Advertisement

Change in Natural Resource Management: An Experiment with “Participatory GIS”

  • Stefano FioriniEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Human-Environment Interactions book series (HUEN, volume 1)

Abstract

Natural resource management is a dynamic and adaptive science that responds to changes in the social, economic, and ecological factors pertaining to the managed resource(s). It requires and involves interactions and mediations at different spatial scales and of different knowledge pools and stakes. Participatory approaches can facilitate these interactions and mediations if structured so that collaboration can exist, conflicts are resolved, and knowledge exchange is enhanced. In this chapter, I discuss the application of a spatially explicit participatory GIS (PGIS) to bring together communities of managers, ecologists, and government and NGO representatives in two high-conflict areas of Scotland to discuss conflicts and develop a common knowledge and understanding of red deer and their management. I will first discuss the approach taken during a project that consisted of map-based interviews, secondary data collection, analysis, modeling, and two workshops that engaged stakeholders. Next I will discuss the results of the analysis and illustrate how comanagement and adaptation are currently taking place in deer management in Scotland. This discussion will contain an overview of the reaction of the participants to the PGIS approach. In the end, I will outline some critical consideration for discussion of the role participation can and should have in informing and addressing natural resource management.

Keywords

Natural Resource Management Management Unit Participatory Approach Deer Population Local Ecological Knowledge 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. ADMG (Association of Deer Management Groups). (2008). Deer Management in Scotland. Retrieved April 23, 2008, from http://www.deer-management.co.uk/dmg2.php
  2. Bacic, I. L. Z., Rossiter, D. G., & Bregt, A. K. (2006). Using spatial information to improve collective understanding of shared environmental problems at watershed level. Landscape and Urban Planning, 77, 54–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berkes, F. (2009). Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 1692–1702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brondizio, E. S., Ostrom, E., & Young, O. (2009). Connectivity and the governance of multilevel socio-ecological systems: The role of social capital. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 34, 3.1–3.26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. ERAD (Land Use and Rural Policy Division). (2004). Report to ministers: Operations involving the Deer Commission for Scotland in Glenfeshie and Strathglass. Retrieved April 23, 2008, from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2004/06/19474/38560
  6. Fedra, K. (1995). Decision support for natural resources management: Models, GIS, and expert systems. AI Applications, 9, 3–19.Google Scholar
  7. Finnie, R. (2004). Written answer to the Scottish executive question #S2W-9212. Scottish Executive Written Answers. Retrieved June 20, 2012, from http://archive.scottish.parliament.uk/business/pqa/wa-04/wa0810.htm
  8. Fiorini, S., Yearley, S., & Dandy, N. (2011). Wild deer, multivalence and institutional adaptation: The “deer management group” in Britain. Human Organization, 70(2), 179–188.Google Scholar
  9. Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 441–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hahn, T., Olsson, P., Folke, C., & Johansson, K. (2006). Trust-building, knowledge generation and organizational innovations: The role of bridging organization for adaptive comanagement of a wetland landscape around Kristianstad, Sweden. Human Ecology, 34, 573–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Irvine, R. J., Fiorini, S., Yearley, S., McLeod, J. E., Turner, A., Armstrong, H., et al. (2009). Can managers inform models? Integrating local knowledge into models of red deer habitat use. Journal of Applied Ecology, 46, 344–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Janssen, M. A., Goosen, H., & Omtzigt, N. (2006). A simple mediation and negotiation support tool for water management in the Netherlands. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78, 71–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). (2005a). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  14. MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). (2005b). Ecosystems and human well-being: Policy responses (Vol. 3). Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  15. Nolan, A. J., Hewison, R. L., & Maxwell, T. J. (2001). Deer management groups: Operation and good practice: A report for the Deer Commission for Scotland. Aberdeen: The Macaulay Land Use Research Institute.Google Scholar
  16. Olsson, P., Folke, C., Galaz, V., Hahn, T., & Schultz, L. (2007). Enhancing the fit through adaptive co-management: Creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in the Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve, Sweden. Ecology and Society 12(1), Article 28. Retrieved June 20, 2012, from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art28/
  17. Olsson, P., Folke, C., & Hughes, T. P. (2008). Navigating the transition to ecosystem-based management of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(28), 9489–9494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ostrom, E., & Nagendra, H. (2006). Insights on linking forests, trees, and people from the air, on the ground, and in the laboratory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103(51), 19224–19231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ramsey, K. (2009). GIS, modeling, and politics: On the tensions of collaborative decision support. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 1972–1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sandström, P., Pahlen, T. G., Edenius, L., Tommervik, H., Hagner, O., Hemberg, L., et al. (2003). Conflict resolution by participatory management: Remote sensing and GIS as tools for communicating land-use needs for reindeer herding in northern Sweden. Ambio, 32, 557–567.Google Scholar
  21. Scottish Office of the UK Government. (1996). Deer (Scotland) Act 1996. Retrieved April 23, 2008, from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/58/contents/enacted
  22. Smith, J. (2002). The clearinghouse approach to enhancing informed public participation in watershed management utilizing gis and internet technology. Water International, 27(4), 558–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wang, X., Yu, Z., Cinderby, S., & Forrester, J. (2008). Enhancing participation: Experiences of participatory geographic information systems in Shanxi province, China. Applied Geography, 28, 96–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wright, D., Duncan, S. L., & Lach, D. (2009). Social power and GIS technology: A review and assessment of approaches for natural resource management. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 99(2), 254–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations