Assessing Effectiveness of PPGIS on Protected Areas by Governance Quality: A Case Study of Community-Based Monitoring in Wu-Wei-Kang Wildlife Refuge, Taiwan
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background
- Regarding Equity, participants should consider differences in age, gender, and social status, voices, etc. It is also necessary to consider building and/or promoting the capacity of participants and concerned stakeholders. Moreover, a means or process for resolving or managing conflicts must be established [10,54].
- Vision and scope: Given the close links between the governance effectiveness and management effectiveness of PA [9], governance quality also requires that the vision, objective, and scope of PA should be established jointly with the stakeholders.
3. Case Study
3.1. Background of Research Site
3.2. The Practice of Wetland Elevation Monitoring and PPGIS
3.3. Methods and Methodology
4. Results and Discussions: The Influence and Benefits of PPGIS
4.1. Promoting Inclusiveness
“At that time, we first illustrated the wetland area in Google Earth; then, we discussed the best method for monitoring it with the academic team.”(LC02)
“After we complete the first trial, we will use PPGIS to explain our ideas to the other community development associations. Also, we will find some volunteers to help with the monitoring.”(LC05)
“The monitoring data displayed in the 3-D environment plays a very important role in our proposal writing and funding. The officials can clearly understand what we want to do, as well as the capabilities of the community.”(LG02)
“Right at the start, the community said they wanted to take a measurement of the substratum elevation and we were shocked. However, using PPGIS to understand the community’s method of implementation, we could better know how to coordinate.”(FB03)
“After this kind (PPGIS) of explanation, everyone could better understand, and it also helped to set up the needs of the academic team in the refuge. After several rounds of monitoring, we could go in and finish these facilities ourselves.”(LC05)
“Through PPGIS, we could quickly grasp the silt distribution, and it is easier to reach a consensus with the community…. After everyone’s thinking is aligned, things can move forward more smoothly.”(LC08)
4.2. Creating Respect
“When I first started looking for an outside survey company to come in, as soon as they entered the wetland, they said it would be difficult to perform the measurement. Finally, it was ‘A’ who thought of some ways to set the water gauge in the refuge using the tools on hand.”(LC04)
“The community volunteers used the buoys of the fishing nets to make a rope that can float on the surface of the water. As long as you measure according to the marked position on the rope, you can systematically obtain the elevation data.”(AR02)
“When the map came out, we thought of the times in our childhood when we would go to the refuge and play in the water…. Under the water, there are still old water valves, and sometimes, we step on the gushing springs.”(LC13)
“There are certain situations where there are people who can be called… citizen experts. They may have certain knowledge of the community and may also have a lot of professional knowledge. Spatial information tools such as PPGIS help transform their knowledge into data on the map.”(AR03)
4.3. Enhancing Competence
“After having a comprehensive view of the substratum elevation, everyone will be better off figuring out how to dredge, and then, we can avoid the destruction of the bird habitat in the refuge.”(LC12)
“This kind of view makes everything clearer. You can clarify the discussion with the county government, and there will be no discrepancy between the two sides.”(LP01)
“You can zoom in and out on the map very quickly, so we can immediately see that the water in the refuge is flowing from there…. Later, there is some monitoring taking place in that location of the river.”(LC06)
“Using this method of comparison, we can know which part of the area should be dredged and it is also possible to avoid the bird habitats.”(LC06)
“This method of communication is very effective because the message is clearly presented and everyone can express what they want and will not be misunderstood…, so much so that it allows coordination.”(LC08)
4.4. Defining the Management Visions and Scopes
“Because of the discussion, it was later discovered that the six-sluice gate had great influence on the water source of the refuge. Therefore, it was decided to invite the people of the Luodong District Office to attend the meeting.”(LC03)
“Because the map visualizes the water system data, it allows us to clearly see the relationship between these water systems and the refuge. The birds in the refuge will also go to the adjacent fields during floods… so during management discussions, we want [to] be included.”(AC02)
“These tidal current investigations and substratum elevation monitoring, presented through PPGIS, can turn the land area issues in the refuge into issues for discussion. A substratum elevation monitoring was undertaken last year. We know what to do and how to do it this year. An elevation monitoring was done, and we know the changes in the water level, elevation, and silt distribution in the refuge. The elevation in the refuge is relatively high, and the water is easy to discharge.”(AR01)
“When discussing management work items, we put the things that the community usually does on the map; therefore, the ways of implementing and dividing the labor are clearer. Everyone has a mechanism for coordination.”(LC05)
4.5. Creating Accountability
“After monitoring the substratum elevation these last two years, we found that the sedimentation in the refuge can be cleared out once. The records of these two years can be considered as the worst-case scenario and then serve as a reference point after complete dredging. By monitoring the siltification in the refuge for a long time, we can understand the status and speed of the siltification in the refuge.”(AC01)
“When the county government is wrong, we can correct them. When they have an inappropriate view of the refuge, we can correct them and make them change the plan. When the government needs to carry out any management actions involving the refuge, we can provide assistance, supervision, and cooperation.”(LC02)
4.6. Developing Equity
“Basically, as long as the process of spatialization can be completed, there will be some possibilities for connecting the relevant institutions because you know the environmental management issues, what kind of space you’re dealing with, and who the stakeholders are. You can then formulate the viable business management strategies.”(LC07)
“The government wants to spend money; we want to do it, but there is no way. So, we need the help of academic teams to provide backup.... This data will provide a solution so that the refuge will not lack water in the future.”(LC01)
“If there are many things, we can tell them what to do and what not to do; this is an ideal situation.”(LG02)
“When the budget is being sought, the authorities will be more willing to grant support if the community has reached a consensus.”(FB01)
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Informant No. | Organization | Occupation/Role | Records by Interview | Records by Participant Observation |
---|---|---|---|---|
LC01 | Members of WRCEA | Director | 2 | 1 |
LC02 | Former Board Director | 2 | 2 | |
LC03 | Director | 4 | 5 | |
LC04 | Board Director | 1 | ||
LC05 | Executive Secretary | 1 | 3 | |
LC06 | Director | 1 | 4 | |
LC07 | Director | 1 | 1 | |
LC08 | Former Board Director | 1 | 6 | |
LC09 | Director | 1 | ||
LC10 | Director | 1 | ||
LC11 | Member | 1 | 1 | |
LC12 | Assistant | 1 | 3 | |
LC13 | Volunteer | 1 | ||
LC14 | Volunteer | 1 | ||
LC15 | Volunteer | 1 | ||
LC16 | Volunteer | 1 | ||
LP01 | Community Residents | Chief of Village. | 1 | 1 |
LP02 | Chief of Village. | 1 | ||
LP03 | Principal | 1 | ||
AC01 | Scholars and Experts | Hydraulic Engineer | 1 | |
AC02 | Wildlife Expert | 1 | ||
AC03 | Benthos Expert | 1 | ||
FB01 | Luodong Forest District Office | Forestry Officer | 2 | |
FB02 | Forestry Officer | 1 | ||
FB03 | Senior Forestry Officer | 1 | ||
FB04 | Forestry Officer | 2 | ||
LG01 | Ilan County Government | Section Manager | 2 | |
LG02 | Conservation Officer | 1 | 7 | |
AR01 | Academic Team | Conservation Specialist | 2 | |
AR02 | GIS Specialist | 1 | ||
AR03 | GIS Specialist | 2 | ||
Total | 25 | 50 |
Occasion No. | Data | Major Activities | Informant No. |
---|---|---|---|
P01 | 2009/02/14 | Platform Meeting | AR01,LC02 |
P02 | 2009/07/17 | Test of SEM 1 methods | LC08 |
P03 | 2009/08/18 | Platform Meeting | LG02,LC03 |
P04 | 2009/08/29 | Wetland on-site inspection | AC03,LG02 |
P05 | 2009/11/19 | Review Meeting of Wetlands of Importance | FB04,LG01,LC02 |
P06 | 2010/07/30 | TCI 2 meeting | LC03,LC12 |
P07 | 2010/08/21 | Setting up facilities for SEM | LP01,LP02 |
P08 | 2009/09/04 | Wetland Deposition Meeting | FB04,LG01 |
P09 | 2010/09/11 | Setting up facilities for SEM | LC08,LC06 |
P10 | 2010/9/18 | Wildlife Refuge Management Effectiveness Evaluation meeting | LC08,LG02 |
P11 | 2010/09/25 | TCI | LC08 |
P12 | 2010/10/09 | SEM in wetland | LC07 |
P13 | 2010/10/30 | SEM in neighboring aqueduct | LC03 |
P14 | 2011/03/05 | Monitoring Results Presentation | AR02,LC12 |
P15 | 2011/04/16 | Setting up facilities for SEM | LC06 |
P16 | 2011/05/22 | TCI | LC08 |
P17 | 2011/05/30 | SEM in wetland | LC03 |
P18 | 2011/07/29 | SEM in neighboring aqueduct | LC06 |
P19 | 2011/08/05 | Monitoring Results Presentation | AR01,LC03 |
P20 | 2011/08/06 | Platform Meeting | LC08,LG02 |
P21 | 2011/09/24 | TCI | LC10 |
P22 | 2011/10/11 | Review Meeting of Community Forestry Project | FB03,LG02 |
P23 | 2011/11/28 | SEM by remote-controlled ship | LC06 |
P24 | 2012/02/18 | General Meeting of WRCEA | LC05,LC12 |
P25 | 2012/06/02 | Platform Meeting | AC02 |
P26 | 2012/12/11 | SEM by remote-controlled ship | LC14 |
P27 | 2013/12/14 | SEM by remote-controlled ship | LC11 |
P28 | 2013/12/25 | Platform Meeting | LP03 |
P29 | 2015/06/13 | Platform Meeting | LC05,LG02 |
P30 | 2015/08/03 | Land Acquisition Meeting | AR02,LC03 |
P31 | 2015/09/25 | SEM | LC15 |
P32 | 2015/10/31 | Platform Meeting | LC05,LG02 |
References
- Watson, J.E.M.; Dudley, N.; Segan, D.B.; Hockings, M. The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature 2014, 515, 67–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Macura, B.; Laura Secco, L.; Pullin, A.S. What evidence exists on the impact of governance type on the conservation effectiveness of forest protected areas? Knowledge base and evidence gaps. Environ. Evid. 2015, 4, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corral, S.; Monagas, M.C. Social involvement in environmental governance: The relevance of quality assurance processes in forest planning. Land Use Policy 2017, 67, 710–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phillips, A. Turning ideas on their head: The new paradigm for protected areas. George Wright Forum 2003, 20, 8–32. [Google Scholar]
- Renn, O. Participatory processes for designing environmental policies. Land Use Policy 2006, 23, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borrini-Feyerabend, G.; Hill, R. Governance for the conservation of nature. In Protected Area Governance and Management; Worboys, G.L., Lockwood, M., Kothari, A., Feary, S., Pulsford, I., Eds.; ANU Press: Canberra, Australia, 2015; pp. 169–206. [Google Scholar]
- Irwin, F.; Ranganathan, J. Restoring Nature’s Capital: An Action Agenda to Sustain Ecosystem Services; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA; Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/ (accessed on 25 May 2018).
- Hellier, A.; Newton, A.; Gaona, S. Use of Indigenous Knowledge for Rapidly Assessing Trends in Biodiversity: A Case Study from Chiapa, Mexico. Biol. Conserv. 1999, 8, 869–889. [Google Scholar]
- Lockwood, M. Good governance for terrestrial protected areas: A framework, principles and performance outcomes. J. Environ. Manag. 2010, 91, 754–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Borrini-Feyerabend, G.; Dudley, N.; Jaeger, T.; Lassen, B.; Broome, N.P.; Phillips, A.; Sandwith, T. Governance of Protected Areas: From understanding to Action; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Green, D.R. The role of Public Participatory Geographical Information Systems (PPGIS) in coastal decision-making processes: An example from Scotland, UK. Ocean Coast Manag. 2010, 53, 816–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haklay, M.; Francis, L. Participatory GIS and community-based citizen science for environmental justice action. In The Routledge Handbook of Environmental Justice; Chakraborty, J., Walker, G., Holifield, R., Eds.; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2018; pp. 297–308. [Google Scholar]
- Ghose, R. Use of information technology for community empowerment: Transforming geographic information system into community information systems. Trans. GIS 2001, 5, 141–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Curry, M.R. The digital individual and the private realm. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 1997, 87, 681–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chrisman, N. Full circle: More than just social implications of GIS. Cartographica 2005, 40, 23–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramsey, K. A call for agonism: GIS and the politics of collaboration. Environ. Plan. A 2008, 40, 2346–2363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Israel, B.A.; Eng, E.; Schulz, A.J.; Parker, E.A. Methods in Community-Based Participatory Research for Health; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Sheppard, E. Knowledge production through critical GIS: Genealogy and prospects. Cartographica 2005, 40, 5–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rambaldi, G.; Chambers, R.; McCall, M.; Fox, J. Practical ethics for PGIS practitioners, facilitators, technical intermediaries and researchers. PLA 2006, 54, 106–113. [Google Scholar]
- Anderson, C.; Beazley, K.; Boxall, J. Lessons for PPGIS from the application of a decision-support tool in the Nova Forest Alliance of Nova Scotia, Canada. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 2081–2089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, G. Public Participation GIS (PPGIS) for regional and environmental planning: Reflections on a decade of empirical research. J. URISA 2012, 25, 5–16. [Google Scholar]
- Engen, S.; Runge, C.; Brown, G.; Fauchald, P.; Nilsen, L.; Hausner, V. Assessing local acceptance of protected area management using public participation GIS (PPGIS). J. Nat. Conserv. 2018, 43, 27–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sieber, R.E. Geographic Information Systems AAin the Environ-mental Movement. In Community Participation and Geographic Information Systems; Craig, W., Harris, T., Weiner, D., Eds.; Taylor and Francis: London, UK, 2002; pp. 153–172. [Google Scholar]
- Elwood, S. Grassroots groups as stakeholders in spatial data infrastructures: Challenges and opportunities for local data development and sharing. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 2008, 22, 71–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, G. Engaging the wisdom of crowds and public judgment for land use planning using public participation geographic information systems. Aust. Plan. 2015, 52, 199–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elwood, S. Beyond cooptation or resistance: Urban spatial politics, community organizations, and GIS-based spatial narratives. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 2006, 96, 323–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsai, B.W.; Lu, D.J.; Chung, M.K.; Lien, M.C. Evaluation of PPGIS Empowerment: A case study of Meinong Yellow Butterfly Valley in Taiwan. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 116, 204–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thompson, M.M. Upside-Down GIS: The Future of Citizen Science and Community Participation. Cartogr. J. 2016, 53, 326–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dunn, C.E. Participatory GIS—A people’s GIS? Prog. Hum. Geog. 2007, 31, 616–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, G. An empirical evaluation of the spatial accuracy of public participation GIS (PPGIS) data. Appl. Geogr. 2012, 34, 289–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chambers, R. Participatory Mapping and Geographic Information Systems: Whose Map? Who is Empowered and Who Disempowered? J. Inform. Syst. Dev. 2006, 25, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, G.; Kyttä, M. Key issues and research priorities for public participation GIS (PPGIS): A synthesis based on empirical research. Appl. Geogr. 2014, 46, 122–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corbett, J.; Cochrane, L.; Gill, M. Powering up: Revisiting participatory GIS and empowerment. Cartogr. J. 2016, 53, 335–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCall, M.K. Seeking good governance in participatory-GIS: A review of processes and governance dimensions in applying GIS to participatory spatial planning. Habitat Int. 2003, 27, 549–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cinderby, S.; Snell, C.; Forrester, J. Participatory GIS and its application in governance: The example of air quality and the implications for noise pollution. Local Environ. 2008, 13, 309–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCall, M.K.; Dunn, C.E. Geo-information tools for participatory spatial planning: Fulfilling the criteria for ‘good’ governance? Geoforum 2012, 43, 81–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pfeffer, K.; Baud, I.; Denis, E.; Scott, D.; Sydenstricker-Neto, J. Participatory spatial knowledge management tools. Information. Commun. Soc. 2013, 16, 258–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, G.; Weber, D.; de Bie, K. Is PPGIS good enough? An empirical evaluation of the quality of PPGIS crowd-sourced spatial data for conservation planning. Land Use Policy 2015, 43, 228–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haklay, M.; Jankowski, P.; Zwoliński, Z. Selected modern methods and tools for public participation in urban planning—A review. Quaest. Geogr. 2018, 37, 127–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, T.W.; Tsai, Y.T.; Shih, M.C.; Lin, Y.W. Public participation and the concept of space in environmental governance: An application of PPGIS. Public Adm. Dev. 2009, 29, 250–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raymond, C.M.; Bryan, B.A.; MacDonald, D.H.; Cast, A.; Strathearn, S.; Grandgirard, A.; Kalivas, T. Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 68, 1301–1315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ganapati, S. Uses of Public Participation Geographic Information Systems Applications in E-Government. Public Adm. Rev. 2010, 71, 425–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Linnell, J.D.C.; Kaczensky, P.; Wotschikowsky, U.; Lescureux, N.; Boitani, L. Framing the relationship between people and nature in the context of European conservation. Conserv. Biol. 2015, 29, 978–985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dudley, N.; Parrish, J.; Redford, K.; Stolton, S. The revised IUCN protected area management categories: The debate and ways forward. Oryx 2010, 44, 485–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weaver, D.; Lawton, L. A new visitation paradigm for protected areas. Tour. Manag. 2017, 60, 140–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hockings, M.; Leverington, F.; Cook, C. Protected area management effectiveness. In Protected Area Governance and Management; Worboys, G.L., Lockwood, M., Kothari, A., Feary, S., Pulsford, I., Eds.; ANU E Press: Canberra, Australia, 2015; pp. 889–928. [Google Scholar]
- Geldmann, J.; Coad, L.; Barnes, M.; Craigie, I.D.; Hockings, M.; Knights, K.; Leverington, F.; Cuadros, I.C.; Zamora, C.; Woodley, S.; et al. Changes in protected area management effectiveness over time: A global analysis. Biol. Conserv. 2015, 191, 692–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hockings, M.; Cook, C.; Carter, R.W.; James, R. Accountability, Reporting or Management Improvement? Development of a State of the Parks Assessment System in New South Wales, Australia. Environ. Manag. 2009, 43, 1013–1025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graham, J.; Amos, B.; Plumptre, T. Governance Principles for Protected Areas in the 21st Century; Institute on Governance, Parks Canada and the Canadian International Development Agency: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2003.
- United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Governance for Sustainable Human Development; UNDP: New York, NY, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Lockwood, M.; Davidson, J.; Curtis, A.; Stratford, E.; Griffith, R. Governance Principles for Natural Resource Management. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2010, 23, 986–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turner, R.A.; Fitzsimmons, C.; Forster, J.; Mahon, R.; Peterson, A.; Stead, S.M. Measuring good governance for complex ecosystems: Perceptions of coral reef-dependent communities in the Caribbean. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014, 29, 105–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chuenpagdee, R. Interactive governance for marine conservation: An illustration. Bull. Mar. Sci. 2011, 87, 197–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eklund, J.; Cabeza, M. Quality of governance and effectiveness of protected areas: Crucial concepts for conservation planning. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2017, 1399, 27–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berkes, F. Understanding uncertainty and reducing vulnerability: Lessons from resilience thinking. Nat. Hazards 2007, 41, 283–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dressler, W.; Büscher, B.; Schoon, M.; Brockington, D.; Hayes, T.; Kull, C.A.; McCarthy, J.; Shrestha, K. From hope to crisis and back again? A critical history of the global CBNRM narrative. Environ. Conserv. 2010, 37, 5–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lemos, M.C.; Agrawal, A. Environmental Governance. Ann. Rev. Env. Resour. 2006, 31, 297–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drazkiewicz, A.; Challies, E.; Newig, J. Public participation and local environmental planning: Testing factors influencing decision quality and implementation in four case studies from Germany. Land Use Policy 2015, 46, 211–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kisingo, A.; Rollins, R.; Murray, G.; Dearden, P.; Clarke, M. Evaluating ‘good governance’: The development of a quantitative tool in the Greater Serengeti Ecosystem. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 181, 749–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, D.J.; Chao, C.L.; Chueh, H.C.; Kao, C.W.; Chang, Y.L.; Chang, H.Y. Evaluating the Management Effectiveness of the Protected Areas in Taiwan Analysis and Interpretation of 5 Case Studies. J. Geogr. Sci. 2011, 62, 73–105. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Lu, D.J.; Chao, C.L.; Lo, S.Y.; Kao, C.W.; Chen, Y.L.; Lo, L.C.; Yeh, M.C.; Ho, L.D.; Chang, H.Y.; Wang, J.Y. Evaluating Management Effectiveness of the Coastal and Estuarine Protected Areas in Taiwan. J. Geogr. Sci. 2013, 68, 19–42. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Ilan County Government. 2015 Wu-Wei-Kang Wildlife Refuge Conservation Plan; Ilan County Government: Ilan, Taiwan, 2015. (In Chinese)
- Ministry of the Interior. Wu-Wei-Kang National Important Wetland Conservation Plan; Ministry of the Interior: Taipei, Taiwan, 2017. (In Chinese)
- Lu, D.J.; Wang, M.N.; Chueh, H.C. Assessing Management Effectiveness of the Wu-Wei-Kang Wildlife Refuge: The Introduction and Applicability of RAPPAM. J. Geogr. Sci. 2008, 54, 51–78. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Lu, D.J.; Kao, C.W.; Chao, C.L. Evaluating the management effectiveness of five protected areas in Taiwan using WWF’s RAPPAM. Environ. Manag. 2012, 50, 272–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, Y. Employment of Spatial Information Technology on Community Monitoring—A Case of Avian Survey at Yilan Wu-Wei-Gong Area. Master’s Thesis, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, 2010. (In Chinese). [Google Scholar]
- Peng, A.C. Implementing and Studying Community-Based Monitoring—A Case Study of the Wu-Wei-Kang Waterfowl Refuge. Master’s Thesis, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, 2011. (In Chinese). [Google Scholar]
- Lu, Y.W. The Operation and Local Role of Wu-Wei River Cultural and Education Association. Master’s Thesis, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, 2013. (In Chinese). [Google Scholar]
- Hsieh, H.L. Exploring Community Capacity in Community-Based Natural Resource Management. Master’s Thesis, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, 2017. (In Chinese). [Google Scholar]
- Elwood, S. GIS and collaborative urban governance: Understanding their implications for community action and power. Urban Geogr. 2002, 22, 737–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, G.; Raymond, C.M. Methods for identifying land use conflict potential using participatory mapping. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 122, 196–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, G.; Fagerholm, N. Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: A review and evaluation. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 13, 119–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Governance Quality | Suitability of GITs | The Efficacy of PPGIS |
---|---|---|
Promoting Inclusiveness | Visualization 3-D environment Transparent layers Feasible | Explore the environmental situation Help to plan the monitoring method Mobilize volunteers Disseminate information |
Creating Respect | Visualization 3-D environment Transparent layers Overlapping layers | Gather the community members’ lay knowledge Prompt the local community’s historical memories Help stakeholders to understand the history of wetland Raise the community’s awareness of the environmental value |
Enhancing Competence | Visualization 3-D environment Transparent layers Overlapping layers | Help stakeholders to understand the dynamics of environmental resources Improve stakeholders’ communication ability Improve discussions of management Help local stakeholders to persuade stakeholders in other sectors |
Defining Management Visions and Scopes | Spatial interpolation 3-D environment Overlapping layers Feasible Profile analysis Simulates views | Help to understand the distribution of local environmental resource Help to identify potential stakeholders Help to define management visions and scopes Help to expand the spatial scope of the conservation plan Help the stakeholders to build up a collective mechanism to allocate objectives, budgets, and human resources |
Creating Accountability | Visualization 3-D environment Transparent layers Feasible | Help stakeholders to review the management results Transparency of the decision-making process Integration of mutual resources Contribute to the realization of a mature partnership Sharing of rights and liabilities in governance |
Developing Equity | Visualization 3-D environment Feasible | Help the establishment of equity between the public and private sectors Ensure the legitimacy and appropriateness of management decisions Enhance equitable sharing of costs and benefits in the refuge management |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Chung, M.-K.; Lu, D.-J.; Tsai, B.-W.; Chou, K.-T. Assessing Effectiveness of PPGIS on Protected Areas by Governance Quality: A Case Study of Community-Based Monitoring in Wu-Wei-Kang Wildlife Refuge, Taiwan. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4154. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11154154
Chung M-K, Lu D-J, Tsai B-W, Chou K-T. Assessing Effectiveness of PPGIS on Protected Areas by Governance Quality: A Case Study of Community-Based Monitoring in Wu-Wei-Kang Wildlife Refuge, Taiwan. Sustainability. 2019; 11(15):4154. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11154154
Chicago/Turabian StyleChung, Ming-Kuang, Dau-Jye Lu, Bor-Wen Tsai, and Kuei-Tien Chou. 2019. "Assessing Effectiveness of PPGIS on Protected Areas by Governance Quality: A Case Study of Community-Based Monitoring in Wu-Wei-Kang Wildlife Refuge, Taiwan" Sustainability 11, no. 15: 4154. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11154154