Understanding the correlates of adolescents' TV viewing : a social ecological approach

Objective. To examine associations between social ecological factors and Dutch adolescents’ TV viewing. Design. Cross-sectional examination of predictors of adolescents’ TV viewing.

Participants. A total of 338 adolescents, aged 14 years (55% boys).

Measurements. Adolescents self-reported their age, ethnicity and TV viewing (dichotomized at two hours/day) and responded to items from all three social ecological domains; individual (cognitions based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour and TV viewing habit strength, and other behaviours, such as computer use), social (parental rules about TV viewing and parental TV viewing behavior) and physical environmental factors (TV in bedroom, physical activity equipment available). Parents reported demographic factors (e.g., ethnicity, education level), and their own TV viewing (mins/day); adolescents’ weight status (not overweight vs. overweight/obese) was calculated from objective measures of height and weight. Logistic regression analyses examined associations between socio-ecological factors and adolescents’ TV viewing, and whether associations were moderated by adolescents’ sex, parents’ education and ethnicity.

Results. Compared with others, overweight/obese adolescents (odds ratio (OR)=3.0; p≤0.001), those with high computer use (OR=2.3; p≤0.0001), with high TV viewing habit strength (OR=1.3; p≤0.0001), and those whose parents had high levels of TV viewing (OR=2.4; p≤0.01) were more likely to exceed two hours of TV viewing per day. The association with habit strength was moderated by gender, and the association with parents’ TV viewing was moderated by parents’ education and ethnicity.

Conclusions. Interventions should target parents’ TV viewing behaviors and aim to amend habitual, ‘mindless’ TV viewing among adolescents.

A social ecological model of ICT cooption : surveillance creep in the information age

A model for ICT cooption is introduced using the example of ’surveillance creep’ which is the phenomenon of increasing dataveillance as the result of the introduction of seemingly benign, useful and convenient technological artefacts. The model identifies and discusses five main components of ICT artefact development and deployment: design, properties, affordances, appropriation and agent interests and locates them in a complex interrelated social ecology. The model provides a way to empirically examine how and why technology favours particular social or organisational outcomes.

Overcoming data constraints to create meaningful ecological models

Many techniques used to model ecosystems cannot be meaningfully applied to large-scale ecological problems due to data constraints. Disparate collection methods, data types and incomplete data sets, or limited theoretical understanding mean that a wide range of modelling techniques used to model physical processes or for problems specific to species or populations cannot be used at an ecosystem scale. In developing an ecological response model for the Coorong, a South Australian hypersaline estuary, we combined several flexible modelling approaches in a statistical framework to develop an approach we call ‘ecosystem states’. This model uses simulated hydrodynamic conditions as input to predict one of a suite of states per space and time, allowing prediction of likely ecological conditions under a variety of scenarios. Each ecosystem state has defined sets of biota and physico-chemical parameters. The existing model is limited in that its predictions have yet to be tested and, as yet, no spatial or temporal connectivity has been incorporated into simulated time series of ecosystem states. This approach can be used in a wide range of ecosystems, where enough data are available to model ecosystem states. We are in the process of applying the technique to a nearby lake system. This has been more difficult than for the Coorong as there is little overlap in the spatial and temporal coverage of biological data sets for that region. The approach is robust to low-quality biological data and missing environmental data, so should suit situations where community or management monitoring programs have occurred through time.

Social change models in social marketing

'This is essential reading for social marketing practitioners, researchers and students. the book describes a comprehensive range of behavior change theories of relevance to social marketing and is complemented with illustrative case ...

Productive Diversification and Sustainable Use of Complex Social-Ecological Systems: A Comparative Study of Indigenous and Settler Communities in the Bolivian Amazon

Agricultural and forest productive diversification depends on multiple socioeconomic drivers—like knowledge, migration, productive capacity, and market—that shape productive strategies and influence their ecological impacts. Our comparison of indigenous and settlers allows a better understanding of how societies develop different diversification strategies in similar ecological contexts and how the related socioeconomic aspects of diversification are associated with land cover change. Our results suggest that although indigenous people cause less deforestation and diversify more, diversification is not a direct driver of deforestation reduction. A multidimensional approach linking sociocognitive, economic, and ecological patterns of diversification helps explain this contradiction.

Governance and the Capacity to Manage Resilience in Regional Social-Ecological Systems

The sustainability of regional development can be usefully explored through several different lenses. In situations in which uncertainties and change are key features of the ecological landscape and social organization, critical factors for sustainability are resilience, the capacity to cope and adapt, and the conservation of sources of innovation and renewal. However, interventions in social-ecological systems with the aim of altering resilience immediately confront issues of governance. Who decides what should be made resilient to what? For whom is resilience to be managed, and for what purpose? In this paper we draw on the insights from a diverse set of case studies from around the world in which members of the Resilience Alliance have observed or engaged with sustainability problems at regional scales. Our central question is: How do certain attributes of governance function in society to enhance the capacity to manage resilience? Three specific propositions were explored: ( 1) participation builds trust, and deliberation leads to the shared understanding needed to mobilize and self-organize; ( 2) polycentric and multilayered institutions improve the fit between knowledge, action, and social-ecological contexts in ways that allow societies to respond more adaptively at appropriate levels; and ( 3) accountable authorities that also pursue just distributions of benefits and involuntary risks enhance the adaptive capacity of vulnerable groups and society as a whole. Some support was found for parts of all three propositions. In exploring the sustainability of regional social-ecological systems, we are usually faced with a set of ecosystem goods and services that interact with a collection of users with different technologies, interests, and levels of power. In this situation in our roles as analysts, facilitators, change agents, or stakeholders, we not only need to ask: The resilience of what, to what? We must also ask: For whom?

Governance and the Capacity to Manage Resilience in Regional Social-Ecological Systems

The sustainability of regional development can be usefully explored through several different lenses. In situations in which uncertainties and change are key features of the ecological landscape and social organization, critical factors for sustainability are resilience, the capacity to cope and adapt, and the conservation of sources of innovation and renewal. However, interventions in social-ecological systems with the aim of altering resilience immediately confront issues of governance. Who decides what should be made resilient to what? For whom is resilience to be managed, and for what purpose? In this paper we draw on the insights from a diverse set of case studies from around the world in which members of the Resilience Alliance have observed or engaged with sustainability problems at regional scales. Our central question is: How do certain attributes of governance function in society to enhance the capacity to manage resilience? Three specific propositions were explored: ( 1) participation builds trust, and deliberation leads to the shared understanding needed to mobilize and self-organize; ( 2) polycentric and multilayered institutions improve the fit between knowledge, action, and social-ecological contexts in ways that allow societies to respond more adaptively at appropriate levels; and ( 3) accountable authorities that also pursue just distributions of benefits and involuntary risks enhance the adaptive capacity of vulnerable groups and society as a whole. Some support was found for parts of all three propositions. In exploring the sustainability of regional social-ecological systems, we are usually faced with a set of ecosystem goods and services that interact with a collection of users with different technologies, interests, and levels of power. In this situation in our roles as analysts, facilitators, change agents, or stakeholders, we not only need to ask: The resilience of what, to what? We must also ask: For whom?