Place Mapping and the Role of Spatial Scale in Understanding Landowner Views of Fire and Fuels Management

Cacciapaglia, Michael A.; Yung, Laurie; Patterson, Michael E.

doi:10.1080/08941920.2011.580418

Cited by 14 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Participatory GIS has been used to good effect in the past by bushfire researchers to map sense of place associated with bushfire landscapes (eg. Morehouse et al, 2008;Cacciapaglia et al, 2012). The drawback however, is that the parameters are defined by the researcher.…”

Section: Data Collection and Analysismentioning

confidence: 96%

Making the landscape “home”: Narratives of bushfire and place in Australia

Reid

Beilin

2015

Geoforum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Data Collection and Analysismentioning

confidence: 96%

Making the landscape “home”: Narratives of bushfire and place in Australia

Reid

Beilin

2015

Geoforum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…First, the fact that by changing scales, researchers can affect map outcomes when providing a model onto which certain values and views fit or do not fit. In consequence, such maps reflect both the researcher's expectations of what is important, as well as the participant's views to the extent that they fit on the map (Cacciapaglia et al 2012). Second, there is the notion that certain values simply cannot be mapped.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…At least to some degree, the results may be an artifact of the mapping process itself (Cacciapaglia et al 2012), which in this case involved the series of variables depicted in Figure 5. These aspects have not been well addressed in ES literature and their influence remains hidden in social mapping exercises, particularly in deliberative contexts where power and influence relations are not foreknown by the researcher and may influence map outcomes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping social values of ecosystem services: What is behind the map?

Nahuelhual¹,

Ochoa²,

Rojas³

et al. 2016

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. A growing interest in mapping the social value of ecosystem services (ES) is not yet methodologically aligned with what is actually being mapped. We critically examine aspects of the social value mapping process that might influence map outcomes and limit their practical use in decision making. We rely on an empirical case of participatory mapping, for a single ES (recreation opportunities), which involves diverse stakeholders such as planners, researchers, and community representatives. Value elicitation relied on an individual open-ended interview and a mapping exercise. Interpretation of the narratives and GIS calculations of proximity, centrality, and dispersion helped in exploring the factors driving participants' answers. Narratives reveal diverse value types. Whereas planners highlighted utilitarian and aesthetic values, the answers from researchers revealed naturalistic values as well. In turn community representatives acknowledged symbolic values. When remitted to the map, these values were constrained to statements toward a much narrower set of features of the physical (e.g., volcanoes) and built landscape (e.g., roads). The results suggest that mapping, as an instrumental approach toward social valuation, may capture only a subset of relevant assigned values. This outcome is the interplay between participants' characteristics, including their acquaintance with the territory and their ability with maps, and the mapping procedure itself, including the proxies used to represent the ES and the value typology chosen, the elicitation question, the cartographic features displayed on the base map, and the spatial scale.

show abstract

“…At the same time, different stakeholders may evaluate social values of landscape ES differently, depending on the scale of the services provided and their own interests in natural resources management (Hein et al, 2006). Questions about ES and place-based values mapped using PPGIS or PGIS concern the scale of the map used, its influence on and relationship with the attributes mapped, and the spatial dimension of the values (Cacciapaglia et al, 2012;Brown and Kitta, 2014;Brown, 2004;Brown 2013).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Participatory GIS in Mapping Ecosystem Services: Two Case Studies from High-Biodiversity Regions in Italy and Peru

Codato¹,

Pappalardo²,

Marchi³

2017

giforum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Assessing ecosystem services (ES) and mapping their values are of paramount importance. Here we present two case studies where the participatory mapping of social values of landscape ecosystem services is used in territories with high levels of cultural and biological diversity (Adamello Brenta Natural Park in Italy and the Alto Mayo basin in the Western Amazon, Peru). A mixed-method approach combining social geography fieldwork (participatory mapping) and desk work (GIS analyses) is adopted to improve ES mapping by including multiple actors and to increase awareness. Mapping ecosystem services is not just a technical task; it also highlights social implications of the cartographic process, a key issue in human geography. By taking into account the controversial and multiple roles of maps, and by involving actors in attributing values and mapping their spatial relations to landscape and ES, it is possible to enrich technical knowledge with local knowledge.

show abstract

Place Mapping and the Role of Spatial Scale in Understanding Landowner Views of Fire and Fuels Management

Cited by 14 publications

References 25 publications

Making the landscape “home”: Narratives of bushfire and place in Australia

Making the landscape “home”: Narratives of bushfire and place in Australia

Mapping social values of ecosystem services: What is behind the map?

Participatory GIS in Mapping Ecosystem Services: Two Case Studies from High-Biodiversity Regions in Italy and Peru

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About