Tussock Grassland MIS evaluations

In April 2002, site evaluations were conducted with the high country farming community and the science community. These evaluations add to feedback gained from evaluations conducted with Department of Conservation and Regional Council staff, and other science groups during April 2001. The following document presents background and provides justification and demonstrates the purpose of these evaluations. It then presents issues raised by each group (in both sets of evaluations), then discusses these, recommending changes to the site.

We realise that not every stakeholder has had opportunity to participate in these evaluations. However, we welcome all feedback. If you would like to tell us what you like about the site, or how it could be improved, please do so by clicking here.

• Background
• Issues raised
  • Capacity issues
  • Content issues
  • Connectivity issues
  • Input issues
• Conclusions and recommendations

Background

The Tussock Grassland Management Information System (MIS) is owned by all those involved in the management and use of tussock grasslands in New Zealand. Currently, Landcare Research provide ‘maintenance’ of the site, with funding provided by the Department of Conservation, and the Office of Crown Lands, and information from a range of scientists and their respective organisation, farming groups, and others.

The Tussock Grassland MIS forms part of a broader initiative that seeks to facilitate sustainable land use in the high country. Following a series of workshops held in 1996, conservation management guidelines for different conservation goals were drafted. The Tussock Grassland MIS was initiated after concerns that traditional information transfer mechanisms are often ineffective. It aims to improve information management in the high country, providing a pool of information in an easily accessible form, where information has previously been fragmented between different organisations and groups, and is often inaccessible. In doing so, it provides one potential mechanism for forming closer links between scientists and land managers with interests in sustainable land use in the high country. 

The Internet was chosen for this project because it provides a robust, yet cost effective tool for structuring supporting information. It is also easily updated and extended, providing a medium that is flexible to the changing needs of end-users, and yet reflexive to changes in research emphasis. The characteristics of the Internet enable it to complement existing information sharing and collaborative learning approaches, by allowing people to create, annotate, link together and share information from a variety of media. The presence of a large, growing community of Internet and World Wide Web users makes a compelling case for the preparation of an information network that takes advantage of this technology. By pooling information resources in an easily accessible form, it also allows decision making to be decentralised. Thus, it supports the incorporation of context specific values and issues within decision making. Such an approach has supported increased efficiency in processing the Department of Conservation Resource Management Act and Crown Pastoral Lease Act submissions and reviews. 

The Internet-based Tussock Grassland Information Management system was instigated to provide information and decision support for those involved in the management of the South Island high country. The site was developed in 1998, and was made public on the World Wide Web late 2000. In recognising the changing nature of production values in the high country, changing information needs of end-users, and changes in research emphasis, we also recognise that it is essential to form a feedback process that reflects this. In addition to content and connectivity (i.e. the ability of stakeholders to connect with the resource) issues, this process must also evaluate the capacity of the Internet, as a medium, to meet the goals of providing integrated informational support. Given that feedback flows through the site are not currently meeting this need, a series of face to face and group evaluations were hence justified.  

Note: for more background information about this initiative please click here. For more information about the process used to support this initiative (Integrated Systems for Knowledge Management or ISKM) click here.  

Issues raised

In total, these issues they reflect the input of approximately 40 individuals. Participants were asked to discuss issues relating to capacity to use the resource, i.e. language, design, ability to use information in decision making, and technical difficulties; content issues, i.e. subject matter and its emphasis; and connectivity issues, i.e. what factors influence their use of the resource, their involvement in providing the resource, and their ongoing support for the programme. Issues pertaining to specific stakeholder groups are acknowledged accordingly.

Capacity issues

Although stakeholders involved in organisations such as DoC, and scientists had no issues with computer or Internet ‘literacy’, computing skills, and access to the Internet are still issues for some groups. Use may be hindered by access to computers in work place situations, and by time constraints, especially where users are struggling with technological issues such as Internet navigation. Complicating these issues is that of Internet download speed in rural areas. Internet download speeds are as low as 7 bytes per second, and connections are frequently disrupted. Many users say that this has put them off using the Internet, and emphasises the need for Websites to be well known, easy to find, and easy to navigate. In addition, this issue also requires small, simple web-pages, with fewer pictures and graphics (which increase the page size and the loading speed dramatically). For this reason, participants also did not support the use of *pdf type files. The software required to view these file is available cost-free online, however it is very slow (if connections remain open) to download this software in rural areas. Participants also found such files difficult to read from the computer screen, given the use of columns.

Designing a ‘one stop shop’, providing information to a range of users with varying levels of scientific understanding and detail requirements is no easy task. This Website contains information in varying degrees of detail. Users first enter into a simplistic level, then into more detailed levels, including on-line papers and reports. Those involved in evaluations valued this approach. However, they cautioned that language used remain terminology free where possible, especially at the more simplistic information level, suggesting that use of their own terminology would support communication and information integration between researchers and managers. It was also suggested that the front page and contents page be amalgamated, and that the index page be clustered, making each detail ‘tier’ easier to access, and clustering subjects as suggested by land managers in order that the site remain easily navigable. Further, it was noted that, for some well informed land managers, additional supporting papers and efficiency in collating and presenting new research findings are necessary to gain continued use.

Other suggestions included that specific emphasis be made of management information, and more detail be provided in this area. Mixed responses were given when asked about the level to which this was needed. It should be noted that the site is an information support system, and opposed to a decision-making system. The latter has been avoided for a number of reasons. In order to remain flexible to changing informational needs, be responsive to new research, and avoid alienating specific user groups which manage within differing ecological, context, economic and cultural constraints, the former option, i.e. the information support system was chosen.

Indications are that the site is being used by the Department of Conservation, and, to a lesser extent Regional Council staff, particularly in the areas of Resource Management Act consent submissions, and in the Crown Pastoral Lease Act review. Although much of the background information is not new to those with a history of involvement in the high country, its potential to provide new research and research summaries is valued. For others, new to the high country, the site is extremely valuable, often acting as a sole information source. Those unaware of the site or infrequently using it also noted its potential to provide new research and research summaries.

Although many in the farming community have been involved in the broader programme, some had not looked at the site for some time. Participants noted that the site would be of particular when changing a management regime, when diversifying practices, applying for resource consents, or when unusual observations were made. Although the use of the site in supporting decision making is likely to be sporadic, such comments emphasise the importance of clear levels of detail in each subject area and the need to reformulate the contents, index and front pages. Participants also stressed the value of the site to newcomers in the high country. In particular, the value of the site was considered highest for those involved in diversification of land use, and family farms that currently face a generational change in management. They added that a number of factors have also raised capacity to utilise the information provided on the Website: an increased awareness of the value of science in supporting decision making; a desire to learn about the affects of management regimes (indicated by the strength of many local monitoring projects an the growing interest in ‘benchmarking’ programmes); and an interest in managing more holistically (over 100 farmers have recently completed the holistic management course run by the Savory centre).

Content issues

Although the site contains over 1000 pages, participants emphasised the need to have new information accessible as it becomes available, as well as building on the base of supporting information and on-line papers. Farmers suggested that change is occurring within their communities. Diversifying farm practices provide new informational requirements, as do the increasing support and desire for science and research integration, and the emphasis on justifying management actions under the Resource Management Act.  Such changes provide both increased capacity to respond and interpret new information, and increased need for knowledge that supports more educated land management practice.

Areas in need of additional information, increased emphasis, and updating are listed below. Note that although a broad range of information has been suggested, it may be more feasible to link to some of this material as opposed to re-producing it on this site.

Suggested developments include:

• Species key more obvious – although species keys do exist, they are not easily found. Latin species names, although valuable for scientists, are not used by farming communities. In addition, many identification features on the site include photographs, which are slow to load in rural areas, and hence keys remain unused.

• Updated vegetation history as theories are challenged – some participants noted that the vegetation history could be more detailed and outline the various theories that exist.

• Localised information – Department of Conservation managers have suggested that in some cases, there is much information relating to specific areas that could be hosted on the site.

• Information on the ecological effects of fire, fertilisation and grazing for differing biodiversity values;
• Information on tourism and tourism impacts
• Greater emphasis, and more information on monitoring and monitoring interpretation information

Department of Conservation and Regional Council staff and the farming community requested this information. This information is clearly required in Resource Management Act which promotes sustainable management of natural resources (defined in part 2, sections 5 & 6), and provides an onus of demonstrating the ability to avoid, remedy, or mitigate adverse environmental effects. Other policy documents, such as the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy (2000) – guiding the function of the Department of Conservation - also emphasis the value of biodiversity and the role of ecological communities and ecosystems in preserving it. Hence, there is also interest in the following type of information:

• Ecological community information with associated biodiversity values;
• Ecological resilience
• Ecological restoration

• Low altitude and dry-land management – This information was requested by the Department of Conservation, and includes those areas below 1 500m where information is currently sparse and can conflicting.

• Weed ecology and management – all land management groups suggested this information be further developed, e.g. increasing information on Hieracium, and updating and highlighting the wilding pine sections.

• Resource Management Act (RMA) information – including a description of the process
• Crown Pastoral Lease Act process and information - including a description of the process

- Many evaluation participants stated that initial information access concerns came about partly because of concerns over the CPLA process, and the need to justify their preferred management actions/regimes. However, the RMA requires such justification and information on an ongoing basis. They suggested that information describing the process involved in both these acts would be beneficial.

• Viticulture – this is one example of the diversification occurring in the high country.

• Room for local knowledge and information to be shared – throughout these evaluations it became apparent that a vast amount of local information exists, although it is commonly unavailable given that it is often not analysed, considered ‘anecdotal’, and hence not worthy of publication or sharing. Such information may provide substantial feedback to researchers about trends in rural areas, pose new research questions, and challenge prior research. The ability to use the site to present such information and provide such feedback should be considered.

Connectivity issues

This website has been publicly available for almost two years, and the site hosts an e-mail based user list of over 200 addresses used to issue regular site up-dates. However, it is difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of this medium, its capacity to meet informational needs and the value of the resource when many are unaware of the site and its purpose if user groups are unaware. The profile of the site is hence of concern.

In organisations where computer and Internet ‘literacy’ is high, some staff are unaware of the sites existence. Within the Department of Conservation and Regional Councils, use is generally related to involvement in initial workshops and site development, or working connections with those who have been involved in the process. The same generalisation applies to the farming community. Additionally, such contacts may already be deemed knowledgeable in background material presented, and hence emphasise the need to regularly upgrade the site and share new information and knowledge as it comes to hand.

Regular staff turnover within organisations limits the ability of to utilise staff involvement in site development to extend its use within organisations. In addition, limited communication between Department of Conservation and Regional Council staff and their communities in the high country also hinders facilitation of site use. Additionally, the “generational change” of farm managers, including those involved in the initiation of this project demonstrates similar issues occurring in the farming community. Further, many individual farmers are only beginner computer and Internet users and hence may not know of the site's existence. Farmers suggested that they would only know of and visit the site if they were interested in making more informed management decisions, and hence the goal of promoting sustainable management by providing information support may only be reaching those already “converted”.

It is essential that the site be visible and as many possible links as possible be made to other sites, and that the sites existence be promoted within Department of Conservation and Regional Councils, and by farming groups. Site use is metered, and ‘traffic’ data show increases occurring with events such as the site e-mail newsletter and content updates, the Tussock Grassland Newsletter (although this has not been updated for over a year). The site has also been referenced in a recent Federated Farmers publication. Evaluations suggest these mechanisms are the best way to remind people of the site (and the address). For stakeholders unfamiliar with the site, clear links are needed from the Landcare Research, AgResearch and Department of Conservation Websites. More formal advertising and closer links with industry groups were also suggested as useful means to promote the site with end-users. For these mechanisms to be successful in connecting stakeholders with this resource, we are reliant on new information being continually added to the site, and, if, as indicated, holistic management and community resource monitoring initiatives are becoming more common, then we expect that the site will be increasingly valued. However, this will require requiring ongoing support from scientists to continue to be involved in this project.

Input issues

The need for ongoing support and input from scientists is clear in these evaluations. In particular, the ability to provide information in a regular and prompt fashion is essential. There are many benefits and justifications for involvement of scientists in such projects. International experiences show that Internet presence can assist in links between researchers internationally, and in better relationships between land managers and researchers. The Internet has the potential to provide a mechanism for driving research by providing feedback between communities, managers and researchers. It may also be used as a medium to challenge and support ecological and management theory in complex, changing systems as it develops. However there are many barriers to gaining on-going support in such programmes, especially where information presented involves input from varying research programmes and institutions, and research funded by groups and organisations with differing and often conflicting land management values. Many such barriers were obvious in evaluations with researchers and scientists identified as stakeholders in this project, where perceptions of the site, support for the project, and ‘ownership’ were addressed.

It is clear from these evaluations that scientists perceive their role in this project as mere information providers. Information has been offered for the site, including papers, updates, books, and reports. However, in many cases only upon reminder, although the scientists are aware of the site and the goals of the project (please note that we are very grateful to those who have contributed and welcome further contributions). Many evaluation participants noted that they could obtain more recent information from alternative sources. There are many noted reasons for such latency periods. Unease in presenting ‘incomplete’ information to the public in fear of its misuse, unease in presenting information alongside that which supports alternative theories, and concerns over having research linked to sub-standard and unsubstantiated material were mentioned.

Issues including lack of time, lack of funding, lack of emphasis in programme objectives on both information integration and dissemination, lack of organisational support, and lack of technological skills and support were given when participants were asked to address other barriers to support for the site. They also stated that clear support and demand for the resource was required in order to address these issues within their institutions and organisations, although there were few indications that scientists viewed themselves as part of the information integration process

In identifying future options for ownership, and responsibility for managing this site, addressing such issues is crucial. However, many research programmes are now moving towards using the Internet as an information medium, and hence it is easy to dismiss issues regarding scientific support as organisational. In cases such as the high country, where information management is especially important due to the fragmentary nature of research information (i.e. research being completed by many organisations), just how to provide this information whilst remaining politically neutral, and who should take responsibility for doing so requires more attention. Clearly, the value in challenging standard information dissemination models raises issues that involve power, personal values, ethos and ego, and organisational politics. In a broader context, these issues provide opportunity for the public to disrepute the value and importance of science. 

There is no question that some areas of high country management are debated among the science community. Providing capacity to present such information, whilst being perceived as value-neutral is difficult. Likewise, negotiating to present such information is a delicate process. However, if such information is not presented then there is a risk that the site will be outdated (and hence viewed as less useful), and we will not provide opportunity to provide information that supports changing and informed practice. Consequently, support for such initiatives may decline. These issues require resolution if this project is to continue to be supported, and links between researchers and land managers are to become closer.

Conclusions

These evaluations demonstrate the value of the site. However, it is obvious that the ability to be reflexive and provide for the needs of user groups will determine whether or not the site continues to be supported and use increases. Much input is needed from the science community to achieve this. Likewise, for scientists to support the site and provide such input, it is essential that user-groups value the resource. Issues such as funding, technical skills, copyrighting and institutional support, and information quality also influence continued support from the science community.

Recommendations

Given the stated feedback, the following recommendations are suggested:

• Information be provided and presented in areas suggested previously
• Links to the page are made more obvious, and closer links with community groups and providers using the internet are made
• The front pages should be changed making the site more user friendly
• Regular site up-date reports should be posted on the e-mail interest list
• Another copy of the Tussock Grassland Research update should be posted on the site, and to the e-mail list

Stakeholder feedback and support are essential if the site is to continue.

Please suggest how we can collectively address the issues raised. E-mail feedback to Will Allen (allenw@landcareresearch.co.nz).

Site hosting by Landcare Research