Advertisement

Participatory Mapping and Problem Ranking Methodology in the Research of Sustainable Communities—Workshop with Indigenous People Under Community-Based Forest Management Program in the Philippines

  • Marcin Pawel JarzebskiEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter aims to discuss a methodology for envisioning the sustainable development strategies that can be adopted by indigenous communities, through the use of Participatory Mapping and Problem Ranking. Such methods can facilitate the discovery of the local context in sustainability research, based on a review of the present situation in a given community, and an analysis of their recent past. Essentially, the local conditions inherent to a community need to be systematically analyzed to achieve a higher level of participatory development. The main purpose of this study is to explain how to implement these two methods. To showcase such methodologies the chapter will use the example of community forestry contracts concluded with indigenous groups in the Philippines, and review whether the Community-Based Forest Management policy implemented really helped achieve better sustainable development in the local context. The results of this Participatory Mapping and Problem Ranking exercise revealed that the community forestry program was not well suited to local conditions in which there was lack of sufficient understanding of the land ownership and local problems upon the Community-Based Forest Management project’s implementations, and thus a revision of the policy and implementation guidelines is needed so that its primary goal of promoting sustainable development could be achieved.

Keywords

Participatory mapping Problem ranking Sustainable community development Indigenous people 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to express deepest thanks and appreciation to communities of Lingay, Dalligan, and Target, for participation in the workshop and sharing the knowledge. I also thank the Graduate Program in Sustainability Science-Global Leadership at The University of Tokyo for financial support in funding field study, and to editors of the book for insights and comments on the chapter.

References

  1. Abel, N., Cumming, D., & Anderies, J. (2006). Collapse and reorganization in social-ecological systems: Questions. Some Ideas, and Policy Implications, 11(1), 17.Google Scholar
  2. Ballesteros, A. (2001). Ancestral domain recognition and community based forest management: Two sides of different coins. Philippine Natural Resources Law Journal, 11, 35–61.Google Scholar
  3. Bavinck, B., & Jyotishi, A. (Eds.). (2015). Conflict, negotiations and natural resource management: A legal pluralism perspective from India. Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Bryan, J. (2011). Walking the line: Participatory mapping, indigenous rights, and neoliberalism. Geoforum, 42, 40–50. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2010.09.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bryan, J. (2015). Participatory mapping. In T. Perreault, G. Bridge, & J. McCarthy (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of political ecology (pp. 249–262). Oxon and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Campbell, J. R. (2001). Participatory rural appraisal as qualitative research: From participatory claims. Human Organization, 60, 380–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chambers, R. (1994). Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): Analysis of experience. World Development, 22, 1253–1268. doi: 10.1016/0305-750X(94)90003-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chambers, R. (1997). Shortcut and participatory method for gaining social information for projects. In Sustainable Development: S. Sepulveda, R. Edwards (Eds.), Social organization, insitutional arrangements and rural development: Selected readings (vol. 6). Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture.Google Scholar
  9. Dahal, A., & Capistrano, D. (2006). Forest governance and institutional structure: An ignored dimension of community based forest management in the Philippines forest governance and institutional structure: An ignored dimension of community based forest management in the Philippines. International Forestry Review, 8, 377–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Food and Agriculture Organization. (1992). CF note 7: Community forestry: Ten Years in review. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.Google Scholar
  11. Fraser, E., Dougill, A., Mabee, W., Reed, M., & McAlpine, P. (2006). Bottom up and top down: analysis of participatory processes for sustainability indicator identification as a pathway to community empowerment and sustainable environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 78, 114–27. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.04.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hlaing, E., Inoue, M., & Pulhin, J. (2013). A property-rights approach to understanding regulations and practices in community-based forest management: Comparison of three systems in the Philippines. Small-scale Forestry, 12, 579–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Howitt, R., & Suchet-Pearson, S. (2006). Rethinking the building blocks: Ontological pluralism and the idea of “management”. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 88, 323–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Inoue, M. (2003). Participatory forest management policy in South and Southeast Asia. In M. Inoue & H. Isozaki (Eds.), People and forest—policy and local reality in Southeast Asia, the Russian Far East, and Japan (pp. 49–72). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Inoue, M., Shivakoti, G., & Ojha, H. (2015). Multi-level Forest Governance in Asia: An Introduction. In M. Inoue & G. Shivakoti (Eds.), Multi-level forest governance in Asia—concepts, challenges and the way forward. New Dehli: SAGE Publications India.Google Scholar
  16. Levine, A. S., & Feinholz, C. L. (2015). Participatory GIS to inform coral reef ecosystem management: Mapping human coastal and ocean uses in Hawaii. Applied Geography, 59, 60–69. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.12.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Magno, F. (2001). Forest devolution and social capital: State-civil society relations in the Philippines. Environmental History, 6, 264–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mukherjee, Neela. (2002). Participatory learning and action: With 100 field methods. New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  19. Narayanasamy, N. (2009). Participatory rural appraisal: Principles, methods and application. New Delhi: SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd.Google Scholar
  20. Napoleon, V. (2013). Thinking about indigenous legal orders. In R. Provost, & C. Sheppard (Eds.), Dialogues on human rights and legal pluralism. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 229–426.Google Scholar
  21. Perera, Jaysntha (Ed.). (2009). Land and cultural survival: The communal land rights of indigenous peoples in Asia. Metro Manila: Asian Development Bank.Google Scholar
  22. Platteau, J., & Abraham, A. (2002). Participatory development in the presence of endogenous community imperfections. Journal of Development Studies, 39, 104–136. doi: 10.1080/00220380412331322771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pulhin, J. (2003). Trends in forest policy of the Philippines. In M. Inoue, & H. Isozaki (Eds.), Policy trend report 2002 (pp. 29–41). Tokyo: The Institute for Global Strategies (IGES) Forest Conservation Project. Soubun Printing Co., Ltd.Google Scholar
  24. Pulhin, J., & Dressler, W. (2009). People, power and timber: the politics of community-based forest management. Journal of Environmental Management, 91, 206–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pulhin, J., Peras, R., & Tapia, M. (2015). Philippines: Multi-tired forest governance system on uneven playing ground. In M. Inoue & G. Shivakoti (Eds.), Multi-level forest governance in Asia—concepts, challenges and the way forward (pp. 227–256). New Dehli: SAGE Publications India.Google Scholar
  26. Pulhin, J., & Pulhin, P. (2003). Community-based forest management in the Philippines: Retrospect and prospect. In M. Inoue & H. Isozaki (Eds.), People and forest—policy and local reality in Southeast Asia, the Russian far east, and Japan (pp. 139–156). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Reed, William. (1904). Negritos of Zambales. Manila: Bureau of Public Printing.Google Scholar
  28. Reyes-García, V., Orta-Martínez, M., Gueze, M., Luz, A. C., Paneque-Gálvez, J., Macía, M. J., & Pino, J. (2012). Does participatory mapping increase conflicts? A randomized evaluation in the Bolivian Amazon. Applied Geography, 34, 650–658. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2012.04.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rietbergen-McCracken, Jennifer, & Narayan-Parker, Deepa. (1998). Participation and social assessment: Tools and techniques (Vol. 1). Washington: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  30. Robinson, J., Burch, S., Talwar, S., O’Shea, M., & Walsh, M. (2011). Envisioning sustainability: Recent progress in the use of participatory backcasting approaches for sustainability research. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78, 756–768. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2010.12.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Seitz, S. (1998). Coping strategies in an ethnic minority group: The Aeta of Mount Pinatubo. Disasters, 22, 76–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shimizu, H. (1989). Pinatubo Aytas: Continuity and Changes. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Shivakoti, G., Inoue, M., Pulhin, J., Sharma, S., Webb, E., & Nath, T. (2015). Towards an effective policy for forest management in Asia. In M. Inoue & G. Shivakoti (Eds.), Multi-level forest governance in Asia—concepts, challenges and the way forward. New Dehli: SAGE Publications India.Google Scholar
  34. Tobin, B. (2014). Indigenous peoples, customary law and human rights—why living law matters. Oxon & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. UNSECO. (2008). Operational guidelines for the implementation of the world heritage convention. UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Retrieved January 2, 2016 from http://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines.
  36. Van den Top, G. (2003). The social dynamics of deforestation in the Philippines: Actions, options, and motivations. Copenhagen: Nordic Inst of Asian Studies.Google Scholar
  37. Veland, S., Howitt, R., Dominey-Howes, D., Thomalla, F., & Houston, D. (2013). Procedural vulnerability: Understanding environmental change in a remote indigenous community. Global Environmental Change, 23, 314–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Vergragt, P. J., & Quist, J. (2011). Backcasting for sustainability: Introduction to the special issue. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78, 747–755. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2011.03.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Viano, C. E. (2015). The curse of Riches: Sharing Nature’s wealth equitability? In J. Wouters, A. Ninio, T. Doherty, & H. Cisse (Eds.), The World bank legal review volume 6: Improving delivery in development: The role of voice, social contract, and accountability. Washington: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  40. Wilson, G. (2012). Community resilience and environmental transitions. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Ziai, Aram. (2015). Development discourse and global history: From Colonialism to the sustainable development goals. Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate Program in Sustainability Science-Global Leadership Initiative, Graduate School of Frontier SciencesThe University of TokyoKashiwa CityJapan

Personalised recommendations