patrickbdevaney/mia9 · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 0 6.44k
the core principles of community-based participatory research, “stressing empowerment and
an emphasis on individual and community strengths, co-learning, community capacity building, and balancing research and action” [40]. However, photovoice research also has gaps, limitations, and unintended consequences.
While photovoice can empower communities and individuals, the prioritization of crosscutting community themes and dialogue [35] is often secondary to the individual stories and
exhibitions, critical thinking during photovoice could be strengthened [41], and the process of
generating solutions and advocating for collective priorities is seldom reported. Photovoice
also often lacks external supporting data related to the topic of investigation (e.g., climate,
health). While the goal of individual experience as essential to the creation of knowledge
cannot be overstated, empowerment and improved decision-making may also benefit from
additional education about the topic, and access to relevant data and the governmental departments generating and analyzing that same data. Indeed, photovoice rarely includes geospatial
data as part of the process [34].
Derr and Simons [25], in their review of photovoice in environmental and conservation
contexts, report inconsistent engagement with decision- or policymakers. This inconsistent
engagement and potential lack of follow-through may lead to unintended consequences. For
example, Pritzker, LaChapelle, and Tatum [31] found that although photovoice empowered
youth, those same youth also expressed frustration at the perceived hypocrisy of adults around
civic engagement. These findings highlight the need for ongoing discussions among community organizations and decision- and policymakers to enable the reinforcement of community
narratives and implementation of desired solutions.
While photovoice is a powerful tool of place-based engagement, Russo et al. [35] further
highlight a lack of clarity in how to best capitalize on its strengths, address its limitations, as
well as the need for, and process of, engaging in comparative analysis across communities, a
process that is further hindered by the lack of details provided about coding schemes and analytic techniques [34].
These limitations can diminish the effectiveness of photovoice for community action and
advocacy. By viewing photovoice as a designed protocol of interaction [19–21] we anticipated
and addressed the limitations described above with the integration of a design thinking component, which advances actionable potential through its framework for prioritization and
problem-solving processes, an education module on climate change risk and geospatial mapping (including access to generate their own maps), and the inclusion of other community
organizations and policymakers throughout the process to ensure meaningful and ongoing
engagement.
Indeed, we see the lack of consistent engagement between community and policymakers in
community-based approaches as a missed opportunity of stakeholder engagement. While
photovoice research focuses on community participants as the primary stakeholders, we
would suggest that the role of policymakers as stakeholders in the photovoice process should
be reimagined. Rather than being brought in at the end of the process, engagement with the
community throughout could strengthen policymaker commitment and buy-in to community-based approaches. Engaging with community organizations and policymakers from the
beginning of the process allows all participants to interact over longer periods of time, rather
than the one-shot interactions that occur in typical photovoice exhibitions. We see this as a
way to help build relationships and commitment to community- engaged processes by policymakers (not just participants), letting them see how participants construct and talk about
issues over a period of time. This also gives extended voice to community members with
opportunities to engage at multiple times with policymakers.
PLOS CLIMATE
Advancing a hyperlocal approach to community engagement in climate adaptation
PLOS Climate \| https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000041 June 8, 2022 4 / 26
Design thinking: Goals, current research, and gaps. The second element of our process,
design thinking, provides a human-centered framework for participants to explore circumstances, conditions and opportunities, determine key challenges, imagine new opportunities to
solve problems and reach ideal conditions, and build out a particular solution through facilitated activities. Associated initially with David Kelley, founder of the firm IDEO, and Stanford
University’s Hasso Plattner Institute of Design (the d.school), design thinking has been widely
applied in systems and product design as in the Cocreator Lab at Philips and IBM Design at
IBM, and in business operations and products, as in the development of MassMutual’s Society
of Grownups [42]. Liedtka describes design thinking as a social technology through which participants “collaborate and agree on what is essential to the outcome” [43, p. 79]. The premise
of design thinking is that the process can be applied to any condition, and it begins with a
close identification with the people most impacted by the outcome. The key steps of design
thinking advance from an understanding of human needs and interests to the testing and prototyping of ideas in relation to their impact and effort. More recently, design thinking has been
shown to promote critical thinking [44] and to be effective in bridging the gap between individuals and policymakers in conditions that lie outside conventional problem definitions [45].
The Stanford d.school design thinking process outlines five steps: Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, and Test (https://www.alnap.org/help-library/an-introduction-to-designthinking-process-guide), and is typically conducted in relation to a focus area selected by the
organizers of the session. Empathy mapping builds from observation and engagement with
users or the affected group. From these observations, team members define leading challenges
and engage in ideation, a free-flowing process of imagining possibilities. Coalescing around a
prioritized idea, a solution is developed as a storyboard or mockup, and finally tested across
expansively defined users. Philips Design built on this method to develop their Cocreator Lab
based on its "innovation and you" philosophy, seeking to establish a broader application of
design thinking to organizations and collaborative problem solving.
In comparing process improvement to a design thinking orientation, Roberts et al. [46]
noted that “process improvement prioritizes evaluation of limited set of possible solutions,”
while design thinking “prioritizes comprehensive understanding of underlying problems.” They
view this a distinct advantage in addressing “problems that have unpredictable solutions (wicked
problems)” as design thinking encourages divergent thinking.” Instead of focusing on what is
significant to individuals within a defined context, design thinking seeks to discover what matters in daily life to a group. Mintrom and Luetjens [45] analyze the potential for design thinking
as an added method for “policymakers to create interventions and services that improve the user
experience and enhance public value.” They believe that the successful application of design
thinking depends on a “diversity of skills and abilities,” as well as “curiosity and openness.”
Design thinking is used in multiple disciplines and for multiple problems. Academic literature on design thinking for climate adaptation often has a strong focus on the design of the
built environment [47–49] or on specific policy or industry related innovation, such as
Govaerts and colleagues [50] report on design thinking for Agri-food systems that are threatened by climate change. These processes tend to be top-down processes, led by experts or
leaders focused on key problems, and largely engaging designers or experts. There is little published literature focusing on design thinking approaches to climate adaptation driven by community members.
Viewing design thinking as an engineered process of communication and engagement [19–
21] allows for the modification and integration of the design thinking process with photovoice
to help create a stronger approach to community-based climate adaptation approaches. Where
photovoice encourages the discussion of themes within photographs, photovoice studies are
often lacking in any collective approaches to problem solving, relying instead on individual
PLOS CLIMATE
Advancing a hyperlocal approach to community engagement in climate adaptation
PLOS Climate \| https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000041 June 8, 2022 5 / 26
exhibition of stories and discussion with policy makers [41]. Design thinking offers a powerful
complement to photovoice that encourages critical thinking [44], focuses on prioritizing issues
and themes across participants, and enables a unique approach to problem solving. Although
the design thinking process is often conducted via a top-down perspective, where policymakers gather participants to address a specific issue (see, for instance, 50), the HyLo method
seeks to provide an alternative model that asks participants from the local community to bring
their individual and collective issues (drawn from their photovoice stories) while gathering
policymakers to engage with their process. In this way, the HyLo method retains the organic,
grassroots nature of participant photovoice stories while providing a framework for communities to define and advance their collective agendas. Building on the themes residents identified
through photovoice as the basis for design thinking, the direct experiences of community
members determine the scope of topics engaged. The primacy and immediacy of the individual photovoice narratives inform the design thinking process to provide a community driven
process of lived experience. The HyLo team’s involvement in the design thinking process
focuses on the facilitation of ideas while the participants bring the content, priorities, and possible solutions. The presentation of photovoice stories through an initial exhibition lends both
context and personal impact to the design thinking process.
Synthesized together, the design thinking processes of engagement, dialogue, and problem
solving further support the underlying goals of photovoice of improving individual and community capacity, building social capital, and increasing agency. Additionally, the introduction
of geospatial mapping at various points in the process provides community members access to
data on social and climate assets and risks that many policymakers rely on to make decisions.
The HyLo team has developed this mapping process into an Integrated Climate Risk Assessment (ICRA) tool which consists of multiple data layers with demographic, geologic, and
infrastructure data for each neighborhood enabling access to a body of locally relevant information to guide in community-based policy planning. Finally, the inclusion of representatives

the core principles of community-based participatory research, “stressing empowerment and

an emphasis on individual and community strengths, co-learning, community capacity building, and balancing research and action” [40]. However, photovoice research also has gaps, limitations, and unintended consequences.

While photovoice can empower communities and individuals, the prioritization of crosscutting community themes and dialogue [35] is often secondary to the individual stories and

exhibitions, critical thinking during photovoice could be strengthened [41], and the process of

generating solutions and advocating for collective priorities is seldom reported. Photovoice

also often lacks external supporting data related to the topic of investigation (e.g., climate,

health). While the goal of individual experience as essential to the creation of knowledge

cannot be overstated, empowerment and improved decision-making may also benefit from

additional education about the topic, and access to relevant data and the governmental departments generating and analyzing that same data. Indeed, photovoice rarely includes geospatial

data as part of the process [34].

Derr and Simons [25], in their review of photovoice in environmental and conservation

contexts, report inconsistent engagement with decision- or policymakers. This inconsistent

engagement and potential lack of follow-through may lead to unintended consequences. For

example, Pritzker, LaChapelle, and Tatum [31] found that although photovoice empowered

youth, those same youth also expressed frustration at the perceived hypocrisy of adults around

civic engagement. These findings highlight the need for ongoing discussions among community organizations and decision- and policymakers to enable the reinforcement of community

narratives and implementation of desired solutions.

While photovoice is a powerful tool of place-based engagement, Russo et al. [35] further

highlight a lack of clarity in how to best capitalize on its strengths, address its limitations, as

well as the need for, and process of, engaging in comparative analysis across communities, a

process that is further hindered by the lack of details provided about coding schemes and analytic techniques [34].

These limitations can diminish the effectiveness of photovoice for community action and

advocacy. By viewing photovoice as a designed protocol of interaction [19–21] we anticipated

and addressed the limitations described above with the integration of a design thinking component, which advances actionable potential through its framework for prioritization and

problem-solving processes, an education module on climate change risk and geospatial mapping (including access to generate their own maps), and the inclusion of other community

organizations and policymakers throughout the process to ensure meaningful and ongoing

engagement.

Indeed, we see the lack of consistent engagement between community and policymakers in

community-based approaches as a missed opportunity of stakeholder engagement. While

photovoice research focuses on community participants as the primary stakeholders, we

would suggest that the role of policymakers as stakeholders in the photovoice process should

be reimagined. Rather than being brought in at the end of the process, engagement with the

community throughout could strengthen policymaker commitment and buy-in to community-based approaches. Engaging with community organizations and policymakers from the

beginning of the process allows all participants to interact over longer periods of time, rather

than the one-shot interactions that occur in typical photovoice exhibitions. We see this as a

way to help build relationships and commitment to community- engaged processes by policymakers (not just participants), letting them see how participants construct and talk about

issues over a period of time. This also gives extended voice to community members with

opportunities to engage at multiple times with policymakers.

PLOS CLIMATE

Advancing a hyperlocal approach to community engagement in climate adaptation

PLOS Climate | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000041 June 8, 2022 4 / 26

Design thinking: Goals, current research, and gaps. The second element of our process,

design thinking, provides a human-centered framework for participants to explore circumstances, conditions and opportunities, determine key challenges, imagine new opportunities to

solve problems and reach ideal conditions, and build out a particular solution through facilitated activities. Associated initially with David Kelley, founder of the firm IDEO, and Stanford

University’s Hasso Plattner Institute of Design (the d.school), design thinking has been widely

applied in systems and product design as in the Cocreator Lab at Philips and IBM Design at

IBM, and in business operations and products, as in the development of MassMutual’s Society

of Grownups [42]. Liedtka describes design thinking as a social technology through which participants “collaborate and agree on what is essential to the outcome” [43, p. 79]. The premise

of design thinking is that the process can be applied to any condition, and it begins with a

close identification with the people most impacted by the outcome. The key steps of design

thinking advance from an understanding of human needs and interests to the testing and prototyping of ideas in relation to their impact and effort. More recently, design thinking has been

shown to promote critical thinking [44] and to be effective in bridging the gap between individuals and policymakers in conditions that lie outside conventional problem definitions [45].

The Stanford d.school design thinking process outlines five steps: Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, and Test (https://www.alnap.org/help-library/an-introduction-to-designthinking-process-guide), and is typically conducted in relation to a focus area selected by the

organizers of the session. Empathy mapping builds from observation and engagement with

users or the affected group. From these observations, team members define leading challenges

and engage in ideation, a free-flowing process of imagining possibilities. Coalescing around a

prioritized idea, a solution is developed as a storyboard or mockup, and finally tested across

expansively defined users. Philips Design built on this method to develop their Cocreator Lab

based on its "innovation and you" philosophy, seeking to establish a broader application of

design thinking to organizations and collaborative problem solving.

In comparing process improvement to a design thinking orientation, Roberts et al. [46]

noted that “process improvement prioritizes evaluation of limited set of possible solutions,”

while design thinking “prioritizes comprehensive understanding of underlying problems.” They

view this a distinct advantage in addressing “problems that have unpredictable solutions (wicked

problems)” as design thinking encourages divergent thinking.” Instead of focusing on what is

significant to individuals within a defined context, design thinking seeks to discover what matters in daily life to a group. Mintrom and Luetjens [45] analyze the potential for design thinking

as an added method for “policymakers to create interventions and services that improve the user

experience and enhance public value.” They believe that the successful application of design

thinking depends on a “diversity of skills and abilities,” as well as “curiosity and openness.”

Design thinking is used in multiple disciplines and for multiple problems. Academic literature on design thinking for climate adaptation often has a strong focus on the design of the

built environment [47–49] or on specific policy or industry related innovation, such as

Govaerts and colleagues [50] report on design thinking for Agri-food systems that are threatened by climate change. These processes tend to be top-down processes, led by experts or

leaders focused on key problems, and largely engaging designers or experts. There is little published literature focusing on design thinking approaches to climate adaptation driven by community members.

Viewing design thinking as an engineered process of communication and engagement [19–

21] allows for the modification and integration of the design thinking process with photovoice

to help create a stronger approach to community-based climate adaptation approaches. Where

photovoice encourages the discussion of themes within photographs, photovoice studies are

often lacking in any collective approaches to problem solving, relying instead on individual

PLOS CLIMATE

Advancing a hyperlocal approach to community engagement in climate adaptation

PLOS Climate | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000041 June 8, 2022 5 / 26

exhibition of stories and discussion with policy makers [41]. Design thinking offers a powerful

complement to photovoice that encourages critical thinking [44], focuses on prioritizing issues

and themes across participants, and enables a unique approach to problem solving. Although

the design thinking process is often conducted via a top-down perspective, where policymakers gather participants to address a specific issue (see, for instance, 50), the HyLo method

seeks to provide an alternative model that asks participants from the local community to bring

their individual and collective issues (drawn from their photovoice stories) while gathering

policymakers to engage with their process. In this way, the HyLo method retains the organic,

grassroots nature of participant photovoice stories while providing a framework for communities to define and advance their collective agendas. Building on the themes residents identified

through photovoice as the basis for design thinking, the direct experiences of community

members determine the scope of topics engaged. The primacy and immediacy of the individual photovoice narratives inform the design thinking process to provide a community driven

process of lived experience. The HyLo team’s involvement in the design thinking process

focuses on the facilitation of ideas while the participants bring the content, priorities, and possible solutions. The presentation of photovoice stories through an initial exhibition lends both

context and personal impact to the design thinking process.

Synthesized together, the design thinking processes of engagement, dialogue, and problem

solving further support the underlying goals of photovoice of improving individual and community capacity, building social capital, and increasing agency. Additionally, the introduction

of geospatial mapping at various points in the process provides community members access to

data on social and climate assets and risks that many policymakers rely on to make decisions.

The HyLo team has developed this mapping process into an Integrated Climate Risk Assessment (ICRA) tool which consists of multiple data layers with demographic, geologic, and

infrastructure data for each neighborhood enabling access to a body of locally relevant information to guide in community-based policy planning. Finally, the inclusion of representatives