Comparing multi-criteria evaluation and participatory mapping to projecting land use

Abstract

Projections pertaining to future land use and land use change may have diverse backgrounds. Often, both local and scientific knowledge encompass important pieces of information for such a projection. Acknowledging the diversity across the two types of knowledge, we investigated their differences and similarities in a twofold case study, conducting a participatory mapping (PM) exercise with local wine growers, as well as a Multi Criteria Evaluation (MCE) with non-local experts from science, government and industry. Hence, we not only utilised two different knowledge elicitation methods, but also two types of ‘knowledges’.
Within a region dominated by vineyards, and with expected land use change, we compared the two results quantitatively, in a participatory evaluation workshop, and with annotations gained through the participatory mapping exercise. Both methods have their merits, with the results from the participatory mapping perceived as being more plausible, and the MCE scoring higher in terms of spatial resolution. Whilst the participatory mapping yields more and better contextualised information, the results from the MCE can be better compared across study areas.