The management of dogs and cats in remote communities is challenging due to limited availability of veterinary services and high reproductive rates in companion animal populations. Support for animal management within communities is also weak, and consequently, programs delivered by external providers rarely achieve sustainable outcomes. An alternative approach whereby communities are engaged in analysing and understanding the issues, and designing solutions themselves, may help to achieve sustainable improvements in animal populations and health management. To test this approach, stakeholders involved with animal management in a remote Australian Aboriginal community were interviewed to gain their perspectives on animal management. By applying frame analysis to understand stakeholders’ perceptions, knowledge and power, interviewees fell into four distinct groups: Indigenous Locals, Indigenous Rangers, Non-Indigenous Locals and Animal Managers. The most important issue identified by all groups was the overpopulation of dogs, but there were differences in their framing of the problem and its causes. Frame analysis achieved the important first step of the process, identifying “What is the issue?”.Companion animal management in Australian remote Aboriginal communities (rAcs) is a complex problem, with multiple stakeholders involved with differing needs, knowledge, power and resources. We present our CoMM4Unity approach, a participatory systemic action research process designed to address such problems. In the first step, frame analysis is used to analyse stakeholders’ perspectives, knowledge types and power dynamics to determine their relative roles in animal management. Twenty individuals were interviewed from stakeholder groups involved in animal management in the remote, island rAc of Wurrumiyanga, Tiwi Islands. Frame analysis indicated that stakeholders aligned into four groups with distinct identity frames, knowledge types and power frames: Indigenous Locals, Indigenous Rangers, Non-Indigenous Locals and Animal Managers. All four groups shared overlapping perceptions about companion animals in Wurrumiyanga, and agreed that dog overpopulation was the primary issue. However, the groups differed in their strength of opinions about how dogs should be managed. Therefore, the situation is not one of diametrically opposing frames but more a misalignment of goals and values. Our application showed that frame analysis can reveal subtle variations in stakeholder groups’ identities, goals and values, and hence how they prioritise management measures. Conflict between self-interest and the interest of the collective has a long history . These cThe evolution of a natural resource conflict may be reversed via stakeholder participation. Reed  identifiConflicting power frames or hierarchal conflicts enhance the division and longevity of intractable conflicts , since aOriginally coined by Bateson  in 1955,A modified method for frame analysis applied to environmental disputes was published by Gray , which eIn remote Aboriginal communities (rAcs) of northern Australia, the issue of domestic dog management is complex and historically contentious. In this situation, multi-stakeholder participation, knowledge cultures and Indigenous resource management are equally relevant. High and growing numbers of dogs and cats in rAcs live in close proximity to humans ,28,29, gWe have developed a participatory action research process, the CoMM4Unity (cycle of multiple methods for unity) approach , to provIn this paper, we present a methodology and example of the first step in the CoMM4Unity process, which engages multiple stakeholders in the system and poses the question “What is the issue?”, in order to understand the stakeholder groups involved, their perspectives, knowledge and goals . First, The Tiwi Islands are made up of 9 uninhabited islands and 2 inhabited islands located 60 km north of Darwin in the Northern Territory (NT) of Australia. The residents of Tiwi, whom are 90.8% Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander, mostly live in one of the three main communities; Milikapiti (401 residents) and Pirlangimpi (371 residents) on Melville Island and Wurrumiyanga (1563 residents), the Islands’ capital, on Bathurst Island .This research focuses on the community of Wurrumiyanga and their companion animals. Dogs, and more recently cats in rAcs, are valued companions with a unique style of ownership . They caAlthough no level of government in the NT formally holds the animal management portfolio, the Tiwi Islands Regional Council (TIRC) have contracted a one-week veterinary service for the Tiwi Islands bi-annually for the past two decades. The same AMRRIC-approved veterinarian has primarily been contracted for the last 22 years, over which time he has gained the trust of the Tiwi locals. However, other interventions have sometimes complicated the relationship between locals and animal management providers, such as the culling of dogs without the consent of the owner or the community. Recently, in 2018, by-laws for keeping dogs were introduced for the Tiwi Islands, requiring mandatory dog registration and the restriction of two dogs per household . The TIRPotential stakeholders in Tiwi Islands animal management were initially identified through discussions with Tiwi locals and Traditional Owners (TOs) that we had developed relationships with during previous visits as AMRRIC volunteers or researchers. Individuals were then approached and invited to participate in the project. Stakeholders fell into 10 initial groups; TOs, Wurrumiyanga community members, community youth, Indigenous Land Rangers, AMRRIC, private veterinarians, the NT Government’s Environmental Health Department, Tiwi Islands Regional Council (TIRC), NT Education Department, and the Red Cross .A total of 37 individuals were approached, but only 20 were available for interview, largely due to logistical constraints of contacting many people in the rAc, where telecommunication services were limited. Structured interviews were conducted using methods approved by CSIRO’s Social Science Human Research Ethics Committee (reference 137/17). Informed consent was given by all participants, however, one Tiwi community member did not wish to sign the consent form, therefore, the consent form was read out aloud and verbal consent was given and audio recorded. All interviews conducted with the 14 Wurrumiyanga residents took place face-to-face in a place chosen by the interviewee and where they felt comfortable. Prior and informed consent was requested and given by participants to audio record all interviews using a simple recording app, Voice Record Pro, on the interviewer’s iPhone 8. During each interview, questions  were askAudio recordings of the interviews were transcribed manually and uploaded to NVIVO. Discourse analysis  was utilOnce all interviews were coded and new themes identified, coding with all themes was repeated for each interview. All coding was conducted by one author (BK), to mitigate differing coding interpretations. Using the Project Map tool in NVIVO, individual interviewees were mapped against all themes to compare results between interviews. Following this, the main themes were coded in more detail to further separate interviewee categories. For example, all sections coded “dogs” were coded into sub-themes for the type of discussion regarding dogs , and all sections coded “dog issues” were then re-coded into specific issues .Having completed this analysis, the initial assignment of interviewees to the 10 stakeholder groups was re-visited, and a final grouping was made based on values and goals regarding animal management. Brown and Lambert’s  knowledgThe Project Map tool in NVIVO did not yield clear differences, as the themes generated were common amongst most interviewees. However, when separated further into sub-themes, it was clear that the values and goals behind the themes did vary amongst four groups: Indigenous Locals, Indigenous Land Rangers, Non-locals and Non-Indigenous Locals. Word counts were then conducted again, this time across the four new groups, and were transformed into Word Clouds in NVIVO for visual ease .Based on these results, the original 10 stakeholder groups were refined into the four groups. Knowledge types, power frames and identity frames all aligned across these four groups. Some groups had individuals with multiple knowledge types and frame categories, however there were certain ones that were identified amongst all members of each of the four newly created groups.This group consisted of seven local Indigenous community members; TOs and community members, including two youths, and all resided in Wurrumiyanga and owned dogs and cats. All members had lived in Wurrumiyanga for most of their lives, except for one who grew up on his home country in Arnhem Land, NT, and moved to Wurrumiyanga more than 10 years ago but had visited many times throughout his life. The two youth participants did not have clear opinions about animal management in the community, whereas the remaining six had strong knowledge and views.All members of this group have individual and local knowledge. Individual knowledge has come from their own experiences growing up with and/or around animals in Wurrumiyanga. Their local knowledge comes from some of these same experiences that were shared together as a community, particularly around the issues currently impacting the community regarding animal management. All members of this group were participating in some aspect of animal management, they were all pet owners, and all agreed to participate in this study giving them the power of voice.Dogs were discussed twice as often as cats by this group a. Dogs wConversely, dogs were discussed frequently. Positive discussions involved stories of pet dogs and why the local community own dogs, for example: “they were wonderful dogs, and they good hunters too” (Interviewee #12); “we keep them for protection and hunting and family members” (Interviewee #4); “people come and prowl around and yea dogs are protective too” (Interviewee #14); “they’re a part of the family and all we need is more management and education” (Interviewee #4).The dog issue discussed the most was that there are ‘too many dogs’ (n = 11 references): “but dogs, they’ve just grown in numbers” (Interviewee #6); “there is too many dogs” (Interviewee #4). The group also knew of recent discussions about introducing dog by-laws, and everyone that mentioned this agreed that dog numbers needed to decrease, for example: “maybe reduce the dog numbers you know…just lower the numbers of the dogs within their house” (Interviewee #6); “too many, they only need one every house” (Interviewee #14).“Cheeky dogs” (n = 9) and (poor) “health” (n = 6) were also common issues discussed. “(My son) is a dog lover…we went to the football oval…to have a catch of the ball and the dog just turned around and almost bit him on the face. And I turned around to the owner and said, ‘you should have kept that dog at home if it’s like that’” (Interviewee #11). “Some dogs you know got sores on their body, lots of dogs…the dogs need more treatment more medicine more often, keep them healthy” (Interviewee #14).Although there are no Tiwi cultural lores that would hinder animal management programs for dogs and cats generally, this does not necessarily apply to all animals, as it was mentioned that “some dogs you can’t…because they’ve been named by their grandfather or father or aunty… because they’ve got a cultural name, so we’ve got to be careful. Only certain dogs” (Interviewee #12).Indigenous Locals believed that the TIRC was doing a good job, because it brought a veterinarian to the island from Darwin to improve dog health. However, they felt that more needs to be done between veterinary visits, such as helping injured dogs and applying medications: “The ones that are needing help the council members should do something about it” (Interviewee #11), and “look after the animals and to give them medicine like that worm stuff…like when the vet isn’t here” (Interview #8). There was some debate about the role of the TLC: half of the group pointed out that the TLC only work outside the community and it is not their job to manage dogs, whilst the other half suggested that they should have a role in animal management similar to the TIRC. The group also concurred that the TOs have a role in educating the community about animal management.This stakeholder group’s overall framing was that dogs are a bigger problem than cats. The primary issue was that there are too many dogs, and that they should be managed in a culturally appropriate way by the TIRC and TLC working together, and TOs educating the community about what work is happening. This would reduce the number of dogs, reduce the number of cheeky dogs and improve the health of the remaining dogs.The two local Indigenous Land Rangers that participated in the study had both lived in Wurrumiyanga for most of their lives and owned pets. Similar to Indigenous Locals, this group shared location and demographic characteristic identities, however, their position as Land Rangers offered a Role identity that was evident in their responses.The members of this group, like the Indigenous Locals, had individual and local knowledge based on their experiences growing up with animals in Wurrumiyanga. However, what separated the two participants was their specialised knowledge and their power of expertise. Their knowledge and power stemmed from their positions as Land Rangers on the Tiwi Islands. Land Rangers undertake natural resource management  on land outside the settlements and report to the TLC. This specialised knowledge of animals, their populations and how they interact with the environment, including the island settlements, gives them imperative knowledge and experience regarding animal management.As for the other groups, Indigenous Rangers discussed dogs more frequently than cats , and dueDog discussions were mostly positive rather than negative, whereas cats were regarded more negatively . HoweverThe positive dog references were stories about owned dogs: “I can remember I had a little Corgi as my very first pet… I’ve got really good fond memory of that Corgi dog that we had” (Interviewee #9). The Indigenous Rangers also clarified why the locals have dogs, for hunting—“[my dogs] were good hunters anyway, pigs, possum, wallaby, sometimes they fight cats too” (Interviewee #13)—and for protection—“I like them because people come around at night driving around and the dogs let me know that somebody’s coming” (Interviewee #13).The main negative discussions regarding dogs were about the health of the dogs, which the group believes should be the owners’ responsibility: “it falls back more or less on the owners of the animal you know make sure they’re aware of what it is and address it you know if they’ve got ticks address it” (Interviewee #9”), and “some people they don’t feed them, they go from the house to the bin, knock over bin and make rubbish everywhere” (Interviewee #13).Both agreed that the TLC and the TIRC should work together to tackle animal management in Wurrumiyanga: “We both [TLC and TIRC] need to work out how to enforce new policies. The TOs also need to stand up and tell people to follow the new policies” (Interviewee #9). Involving the TOs will ensure local Indigenous knowledge is viewed and that the policies created will be culturally appropriate. They also thought that the TIRC was having a positive impact by bringing a vet from Darwin to treat dogs.In summary, Indigenous Rangers believed that animal management needs to occur across all species . They believed that the TIRC is currently contributing to animal management by bringing a vet to the island from Darwin, but more needs to be done. This included more collaboration between stakeholders and ensuring that new policies are properly enforced to enable the animal management program to be more successful and sustainable.Non-Indigenous Locals consisted of five non-Indigenous Wurrumiyanga residents. Two were pet owners and three were not; one had been in Wurrumiyanga his whole life and spoke the native language, whilst one had only been in Wurrumiyanga for 2 years.All members of this group had organisational knowledge and positional power. Although their knowledge originates from differing organisations, each have a role to play in animal management. Three work for TIRC who are responsible for delivering council policies. Another is a Councillor which gave him direct authority in developing policy. The Councillor also had individual and local knowledge from growing up in Wurrumiyanga. The fifth was a member of staff in the Department of Education NT and had organisational and specialised knowledge that could be used with positional power to educate school children about pet husbandry and personal health.The group mentioned dogs more than twice as frequently as they mentioned cats c. NegatiRelating to the fact that dogs are free-roaming, statements included: “they’re not dogs that are contained, nobody closes the gate, so they just wander around everywhere” (Interviewee #1). It was mentioned that dogs join to form packs, and then become more aggressive: “they roam everywhere they roam in packs if there is a small dog on its own it gets ripped to pieces” (Interviewee #3); “we’ve already got packs of dogs roaming around Wurrumiyanga, as soon as you’ve got packs running around, you’ve got too many dogs, there’s too many dogs, if you’ve got a pack of dogs you’ve got too many dogs. That’s why there’s a pack roaming around” (Interviewee #1); “I’ve been chased by one pack of dogs” (Interviewee #2) and “I rode a bike so of course I was chased by dogs” (Interviewee #1).Dog health was also of concern, for example: “dogs are covered in ticks” (Interviewee #1), and “too many ticks on dogs and fleas on dogs… and if I was walking around with ticks all over me, I wouldn’t be very happy” (Interviewee #7). “Sometimes the cats and the dogs have sickness, they carry sickness” (Interviewee #7), which has an impact on human heath: “there’s dog poop everywhere they’ve got hookworms, roundworms, they’ve got every other worm, nobody worms these children” (Interviewee #5).Cats were mainly seen in a negative light, with the major issue being their impact on native wildlife. This was followed by concern about there being too many cats, their potential to become feral, their high reproduction rate and potential zoonoses. For example, statements included: “cats (are) a massive issue because if they go feral and go into the bush and start destroying a unique environment that’s been protected by its isolation for so long, that has the potential to destroy so much of its natural beauty and characteristics” (Interviewee #2), “Tiwi islands have 53 indigenous bird species; we won’t have 53 indigenous bird species if we keep bringing cats onto the island. Cats eat birds it simple.” (Interviewee #1), “they go out and kill wildlife and they’re out at night… the damage they do, a lot of it is hidden and when its hidden people think you know because it’s not obvious that nothing needs to be done” (Interviewee #7). No positive discussions took place about cats.Non-Indigenous Locals discussed that the TLC’s role does not include direct responsibility for community matters, but they do have a mandate to manage feral animals, including feral cats. It was clear that the group believed that the TLC should be responsible for cats because they are impacting on wildlife and biodiversity, while the TIRC should be managing dogs within the community. Vet programs on the island had been funded by the TIRC and provided surgical sterilisation (de-sexing) and parasite medications free-of-charge to the community. Three of the group felt strongly that the vet tax was not workable because none of the community’s dog owners can afford it, which is contributing to dog population growth. This group also strongly believed that TOs should be involved in dog and cat management, but currently they are not.The Non-Indigenous Locals’ framing can be summarised as follows: there are too many dogs in Wurrumiyanga, and this needs to be tackled by reducing the dog population, which will make management easier. Moreover, dogs can then be cared for better, with improved feeding, health care and hence reduced numbers of aggressive dogs and their risk to people. All stakeholders need to collaborate to achieve this, and the USD 50 vet tax is unworkable and should be terminated. This group also believe that cats are a major environmental problem that needs to be better managed, potentially by the TLC.The Animal Managers group consisted of seven non-residents of Wurrumiyanga, who all had current official positions related to animal management in Wurrumiyanga. This included two NT Government employees from the Environmental Health Department, three employed by AMRRIC and one private veterinarian based in Darwin who provided veterinary services to Wurrumiyanga.All members of this group had specialised knowledge and power of expertise. They had a range of roles relating to animal management in Wurrumiyanga. The veterinarian had been contracted by the TIRC to deliver veterinary services to Wurrumiyanga for the past 20 years. Two are NT Government staff under the Environmental Health Department, that supervise local staff located in remote communities.This group discussed dogs and cats more equally  and had However, negative opinions predominated . For exaCats were also discussed mainly in negative terms . All sixA major point of discussion for this group was the responsibility for animal management in the islands. One stated: “it’s tricky in the NT at the moment in that there is no formal responsibility to include animal management… Regional Councils do acknowledge and accept that animal management is important for a community’s function and amenity and health” (Interviewee #15). The group believed that it should be the TIRC’s responsibility: “it can only really be the Regional Councils… it could only be who is on the ground and they need to get the adequate funding to do it” (Interviewee #20).Many factors affected this group’s animal management work in communities. The group discussed three: the remoteness of the communities, the rapid turnover in government staff they work with, and the turbulent histories of many rAcs which impede the development of trusting relationships amongst animal management stakeholders.It was discussed that the TIRC should “collaborate with other services such as Ranger groups” (Interviewee #18), and particularly the TOs, since they “are really key to it all” (Interviewee #20), “they are the voice for the community, leaders of the community” (Interviewee #18). Another stated: “it’s their land so absolutely they have a role and it’s important to work with them to make sure they’re happy with and to treat them with appropriate respect especially if they’re not happy with what’s going on it’s going to fail” (Interviewee #16).The Animal Managers’ framing can be summarised as follows: they believed that there are too many dogs, and an increasing number of cats. Cats must be controlled to avoid them becoming feral and impacting wildlife, and more needs to be known about their zoonotic impact on humans. Dog numbers should be reduced to manage their health, aggression, roaming behaviour and risks to human health. The statutory responsibilities for animal management also need to be clarified, plus sources of funding, and greater collaboration and coordination is required amongst all stakeholders, especially local community members, to create a sustainable animal management program.Differences among stakeholders’ values, goals and worldviews create conflicts which are the basis of intractable environmental problems ,2,3. ManHowever, methods are still required to better characterise stakeholders’ different perspectives and power dynamics, which are essential if effective processes are to be designed, and solutions found to environmental conflicts. This is particularly necessary in Australia, where the knowledge and values of Indigenous people have been devalued relative to the scientific perspectives of researchers and politicians . Some inTo address this gap, we applied Gray’s  frame anThe results revealed four stakeholder groups with distinct identity frames, knowledge types and power frames. However, all four groups shared overlapping perceptions regarding companion animals in Wurrumiyanga, although with differing strengths of opinion about how they should be managed. Therefore, the situation is not one of diametrically opposing frames, as is often the case in natural resource management ,50, but This pattern was similar for cats, where Indigenous residents of Wurrumiyanga spoke of cats more positively than negatively, citing their benefits for rodent control and as companions. By contrast, the non-Indigenous participants spoke of cats in an extremely negative light, with 10-fold more negative than positive comments, focusing on their high fecundity and impacts on wildlife.The frame analysis demonstrated that all interviewees agreed that the main overarching issue was dog overpopulation, but that the strength of their views differed. Unfortunately, this was not quantified, but during interviews, it appeared that the Indigenous Locals only answered the questions because they had been asked, not because they felt that the problem was so acute that they should become actively involved. The varied severity of suggested management actions also revealed the strength of different groups’ views. Indigenous Locals agreed that there were some problems with dogs, and that there are too many, but they only suggested reducing the population rather than introducing movement restraints, because they wished dogs to be able to accompany them to the shops or walk their children to school. Moreover, this group highlighted that dogs have cultural value and names that can’t be regulated with Western by-laws, and hence these animals cannot be interfered with. Their moderate and reluctant views may also have been influenced by past experiences, where researchers had engaged with them for personal or professional gain, and outside authorities had created animal management policies that the locals opposed .By comparison, the Non-Indigenous Locals group had more forthright opinions, suggesting that animal management should be urgently improved, and that this requires not only reducing dog (and cat) numbers, but the enforcement of by-laws similar to Western societies, including pet registration, constraints on pet roaming and their improved health care. This group wanted pet owners to take more responsibility for their companion animals. These values differed from those of Indigenous Locals, who regarded dogs as adults who have the same rights and responsibilities as people, and therefore dog control is tantamount to the removal of their rights. The majority of the Non-Indigenous Locals group had positional power in Wurrumiyanga, whereby their occupation (TIRC) or elected role (Councillor) gave them authority to create and enforce policies, including those regarding animal management, and they have been involved in successful animal management decisions in the past . HoweverWith their role as natural resource managers on Tiwi, the Indigenous Rangers had a more holistic view and knowledge of animals and their management, and therefore, their framing fell somewhere between the Indigenous and non-Indigenous local groups. The Rangers wanted to see an improvement in dog and cat management but wanted any solutions to be appropriate for the community. Some researchers claim that Aboriginal community values and knowledge shouldn’t be as respected as scientific or Western values, because they lack the overall knowledge and understanding of the whole issue . HoweverThe Animal Manager’s frame was similar to the Indigenous Rangers’ frame, being intermediary. This group had strong opinions that animal management needs to be improved but understood that for a program to be successful and sustainable, the community must be involved, and their cultural values need to be respected. They accepted that local knowledge is vital. This group had organisational knowledge regarding improving animal management in rAcs, as well as specialised knowledge regarding education and teaching, and as veterinarians. Their positions in these organisations and their expertise in their fields gave them positional and power of expertise frames. These knowledge types and power frames could be used together to make changes across multiple rAcs, and not only in Wurrumiyanga.In terms of the relative power of the four groups, Non-Indigenous Locals held the ascendancy over the other three groups due to their Positional Power Frame, which gave them direct authority to create and enforce policy relating to animal management a. AnimalFrame analysis has not been used before to diagnose the underlying power dynamics in natural resource or environmental conflicts in Indigenous Australia. Our application showed that it can reveal subtle variations in stakeholder groups’ identities, knowledge, power, goals and values. The method was relatively resource efficient and tractable despite the remoteness of the study site, and the wide geographical distribution of the stakeholders initially identified. This influenced the sample size of interviewees, and therefore the depth of analysis that was possible, but this is likely to be typical of remote regions such as the NT where stakeholders are dispersed over large distances and with limited communication infrastructure. By integrating Brown and Lambert’s  concept


We clarify key aspects of the evaluation, by de Vries and van de Wal , of our  We thank de Vries and van de Wal , and for informativeness (measured as Shannon relative information with respect to a user supplied background measure), then a combined score is determined (the product of the two). Shannon relative information is used because it is scale invariant, tail insensitive, slow and familiar. The combined score satisfies a long run proper scoring rule constraint, and involves choosing an optimal statistical accuracy threshold beneath which experts are unweighted  by fitting a polynomial of degree p through the quantile-quantile plot:with noise, ε, y the quantiles of the raw data and x the quantiles of a normal distribution. We take p = 3 to account for the skewness in the expert opinions.” (p.94). The authors do not mention how exactly the fitting was done. If they minimized sum squared error, per question, per elicited quantile, then the solution will always be the simple arithmetic average of the experts’ quantiles. Indeed:When analysing data from BA13, VW15 construct what they term a ‘consensus distribution’ as follows: “z by some function, say f  = Σj=0…pajxj, and choose  to minimize the sum squared error, then the result will always be the average of the yi’s, provided this average is in the orbit of f. That is certainly the case here, as we can always put:If we replace a0,…a3) which return the average, and the one any solver finds will depend on the starting point.Of course there will be other values for (F and G be cumulative distribution functions (CDFs) from experts 1 and 2, with densities f, g. Let HW, hw denote respectively the CDF and density of the result of averaging the quantiles of F, G. Then:Thus, the consensus distribution is simply an unorthodox way of averaging the experts’ quantiles. Averaging quantiles is a common students’ mistake when trying to compute the average of experts’ distributions, but it has also been promoted in its own right  says that HW is poor. Thirty-three professional SEJ studies (including BA13) have been conducted since the data summary in Cooke and Goossens  of PW, EW, HW, the best and worst experts  in each panel. The results are ordered according to PW, BA13 is study nr. 24 (highlighted). The HW (consensus distribution), considered as a statistical hypothesis, would be rejected in 18 of the 33 panels at the traditional 5 % level, shown as dotted line in Fig. It is not surprising that the statistical accuracy of Goossens . The anaStatistical accuracy does not tell the whole story. Informativeness is also important, though less important than statistical accuracy. Informative answers that are statistically very inaccurate are not useful, but given two solutions with good accuracy we should prefer the more informative. Figure employing a method that keeps the level of consensus included”. “Level of consensus” is repeatedly invoked in VW15, but not defined. Figure In their Abstract, VW15 suggest that they are “The equal weight combinations . It has been known and accepted for many years that some GCMs have greater skill than others in, for example, hindcasting the temperature field of the Arctic . The climate modelling community has, therefore, accepted that weighting model ensembles .In BA13, the spreads of the expert’s judgments on every item were elicited as three-point marker quantiles  and these comprise the data that went into the Classical Model processing. If the experts’ initial uncertainty spreads evince some form of gross systematic discrepancy , then this lack of consensus may be diagnostic of a deeper ambiguity, either in the target question or in the knowledge or experiences of the experts, and this would normally be the trigger to re-visit the issue with the experts. Such was not the case.LognormalAlt formulation, which can accommodate negative and positive values. This fitting method did not require external decisions about the location parameter, as is the case of the τ-value in VW15.The BA13 elicitation results, when processed with EXCALIBUR, were expressed in terms of values for these three percentiles also, and were sensitive principally to the quantile values given by the experts. The default intrinsic range Cooke  facilityWe acknowledge that other choices for fitting distributions could be made, and it would be useful to revisit this issue once the more fundamental issues surrounding the “consensus distribution” are resolved.The stimulating contribution of VW15 provides a welcome opportunity to extend the discussion of some important aspects of expert elicitation for estimating ice sheet contribution to sea level rise, beyond what was possible in BA13. In applying the Classical Model, we sought a more reliable and reasoned way of enumerating poorly constrained uncertainties with structured expert judgment, and this was the rationale behind the BA13 approach. Justification for this choice is based on an extensive database of forty-five professional elicitation studies, each involving calibration variables and the Classical Model, published in Cooke and Goossens .PW model was initialized on each training set and evaluated on the complementary test set; corresponding equal weights EW solutions were also computed. Aggregating over all such splits, the ratios PW/EW shown in Fig. Several researchers have used this database to study validation of expert judgment (for a review see Cooke et al. The conclusion from these independent appraisals is that, while experts differ greatly in their ability to quantify uncertainty accurately and informatively, the superiority of performance-based combinations is amply attested, both in- and out-of-sample. Many researchers continue to eschew validation, and promote approaches known to have poor performance, such as quantile or harmonic averaging. The goal of science-based uncertainty quantification is not served by neglecting validation.


Heart failure is rising in prevalence but relatively little is known about the experiences and journey of patients and their caregivers. The goal of this paper is to present the symptom and symptom impact experiences of patients with heart failure and their caregivers.This was a United States-based study wherein in-person focus groups were conducted. Groups were audio recorded, transcribed and a content-analysis approach was used to analyze the data.Ninety participants (64 patients and 26 caregivers) were included in the study. Most patients were female (52.0%) with mean age 59.3 ± 8 years; 55.6% were New York Heart Association Class II. The most commonly reported symptoms were shortness of breath (81.3%), fatigue/tiredness (76.6%), swelling of legs and ankles (57.8%), and trouble sleeping (50.0%). Patients reported reductions in social/family interactions (67.2%), dietary changes (64.1%), and difficulty walking and climbing stairs (56.3%) as the most common adverse disease impacts. Mental-health sequelae were noted as depression and sadness (43.8%), fear of dying (32.8%), and anxiety (32.8%). Caregivers  discussed 33 daily heart failure impacts, with the top three being reductions in social/family interactions (50.0%); being stressed, worried, and fearful (46.2%); and having to monitor their “patience” level (42.3%).There are serious unmet needs in HF for both patients and caregivers. More research is needed to better characterize these needs and the impacts of HF along with the development and evaluation of disease management toolkits that can support patients and their caregivers. Chronic heart failure (HF) results when the heart cannot pump enough blood to meet the body’s needs . HF is cChronic HF is characterized by slow progression of symptoms that include breathlessness with exertion, shortness of breath, fatigue, tiredness or weakness, difficulty breathing when lying down, sleep problems, and swollen legs or ankles. These symptoms—especially shortness of breath and fatigue—diminish the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of both patients and their caregivers as many patients are unable to function independently in their day-to-day lives . DepressSeveral studies have documented the impact of HF which results in substantial caregiver burden experienced by loved ones –18. In oHF management is complex and requires daily coordination of and adherence to multiple medications and a set of lifestyle changes related to dietary restrictions, fluid intake, exercise, and weight monitoring. Frequent healthcare appointments—across several different provider types—are often necessary for HF patients. Caregivers play an important role in day-to-day HF management , 20, 21,The goal of this research is to explore and present the symptom and symptom-impact experiences of HF patients and their caregivers. Unlike some other chronic diseases (such as hypertension or dyslipidemia), day-to-day symptom impacts in HF are not an experience and journey just of the individual patient. Rather, caregivers experience their own burden, strain, distress, and hardships by the act of caregiving for HF patients.While past research has characterized the burden of HF on patients and caregivers, it is not without limitations, which motivated the current research. First, some studies were published 11–13 years ago , 24. TreThis was an observational, cross-sectional, qualitative, focus group study in the US wherein 19 in-person focus groups were conducted with 64 patients with HF and 26 caregivers. The study independently recruited patients and caregivers. In this article, the term “caregiver” was used to define anyone who cares—unpaid—for a friend or a family member living with HF.Patients included in the study had to be at least 45 years old at the time of screening and self-reported the following: a diagnosis of HF, at least New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II, and taking at least one HF prescription medication in the last six months. Caregivers were eligible if they were at least 21 years old, a relative of any HF patient (not necessarily participating in the focus groups) with at least NYHA class II status who is not participating in the study, and a self-report of spending at least eight hours a week caring for the HF patient. All participants were recruited using market-research vendors across four US locations: Beverly Hills, CA; Skokie, IL; Boston, MA; and Philadelphia, PA. A standardized recruitment script was used by the vendors to identify potential participants from their proprietary databases. The sample was selected to represent as diverse a participant mix as possible regarding gender, age, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity. Male and female sessions were conducted separately as were patient and caregiver sessions. All procedures and patient-facing materials were approved by Ethical & Independent Review Services institutional review board (IRB), which is an independent ethics committee, before study initiation. All participants were consented verbally and in writing. The identification number for this study is 17191.The patient and caregiver focus groups were conducted using semi-structured discussion guides. The patient guide was carefully designed to elicit physical and emotional sequelae, self-management, medication adherence, and manifestations of worsening and improvement in overall health status to understand participants’ symptom experience, impacts on day-to-day functioning, and solutions and resources that could facilitate the HF journey. For the caregiver groups, the guide was designed to understand length of experience, roles and responsibilities, extent of educational resources and social support, and facilitators and barriers to caregiving. Both discussion guides were reviewed by two HF patient advocates who participated in the study to provide feedback on the focus group questions. Following written informed consent, focus groups were conducted by one of the researchers (CAM) who used probing and non-verbal techniques to elicit responses from participants following the semi-structured interview guide.All participants also completed a self-reported sociodemographic and clinical questionnaire. Recognizing the wealth of literature around HF symptoms and impacts, two small (8.5x11-inch) posters were developed that included the cardinal HF symptoms and impacts . This waAll audio recordings of the focus group discussions were professionally transcribed. Upon receipt of each transcript, one researcher (NT) performed quality checks. The goal of this step was to correct any transcription errors and remove any personal health information found within the transcripts. A content-analysis approach was used to analyze the focus group discussion data . All analyses were performed using an analysis software program (ATLAS.ti version 7.5.2). A coding dictionary was developed prior to qualitatively analyzing the transcripts to capture the symptoms and impacts elicited in the sessions. The coding dictionary was revised in vivo to include codes for new concepts. Once all transcript coding was complete, all codes were thoroughly reviewed by a second team member to ensure it was performed in an accurate and consistent manner. The qualitative output included the text captured by the coding process for each code and the participant quotes organized by HF symptoms and impacts from the perspective of patients and caregivers interviewed.A DataFax database for all quantitative data was developed, tested, and validated prior to data entry. DataFax is a 21 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 11-compliant, direct fax-to-computer data management system that relies on optical character recognition (OCR) software for collecting study data from case report forms. The quantitative data entered by the OCR software was reviewed by two independent reviewers to ensure accuracy. Descriptive statistics  were presented for the sociodemographic and clinical form items.A total of 64 patients who met the eligibility criteria participated in the one-time, focus-group discussion. Focus-group discussions were conducted between April and September 2018.: “the concomitant shortness of breath, that’s the #1 thing. It really plays havoc with a whole lot of other things. So the second one is the speed at which I get fatigued. And the length of time it takes to recover from being fatigued. And that is physical fatigue that–like [participant name 3] mentioned, it also really wipes out your ability to, like, stay focused, or even care to focus.”: “Life’s a chore a lot of the time. To go to the store is a chore. To go to dinner with friends is a chore. A lot of times, to be able to go out and fiddle around in my garden is a chore. To do the things that used to be able to give me joy are now chores.”: “Well, I sure would like to exercise. I’m a big sports fan, but there’s just no way I can do what I used to do, I mean not even close. You know, that’s--that’s--that’s just very disheartening. I wouldn’t say depressing, but certainly it’s disheartening to see a lot of things I used to do and could do that, um, that I won’t even attempt to now. Because I know what the outcome will probably be. Um, socializing with friends and family, I kind of withdraw, because I know that when they’re ready to do certain things, I’m going to be no, I can’t really, you know, even come close to participating fully. So, uh, I take—I’d just rather not even get started, you know, and that’s kind of what I’m doing. Um, that’s, you know, pretty tough. Um, certain jobs I might want to do that I’m, uh, limited, that I know I won’t be able to do, you know. Um, and then, you know, my--the focus. Uh, a lot of times, um, you know, certain things I have to take care of, I need to--to keep really stay focused for a long time, really concentration level. Then, um, you know, once I feel those pains coming on, you know, that--that takes over everything, you know. That shoots right to the top of the list, and make sure I can get back to feeling normal.”[004–107]: “Depression. Yeah, depression, that sets in real fast, because you can’t--you just feel that you’re worthless, that, you know, because of things. And you depend on people to do things for you, and I don’t like people doing things for me. It bugs me. But it’s just--it’s just depression. And everybody tries. Oh, the whole family tries to be nice and everything, and I wish they’d just go about being the way they were. You know, but it’s just that they just feel that you’re frail and you’re fragile and all, and it’s just, like they’ve been saying, people--people don’t understand. They--they just can’t comprehend it.”[002–115]: “Um, just discomfort right after taking my medications. I don’t know what that’s all about, and it usually lasts for about 30 minutes.”[003–202]: “Because he used to walk around the house with no issues. Now he is a little bit slow and he is feeling vulnerable in case he is at home at the house by himself, and he may have a fall and, uh, things like that.”Below are some illustrative quotes that reflect caregiver impacts.[003–04 –participant name 1] Um, I become more busy. It’s like having a child, pretty much. I have to look at him all the time, look after him all the time. So especially at night when he is at sleep, because he can’t go to the bathroom, so I have to check on him in the middle of the night to make sure that has been taken care of.[003–04 –participant name 4] The physical challenge is definitely, you know, because my parents live 110 miles away from me. So, you know, I get five calls a day about stuff that’s–in the scope of things, is pretty insignificant, but for them it’s like major, so I’ve had to literally–and I work in sales. I have to drop my career to tend to them, you know, on a moment’s notice. That’s really frustrating. …It’s a challenge because, you know, I have a family myself…– it’s almost like putting your finger in a dam, you know, just try to cover as many holes as you can and hope it doesn’t flood.[002–211] Tired, crabby, aggravated, giving up your social life on weekends.[002–207] Everywhere I turn it’s like another problem.[002–208] He doesn’t like me having ‘me’ time. I like to read. I’ll pull out a book, and he’s irritated. Why are you not talking to me? Why do you want to always read? Well, because you’re boring.[002–208] So it’s like my freedom is—is gone. So I’m always washing his clothes [due to urination accidents], which is a pain. Um, I—I retired and I was hoping to do some traveling. So I guess I’m sad because I thought my retirement would be different, um, so as a result, I’m not having time for myself to do my walking, bicycle riding. In the summer I like to go bicycle riding, and then he gets sad because I’m leaving him and I’m going on my bike. I have little time for myself and my interests, I’m becoming more like a boring person, myself, um, um, and I used to be really, uh, outgoing and, um, kind of free spirit. Well, that’s not so much anymore, so I think my personality has changed.002-207e: Well, the—the problem would be I’d have to leave the house, and then he’d want to know why aren’t you here with me, where are you going?002–201: It’s very discouraging. Um, I’m always on edge. It’s hard to sleep. You’re always wondering, you know, if something’s going to happen. You know, you’re--it’s just, um, very, very, um, mentally and physically draining.002–204: I’m a pretty positive person. I’m always laughing and smiling. It’s always an act. It’s always an act, because if I show people that I’m sad and depressed, it’s not going to help me. And it’s not going to help my husband.002–206: I can’t make any plans, can’t plan ahead. Um, can’t leave him unattended, can’t leave him alone. That’s a given. Um, and even when I do, it’s [laughter] why aren’t you answering your phone, um, you know. You know, it’s--I put exhausting. It’s overwhelming…no time for myself.002–203: The constant worrying, because almost every time he goes to the doctor it’s a new problem or something getting worse. Um, feeling tired constantly, um, loss of friends and no time for myself, and kind of a thankless job.002–201: Well, taken for granted. God, you know, you’re here but nobody really appreciates it, because they--and then, of course, you know, they take out their anger and frustration on you. Um, so it’s very stressful, can’t make plans.004–205: It’s the time. I cannot leave the house for any length of time without getting 100 phones calls. Um, the financial cost of having someone come in so that I can get a few hours, that costs. Um, --my father also has constant fearshe also has. And the complaints, he just--it--it causes a tremendous amount of stress, which translates into my job, and then I have to call out. It’s a lot.004–207: I’m an anxious mess. Um, I’ve lost weight. I don’t sleep well anymore. Um, definitely get bouts of depression, and, um, anxietyLiving with and managing HF is a “shared experience”  and is dThis qualitative study confirmed previous research about the cardinal HF symptoms from the patient perspective and their daily impacts on patients with HF. These HF cardinal symptoms (from the patient perspective) were shortness of breath, tiredness and fatigue, edema, and difficulty sleeping , 26–37. The findings of the current qualitative study further support the results of other studies demonstrating that the frequency and severity of HF-related symptoms  impact physical, emotional and social functioning and well-being and results in significantly impaired HRQoL , 44, 45.This qualitative research poignantly described the lived experiences of being a caregiver of patients with HF. Caregivers play a key and meaningful role in their caregivee’s HF self-care and HF health outcomes . HoweverThis study provides evidence of patient and caregiver unmet needs in HF which are poorly understood by clinicians and vastly underserved by the healthcare system. These unmet needs require interventions that not only meet the diverse cultural needs of patients and their caregivers but also incorporates individual preferences for optimizing health outcomes that mean the most to patients and caregivers.This qualitative study has several limitations. First, the mean duration of living with HF was 8.9 years. By the virtue of surviving this time, these patients may have generally had the opportunity to find a new equilibrium with their disease and its impact on their caregivers. Thus, these findings may not be extended to patients living with HF for fewer years. Next, small sample sizes—which can limit generalizability and external validity—are often a characteristic of qualitative research as was the case in this study. However, our sample of 64 patients and 26 caregivers was considerably larger than that of past research. The sample of interviewed patients and caregivers was fairly well educated, relatively young, underrepresented participants from Hispanic origin and resided in metropolitan cities It is unknown whether the burden and impacts reported herein would have been exacerbated or attenuated among more vulnerable HF patients and their caregivers. The key phenotypes of heart failure  were not distinguished in sampling. Our sample of patients and caregivers were not paired or matched as was the case with past research. No qualitative subgroup analyses were conducted . Finally, 56.0% of the patients self-reported NYHA class II, 30.0% self-reported class III, and 13.0% self-reported class IV. It is unknown if the symptoms and impacts revealed herein would have been intensified if more symptomatic patients and their caregivers were sampled.In conclusion, living with HF is a shared—and often demanding—journey between patients and their caregivers. Patients experience many distressing and burdensome HF symptoms and feel they have a detrimental and deleterious impact on their daily functioning and well-being. Many caregivers are overloaded and stressed and suffer from harmful, negative impacts on their physical and emotional health. The direct costs of HF only take into consideration objective metrics such as healthcare utilization and expenditures. Even measures of indirect costs, while slightly more patient- and caregiver-centered, do not account for or incorporate the distressing and disruptive deficits in functioning and well-being that patients and caregivers experience. As shown by this and other research, the magnitude of patient and caregiver unmet need is palpable. More systematic research is needed to better characterize and understand unmet need at the patient, caregiver, and societal level. We advocate for making HF a much higher priority—perhaps akin to the oncology patient-centered medical homes—with quality metrics and policy changes that can help ameliorate the daily suffering and broad societal impact that is currently vastly underestimated and undertreated.S1 Appendix(DOCX)Click here for additional data file.


Although increasing attention has been paid to the overarching theoretical and applied issues surrounding water resilience, few have examined individual attitudes and perceptions towards this concept. In this paper, we examine to what extent individuals endorse – that is, agree with and see the importance of using - social-ecological resilience as a framework for management and governance of water resources. We approach the problem and promise of water governance in this way because individuals’ mindsets (and shifts in mindsets) offers one of the most effective leverage points for larger system change. To explore water resilience endorsement, we developed a scale  that was designed to capture individual endorsement of each of the seven principles of social-ecological water resilience. Three additional sets of questionnaires were also used to examine whether individual characteristics  predict water resilience endorsement. Overall, there was considerable societal endorsement of water resilience. However, the degree to which individuals endorsed the concept of water resilience differed as a function of demographics, psychological characteristics, and attitudes toward the environment. Future research should examine the nuances of endorsement and consider targeted approaches to influence endorsement levels by using the predictor variables as a basis for engaging and shifting mindsets.In the epoch of the Anthropocene change, complexity, and uncertainty create a demand for new systems of water management and governance. One such management model that is rapidly gaining traction amongst both scholars and practitioners is the concept of  Water is critical to sustainability in this era, and “ensuring availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all” is one of the primary goals set by the United Nations in the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development4. Given the uncertainty and complexity associated with this transitional period, there are increasing calls for new water governance and management approaches that consider the whole social-ecological system5 and that are based on complex systems thinking7. One such approach is that of social-ecological resilience - the capacity of a social-ecological system to cope with changes while maintaining its identity and critical functions11. Embracing change lies at the heart of resilience thinking11, and this concept provides a pathway towards sustainability in a complex and uncertain world where change is inevitable. As such, it is critical to implement governance and management approaches that align with a social-ecological resilience perspective16, and to understand the challenges and opportunities for implementing these approaches.The Anthropocene19, thereby leading to transformation in governance . We approach these questions from the perspective of individual endorsement of water resilience, recognizing that individuals can effect change at a much broader level in social-ecological systems, and that individual traits (or ‘inner worlds’) such as empathy e.g.21, spirituality e.g.22, and political values e.g.23 can be used as a mechanism for building water resilience endorsement25. However, to develop effective mechanisms for building water resilience endorsement , we first need to understand the individual characteristics that may be associated with varying levels of endorsement. Accordingly, the aim of our study is to examine individual differences in water resilience endorsement. ‘Water resilience’ is still a relatively new term in both scholarly and non-scholarly fields, and diverse approaches are being developed, stemming from varying conceptualizations. In the academic context, the water resilience literature is divided into different types, such as engineering, ecological, social-ecological, community, institutional, and disaster. Water resilience has also gained attraction outside of scholarship and has been increasingly incorporated into water policy language across regions and sectors. Although different approaches are available , a holistic perspective is also being employed by a few organizations 29. We acknowledge these differences and here focus on a definition consistent with a social-ecological systems perspective: “the capacity to adapt or transform in the face of change in social-ecological systems, particularly unexpected change, in ways that continue to support human wellbeing”30 with a specific focus on water resources.A challenge associated with the implementation of social-ecological resilience in water governance (‘water resilience’ hereafter) lies in society’s endorsement of a water resilience approach. We define endorsement here as a combination of agreement with, and belief in the importance of, an approach. It is important to understand what motivates individuals to endorse water resilience because acceptance and endorsement of a new approach at the individual level enables its further legitimization and communication in broader societyet al.32 have identified seven generic principles for enhancing social-ecological resilience, which could be applied in diverse governance and management contexts, including water-focused social-ecological systems: (P1) maintain diversity and redundancy, (P2) manage connectivity, (P3) manage slow variables and feedbacks, (P4) foster an understanding of social-ecological systems as complex adaptive systems, (P5) encourage learning and experimentation, (P6) broaden participation, and (P7) promote polycentric governance systems. We apply these principles in the present study as a mechanism to unpack water resilience.Biggs 33. Implementing a water resilience approach is challenging not least because it requires endorsement from society. Deeper insights into the perceptions of individuals in society regarding a water resilience-based approach in the management of water resources are needed, and understanding the individual differences that are related to greater or lesser endorsement is critical for moving forward to improve water resilience endorsement. The purpose of this study is therefore to understand to what extent individuals in society  endorse – that is, agree with and believe in the importance of using - water resilience as a framework for management and governance of water resources. The specific objectives of this research are to: 1) Develop and test a “water resilience scale” for assessing endorsement of water resilience principles; 2) Describe the level of water resilience endorsement of the Canadian and US public; and, 3) Identify individual differences that predict levels of water resilience endorsement.Meeting the challenges of the Anthropocene requires “unprecedented transformative solutions for sustainability with a careful consideration of resilience in their implementation”34 on the quality of MTurk samples) in 2018. A breakdown of the demographics of this sample can be found in Supplementary Table A total of 562 Canadian (N = 268) and American (N = 294) individuals participated in this study via Amazon Mechanical Turk : 1) a demographics questionnaire, 2) 5 psychological measures, 3) questions about the local environment and environmental change, and 4) a questionnaire designed to assess their level of agreement with the principles of water resilience. All participants completed the questions in the same order, and after completion of the survey were debriefed and compensated.The demographics questionnaire was designed to collect the following personal information: age, sex, country, province/state, years in current location, highest level of education, employment status, household income, marital status, number of children, religious importance and attendance, and political affiliation. These questions were based off of similar questions from the United States Census and the Canadian Census to ensure that they were culturally appropriate and clear.et al.35, was designed to assess all five dimensions of the Big-5 personality model . Each question was answered using a 7-point Likert scale, based on the degree to which the participant felt each item in the questionnaire corresponded to their own behaviours . The average rating for each of the 5 personality factors was calculated, with higher scores reflecting higher levels of a given personality trait.This 20-item questionnaire, adapted from Donnellan 36. Participants were asked to rate whether or not they agreed with 10 statements using a 7-point Likert scale . Half of the statements assessed internal locus of control , and the other half assessed external locus of control . An average internal locus of control and an average external locus of control score was calculated for each participant, with higher scores indicating higher levels of locus of control.The brief locus of control questionnaire assesses the degree to which individuals believe they have control over the events that occur in their life37. The full version of this questionnaire assesses empathy, as well as impulsivity and risk-taking, whereas the version used here only included the empathy items. Participants were asked to indicate “yes” or “no” to the 19 questions . An empathy score was generated by summing the number of “yes” scores (or “no” scores in the case of a reverse-keyed item) for a total score out of 19 (higher scores = higher levels of empathy).This 19-item questionnaire was adapted from the Adult Impulsivity scale38. Participants used a 5-point Likert scale to rate 8 statements  based on the degree to which they felt each statement described to their own behaviours . A self-efficacy score was calculated by averaging the ratings across all 8 items, for a possible maximum score of 5 (higher scores = higher levels of self-efficacy).This questionnaire assesses the belief in one’s own capacity to succeed or accomplish a goal/task39, assesses beliefs and attitudes toward making changes . Participants were asked to rate how accurately 17 statements described their feelings toward change by using a -point Likert scale . An average resistance to change score was calculated for each participant, with higher scores indicating greater resistance to change.This questionnaire, adapted from Oreget al.40, and is used to assess individual perceptions of both the current and future state of the environment. For the “current” section, participants were asked to rate the current condition of various aspects of the environment  on a scale from 1 (very bad) to 5 (very good) for a) their city/town, and b) their country. For the “future” section, participants were asked to predict what the comparative state of the environment will be in 25 years on a scale from 1 (much worse than now) to 5 (much better than now) for a) their city/town, and b) their country.This scale was adapted from Gifford A “local optimism” score was calculated for each participant by taking the difference between the current and future ratings  for the participant’s city/town (average future city/town rating –average current city/town rating). Similarly, a “national optimism” score was calculated by taking the difference between current and future estimates of the state of the environment in one’s country (average future country rating –average current country rating). For both the local and national optimism scores, positive scores indicate greater optimism that the environmental condition will improve in the future, whereas negative scores indicate a belief that conditions will worsen over time.In addition to the environmental futures scale, we asked participants a series of water-related questions including the importance/meaning of their local water bodies and their attachment to said water sources, how often they visit their local water bodies, and the water-related disasters  that have struck their region in the past 4 years. We also asked participants two questions regarding their beliefs on climate change , and two questions to assess whether or not the participant would be willing to make a change in their personal life, or would be comfortable with society making a change, that would benefit the environment.A series of questions were developed to assess individual endorsement of the 7 principles of water resilience . The questions were broad in their scope (using the term ‘water’ but not defining specific contexts or situations). This questionnaire was extensively piloted in order to ensure broad understanding of the language used by a lay audience. Half of the questions asked participants to rate the importance of the seven principles relating to resilience , and half asked participants to indicate the extent to which they agreed with a number of statements relating to resilience principles . Half of the questions were reverse scored. An average score for each of the 7 principles was calculated, with higher scores indicating higher levels of endorsement of a given principles. An exploratory factor analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation and Kaiser normalization indicated that mean endorsement ratings for all 7 principles loaded onto a single factor, suggesting that they represent a common underlying construct. As such, we also calculated an overall endorsement score by taking the average of scores across all 7 principles. The Cronbach’s alpha for the resilience questionnaire was 0.769, indicating acceptable internal consistency reliability.SD = 0.47), indicating that participants as a whole were accepting of resilience principles.The means and SDs for the demographic measures, the psychological measures, and the environmental measures can be found in Supplementary Tables Next, we conducted a correlational analysis to examine the relationships between overall resilience endorsement and our measures of demographics, psychological factors, and environmental factors. Given the number of relationships that were examined, only significant results are reported here.r = −0.107, N = 562), age , and marital status , such that being female, older, and married was associated with higher endorsement of resilience. Both religious attendance , and religious importance  were also significantly negatively correlated with resilience endorsement, such that attending fewer religious services, and assigning less importance to religion, were both associated with higher resilience endorsement. Finally, political party was significantly associated with resilience endorsement , such that being affiliated with the democrat/liberal party, as opposed to the republican/conservative party, was associated with higher resilience endorsement. No other correlations reached the level of significance.For the demographic variables there were several small, but significant, correlations with overall resilience endorsement. There was a significant correlation between resilience endorsement and sex , conscientiousness , agreeableness , and neuroticism , such that higher levels of each trait (and lower levels of neuroticism) were associated with higher endorsement. There was no relationship between resilience endorsement and extraversion , however. Both internal  and external  locus of control were significantly correlated with resilience endorsement, such that having a higher internal locus of control was associated with greater endorsement of resilience, whereas having a higher external locus of control was associated with less endorsement. There was also a strong correlation between resilience endorsement and empathy , such that higher innate levels of empathy were associated with greater endorsement. Similarly, there was a moderate correlation between resilience endorsement and self-efficacy , such that a greater belief in one’s ability to succeed was associated with greater resilience endorsement. Finally, resilience endorsement and resistance to change were significantly negatively correlated , such that individuals who were less resistant to change were more likely to endorse resilience principles.Nearly all of the psychological factors were significantly associated with resilience endorsement. For the personality measures, overall resilience endorsement was significantly correlated with openness to experience  and national  optimism were inversely related to resilience endorsement, such that the belief that the condition of the local and national environment would worsen over time was associated with higher resilience endorsement. There was also a significant correlation between local water meaning  and resilience endorsement , such that participants who attached more meaning to their local water source(s) were more likely to endorse resilience principles. Next, a belief in the importance/danger of climate change was significantly correlated with resilience endorsement , such that individuals who strongly believed that climate change was a critical issue were more likely to endorse resilience principles. Finally, the willingness to accept both a personal  and societal  change was correlated with resilience endorsement, such that individuals who were more willing to make a change were more likely to endorse resilience principles.Overall resilience endorsement was significantly correlated with each of our environmental factors. Both local  = 31.76, p < 0.001. For our demographics measures, age (sr2 = 0.05), religious importance (sr2 = 0.01), and political party (sr2 = 0.01) emerged as significant unique predictors of resilience endorsement. For our psychological measures, openness to experience (sr2 = 0.04), empathy (sr2 = 0.03), self-efficacy (sr2 = 0.01), and internal locus of control (sr2 = 0.01) were significant unique predictors of resilience endorsement. Finally, for our environmental measures, belief in the importance/danger of climate change (sr2 = 0.03), local optimism (sr2 = 0.01), and willingness to accept a personal change (sr2 = 0.01) were significant unique predictors.A stepwise multiple regression was performed with all demographic, psychological, and environmental variables entered as predictors, and overall resilience endorsement as the criterion, in order to determine which of our measures best predicted endorsement of resilience principles. Overall, the model explained a significant 35.5% of the variance in resilience endorsement, N = 187), Medium Endorsement (N = 186), and High Endorsement (N = 184). We then completed a series of one-way MANOVAs with Scheffe post-hoc tests in order to examine whether our 3 groups differed in terms of demographic makeup, psychological characteristics, and attitudes toward the environment.In order to further explore the individual characteristics that relate to resilience endorsement, we divided our participants into 3 groups based on their overall resilience endorsement scores: Low Endorsement  = 2.40, p < 0.001, Wilk’s Λ = 0.879, ηρ2 = 0.06. Between-subjects ANOVAs with a Bonferroni correction showed that age, religious attendance, religious importance, and political party all significantly differed as a function of resilience endorsement group (Table p = 0.001), attended religious services more regularly (p < 0.001), and rated religion as more important (p = 0.004), than the high endorsement group, but did not differ from the medium endorsement group . The low endorsement group was also more politically conservative than either the medium (p = 0.009), or the high (p = 0.002), groups, whereas the medium and high endorsement groups did not differ. The 3 groups did not significantly differ on any other variables .In the overall MANOVA, there was a statistically significant difference in basic demographics as a function of resilience endorsement group, F30, 082 = 2.4F = 7.38, p < 0.001, Wilk’s Λ = 0.777, ηρ2 = 0.12. Between-subjects ANOVAs with a Bonferroni correction revealed several differences among the 3 endorsement groups on our psychological measures.In the overall MANOVA, there was a statistically significant difference in scores on our psychological measures as a function of resilience endorsement group, p < 0.001) and the high (p < 0.001) resilience endorsement groups, although the medium and high groups did not differ (p > 0.05). The low endorsement group also had lower conscientiousness scores (p = 0.001), and higher neuroticism scores (p = 0.003) than the high endorsement group, but did not differ from the medium group. Finally, the low resilience group had significantly lower agreeableness scores than both the medium (p < 0.001) and the high (p < 0.001) resilience endorsement groups, and the medium resilience endorsement group had lower agreeableness scores than the high resilience endorsement group (p < 0.001). Extraversion scores did not differ among the 3 groups.For the personality questionnaire, openness to experience, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and agreeableness all differed as a function of resilience endorsement group Table . Scheffe. The medium and high groups, however, did not differ on either measure .Both internal and external locus of control scores also significantly differed as a function of resilience endorsement group. Scheffe post-hoc analyses showed that the low resilience endorsement group had significantly lower internal locus of control scores, and higher external locus of control scores, than both the medium and the high resilience endorsement groups p’s < 0.01).Empathy scores significantly differed as a function of resilience endorsement group such that the low endorsement group had significantly lower empathy than the medium or high groups, and the medium group had lower empathy than the high endorsement group  and high (p < 0.001) groups, although the medium and high groups did not differ (p = 0.22).Self-efficacy scores also significantly differed as a function of resilience endorsement group Table  such thap = 0.002). The low endorsement group, however, did not significantly differ from the medium endorsement group, and the medium and high groups did not differ .Finally, resistance to change scores significantly differed as a function of resilience endorsement group such that the low endorsement group was significantly more resistant to change the high endorsement group  = 8.55, p < 0.001, Wilk’s Λ = 0.837, ηρ2 = 0.09. Between-subjects ANOVAs with a Bonferroni correction showed that overall belief in the importance of climate change significantly differed as a function of resilience endorsement group (Table p < 0.001) and high (p < 0.001) endorsement groups. The medium and high groups, however, did not differ (p = 0.33).In the overall MANOVA, there was a statistically significant difference in scores on the environmental measures as a function of resilience endorsement group, Both local and national optimism scores also differed as a function of resilience endorsement group. Scheffe post-hoc analyses showed that the low resilience endorsement group was significantly more optimistic than either the medium or high endorsement groups about the state of the future environment at both the local and national level , although the medium and high groups did not differ in either local or national optimism.p < 0.001), and the medium endorsement group was less willing to accept a personal change than the high endorsement group (p = 0.005). However, the low and medium groups did not significantly differ. For the societal change measure, the low endorsement group was significantly less willing to accept a change than either the medium or the high endorsement group . The medium and high groups, however, did not differ.Next, scores on both the personal and societal “willingness to change” measures differed as a function of resilience endorsement group Table . Scheffep = 0.001). No other relationships were significant.Lastly, scores on the overall water meaning measure significantly differed as a function of endorsement group, such that the low resilience endorsement group rated their local water source as less personally meaningful than did the high endorsement group  social-ecological resilience as a framework for managing and governing water resources. In the next two sections, we discuss the key findings from this study and future research directions.Despite the increasing number of studies conducted on resilience assessment and measurementAlthough overall resilience endorsement was quite high, there were individual variations in endorsement that were associated with differences in a variety of demographic, psychological, and environmental factors. In general, these factors varied between the low and high resilience endorsement groups only, depending on the specific predictor Fig. . Therefo57, and religious individuals58, are less likely to engage in pro-environmental behaviours or endorse interventions to mitigate the effects of climate change. However, our finding that younger individuals were less likely to endorse the concept of water resilience is in stark contrast to past literature that has demonstrated that younger individuals are typically more likely to support pro-environmental behaviours than older individuals60. This finding may indicate an important deviance between findings from other fields like climate change scepticism, and is worth examining further in future research studies. Interestingly, demographic factors that were expected to be associated with pro-environmental attitudes, such as gender and education61, were not associated with attitudes towards water resilience. One explanation for these disparate findings is that, overall, endorsement for water resilience was quite high with little variability. As such, only those demographic factors that had a strong influence on attitudes differentiated between our high and low endorsement groups. However, this does not explain why there was a significant age difference between our high and low endorsement groups that was in direct contrast to what has been shown in the literature.First, an analysis of the demographic factors revealed a number of characteristics that differed between the high and low resilience endorsement groups. Specifically, the low endorsement group tended to be significantly younger, more religious, and more politically conservative than the high endorsement group. This is partially consistent with past research on demographic predictors of climate change. For example, in the climate change literature, it has been well-established that politically conservative individuals63. Interestingly, we found a negative relationship between resilience endorsement and neuroticism, such that individuals higher in neuroticism were less likely to endorse a resilience perspective. This is in contrast to Hirsch62, who found a positive, albeit small, relationship between environmental engagement and neuroticism. However, Milfont and Sibley63 found that neuroticism was both negatively (study 1 and 3) and positively (study 2) associated with environmental engagement. One explanation for the current findings could be that individuals high in neuroticism may express environmental concerns (consistent with their tendency to worry excessively), but may be less willing to endorse radical solutions to these concerns, especially if the outcome is uncertain. Further experimentation is necessary in order to determine the association between neuroticism and attitudes towards pro-environment interventions.With respect to the psychological measures, our findings revealed several significant predictors of resilience endorsement. First, the low endorsement group were less open to experience, less conscientious, and less agreeable as compared to the high endorsement group. These findings replicate those that have shown similar relationships between pro-environmental attitudes and openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness64, thus it follows that the high endorsement group would show high levels of all three traits. This finding is consistent with Brown et al.21, who recently demonstrated that a lack of empathy limits motivations to conserve the environment and enhance sustainability. It is also consistent with the findings of Berenguer65, who showed that individuals who were induced into a low empathy state were less likely to engage in helping behaviour toward the environment as compared to individuals induced into a high empathy state.In addition to personality, we also found a positive association between resilience endorsement and empathy, such that individuals from the high endorsement group had higher empathy scores. Empathy is correlated with both agreeableness and openness to experience67.Next, the low endorsement group had a significantly higher external locus of control, and a significantly lower internal locus of control, than the high endorsement group. In other words, the low endorsement group was more likely to believe that they have little control over the events in their life , whereas the high endorsement group was more likely to believe that they have power over the events in their life . With respect to resilience endorsement, this finding suggests that those who have an external locus of control are less likely to believe that taking a resilience perspective to tackle water-related problems will make a positive difference. Previous research has shown a similar pattern, such that individuals with an external locus of control are less likely to engage and support measures to mitigate the negative effects of climate change68, thus it follows that individuals who score lower on this trait would be less willing to endorse an action or perspective that could change the way in which we manage our water resources. Gifford66 notes that individuals low in self-efficacy have a sense of fatalism, such that they do not believe that any individual action can have an impact on the environment, and thus are less likely to engage in collective action.Similarly, the low endorsement group also had lower self-efficacy scores than the high endorsement group. Self-efficacy is the belief that one has the ability to succeed in a given actionWith respect to our environmental factors, we found four significant predictors of resilience endorsement. First, although both groups rated climate change as an important issue, the low resilience endorsement group rated climate change as less important than the medium and high endorsement groups. As such, it follows that if individuals do not believe that there is a serious problem in the first place, they are less likely to endorse a new water management perspective that is designed to mitigate the effects of this problem.53 than individuals who acknowledge the dangers of climate change.Second, the low resilience endorsement group was significantly more optimistic than the high endorsement group. about the state of the future environment at both the local and national level These findings are consistent with the climate change literature, which shows that climate change sceptics are more hopeful and optimistic about the future state of the environment69, thus it is unsurprising that individuals who are less attached to their local water sources are also less interested in supporting measures to protect and manage their local water source.Third, the low endorsement group rated their local water sources as less personally meaningful than the high endorsement group. Research on “sense of place” has shown that individuals with lower place attachment are less likely to support and engage in pro-environmental behavioursFinally, the low resilience endorsement group was less willing to accept personal or societal change as compared to the high endorsement group. This may be associated with their low self-efficacy scores and their high external locus of control scores, such that they are less willing to engage in collective action.This research presents a novel context in which to test predictive individual difference variables. As such, there are some limitations to our study. First, statements developed to assess resilience endorsement simplified the complexity of the principles. This was necessary for pragmatic reasons to maintain a questionnaire of reasonable length and thus required the researchers to distill and assess one or two key factors of focus for each principle.Second, the statements provided to respondents were broadly about ‘water’ and did not endeavour to distinguish among the various ways in which water is used and present on the landscape. Accordingly, the assessment is coarse, and provides an opportunity for deeper inquiries into these areas.34 demonstrated that the data from MTurk samples are typically similar in quality and reliability to traditional lab-based samples, and the samples themselves are typically more heterogenous in nature, indicating that any biases introduced by using a third-party provider may be minimal. Nonetheless, we engaged in a series of best practices to minimize potential response biases , but acknowledge that they may still have influenced the results.Third, respondents were selected via a third-party data provider (MTurk), thus there is the potential for responses to be biased as a result. For example, MTurk participants tend to complete surveys for unusually low pay, have the ability to pick and choose which projects they wish to complete based on their interests and experience , and often discuss surveys and/or researchers on online forums, thus potentially limiting the representativeness of the sample. Interestingly, however, a recent study by Paolacci and Chandleret al.70 define water in terms of ‘blue’ and ‘green’ including evaporation and transpiration), and note that we did not include statements in our scale that addressed this conceptualization of water, but focused primarily on ‘visible’ water. Considering water from a more complete perspective offers an important avenue for further study.Finally, we recognize that by not defining ‘water’ to the respondents, their own preconceptions may have influenced the results. We return to the diversity of ways in which water resilience has been described  highlight the current state of endorsement of water resilience for the Canadian and US public. Endorsement was, on average, high but with sufficient variability that we identified three water resilience endorsement groups: a low, medium, and high endorsement group. Ultimately, we found that a number of key demographic, psychological, and environmental factors differed amongst the three resilience endorsements groups , demonstrating that individual differences are associated with water resilience endorsement. We see the development of the water resilience scale and these findings as a first, baseline assessment. Future research should consider incorporating further nuances of endorsement and consider approaches to motivate positive changes in endorsement levels, using the predictor variables as a basis for engaging with these individuals to increase endorsement.Supplementary Information.


Willingness to adopt technology is an important precursor to technology adoption. This talk will present findings from a study which examined 187 older adults’ willingness to adopt a variety of mobile technologies supporting domains such as transportation, health/wellness, and lifelong learning. Participants aged 65 years and older, including 144 females, were presented with Power Point slides describing each of five technologies, and subsequently rated each technology on their willingness to adopt it as well as on the technology’s perceived value, the perceived mental effort required to learn it, confidence in one’s ability to learn it, the degree of help available from family/friends for help learning it, and privacy concerns. Other measures, including self-assessment of skills, technology readiness, technology skills, and cognitive abilities, were also collected. Interrelationships among these and other study variables will be presented as a basis for a model for predicting older adults’ willingness to adopt these technologies.