information Systems, complex computer modelling programs, and remote sensing equipment permit storage and analysis of greater quantities of data and a greater ease of arranging and synthesising layers of information in complex arrangements of scale and interaction (Bartel 2000) .
My
research project focuses on a participatory protocol for ecologically informed
planning and design. This is an action based research project, in which I
will be facilitating a design process with community and business groups.
The research is characterized by the following assumptions: sustainability
offers a valid and important conceptual framework for planning and design,
public participation in this process is advantageous and an interdisciplinary
approach is essential to understand the complex issues involved in sustainable
planning.
There are many definitions of scale and level, which are often used interchangeably. In this paper, I will use the definitions put forward by (Gibson, Ostrom et al. 2000) : Scale is “the spatial, temporal, quantitative, or analytical dimensions used by scientists to measure and study objects and processes”. The term level refers to “locations along a scale” (pg. 219).
Scales are characterized by both extent, or magnitude of dimension, (e.g. the temporal extent could be a day, a year or 100 years) and resolution, or the degree of precision in measurement (e.g. for space the measurement could be at a fine resolution, or grain, such as a meter, to a course resolution, or larger aggregation of units, such as at thousands of hectares) (Gibson, Ostrom et al. 2000, pg. 219) .
The concept of hierarchy is important in many studies involving scale. A hierarchy is “a conceptually or causally linked system of grouping objects or process along an analytical scale (Gibson, Ostrom et al. 2000, pg. 218) . An example of a hierarchy is household, neighbourhood, community, town and region.
The questions we ask determine to a large extent the answers we find. The way we look for data also has a considerable effect on what we see (Bartel 2000) and the tools we use to gather and analyse data have a filtering effect on our ability to comprehend the totality of the phenomena under observation (Linehan and Gross 1998) . Scale issues have a strong bearing on research methodology. The scale of a study, the extent, or magnitude of the study and the resolution used for data gathering affect the identification of patterns and relationships, as certain patterns that can be discerned at one level of scale may not be apparent when observed at a coarser or finer resolution. Issues of scale also affect explanation of causal processes between the patterns identified and the ability to generalise research conclusions (Gibson, Ostrom et al. 2000) .
A
close attention to issues of scale can assist in being able to apply propositions
or theories from one level of scale to another level (of the same scale) (Gibson,
Ostrom et al. 2000)
. A focus on characteristics at particular scales assist in making
comparisons between different phenomenon at similar levels of scale, such
that, for instance, ecologically similar sub regions in different geographic
locations can be meaningfully compared (Freemark 1995, pg. 109; Handley, Wood et al. 1998)
.
In an action research project, research design needs to take into account both the validity and reliability of the research process and the effectiveness of the intervention in the ‘system-under-study’. An effective intervention, in this case, the design process itself, can be evaluated by whether or not the planning and participants’ goals are met, both in substantive outcomes and in a qualitative assessment of stakeholders' perceptions [3] . Effectiveness may also be evaluated against criteria of success such as sustainability indicators (Rijsberman and van de Ven 2000) .
Choice of scale is important for both of these areas of concern. There are two basic choices in determining an appropriate scale for enquiry. The first is which scale to use and how it is defined. This involves the analytical dimension and criteria for discerning scale. The second is determining what level of scale to focus on, or position along the axis.
There are many different criteria, or dimensions, that can be used to determine scale, such as spatial, temporal and conceptual ranges.
As an exercise in land planning, this research project will focus on a geographical spatial unit of analysis, which has a basis in an absolute [4] concept of space. However the criteria used to discern units in the landscape for the field study will not simply be based on absolute categories of increasing spatial scale.
In order to facilitate more effective interdisciplinary work, spatial delineation of scale may need to be combined with other factors, such as ecological integrity, landform, vegetation type, social-cultural perceptions and historical influences on the landscape.
For effective management, attention needs to be paid to matching of spatial and temporal scales, so that processes and plans along both dimensions are understood in relationship (Vos and Meekes 1999) . Consideration of administrative boundaries and management mechanisms is essential for effective implementation of plans (Handley, Wood et al. 1998; Prato 2000) .
Attention should be paid to delineating scale with an appropriate integration of an absolute and measurable axis with more qualitative, or relative [5] characteristics suitable to the research question, and to the proposed methods for gathering and analysing data (Hobbs 1997) .
In this section, I will discuss some of the important factors that affect the effectiveness of both intervention and research methodology when choosing an appropriate level of scale for research. I will look at three different levels [6] of scale: regional [7] , landscape [8] and ecotope [9] . [10] .
First I will contrast the major advantages and disadvantages of working at a very large, or macro-scale (regional) with a micro-level of scale (a particular project site or an ecotope). This will be followed by a discussion of action research at a meso [11] -level, the landscape level of scale. For each level of scale, I will discuss issues pertaining to both effective intervention and research methodology.
In a consideration of the likely outcome and effectiveness of action research with the goal of enhancing sustainability at each level of scale, four [12] different factors should be considered:
Revived interest in regional design in the U.K. is evidenced by increasing emphasis given to Regional Planning Guidance and the creation of new regional governance mechanisms (Handley, Wood et al. 1998) (Therivel and Partidario 2000) .
Planning at a regional scale offers many advantages, in particular an ability to make decisions that increase effectiveness of projects and planning initiated at a smaller level of scale, due to a ‘big picture’ focus, the ability to plan for multiple benefits and the ability to develop a strategic vision that can provide a coordinating framework for actions on a smaller scale. The existence of a large-scale strategic plan can make smaller scale projects more efficient, as data can be collected from the overall initial assessment. This can help to streamline project planning and evaluation, such as environmental impact assessments, at a lower level of scale, which can lead to cost savings at the project level (Brooke 2000) . These advantages are behind an increased interest in, and governmental call for, Strategic Environmental Assessments of policies, plans and programmes at a large level of scale (Verheem 2000) . This strategic assessment can help to identify conflicting objectives and knowledge gaps, which could directly impact planning at a smaller level of scale and suggest fruitful areas for research and data gathering.
There
are significant advantages to planning for ecological integrity at large levels
of scale. Research into threats to biodiversity suggests that not only is
the total habitat area available to species important, but also the degree
to which the habitat areas are spatially connected (Steiner,
Blair et al. 2000)
(Baschak and Brown 1995)
. Connectivity is important to extend the range over which organisms
can travel in the landscape, increasing their ability to respond to stress
in a particular area, and in the case of larger animals, extending their feeding
and habitat range by making movement throughout a larger landscape possible
(Peterken 2000, pg. 299)
. The importance of spatial coherence for preserving biodiversity was
introduced with the theories of island
biogeography (the effects of habitat fragmentation on populations) and metapopulation
theory (Jongman 1995, pg. 171)
.
The design of connected systems of wildlife corridors requires large scale planning to identify important areas of habitat and to locate appropriate corridors for creation of wildlife corridors (Rookwood 1995) .
Due to issues of resolution and the coarse grain of analysis, policies and plans at the large scale can be insensitive to the integrity of ecosystems and valued characteristics in the landscape at a smaller level of scale (Handley, Wood et al. 1998) .
When trying to conceive and implement sustainable plans, there are many advantages to operating at a regional level of scale. Hawken, Lovins et al. (1999) discuss the advantages of whole system optimisation, where solutions can be found to problems that would not be possible at a smaller level of scale. This is particularly the case for issues dealing with infrastructure, such as transport, renewable energy supply and water provision (Marshall 1998) . Efficient use of resources is often possible, such that multiple functions can be found for the same infrastructure development, and resources for development can be concentrated into areas with the greater possibility of success.
Whilst important for ascertaining values and goals to guide strategic decisions, engaging effective public participation at the regional level of scale poses many problems. It is difficult for people to engage with the concept of a region, and thus to see the relevance of policy actions to their interests and concerns, a difficulty exacerbated by the often abstract nature of the policy issues at this level of scale (von Seht 1999) .
The large number of people involved makes it hard to coordinate a planning process, and there are inevitably issues of selective representation and the need for mechanisms to effectively integrate a large range of stakeholder groups. It is costly and time consuming to coordinate effective communication to keep stakeholders informed of the complex range of issues.
There are many difficulties implementing changes on a large level of scale. Land tends to be fragmented into many different ownership patterns, such that plans can be difficult to enact. There are often many different jurisdictions and governance bodies involved, increasing the difficulties of coordinated cross-sectoral action. It is a challenge to match the level of scale of planning to the appropriate level of scale for implementation.
From a research methodology point of view, large-scale studies offer many advantages in terms of a wide range of data, and an enhanced possibility to discern causal patterns (Bartel 2000) . Problem solving and action-based research at the large scale can enhance the scope for interdisciplinary work, in particular the possibility of cross-fertilization between the social and natural sciences.
With regards to coordination of research projects and data sets, a regional scale may allow for increased ability to coordinate research results from multiple projects and more availability of ecological, spatial and social information that can facilitate better research at lower levels of scale.
Research at a large level of scale poses problems concerning the nature of scientific methods and how we construct theory and test concepts. Results tends to be characterized by reduced precision and predictive certainty (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1994; Tacconi 1998; O'Connor 2000) .
At a large level of scale, is very difficult to perform experiments (in the sense of controlled scientific tests of hypotheses) (Hobbs 1997, pg. 3) . The multiplicity of interacting factors lead to problems formulating hypotheses about direct causal relationships. It is difficult to deal adequately with co-varying factors in experimental design. It is very difficult to carry out broad scale changes in an area on an experimental basis, and difficult to coordinate a control test, due to differing ecological, cultural, land management and administrative factors in different areas (Vos and Meekes 1999, pg. 11) .
This is the level of scale at which projects are often implemented. Implementation is usually associated with development projects, building sites (Kidd 2000, pg. 355) and agricultural or landscape interventions by land managers in the course of managing their resource base.
Land management practices at the site level have an important role to play in terms of maintaining local landscape diversity and providing a detailed knowledge of species and special characteristics in an area.
A narrow focus on the local level of scale, however, will reduce opportunities to protect and enhance resilient interconnected ecosystems and develop multiple benefits and synergies due to increased spatial connectivity.
Many steps can be taken to reduce negative effects on the environment at the site level of scale, especially with regards to through-flows of energy and materials, which are affected by purchasing and management decisions, and which in aggregate have a profound impact on the environment.
However, on a small level of scale, there are few opportunities for designing interconnected industrial ecology networks and integrated raw material and waste flows, largely due to the lack of diversity of industrially productive elements.
On a farm site surrounded by simplified agricultural systems, which is not spatially connected to a larger ecological habitat network, organic agricultural practices, attempts to maintain a healthy ecosystem and to mitigate harmful effects from pests and diseases are likely to be difficult and to require a high level of human interaction and management (Altieri 1987) . This is partly due to the fact that in small, fragmented ecosystems, biodiversity tends to fall, so the farmer will have to actively intervene to maintain biological diversity. There is also likely to be greater imbalances of pest populations in the surrounding areas, induced by monoculture practices (York 2000) .
People can see a direct relevance to their community and to their lives, so are more likely to wish to be involved in planning at a local level of scale. Numbers of participants are relatively small, and thus effective participation is more easily coordinated.
It is easier to link research and planning to action on the ground (Kidd 2000, pg. 356) , due to a number of factors, which include: ability of landowners to enact plans on their own land, lower cost of interventions and less administrative complexity.
Finer scale analyses allow for testing hypotheses in a way that produces more easily controlled results (Black, Strand et al. 1998, pg. 58) . There are fewer variable and interactions at this level of scale, so data is easier to collect and interpret. Precision of assessment is more likely. (Vos and Meekes 1999, pg. 11) state “most scientific results originate from lower levels of scale (plots, small regions) but need to be upscaled to larger scale domains (e.g. international levels)”. In his survey on Landscape Ecology research, Hobbs (1997, pg. 3) questions whether “small scale studies can be reliably extrapolated to larger scales”.
An exclusive concern with easily controlled and described casual relationships at a micro-level may lead to misleading results, failing to take into account contextual concerns and possible casual mechanisms operating on the study phenomena from a larger level of scale.
"Success in attaining sustainability is more probable for a region. Yet, landscapes offer significant advantages. ...Planning, conservation and policy are more likely to make a difference, i.e. to have a visible effect (Forman 1998, pg. 514) ."
This
overview of issues relating to effective planning for sustainability at two
very contrasting levels of scale can be summarized as the following trade-offs
of advantages and disadvantages at each level of scale:
Large scale
For sustainable natural resource development integrated with ecological protection and restoration, there is a higher degree of likelihood of success, although local distinctiveness and small-grained issues may be neglected.
Small scale
There
is a higher degree of interest and engagement in participation. Simpler ownership
and administrative structures allow for effective implementation of projects.
Without the coordinating factor of larger scale planning, much of the actions
may be sub-optimal in nature and may not really address the causes of the
problems. There is a greater tendency to treat easily perceptible symptoms
of problems rather than underlying causes, which may be acting at a different
level of temporal and geographical scale and are thus harder to perceive.
While designing at the landscape scale may seem to offer merely a balance or middle ground between the advantages and disadvantages of designing at the larger and smaller levels of scale, landscapes have characteristics that offer specific advantages. In his article Future landscapes and the future of landscape ecology, Hobbs (1997, pg. 1) echoes other researchers suggesting, “There is an “increasing recognition that many conservation and land-use issues can only be tackled in a sensitive way within a landscape framework”. The importance of intervention at the landscape level of scale was underscored at a recent conferences entitled Landscapes and Sustainability, the European workshop on landscape assessment as a policy tool (Conservation and Agency 1999) and in the technical report: The Face of Europe – Policy Perspectives for European Landscapes (Wascher 2000) .