Hostname: page-component-669899f699-cf6xr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-29T02:05:58.164Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS AND CASE STUDIES: Mapping Landscape Values: Issues, Challenges and Lessons Learned from Field Work on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 May 2014

Diane T. Besser ,
Rebecca McLain ,
Lee Cerveny ,
Kelly Biedenweg  and
David Banis
Diane T. Besser*
Affiliation:
PhD Candidate, Hatfield School of Government, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon
Rebecca McLain
Affiliation:
Senior Researcher, Institute for Sustainable Solutions, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon
Lee Cerveny
Affiliation:
Social Scientist, US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Seattle, Washington
Kelly Biedenweg
Affiliation:
Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, California; and Puget Sound Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
David Banis
Affiliation:
Associate Director, Center for Spatial Analysis & Research, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon
*
Address correspondence to: Diane T. Besser, Institute for Sustainable Solutions, Portland State University, PO Box 751, Portland, OR 97207-0751; (phone) 503-784-7109 (cell); (fax) 503-725-2690; (e-mail) [email protected].
Get access

Abstract

In order to inform natural resource policy and land management decisions, landscape values mapping (LVM) is increasingly used to collect data about the meanings that people attach to places and the activities associated with those places. This type of mapping provides geographically referenced data on areas of high density of values or associated with different types of values. This article focuses on issues and challenges that commonly occur in LVM, drawing on lessons learned in the US Forest Service Olympic Peninsula Human Ecology Mapping Project. The discussion covers choosing a spatial scale for collecting data, creating the base map, developing data collection strategies, the use of ascribed versus assigned values, and the pros and cons of different mapping formats. Understanding the common issues and challenges in LVM will assist policy makers, land managers, and researchers in designing a LVM project that effectively balances project goals, time and budgetary constraints, and personnel resources in a way that ensures the most robust data and inclusive public participation.

Environmental Practice 16: 138–150 (2014)

Type
Features
Information
Environmental Practice , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , June 2014 , pp. 138 - 150
Copyright
© National Association of Environmental Professionals 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alcorn, J.B. 2000. Borders, Rules, and Governance: Mapping to Catalyse Changes in Policy and Management. Gatekeeper Series 91. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, 24 pp. Available at http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/X180IIED.pdf.Google Scholar
Alessa, L., Kliskey, A., and Brown, G.. 2008. Social–Ecological Hotspots Mapping: A Spatial Approach for Identifying Coupled Social–Ecological Space. Landscape and Urban Planning 85(1):27–39.Google Scholar
Apitz, S.E. 2013. Ecosystem Services and Environmental Decision Making: Seeking Order in Complexity. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 9(2):214–230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beverly, J.L., Uto, K., Wilkes, J., and Bothwel, P.. 2008. Assessing Spatial Attributes of Forest Landscape Values: An Internet-Based Participatory Mapping Approach. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 38(2):289–303.Google Scholar
Biedenweg, K., McLain, R., and Cerveny, L.. 2014. Values Mapping with Latino Forest Users: Contributing to the Dialogue on Multiple Land Use Conflict Management. Practicing Anthropology 36(1):33–37.Google Scholar
Brown, G.G., and Pullar, D.V.. 2012. An Evaluation of the Use of Points Versus Polygons in Public Participation Geographic Information Systems Using Quasi-experimental Design and Monte Carlo Simulation. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 26(2):231–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, G.G., and Reed, P.. 2000. Validation of a Forest Values Typology for Use in National Forest Planning. Forest Science 46(2):240–247.Google Scholar
Brown, G.G., and Reed, P.. 2009. Public Participation GIS: A New Method for Use in National Forest Planning. Forest Science 55(2):166–182.Google Scholar
Brown, G.G., Reed, P., and Harris, C.C.. 2002. Testing a Place-Based Theory for Environmental Evaluation: An Alaska Case Study. Applied Geography 22(1):49–76.Google Scholar
Bryan, J. 2011. Walking the Line: Participatory Mapping, Indigenous Rights, and Neoliberalism. Geoforum 42(1):40–50.Google Scholar
Cacciapaglia, M.A., Yung, L., and Patterson, M.E.. 2012. Place Mapping and the Role of Spatial Scale in Understanding Landowner Views of Fire and Fuels Management. Society & Natural Resources 25(5):453–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, A.S., Kruger, L.E., and Daniels, S.E.. 2003. “Place” as an Integrating Concept in Natural Resource Politics: Propositions for a Social Science Research Agenda. Society & Natural Resources 16(2):87–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, W.J., Harris, T.M., and Weiner, D.. 2002. Community Participation and Geographic Information Systems. Taylor & Francis, London, 416 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donovan, S.M., Looney, C., Hanson, T., Sánchez de León, Y., Wulfhorst, J.D., Eigenbrode, S.D., Jennings, M., Johnson-Maynard, J., and Bosque Pérez, N.A.. 2009. Reconciling Social and Biological Needs in an Endangered Ecosystem: The Palouse as a Model for Bioregional Planning. Ecology & Society 14(1):1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Endter-Wada, J., and Blahna, D.J.. 2011. Linkages to Public Land Framework: Toward Embedding Humans in Ecosystem Analyses by Using “Inside-out Social Assessment”. Ecological Applications 21(8):3254–3271.Google Scholar
Fagerholm, N., and Käyhkö, N.. 2009. Participatory Mapping and Geographical Patterns of the Social Landscape Values of Rural Communities in Zanzibar, Tanzania. Fennia 187(1):43–60.Google Scholar
Fagerholm, N., Käyhkö, N., Ndumbaro, F., and Khamis, M.. 2012. Community Stakeholders’ Knowledge in Landscape Assessments—Mapping Indicators for Landscape Services. Ecological Indicators 18:421–433.Google Scholar
Farnum, J.O., and Kruger, L.E., eds. 2008. April. Place-Based Planning: Innovations and Applications from Four Western Forests. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-741. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR, 44 pp. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr741.pdf.Google Scholar
Feinberg, R., Dymon, U.J., Paiaki, P., Rangituteki, P., Nukuriaki, P., and Rollins, M.. 2003. “Drawing the Coral Heads”: Mental Mapping and Its Physical Representation in a Polynesian Community. Cartographic Journal 40(3):243–253.Google Scholar
Gould, P.R.. 1970. On Mental Maps. In. Man, Space, and Environment: Concepts in Contemporary Human Geography. Oxford University Press, New York, 260–282.Google Scholar
Hall, T.E., Farnum, J.O., Slider, T.C., and Ludlow, K.. 2009. August. New Approaches to Forest Planning Inventorying and Mapping Place Values in the Pacific Northwest Region. Research Note PNW-RN-562. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC, 20 pp. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_rn562.pdf.Google Scholar
Herlihy, P.H. 2003. Participatory Research Mapping of Indigenous Lands in Darién, Panama. Human Organization 62(4):315–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, G.M., Kassam, A.H., Van Velthuizen, H.T., and Purnell, M.F.. 1987. Methods Used by FAO to Estimate Environmental Resources, Potential Output of Crops, and Population Supporting Capacities in the Developing Countries. In Agricultural Environments, Characterization, Classification and Mapping, A.H. Bunting, ed. CAB International, Wallingford, England, 171–185.Google Scholar
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). 2009. Good Practices in Participatory Mapping: A Review Prepared for the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). IFAD, Rome, 56 pp. Available at http://www.ifad.org/pub/map/pm_web.pdf.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. 2013. Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, 512 pp.Google Scholar
Kaplowitz, M.D., Hadlock, T.D., and Levine, R.. 2004. A Comparison of Web and Mail Survey Response Rates. Public Opinion Quarterly 68(1):94–101.Google Scholar
Mather, R.A. 2000. Using Photomaps to Support Participatory Processes of Community Forestry in the Middle Hills of Nepal. Mountain Research and Development 20(2):154–161.Google Scholar
McCall, M.K., and Dunn, C.E.. 2012. Geo-information Tools for Participatory Spatial Planning: Fulfilling the Criteria for “Good” Governance? Geoforum 43(1):81–94.Google Scholar
McLain, R., Cerveny, L., Besser, D., Banis, D., Biedenweg, K., Todd, A., Kimball-Brown, C., and Rohdy, S.. 2013a. Mapping Human-Environment Connections on the Olympic Peninsula: An Atlas of Landscape Values. US Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR, 87 pp Available at http://www.pdx.edu/geography/sites/www.pdx.edu.geography/files/HEMAtlas6_18_2013.pdf.Google Scholar
McLain, R., Poe, M., Biedenweg, K., Cerveny, L., Besser, D., and Blahna, D.. 2013b. Making Sense of Human Ecology Mapping: An Overview of Approaches to Integrating Socio-Spatial Data into Environmental Planning. Human Ecology 41(5):651–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Proshansky, H.M., Fabian, A.K., and Kaminoff, R.. 1983. Place-identity: Physical World Socialization of the Self. Journal of Environmental Psychology 3(1):57–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, C.M., Bryan, B.A., MacDonald, D.H., Cast, A., Strathearn, S., Grandgirard, A., and Kalivas, T.. 2009. Mapping Community Values for Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services. Ecological Economics 68(5):1301–1315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rindfuss, R.R., Walsh, S.J., Turner, II, Fox, J., and Mishra, V.. 2004. Developing a Science of Land Change: Challenges and Methodological Issues. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 101(39):13976–13981.Google Scholar
Rolston, H., and Coufal, J.. 1991. A Forest Ethic and Multivalue Forest Management. Journal of Forestry 89(4):35–40.Google Scholar
Tuan, Y.-F.. 1977. Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience. Tales and Travels of a School Inspector Series. University of Minnesota Press, St. Paul, 235 pp.Google Scholar
Tyrvainen, L., Makinen, K., and Schipperijn, J.. 2007. Tools for Mapping Social Values of Urban Woodlands and Other Green Areas. Landscape and Urban Planning 79(1):5–19.Google Scholar
US Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2009. Agriculture Secretary Vilsack Presents National Vision for America’s Forests. News Transcript Release 0382.09. USDA Office of Communications, Washington, DC. Available at http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=2009/08/0382.xml.Google Scholar
US Department of Agriculture/US Forest Service (USDA/USFS). 2012. April 9. 36 CFR 219: National Forest System Land Management Planning, 2012 edition. USDA/USFS, Washington, DC, 24 pp. Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/CFR-2003-title36-vol2/CFR-2003-title36-vol2-part219/content-detail.html.Google Scholar
Williams, D.R., and Stewart, S.I.. 1998. Sense of Place: An Elusive Concept That Is Finding a Home in Ecosystem Management. Journal of Forestry 96(5):18–23, Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_1998_williams_d002.pdf.Google Scholar
Wright, J.K. 1942. Map Makers Are Human: Comments on the Subjective in Maps. Geographical Review 32(4):527–544.Google Scholar
Zhu, X., Pfueller, S., Whitelaw, P., and Winter, C.. 2010. Spatial Differentiation of Landscape Values in the Murray River Region of Victoria, Australia. Environmental Management 45(5):896–911.Google Scholar