Transcript Participatory GIS in the Upper Sangamon Watershed

Participatory GIS in the
Upper Sangamon Watershed:
Geovisualization,
Collective Decision-Making, and
Environmental Governance
Miriam A. Cope
Sara McLafferty
Bruce M. Rhoads
Department of Geography, UIUC
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Abstract

This research examines the impact of
participatory GIS on collective decision-making
for agricultural and environmental management
at the watershed scale. In partnership with the
Agricultural Watershed Institute (AWI) and Macon
County Soil and Water Conservation District in
Decatur, IL, we tested participatory GIS methods
in two groups of stakeholders, farmers and
professionals, to determine optimal locations for
growing biofuels in Central Illinois.
Objectives
Test influence of geovisualization on
attitudes towards developing a perennial
energy grass market
 Compare attitudes between farmers and
conservationists

GOALS
Ascertain how local knowledge can inform
GIS development for planting perennial
energy grasses
 Understand how prior knowledge of
technology influences PGIS discussions
 Build upon existing university-community
partnerships

Presentation Overview
Participatory GIS
 Research Methods

 GIS

Layers
Results
 Survey
 Maps

Conclusion
Miscanthus
(from:magnoliagardensnursery.com)
Participatory/Public Participation
GIS (Geographic Information
Systems)

A GIS that incorporates knowledge and
perspectives from community participants
 Recognizes
need to include socially marginalized
individuals and groups
 Recognizes and values importance of place and
context in decision making

Urban/rural, grassroots/ngo/local government
 Recognizes
and integrates qualitative research tools
 Aberly and Sieber, 2002
Development of Participatory GIS
Instrumentalist applications of GIS
excluded local knowledge
 Constructions of place dependent on
experts or most powerful voices
 Resource poor organizations or voices
excluded from decision making process

 Elwood, 2006
Community Partnership

Conducted case study of AWI in 2007
 Agricultural
Watershed Institute
AWI convened a “Landscape Learning
Group” for biofuel market assessment
 Mutually beneficial relationship recognized

Energy Grasses
Switchgrass
Miscanthus
(from:magnoliagardensnursery.com)
Picture from: mongabay.com
Methods


Build GIS of Upper Sangamon Watershed
Two interest groups
 Experts/conservationists
in Landscape Learning
Group
 Farmers in Macon county


Design pre and post GIS surveys
Convene PGIS Groups: AWI, Farmers
Crop Cover, Sangamon Watershed (2005)
30M Resolution
LANDCVR_TYPE
Clouds/Urban/Water
Corn
Fallow/Idle Cropland/Pasture/Range/CRP/Non Ag
Grassland
Other Crops/ Pumpkins
Soybean
Wetlands
Winter Wheat/Other Small Grains and Hay/Winter Wheat/Soybeans Double Cropped/Alfalfa
Woods
Ü
0
12.5
25
50 Miles
Sangamon Watershed
Slope
Streets and
Stream Features
Ü
0
Ü
15
30
60 Miles
0
15
30
60 Miles
Macon County
Layers
Farm Parcel
Layers
Develop Pre and Post GIS Survey

Pre-PGIS Survey
 Collect
Participant’s Demographic Information
 Collect Participant Knowledge of Computer and
Mapping Technology
 Collect Attitudes towards Perennial Energy Grasses

Post-PGIS Survey
 Attitudes
towards energy grasses
 Attitudes towards GIS/Geovisualization
Participatory GIS Sessions

Learning Group/Expert PGIS Session


13 Participants
Farmer Survey
 Received
55 Surveys out of 400 Mailed
(>10%)
 16 Farmers interested in PGIS

Farmer PGIS Session
 5 Attended
PGIS Session (~ 33%)
Results

Both Groups generally agreed that:
 Grasses
could be grown in Illinois
 Important for reducing dependence on foreign
oil
 Beneficial for wildlife and water quality
Results
Perennial energy grasses should only be
grown on marginal Land
30
25
20
Farmer
15
LLG
10
5
0
Agree
Disagree
No Opinion
Results
GIS Criteria for Energy Grasses: Ranking
FARMERS
LLG
Economic Layers (37.5%)
Biophysical Layers (27.3%)
Biophysical Layers (25%)
Current Land Use (27.3%)
Land Use/Location (12.5%)
Farm Management (27.3%)
Results
Perennial Energy Grass Market Constraints
FARMERS
LLG
Economic (41.8%)
Limited Information (30.8%)
Farming Technology (14.5%)
Farming Technology
(15.4%)
Economic (7.7%)
Limited Information (1.8%)
Analysis: Expert PGIS Session

Raised competing environmental issues
 Slope:

better for water quality, worse for wildlife
Emphasized Energy Grass selection
 Miscanthus,
switchgrass, native polycultures
 Dependent on previous crop

Discussed spatial concerns: proximity to
streams, slope, corridors, and processing facility
Learning Group
Map Query:
Grassland in 100
Meters of Streams
Analysis: Farmer GIS Session
Greater interaction with maps
 Brought in personal experience

 Time,
equipment issues, rotation of crops
“Marginal land” depends on farm scale
issues: accessibility, tree lines, biophysical
properties and productivity
 Economic Criteria

Farmer preferences for optimal locations
Based on slope
Slope > 2 degrees
Slope > 1 degree
0
0.1
0.2
0.4 Miles
Conclusions

Geovisualization
 Helped
facilitate conversations about where to plant
energy grasses
 Interplay between participants’ local knowledge &
experiences and geovisualization


suitability maps reveal local knowledge and experiences
Next Step
 PGIS
involving both farmers and experts in same
conversations

“Who, What and Where” of biofuels are
interconnected, complex
Acknowledgements
Community Informatics Initiative Grant
 Agricultural Watershed Institute
 Macon County Soil and Water
Conservation District
 Prof. Sara McLafferty, PI, Advisor
 Prof. Bruce Rhoads, PI, Advisor
