IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v8y2019i2p38-d208178.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Making It Spatial Makes It Personal: Engaging Stakeholders with Geospatial Participatory Modeling

Author

Listed:
  • Jelena Vukomanovic

    (Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA
    Center for Geospatial Analytics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA)

  • Megan M. Skrip

    (Center for Geospatial Analytics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA)

  • Ross K. Meentemeyer

    (Center for Geospatial Analytics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA
    Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA)

Abstract

Participatory research methods are increasingly used to collectively understand complex social-environmental problems and to design solutions through diverse and inclusive stakeholder engagement. But participatory research rarely engages stakeholders to co-develop and co-interpret models that conceptualize and quantify system dynamics for comparing scenarios of alternate action. Even fewer participatory projects have engaged people using geospatial simulations of dynamic landscape processes and spatially explicit planning scenarios. We contend that geospatial participatory modeling (GPM) can confer multiple benefits over non-spatial approaches for participatory research processes, by (a) personalizing connections to problems and their solutions through visualizations of place, (b) resolving abstract notions of landscape connectivity, and (c) clarifying the spatial scales of drivers, data, and decision-making authority. We illustrate through a case study how GPM is bringing stakeholders together to balance population growth and conservation in a coastal region facing dramatic landscape change due to urbanization and sea level rise. We find that an adaptive, iterative process of model development, sharing, and revision drive innovation of methods and ultimately improve the realism of land change models. This co-production of knowledge enables all participants to fully understand problems, evaluate the acceptability of trade-offs, and build buy-in for management actions in the places where they live and work.

Suggested Citation

  • Jelena Vukomanovic & Megan M. Skrip & Ross K. Meentemeyer, 2019. "Making It Spatial Makes It Personal: Engaging Stakeholders with Geospatial Participatory Modeling," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-11, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:8:y:2019:i:2:p:38-:d:208178
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/8/2/38/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/8/2/38/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Claudia Canedoli & Craig Bullock & Marcus J. Collier & Deirdre Joyce & Emilio Padoa-Schioppa, 2017. "Public Participatory Mapping of Cultural Ecosystem Services: Citizen Perception and Park Management in the Parco Nord of Milan (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-27, May.
    2. Usón, Tomás J. & Klonner, Carolin & Höfle, Bernhard, 2016. "Using participatory geographic approaches for urban flood risk in Santiago de Chile: Insights from a governance analysis," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 62-72.
    3. Voinov, Alexey & Gaddis, Erica J. Brown, 2008. "Lessons for successful participatory watershed modeling: A perspective from modeling practitioners," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 216(2), pages 197-207.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alonso Gema Cárdenas & Masot Ana Nieto, 2020. "Rural Space Governance in Extremadura (SW Spain). Analysis of the Leader Approach," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 12(4), pages 448-468, December.
    2. Corey T. White & Helena Mitasova & Todd K. BenDor & Kevin Foy & Okan Pala & Jelena Vukomanovic & Ross K. Meentemeyer, 2021. "Spatially Explicit Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping for Participatory Modeling of Stormwater Management," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-29, October.
    3. Francisco J. Castellano-Álvarez & Ana Nieto Masot & José Castro-Serrano, 2020. "Intangibles of Rural Development. The Case Study of La Vera (Extremadura, Spain)," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-18, June.
    4. Aoife Leader & James Kinsella & Richard O’Brien, 2024. "Making sense of farmland biodiversity management: an evaluation of a farmland biodiversity management communication strategy with farmers," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 41(4), pages 1647-1665, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Samuel Sandoval-Solis & Jose Pablo Ortiz Partida & Lindsay Floyd, 2022. "Multi-Objective Water Planning in a Poor Water Data Region: Aragvi River Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-16, March.
    2. de Jong, Stefan P.L. & Wardenaar, Tjerk & Horlings, Edwin, 2016. "Exploring the promises of transdisciplinary research: A quantitative study of two climate research programmes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1397-1409.
    3. Jixun Liu & Xiaoxian Zhu & Zimu Xu, 2024. "Exploring Knowledge Dynamics and Change Management in Diverse Corporate Entrepreneurship Ecosystems," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(4), pages 19745-19774, December.
    4. Elena Bakhanova & Jaime A. Garcia & William L. Raffe & Alexey Voinov, 2023. "Gamification Framework for Participatory Modeling: A Proposal," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(5), pages 1167-1182, October.
    5. Pereverza, Kateryna & Pasichnyi, Oleksii & Kordas, Olga, 2019. "Modular participatory backcasting: A unifying framework for strategic planning in the heating sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 123-134.
    6. Márquez, Laura Andreina Matos & Rezende, Eva Caroline Nunes & Machado, Karine Borges & Nascimento, Emilly Layne Martins do & Castro, Joana D'arc Bardella & Nabout, João Carlos, 2023. "Trends in valuation approaches for cultural ecosystem services: A systematic literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    7. Maria Stella Lux, 2024. "Networks and Fragments: An Integrative Approach for Planning Urban Green Infrastructures in Dense Urban Areas," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-24, November.
    8. Lopolito, Antonio & Prosperi, Maurizio & Sisto, Roberta & De Meo, Emilio, 2011. "A FCMs approach to promote new business formation in rural areas under uncertainty conditions," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114778, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. He, Fei & Lee, Dogil & Borisova, Tatiana & Graham, Wendy & Athearn, Kevin & Dukes, Michael & Merrick, Jason & Hochmuth, Robert, 2024. "Farm-scale economic and environmental tradeoffs of land use and land management decisions," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 301(C).
    10. Catharina Landström & Sarah J Whatmore & Stuart N Lane & Nicholas A Odoni & Neil Ward & Susan Bradley, 2011. "Coproducing Flood Risk Knowledge: Redistributing Expertise in Critical ‘Participatory Modelling’," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 43(7), pages 1617-1633, July.
    11. Xiaomin Xiao & Qiaoru Ye & Xiaobin Dong, 2024. "Using Importance–Performance Analysis to Reveal Priorities for Multifunctional Landscape Optimization in Urban Parks," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-26, April.
    12. Dolinska, Aleksandra, 2017. "Bringing farmers into the game. Strengthening farmers' role in the innovation process through a simulation game, a case from Tunisia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 129-139.
    13. Shaoying Zhang & Mastura Adam & Norafida Ab Ghafar, 2024. "How Satisfaction Research Contributes to the Optimization of Urban Green Space Design—A Global Perspective Bibliometric Analysis from 2001 to 2024," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-32, November.
    14. Kopainsky, Birgit & Hager, Gerid & Herrera, Hugo & Nyanga, Progress H., 2017. "Transforming food systems at local levels: Using participatory system dynamics in an interactive manner to refine small-scale farmers’ mental models," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 362(C), pages 101-110.
    15. Elizabeth Allen & Chad Kruger & Fok-Yan Leung & Jennie Stephens, 2013. "Diverse Perceptions of Stakeholder Engagement within an Environmental Modeling Research Team," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 3(3), pages 343-356, September.
    16. Bustillos Ardaya, A. & Evers, M. & Ribbe, L., 2019. "Participatory approaches for disaster risk governance? Exploring participatory mechanisms and mapping to close the communication gap between population living in flood risk areas and authorities in No," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    17. Liangjian Yang & Kaijun Cao, 2022. "Cultural Ecosystem Services Research Progress and Future Prospects: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-18, September.
    18. Delmotte, Sylvestre & Barbier, Jean-Marc & Mouret, Jean-Claude & Le Page, Christophe & Wery, Jacques & Chauvelon, Phillipe & Sandoz, Alain & Lopez Ridaura, Santiago, 2016. "Participatory integrated assessment of scenarios for organic farming at different scales in Camargue, France," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 147-158.
    19. Verweij, P.J.F.M. & Knapen, M.J.R. & de Winter, W.P. & Wien, J.J.F. & te Roller, J.A. & Sieber, S. & Jansen, J.M.L., 2010. "An IT perspective on integrated environmental modelling: The SIAT case," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 221(18), pages 2167-2176.
    20. Juan Tang & Yudi Fang & Ziyan Tian & Yinghua Gong & Liang Yuan, 2022. "Ecosystem Services Research in Green Sustainable Science and Technology Field: Trends, Issues, and Future Directions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-22, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:8:y:2019:i:2:p:38-:d:208178. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.