Park, Fish, Salt and Marshes: Participatory Mapping and Design in a Watery Uncommons
1.2. The Need for Co-Design and Effective Transdisciplinary Practices in Park Planning
2. Design Research Methods
2.1. Survey 1: First Feasibility Study
2.2. Survey 2: User Survey
2.3. Survey 3: Design Concept Survey
3.1. Survey 1. Feasibility Survey
3.2. Survey 2. User Survey
|Main Geospatial Takeaways||Figure Number|
|Activities are diverse and occur throughout the Tract. Primary activities are boating and recreational fishing.||Figure 7|
|The Tract is a major boating hub and includes highly trafficked routes that leave and return from Bethel Island destinations and routes that traverse the Tract to and from locations outside the project bounds||Figure 8|
|Public access was desired, especially along the shoreline||Figure 9|
|Respondents indicated that many parts of the Tract need improvement||Figure 10|
|Tidal marsh preferences appeared to overlap most in the Northeastern portion of the Tract, farthest away from Bethel Island homes and business||Figure 11|
3.3. Survey 3. Concept Design Survey
Conflicts of Interest
- Shigley, P. The Devil Is in the Delta. Planning Magazine. January 2012. Available online: https://www.planning.org/planning/2012/jan/waterwarriorsside1.htm (accessed on 10 April 2017).
- Economic Planning Systems (EPS). Franks Tract Futures: Public and User Survey of Design Concepts; Economic Assessment; Economic Planning Systems (EPS): 2020. Available online: https://ucdavis.box.com/s/1q2stlkilwzqg17h00mj69uvskmvepsu (accessed on 10 October 2020).
- Ray, P.; Wi, S.; Schwarz, A.; Correa, M.; He, M.; Brown, C. Vulnerability and risk: Climate change and water supply from California’s Central Valley water system. Clim. Chang. 2020, 161, 177–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dettinger, M.; Survey, U.G.; Anderson, J.; Anderson, M.; Brown, L.R.; Cayan, D.; Maurer, E. Climate Change and the Delta. San Franc. Estuary Watershed Sci. 2016, 14, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Luoma, S.N.; Dahm, C.N.; Healey, M.; Moore, J.N. Water and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta: Complex, Chaotic, or Simply Cantankerous? San Franc. Estuary Watershed Sci. 2015, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Milligan, B.; Kraus-Polk, A. Evolving the Evolving: Territory, Place and Rewilding in the California Delta. Urban Plan. 2017, 2, 93–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whipple, A.; Grossinger, R.M.; Askevold, R. Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Historical Ecology Study; SFEI: Oakland, CA, USA, August 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Robinson, A.; Safran, S.M.; Beagle, J.; Letitia Grenier, J.; Grossinger, R.M.; Spotswood, E.; Dusterhoff, S.D.; Richey, A. A Delta Renewed: A Guide to Science-Based Ecological Restoration in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Delta Landscapes Project. 2016. Available online: https://www.sfei.org/sites/default/files/biblio_files/DeltaRenewed_v1pt3_111516_lowres.pdf (accessed on 22 October 2020).
- SFEI. A Delta Transformed: Ecological Functions, Spatial Metrics, and Landscape Change in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. SFEI ASC. 2014. Available online: http://www.sfei.org/sites/default/files/DeltaTransformed_SFEI_110414.pdf (accessed on 9 November 2014).
- EBRPD. Optimum Plan, Franks Tract State Recreation Area, Contra Costa County, California. CDPR. 1985. Available online: http://catalog.hathitrust.org/api/volumes/oclc/20348641.html (accessed on 10 October 2020).
- BOR. Initial Alternatives Information Report for the North/Central Delta Improvement Study (Delta Cross Channel, Franks Tract, and through Delta Facility Evaluation); U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation: Washington, DC, USA, 2010.
- Blaser, M.; De La Cadena, M. The Uncommons: An Introduction. Anthropologica 2017, 59, 185–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Jensen, C.B. Mekong Scales: Domains, Test Sites, and the Uncommons. Anthropologica 2017, 59, 204–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Stengers, I. Introductory Notes on an Ecology of Practices. Cult. Stud. Rev. 2013, 11, 183–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Milligan, B.; Kraus-Polk, A. Human Use of Restored and Naturalized Landscapes in the Delta. San Franc. Estuary Watershed Sci. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- De la Cadena, M.; Blaser, M. A World of Many Worlds; Duke University Press: Durham, CA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Norgaard, R.B. The Econocene and the Delta. San Franc. Estuary Watershed Sci. 2013, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Nel, J.L.; Roux, D.J.; Driver, A.; Hill, L.; Maherry, A.C.; Snaddon, K.; Petersen, C.R.; Smith-Adao, L.B.; Van Deventer, H.; Reyers, B. Knowledge co-production and boundary work to promote implementation of conservation plans: Conservation Planning for Implementation. Conserv. Biol. 2016, 30, 176–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Arts, B.; Buizer, M.; Horlings, L.; Ingram, V.; Van Oosten, C.; Opdam, P. Landscape Approaches: A State-of-the-Art Review. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2017, 42, 439–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Opdam, P.; Nassauer, J.I.; Wang, Z.; Albert, C.; Bentrup, G.; Castella, J.-C.; McAlpine, C.; Liu, J.; Sheppard, S.; Swaffield, S. Science for action at the local landscape scale. Landsc. Ecol. 2013, 28, 1439–1445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Star, S.L. This Is not a Boundary-Object. Rev. D’Anthropol. des Connaiss. (RAC) 2010, 4, 18–35. [Google Scholar]
- Rose, D.C. The case for policy-relevant conservation science. Conserv. Biol. 2014, 29, 748–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Nassauer, J.I. Landscape as medium and method for synthesis in urban ecological design. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 106, 221–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Latour, B. Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Kraus-Polk, A.; Fulton, J. California’s Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta as an Exemplary Anthropocene Landscape; Case Studies in the Environment; University of California Press: Oakland, CA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Jacoby, K. Crimes against Nature; University of California Press: Oakland, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Farrell, J. The Battle for Yellowstone; Princeton University Press: Newark, NJ, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Agrawal, A.; Redford, K. Conservation and displacement: An overview. Conserv. Soc. 2009, 7, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sterling, E.J.; Betley, E.; Sigouin, A.; Gomez, A.; Toomey, A.; Cullman, G.; Malone, C.; Pekor, A.; Arengo, F.; Blair, M.; et al. Assessing the evidence for stakeholder engagement in biodiversity conservation. Biol. Conserv. 2017, 209, 159–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newing, H. Conducting Research in Conservation; Informa UK Limited: Essex, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Bennett, N.J.; Roth, R.; Klain, S.; Chan, K.; Christie, P.; Clark, D.A.; Cullman, G.; Curran, D.; Durbin, T.J.; Epstein, G.; et al. Conservation social science: Understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biol. Conserv. 2017, 205, 93–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Sanders, E.B.-N.; Stappers, P.J. Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign 2008, 4, 5–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Sanders, E.B.-N. From User-Centered to Participatory Design Approaches; Informa UK Limited: Essex, UK, 2002; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Reyers, B.; Roux, D.; Cowling, R.M.; Ginsburg, A.E.; Nel, J.L.; O’Farrell, P.J. Conservation Planning as a Transdisciplinary Process. Conserv. Biol. 2010, 24, 957–965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bunders, J.F.; Broerse, J.E.W.; Keil, F.; Pohl, C.; Scholz, R.W.; Zweekhorst, M.B. How can transdisciplinary research contribute to knowledge democracy? In Knowledge Democracy; Springer Science and Business Media LLC: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2010; pp. 125–152. [Google Scholar]
- Moreno, L.A.; Villalba, E.R. Transdisciplinary Design: Tamed complexity through new collaboration. Strat. Des. Res. J. 2018, 11, 42–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Kraus-Polk, A.; Milligan, B. Affective ecologies, adaptive management and restoration efforts in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2019, 62, 1475–1500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manzini, E. Design, When Everybody Designs: An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Moon, K.; Adams, V.M.; Cooke, B. Shared personal reflections on the need to broaden the scope of conservation social science. People Nat. 2019, 1, 426–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Martin, V.Y. Four Common Problems in Environmental Social Research Undertaken by Natural Scientists. Bioscience 2019, 70, 13–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akama, Y.; Yee, J. Special Issue: Embracing Plurality in Designing Social Innovation Practices. Des. Cult. 2019, 11, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Buendía, A.V.P.; Albert, M.Y.P.; Giné, D.S.; Buendía, P.; Albert, M.Y.P.; Giné, D.S. PPGIS and Public Use in Protected Areas: A Case Study in the Ebro Delta Natural Park, Spain. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2019, 8, 244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Strickland-Munro, J.; Kobryn, H.; Brown, G.; Moore, S.A. Marine spatial planning for the future: Using Public Participation GIS (PPGIS) to inform the human dimension for large marine parks. Mar. Policy 2016, 73, 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, G.; Weber, D. Public Participation GIS: A new method for national park planning. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2011, 102, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, G. Public Participation GIS (PPGIS) for regional and environmental planning: Reflections on a decade of empirical research. URISA J. 2012, 24, 7–18. [Google Scholar]
- Talen, E. Bottom-Up GIS: A new tool for individual and group expression in participatory planning. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 2000, 66, 279–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, G.; Reed, P.; Raymond, C.M. Mapping place values: 10 lessons from two decades of public participation GIS empirical research. Appl. Geogr. 2020, 116, 102156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raymond, C.M.; Fagerholm, N.; Kyttä, M. Honouring the participatory mapping contributions and enduring legacy of Professor Gregory G. Brown. Appl. Geogr. 2020, 116, 102155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rantanen, H.; Kahila, M. The SoftGIS approach to local knowledge. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 1981–1990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kahila-Tani, M.; Kyttä, M.; Geertman, S. Does mapping improve public participation? Exploring the pros and cons of using public participation GIS in urban planning practices. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019, 186, 45–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kahila, M.; Kyttä, M. SoftGIS as a Bridge-Builder in Collaborative Urban Planning. In CyberGIS for Geospatial Discovery and Innovation; Springer Science and Business Media LLC: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2009; Volume 95, pp. 389–411. [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- Ernoul, L.; Wardell-Johnson, A.; Willm, L.; Béchet, A.; Boutron, O.; Mathevet, R.; Arnassant, S.; Sandoz, A. Participatory mapping: Exploring landscape values associated with an iconic species. Appl. Geogr. 2018, 95, 71–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tanner-McAllister, S.L.; Rhodes, J.; Hockings, M. Managing for climate change on protected areas: An adaptive management decision making framework. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 204, 510–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krausman, P.R.; Cain, J.W., III; Cain, J.W. Wildlife Management and Conservation: Contemporary Principles and Practices; JHU Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- McGuirk, P.M. Situating Communicative Planning Theory: Context, Power, and Knowledge. Environ. Plan. A Econ. Space 2001, 33, 195–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- CDPR. Brannan Island and Franks Tract State Recreation Areas; Department of Parks and Recreation: Sacramento, CA, USA, 1983.
- California Legislature. Franks Tract Hearing Transcript (25 February 1972); Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Wildlife: Sacramento, CA, USA, 1972.
- Sloop, C.; Jacobs, B.; Logsdon, R.; Wilcox, C. Delta Conservation Framework. CDFW. 2018. Available online: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=164022&inline (accessed on 3 June 2018).
- CDFW. Franks Tract Futures? 2018. Available online: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=159294 (accessed on 1 December 2018).
- Lenzholzer, S.; Duchhart, I.; Koh, J. ‘Research through designing’ in landscape architecture. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 113, 120–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DPC. The Delta: Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Recreation Survey. Delta Protection Commission. 1997. Available online: http://www.delta.ca.gov/survey_ch2.htm (accessed on 3 June 2018).
- Cajucom, E. Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Outdoor Recreation Survey; California Department of Water Resources: Sacramento, CA, USA, 1980.
- Mickel, A.; Rollof, D.; Erickson, E.; Shaw, G. Recreational Boating Use of the Sacramento—San Joaquin Delta. Delta Protection Commission. 2017. Available online: http://delta.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/RecBoatingStudy_2017_-Final.pdf (accessed on 6 May 2017).
- Seijger, C.; Hoang, V.T.M.; Van Halsema, G.; Douven, W.; Wyatt, A. Do strategic delta plans get implemented? The case of the Mekong Delta Plan. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2019, 19, 1131–1145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drenthen, M. Ecological Restoration and Place Attachment: Emplacing Non-Places? Environ. Values 2009, 18, 285–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
|Subtheme||Examples (from Multiple Respondents)|
|Water grab||We need protection from Southern California water grab schemes. The tract has been and should continue to be a natural water resource. Any plans to alter or convert the tract so that more water can be exported needs to be strongly resisted. We need to institute long term restrictions on any and all “PLANS” for development and/or conversion of Franks or Little Franks Tract for other uses than are currently in place.|
|Economic impacts||What’s going to happen to the Bethel Island Marinas when you wall them off? Poker runs will no longer be stopping at Bethel Island and the bass fishing tournaments that go out from Russo’s or Sugar Barge will dwindle down to none. The restaurants and marinas that will be walled off from Frank’s Tract won’t get the business anymore. Those businesses support Bethel Island and give people a reason to come out here and buy homes here. Our local businesses will be negatively impacted and our property values will be impacted.|
|Government inflicted harm||If Mother Nature plays a roll it will thrive... if the government keeps spraying an using pellets to kill off the grass it definitely does damage|
|I can’t believe you are considering filling in so much of a designated State Recreation Area, known throughout the U.S. as one of the primo bass fishing sites.|
|Non-intervention||Franks tract does not require a design or any management, save waterfowl blind placement. It should remain as it is and has been for my life. Little franks tract should be opened to waterfowl hunting, just like Franks tract. It is currently a wildlife sanctuary of some sort, all the signs are gone now. Please do not attempt to add islands or camping or anything else here. Some things are better left alone. These two very special places fit in that description.|
|If the state can keep their hands out. I see mother nature reclaiming the area as a tidal marsh.|
|Subtheme||Examples (from Multiple Respondents)|
|Nature||leave it alone! It’s natural nature!|
|Leave it alone and let nature take care of itself like it has for the past 20 years.|
|let nature take its course, leave it alone|
|Don’t change a running system-preserve a piece of nature as it is!|
|Do not change the natural landscaping!|
|I would suggest that these areas and others remain untouched by human hands!|
|Human intervention||Let nature take care of herself with out mans interference|
|Leave it alone, except in cases of safety. Man tried to impound it before, nature took it back.|
|Design||Design? Manage?, Just leave it be.|
|Design? Don’t design it. Leave it alone but maintain boater access|
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
© 2020 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
Milligan, B.; Kraus-Polk, A.; Huang, Y. Park, Fish, Salt and Marshes: Participatory Mapping and Design in a Watery Uncommons. Land 2020, 9, 454. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9110454
Milligan B, Kraus-Polk A, Huang Y. Park, Fish, Salt and Marshes: Participatory Mapping and Design in a Watery Uncommons. Land. 2020; 9(11):454. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9110454Chicago/Turabian Style
Milligan, Brett, Alejo Kraus-Polk, and Yiwei Huang. 2020. "Park, Fish, Salt and Marshes: Participatory Mapping and Design in a Watery Uncommons" Land 9, no. 11: 454. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9110454