Literature DB >> 29926134

A Reciprocal Triangulation Process For Identifying And Mapping Potential Land Use Conflict.

Jennifer Diana Evans1, James Barrie Kirkpatrick2, Kerry Lynn Bridle2.   

Abstract

Land use in many areas is highly contested. An understanding of the nature of such conflicts, and of spatial variation in their intensity, is required to develop planning solutions. We present a novel process for attaining these outcomes which involves mapping of values and potential conflict between stakeholders determined using participatory GIS (PGIS) processes. Our starting point was an a priori identification of the values that were potentially in conflict. We produced quantitative and qualitative maps of each of the values that formed a basis for workshop discussion among small stakeholder groups. Each participant was asked to complete a questionnaire to determine their values and their attitudes to land use and to map the places that they would not be prepared to lose. Principal components analysis was used to identify the major independent axes in values and attitudes among all participants. We then used repeatable descriptive quantitative procedures to identify attitude groups. These analyses allowed us to identify potential conflicts between values that could be expressed in land use, spatial variation in attachment of groups and the intensity of potential conflict. In our test of the process in the Tarkine region of Tasmania, Australia, we found that land use conflict was multidimensional, involving incompatible recreational activities and incompatibility between nature conservation and economic production. Two-fifths of the area was shown to be not in contest, with considerable spatial variation in the intensity of conflict potential in the remainder. This latter variation could facilitate a process of land use compromise.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Attitudes; Compromise; Environmental conflict potential; PGIS; Reciprocal triangulation; Tarkine

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29926134     DOI: 10.1007/s00267-018-1076-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Manage        ISSN: 0364-152X            Impact factor:   3.266


  7 in total

1.  SNOWBALL VERSUS RESPONDENT-DRIVEN SAMPLING.

Authors:  Douglas D Heckathorn
Journal:  Sociol Methodol       Date:  2011-08-01

2.  Comparing spatially explicit ecological and social values for natural areas to identify effective conservation strategies.

Authors:  Brett Anthony Bryan; Christopher Mark Raymond; Neville David Crossman; Darran King
Journal:  Conserv Biol       Date:  2010-09-02       Impact factor: 6.560

3.  What is the future of conservation?

Authors:  Daniel F Doak; Victoria J Bakker; Bruce Evan Goldstein; Benjamin Hale
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  2013-12-13       Impact factor: 17.712

4.  Identifying conflict potential in a coastal and marine environment using participatory mapping.

Authors:  Susan A Moore; Greg Brown; Halina Kobryn; Jennifer Strickland-Munro
Journal:  J Environ Manage       Date:  2017-04-24       Impact factor: 6.789

Review 5.  Understanding and managing conservation conflicts.

Authors:  Steve M Redpath; Juliette Young; Anna Evely; William M Adams; William J Sutherland; Andrew Whitehouse; Arjun Amar; Robert A Lambert; John D C Linnell; Allan Watt; R J Gutiérrez
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  2012-10-03       Impact factor: 17.712

6.  Integrating biological and social values when prioritizing places for biodiversity conservation.

Authors:  Amy L Whitehead; Heini Kujala; Christopher D Ives; Ascelin Gordon; Pia E Lentini; Brendan A Wintle; Emily Nicholson; Christopher M Raymond
Journal:  Conserv Biol       Date:  2014-03-11       Impact factor: 6.560

Review 7.  The role of social values in the management of ecological systems.

Authors:  Christopher D Ives; Dave Kendal
Journal:  J Environ Manage       Date:  2014-06-10       Impact factor: 6.789

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.