Examination of the application of PPGIS method for identification of landscape values
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56617/tl.3573Keywords:
public participation, ppGIS, landscape values, landscape managementAbstract
Over recent years, several international agreements have been approved that emphasize the importance of public participation in the planning and strategy development process (e.g. the European Landscape Convention). Besides of these international documents the researchers also highlighted the relevance of the public participation in landscape planning and management. Despite these overarching principles, in several cases the landscape management-related plans are still based on expert-led approaches. The goal of our research was to identify the optimal level of the local stakeholder’s participation in the landscape evaluation process during the preparation of the landscape management programs. A rural micro-region in Hungary was designated as study area. During the research a combination of expert-led evaluation and a special public participation mapping method was used (the adapted version of Public Participation GIS (ppGIS)). Six landscape indicator groups were elaborated and used during both the expert-led and the public participation-based evaluation (environment–biodiversity; historical–cultural, visual–perceptional; agriculture; nature protection, tourism). The study resulted in the compilation of 264 maps, which were created with the ppGIS method. By comparing the results of the two applied methods, we defined the optimal degree of the public participation during the identification of the various landscape values. The two methods showed different results in the case of the following indicator groups: environment–biodiversity, cultural–historical, visual–perceptional, agriculture. The possible reasons of the differences between the results of the two evaluations were explored, and these established the optimal degree of the public participation during the preparation of the landscape management programs. We also found, that the local knowledge is the most important in the case of the evaluations related to the historical–cultural and the visual–perceptional issues. In the case of the former the involvement of the locals into the preparation of landscape management plans is important to preserve the local culture and traditions, and awareness raising. We justified, that those key landscape elements can be identified with the participation methods, which are not protected, however, preserve the culture and values of the region and the local communities. In the second case, for the locals also exists those landscape elements, which can define the landscape and its value most markedly (e.g. castles, sacral buildings, sculptures). There is not any national homogenized database, which collects, organizes these landscape elements with their surroundings, landscape contexts. That is why in the case of visual–perceptional-type evaluations during the planning and strategy development the involvement of the local stakeholders is necessary to identify the determinative elements.
References
Beverly J., Uto K., Wilkes J., Bothwell, P. 2008: Assessing spatial attributes of forest landscape values: an internet-based participatory mapping approach. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 38(2): 289–303. https://doi.org/10.1139/X07-149
Brow G., Donovan S., Pullar D., Pocewicz A., Toohey R. 2014: An empirical evaluation of workshop versus survey PPGIS methods. Applied Geography 48: 42–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.01.008
Brown G., Pullar D. 2012: An evaluation of the use of points versus polygons in Public Participation Geographic Information Systems (PPGIS) using quasi-experimental design and Monte Carlo simulation. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 26(2): 231–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2011.585139
Brown G. 2012: Public Participation GIS (PPGIS) for Regional and Environmental Planning: Reflections on a Decade of Empirical Research. URISA Journal 25(2): 7–18.
Brown G., Weber D. 2011: Public participation GIS: a new method for use in national park planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 102(1): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.03.003
Clement J. M., Cheng A. S. 2011: Using analyses of public value orientations, attitudes and preferences to inform national forest planning in Colorado and Wyoming. Applied Geography 31(2): 393–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.10.001
Dunn, C. E. 2007: Participatory GIS a people’s GIS? Progress in Human Geography 31 (5): 616–637. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132507081493
Fagerholm N., Käyhkö N., Ndumbaro F., Khamis M. 2012: Community stakeholders' knowledge in landscape assessments – Mapping indicators for landscape services. Ecological Indicators 18: 421–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.12.004
Goodchild M. 2007: Citizens as voluntary sensors: spatial data infrastructure in the world of web 2.0. International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research 2: 24–32.
Kollányi L., Jombach S., Filepné Kovács K., Nagy G. G. 2012: Tájindikátorok alkalmazása a tájképvédelmi területek lehatárolására és a tájkarakter meghatározására. In: Szentléleki Károly és Szilágyi Kinga (szerk.): Fenntartható fejlődés, Élhető régió, Élhető települési táj 3. BCE, Budapest. pp. 175–188.
McIntyre N., Moore J., Yuan M. 2008: A place-based, values-centered approach to managing recreation on Canadian crown lands. Society and Natural Resources 21(8): 657–670.
Pocewicz A., Nielsen-Pincus M., Brown G., Schnitzer R. 2012: An evaluation of internet versus paper-based methods for Public Participation Geographic Information Systems (PPGIS). Transactions in GIS 16(1): 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9671.2011.01287.x
Rambaldi G., Kyem Kwaku A. P., Mbile P., McCall M., Weiner D. 2006: Participatory spatial information management and communication in developing countries. The Electronic Journal on Information Systems in Developing Countries [EJISDC] 25(1): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1681-4835.2006.tb00162.x
Raymond C., Brown G. 2010: Assessing spatial associations between perceptions of landscape value and climate change risk for use in climate change planning. Climatic Change 104(3): 653–678. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-9806-9
Raymond C., Brown G. 2007: A spatial method for assessing resident and visitor attitudes toward tourism growth and development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 15(5): 520–540. https://doi.org/10.2167/jost681.0
Rényi Zs. 2011: Közösségi tervezés 2.0: a participáció új perspektívái a webkettő fényében. Tér és Társadalom [Space and Society] 25(3): 100–116. https://doi.org/10.17649/TET.25.3.1861
Sallay Á. Filepné Kovács K., Jombach S. 2012: Landscape Values in Rural Development. In: Zapletalova J., Vaishar A., Menger G. (eds.) 3rd Moravian Conference on Rural Research. EURORURAL 12 MULTIFUNCTIONAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT, Brno, September 3–7. 2012, Brno University. pp. 76–77.
Schlossberg M., Shuford E. 2005: Delineating ‘Public’ and ‘Participation’ in PPGIS. Journal of the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association 16: 15–26.
Sieber R. 2006: Public participation geographic information systems: A literature review and framework. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 96: 491–507. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.2006.00702.x
Tulloch D. 2008: Public participation GIS (PPGIS). In: Kemp K. (ed.) Encyclopedia of geographic information science. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. pp. 352–355.
Tyrväinnen L., Mäkinen K., Schipperijn J. 2007: Tools for mapping social values of urban woodlands and other green areas. Landscape and Urban Planning 79: 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.03.003
Valánszki I. 2016: Vidéki térségek fejlesztését szolgáló indikátorrendszer kidolgozása. SZIE, Tájépítészeti és Tájökológiai Doktori Iskola, Doktori Értekezés. 206 p.
Vejre H., Sřndergaard Jensen F., Jellesmark Thorsen B. 2010: Demonstrating the importance of intangible ecosystem services from peri-urban landscapes. Ecological Complexity 7: 338–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.09.005
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2018 Valánszki István, Filepné Kovács Krisztina
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
A folyóirat Open Access (Gold). Cikkeire a Creative Commons 4.0 standard licenc alábbi típusa vonatkozik: CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0. Ennek értelmében a mű szabadon másolható, terjeszthető, bemutatható és előadható, azonban nem használható fel kereskedelmi célokra (NC), továbbá nem módosítható és nem készíthető belőle átdolgozás, származékos mű (ND). A licenc alapján a szerző vagy a jogosult által meghatározott módon fel kell tüntetni a szerző nevét és a szerzői mű címét (BY).
