Societal actors across scales and geographies increasingly demand visual applications of systems thinking – the process of understanding and changing the reality of a system by considering its whole set of interdependencies – to address complex problems affecting food and agriculture. Yet, despite the wide offer of systems mapping tools, there is still little guidance for managers, policy-makers, civil society and changemakers in food and agriculture on how to choose, combine and use these tools on the basis of a sufficiently deep understanding of socio-ecological systems. Unfortunately, actors seeking to address complex problems with inadequate understandings of systems often have limited influence on the socio-ecological systems they inhabit, and sometimes even generate unintended negative consequences. Hence, we first review, discuss and exemplify seven key features of systems that should be – but rarely have been – incorporated in strategic decisions in the agri-food sector: interdependency, level-multiplicity, dynamism, path dependency, self-organization, non-linearity and complex causality. Second, on the basis of these features, we propose a collective process to systems mapping that grounds on the notion that the configuration of problems (i.e., how multiple issues entangle with each other) and the configuration of actors (i.e., how multiple actors relate to each other and share resources) represent two sides of the same coin. Third, we provide implications for societal actors - including decision-makers, trainers and facilitators - using systems mapping to trigger or accelerate systems change in five purposive ways: targeting multiple goals; generating ripple effects; mitigating unintended consequences; tackling systemic constraints, and collaborating with unconventional partners.
MULTIFILE
Recommender systems are widely used in today’s society, but many of them do not meet users’ needs and therefore fail to reach their full potential. Without careful consideration, such systems can interfere with the natural decision-making process, resulting in the disregard for recommendations provided. Therefore, it is vital to take into account multiple factors, including expertise, time and risk associated with decisions, as well as the system’s context to identify suitable affordances. Furthermore, it is important to consider the algorithmic and digital literacy of the users. This analysis could reveal innovative design opportunities, like combining a recommender system with a digital agent. As a result, it may meet interpersonal needs and facilitate a more natural interaction with the system. Implementing this combination in a digital marketplace could be a promising way to empower users towards an independent life.
LINK
Social networks and news outlets use recommender systems to distribute information and suggest news to their users. These algorithms are an attractive solution to deal with the massive amount of content on the web [6]. However, some organisations prioritise retention and maximisation of the number of access, which can be incompatible with values like the diversity of content and transparency. In recent years critics have warned of the dangers of algorithmic curation. The term filter bubbles, coined by the internet activist Eli Pariser [1], describes the outcome of pre-selected personalisation, where users are trapped in a bubble of similar contents. Pariser warns that it is not the user but the algorithm that curates and selects interesting topics to watch or read. Still, there is disagreement about the consequences for individuals and society. Research on the existence of filter bubbles is inconclusive. Fletcher in [5], claims that the term filter bubbles is an oversimplification of a much more complex system involving cognitive processes and social and technological interactions. And most of the empirical studies indicate that algorithmic recommendations have not locked large segments of the audience into bubbles [3] [6]. We built an agent-based simulation tool to study the dynamic and complex interplay between individual choices and social and technological interaction. The model includes different recommendation algorithms and a range of cognitive filters that can simulate different social network dynamics. The cognitive filters are based on the triple-filter bubble model [2]. The tool can be used to understand under which circumstances algorithmic filtering and social network dynamics affect users' innate opinions and which interventions on recommender systems can mitigate adverse side effects like the presence of filter bubbles. The resulting tool is an open-source interactive web interface, allowing the simulation with different parameters such as users' characteristics, social networks and recommender system settings (see Fig. 1). The ABM model, implemented in Python Mesa [4], allows users to visualise, compare and analyse the consequence of combining various factors. Experiment results are similar to the ones published in the Triple Filter Bubble paper [2]. The novelty is the option to use a real collaborative-filter recommendation system and a new metric to measure the distance between users' innate and final opinions. We observed that slight modifications in the recommendation system, exposing items within the boundaries of users' latitude of acceptance, could increase content diversity.References 1. Pariser, E.: The filter bubble: What the internet is hiding from you. Penguin, New York, NY (2011) 2. Geschke, D., Lorenz, J., Holtz, P.: The triple-filter bubble: Using agent-based modelling to test a meta-theoretical framework for the emergence of filter bubbles and echo chambers. British Journal of Social Psychology (2019), 58, 129–149 3. Möller, J., Trilling, D., Helberger, N. , and van Es, B.: Do Not Blame It on the Algorithm: An Empirical Assessment of Multiple Recommender Systems and Their Impact on Content Diversity. Information, Communication and Society 21, no. 7 (2018): 959–77 4. Mesa: Agent-based modeling in Python, https://mesa.readthedocs.io/. Last accessed 2 Sep 2022 5. Fletcher, R.: The truth behind filter bubbles: Bursting some myths. Digital News Report - Reuters Institute (2020). https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/news/truth-behind-filter-bubblesbursting-some-myths. Last accessed 2 Sep 2022 6. Haim, M., Graefe, A, Brosius, H: Burst of the Filter Bubble?: Effects of Personalization on the Diversity of Google News. Digital Journalism 6, no. 3 (2018): 330–43.
MULTIFILE
