1. Brown, G. and P. Reed. 2009. Public Participation GIS: A new method for national forest planning. Foreest Science 55(2):166-182.
This article: 1) reviews previous applications of landscape value mapping methods across a variety of planning applications; 2) describes the participatory, internet mapping method used in 3 studies of national forests in Arizona and Oregon in 2006 and 2007; 3) presents and evaluates the results to show likely future implementation constraints; and 4) based on lessons learned, describes a recommended PPGIS protocol for national forest planning.
2. Beverly, Jennifer L., Uto, Kinga, Wilkes, J. and P. Bothwell. 2008. Assessing spatial attributes of forest landscape values: an internet-based participatory mapping approach. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 38:289-303. Also available from jbeverly@nrcan.gc.ca.
The paper GIS method of mapping landscape values (Brown and Reed) is adapted to the internet for a region in Alberta, Canada, primarily to assist forest fire management planning. This manuscript provides a summary of various spatial methods that describe the frequency and distribution of landscape values in the study area.
3. Brown, G. 2005. Mapping Spatial Attributes in Survey Research for Natural Resource Management: Methods and Applications. Society & Natural Resources 18(1):1-23.
This is the primary article on landscape value mapping methods. The author describes spatial measures of landscape values and place attributes developed and used in five surveys of the general public in Alaska (1998-2003). The author reviews the spatial data collection rationale behind these studies, as well as design concepts, methods, and implementation issues for a general public survey that includes a spatial mapping component. Other topics covered include operationalization of theory, map and materials selection, digitizing and data entry concerns, and spatial data analysis tools.
4. Brown, G. 2006. Mapping Landscape Values and Development Preferences: A Method for Tourism and Residential Development Planning. International Journal of Tourism Research 8:101-113.
The author presents a method for measuring and analyzing landscape values and tourism and residential development preferences. Survey data from Kangaroo Island, South Australia are analyzed to determine the relative strength of landscape values as predictors of place-specific development preferences. Results indicate tourism development preferences are most closely associated with recreation, economic, and scenic landscape values while residential development preferences are most closely associated (inversely) with recreation, economic, and learning values. Preferences for “no development” are most closely associated with wilderness, therapeutic, and intrinsic landscape values. A simple development index is generated from the spatial data that ranges from positive (acceptable development) to negative (no development) values.
5. Raymond, C. and G. Brown. 2006. A method for assessing protected area allocations using a typology of landscape values. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 49(6):797-812.
The authors use spatial survey data from the Otways region of Victoria, Australia to present a method that differentiates between public and private lands based on locally perceived landscape values. Discriminant analysis is used to predict prospective national park expansion areas. Results indicate survey respondents hold more indirect and less tangible values for national parks and reserves, and more direct use values for private lands. There was moderate agreement between public and expert-derived national park boundaries. The authors argue that mapping local landscape values, when combined with expert assessment, can strengthen protected areas planning and management.
6. Raymond, C., and G. Brown. 2007. A spatial method for assessing resident and visitor attitudes toward tourism growth and development. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 15(5):1-22.
The authors compare attitudes toward tourism development in the Otways region of Victoria, Australia, using traditional survey research questions with spatial preferences for development collected in the same survey. Results from the survey show conditional support for tourism growth and development in the Otway Hinterland and along the Otway Coast while results from spatial attribute data show there are place-specific differences in “acceptable development” and “inappropriate development” preferences. The authors argue the spatial attribute method is an inclusive process that can potentially bridge pro-development and anti-development responses that emerge during community consultation by providing development preference data that is scaleable to both local and regional scales.
7. Brown, G. 2003. A Method for Assessing Highway Qualities to Integrate Values in Highway Planning. Journal of Transport Geography 11(4):271-283.
The author presents a survey methodology for mapping six intrinsic highway qualities as well as special places to help select and prioritize highways for scenic byways nomination. Analysis of data from the 2001 statewide survey of Alaska residents is used to develop the concept of a highway experience opportunity spectrum and potential experience opportunity classes. With knowledge about the spatial locations of intrinsic highway qualities, transportation planners can make informed choices to maintain or alter the set of highway experience opportunities associated with a highway system.
8. Tyrvainen, L., Makinen, K., and J. Schippperjin. 2006. Tools for mapping social values of urban woodlands and other green areas. Landscape and Urban Planning Volume/Issue TBA.
The authors present a simple method to describe the social values of green areas in urban areas for strategic planning purposes. Using a mail survey in Helsinki, Finland, general attitudes toward the benefits of green areas were measured. Local residents were asked to identify on a map provided positive qualities such as beautiful scenery, peace and quiet, and the feeling of being in a forest, as well as negative qualities. The results were mapped in GIS with the most important features associated with favourite places being tranquillity, the feeling of being in a forest, and naturalness.
9. McIntyre, N., Yuan, M., Payne, R.J., and J. Moore. 2004. Development of a values-based approach to managing recreation on Canadian Crown lands. Proceedings of the second International Conference on Monitoring and Management of Visitor Flows in Recreational and Protected Areas, June 16–20, 2004, Rovaniemi, Finland.
The paper describes an approach that combined both interpretive approaches to data collection (narratives and value mapping) and survey methods in the elicitation of values attached to a working forest. In terms of methods, focus group participants were asked to mark ‘special places’ and associated values directly onto 1:50,000 maps of the study area in the Dog River/Matawin area of North Western Ontario. Visitors to the area were asked to take photographs during their trips, and to record the subject, location, importance, and positive or negative effect on her/his experience. Photographs and photo-logs were analysed for expression of values. Finally, a survey was administered (n=487) that asked respondents (residents and visitors) to rate six general forest values and more specific values extracted from analysis of the focus groups.
10. Gunderson, K., Watson, A., Nelson, and J. Titre. 2004. Mapping place meanings on the Bitterroot National Forest – a landscape-level assessment of personal and community values as input to fuel hazard reduction treatments. BEMRP Research Project Summary. Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute. http://leopold.wilderness.net/unpublished/UNP105.pdf
The study used qualitative research methods focusing on local community knowledge to capture as much context as possible about the relationship people have to the Bitterroot Front, Bitterroot National Forest, Montana.. Twelve semi-structured interviews, nine key informant interviews, and two focus groups were used to collect data (33 individuals total). The interviews included information pertaining to important places visited and places seldom or never visited, but important on the Bitterroot Front, types of recreation and work activities at each specific place, and responses to “why they value” specific places. Respondents were also asked to circle and rate, in order of importance, the top three specific places they identified on a map provided by the researchers. Values “hotspots” were identified as areas where there was high incidence of respondent site selection. Site selections fell into 3 classifications for specificity: specific, medium, and broad. Outside of a few respondents who selected the entire Bitterroot Front as being important, places “not selected” were typically lacking road and trail access. |