Additional Information
Book Details
Abstract
People and societies conceptualise and experience time in fundamentally different ways. This basic aspect of perception significantly influences the way we frame problems and conceive solutions.
This book shows how time perspectives differ across national cultures and across professional roles. It shows how these differences generate ambiguity when it comes to defining problems and devising solutions in the water sector. This is especially important when dealing with problems such as Sustainable Water Resources Management and Climate Change that involve (culturally and professionally) diverse stakeholders. Response strategies to such problems inherently require concerted action because of the large spatial and temporal scale on which they take place and to minimise the occurrence of conflicting interventions. This disparity between diverse problem perceptions and the need for collective understanding and united action is increasingly recognised as an important concern in the field of water resource management.
The conclusions are important because the time horizons considered in planning and setting research agendas influence what problems are perceived, what questions are asked, and what solutions are sought. In general, more time needs to be invested in framing problems. This is particularly important for participatory planning and transdisciplinary research where the diversity in Motivational Space is greatest. It is recommended that Motivational Space be collectively and explicitly framed from the outset of all planning projects, especially in terms of Temporal Extent. When it comes to setting research agendas it is important to match the Motivational Space of those who prioritize the questions with the goal of the research programme.
Author: Andrew James Segrave, KWR Watercycle Research Institute, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Table of Contents
| Section Title | Page | Action | Price |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cover\r | Cover | ||
| Contents | v | ||
| Biographical Note | vii | ||
| Acknowledgements | ix | ||
| Summary | xi | ||
| Chapter 1:\rIntroduction | 1 | ||
| 1.1 BACKGROUND | 1 | ||
| 1.1.1 Living in different timescapes | 2 | ||
| 1.1.2 Fascination about fears of societal collapse | 4 | ||
| 1.1.3 Confusion about the temporal grain of Climate Change | 5 | ||
| 1.1.4 Hopes set on adaptive planning | 7 | ||
| 1.1.5 Questions about the importance of investing in knowledge | 9 | ||
| 1.1.6 The common thread: Time as a topic | 11 | ||
| 1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS | 12 | ||
| 1.3 STRUCTURE OF THE BOOK | 13 | ||
| Chapter 2:\rInterpretive framework | 15 | ||
| 2.1 ONTOLOGICAL POSITION AND MODEL OF TIME PERSPECTIVE | 16 | ||
| 2.2 EPISTEMOLOGICAL POSITION | 18 | ||
| 2.2.1 The example of questionnaires versus interviews | 19 | ||
| 2.3 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK | 19 | ||
| 2.3.1 Identity | 19 | ||
| 2.3.2 Perception | 19 | ||
| 2.3.3 Motivational Space | 20 | ||
| 2.3.4 Time Perspective | 20 | ||
| 2.3.5 Sample population and groups | 22 | ||
| 2.3.6 Summary of variables | 23 | ||
| 2.3.7 Summary of criteria for the method | 23 | ||
| Chapter 3:\rA new method | 25 | ||
| 3.1 EXISTING METHODS | 25 | ||
| 3.2 FORESEEABLE FUTURE MULTI-MEASURE METHOD | 26 | ||
| 3.2.1 Identify the target sample population | 26 | ||
| 3.2.2 Pre-test considerations | 27 | ||
| 3.2.3 Interview procedure and discussion | 28 | ||
| 3.3 CONCLUSIONS | 34 | ||
| Chapter 4:\rAn empirical study in Brazil, Ghana, Japan and the Netherlands | 37 | ||
| 4.1 INTRODUCTION\r | 37 | ||
| 4.1.1 Why characterize heterogeneity in Time Perspectives? | 37 | ||
| 4.1.2 The Foreseeable Future as a function of National Culture and Professional Role | 38 | ||
| 4.2 MATERIAL AND METHODS | 40 | ||
| 4.3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION | 43 | ||
| 4.3.1 Structure | 43 | ||
| 4.3.2 Orientation | 44 | ||
| 4.3.3 Foreseeable Future | 46 | ||
| 4.3.4 Comparison across National Cultures | 48 | ||
| 4.3.5 Comparison across Professional Roles | 49 | ||
| 4.4 CONCLUSIONS | 50 | ||
| Chapter 5:\rMapping international ambiguity in Problem Space | 53 | ||
| 5.1 INTRODUCTION\r | 53 | ||
| 5.1.1 Ambiguity in framing problems in the Water Sector\r | 53 | ||
| 5.1.2 Problem Space | 54 | ||
| 5.1.3 Focus on the water sector | 55 | ||
| 5.1.4 Aim and Hypotheses | 55 | ||
| 5.1.5 Focus on Temporal Extent and Certainty | 56 | ||
| 5.1.6 Problem Space: an expression of group culture | 57 | ||
| 5.1.7 The individual as atom, with quarks | 57 | ||
| 5.1.8 Cross-cultural comparison: from what perspective? | 58 | ||
| 5.2 METHOD | 58 | ||
| 5.3 RESULTS | 60 | ||
| 5.3.1 The theoretical relationship between the measures | 60 | ||
| 5.3.2 Statistical analysis of the correlations | 61 | ||
| 5.3.3 Cultural Proximity worldwide & the effect size of the measures of Problem Space | 62 | ||
| 5.3.4 International ambiguity in Problem Space | 64 | ||
| 5.4 DISCUSSION | 64 | ||
| 5.5 CONCLUSIONS | 66 | ||
| Chapter 6:\rConclusions, implications and applications | 69 | ||
| 6.1 CONCLUSIONS | 70 | ||
| 6.1.1 Variables and method | 70 | ||
| 6.1.2 Ambiguity in Time Perspectives | 72 | ||
| 6.2 IMPLICATIONS AND APPLICATIONS | 72 | ||
| 6.2.1 International implications and applications | 73 | ||
| 6.2.2 Subnational implications and applications | 77 | ||
| 6.3 THEORETICAL DISCUSSION | 89 | ||
| 6.3.1 Technological leapfrogging: who will leap who? | 89 | ||
| 6.3.2 Fear, hope and progress | 90 | ||
| 6.3.3 Change in complex socio-ecological systems | 91 | ||
| 6.3.4 Tipping Points and Institutional Irresponsibility | 92 | ||
| 6.3.5 Windows of opportunity | 94 | ||
| 6.4 LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS | 99 | ||
| References | 101 |