Mapping landscape values and human-resource interactions on a regional scale: The human ecology mapping project

Background/Question/Methods

Participatory mapping approaches have been developed by social scientists to depict human ecological systems at various spatial scales.  Baseline socio-spatial data are needed for natural resource planning and decision-making, yet few tools exist to collect social values data or integrate socio-spatial data with biophysical information.  The goal of the Human Ecology Mapping (HEM) Project was to develop and test a participatory mapping protocol to assess landscape values and interactions on a bio-regional scale.  The study incorporated a workshop approach to collect socio-spatial data from residents of the pilot region (Olympic Peninsula, WA). Eight workshops were conducted with an average of 21 participants each (N=169).  Participants plotted resource interactions (resource uses and social values) on maps using points, lines, and polygons. Qualitative data also were collected about the nature and frequency of resource interactions. This paper describes the protocol employed and identifies challenges of applying landscape values mapping on a bio-regional scale across multiple land ownerships and jurisdictions. 

Results/Conclusions

Analysis reveals interesting discoveries about how landscape values and resource interactions were rendered spatially by workshop participants.  Results showed variations in the size and shape of mapped areas representing various social values and resource activities. On average, shape areas for mapped objects identified for their economic value were significantly larger than for other values, such as recreation, and aesthetics.  Mean shape areas for resource activities also showed variation.  Data also indicated regional variation among Olympic Peninsula residents. T-tests of the mean perimeter-to-area ratio of mapped objects showed statistically significant differences between eastern and western regions of the peninsula. Differences also were observed among the six sub-regions analyzed, suggesting that respondents map differently or interact with the landscape differently, based on where they live. To explain these differences, we explore demographics and affinities for particular values and activities among residents of each sub-region.  The HEM approach holds promise for resource specialists and interdisciplinary science teams required to integrate knowledge of human values and ecological processes across various spatial scales.