Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

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


Rohrbach, Beni; Laube, Patrick; Weibel, Robert (2018). Comparing multi-criteria evaluation and participatory mapping to projecting land use. Landscape and Urban Planning, 176:38-50.

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.

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.

Statistics

Citations

Dimensions.ai Metrics
2 citations in Web of Science®
3 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:07 Faculty of Science > Institute of Geography
Dewey Decimal Classification:910 Geography & travel
Language:English
Date:2018
Deposited On:04 Jul 2018 12:15
Last Modified:05 Jul 2018 07:11
Publisher:Elsevier
ISSN:0169-2046
OA Status:Closed
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.04.002

Download

Full text not available from this repository.
View at publisher

Get full-text in a library