Applying Public Participation Geographic Information Systems to Wildlife Management

References

• Alabama Natural Heritage Program. (2011). Alabama inventory list: The rare, threatened, & endangered plants & animals of Alabama. Montgomery, AL: Alabama Natural Heritage Program.
   Google Scholar
• Alessa, L., Kliskey, A., & Brown, G. (2008). Social-ecological hotspots mapping: A spatial approach for identifying coupled social-ecological space. Landscape and Urban Planning, 85, 27–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bengston, D. N., Fletcher, J. O., & Nelson, K. C. (2004). Public policies for managing urban growth and protecting open space: Policy instruments and lessons learned in the United States. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69, 271–286.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, G. (2005). Mapping spatial attributes in survey research for natural resource management: Methods and applications. Society & Natural Resources, 18, 17–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, G. (2006). Mapping landscape values and development preferences: A method for tourism and residential development planning. International Journal of Tourism Research, 8, 101–113.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, G. (2012). An empirical evaluation of the spatial accuracy of Public Participation GIS (PPGIS) data. Applied Geography, 34, 289–294.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, G., & Pullar, D. V. (2012). An evaluation of the use of points versus polygons in Public Participation Geographic Information Systems (PPGIS) using quasi-experimental design and Monte Carlo simulation. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 26, 231–246.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, G., Smith, C., Alessa, L., & Kliskey, A. (2004). A comparison of perceptions of biological value with scientific assessment of biological importance. Applied Geography, 24, 161–180.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, G., & Weber, D. (2012). A place-based approach to conservation management using public participation GIS (PPGIS). Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 56, 455–473.
   Google Scholar
• Bryan, B. A., Raymond, C. M., Crossman, N. D., & King, D. (2010). Comparing spatially explicit ecological and social values for natural areas to identify effective conservation strategies. Conservation Biology, 25, 172–181.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burgman, M. A., & Fox, J. C. (2003). Bias in species range estimates from minimum convex polygons: Implications for conservation and options for improved planning. Animal Conservation, 6, 19–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dillman, D., Smyth, J., & Christian, L. (2008). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys – The tailored design method. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Don Carlos, A. W., Bright, A. D., Teel, T. L., & Vaske, J. J. (2009). Human-black bear conflict in urban areas: An integrated approach to management response. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 14, 174–184.
   Google Scholar
• Donovan, S. M., Looney, C., Hanson, T., Sanchez de Leon, Y., Wulfhorst, J. D., Eigenbrode, S. D., … Bosque Perez, N. A. (2009). Reconciling social and biological needs in an endangered ecosystem: The Palouse as a model for bioregional planning. Ecology and Society, 14, 9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krester, H. E., Curtis, P. D., & Knuth, B. A. (2009). Landscape, social, and spatial influences on perceptions of human-black bear interactions in the Adirondack Park, NY. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 14, 393–406.
   Google Scholar
• Lowery, D. R., Morse, W. C., & Steury, T. C. (2012). Biological and social investigation of human-black bear conflicts in the panhandle of Florida. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 17, 193–206.
   Google Scholar
• Manfreda, K. L., Bosnjak, M., Berzelak, J., Haas, I., & Vehovar, V. (2008). Web surveys versus other survey models: A meta-analysis comparing response rates. International Journal of Market Research, 50, 79–104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manfredo, M. J., Decker, D. J., & Duda, M. D. (1998). What is the future for human dimensions of wildlife? Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 64, 278–292.
   Google Scholar
• Morse, W. (2012). Changing stakeholders and the planning process. In D. N. Laband, B. G. Lockaby, & W. Zipperer (Eds.), Urban-rural interfaces: Linking people and nature (pp. 201–224). Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy.
   Google Scholar
• Morzillo, A. T., Mertig, A. G., Garner, N., & Liu, J. (2007). Spatial distribution of attitudes toward proposed management strategies for a wildlife recovery. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 12, 15–29.
   Google Scholar
• Moyer, M. A., McCown, J. W., & Oli, M. K. (2007). Factors influencing home-range size of female Florida black bears. Journal of Mammalogy, 88, 468–476.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen-Pincus, M. (2011). Mapping a values typology in three counties of the interior Northwest, USA: Scale, geographic associations among values, and the use of intensity weights. Society & Natural Resources, 24, 535–552.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patterson, M. E., Montag, J. M., & Williams, D. R. (2003). The urbanization of wildlife management: Social science, conflict, and decision making. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 1, 171–183.
   Google Scholar
• Pocewicz, A., Brown, G., Nielsen-Pincus, M., & Schnitzer, R. (2012). An evaluation of internet versus paper-based methods for Public Participation Geographic Information Systems (PPGIS). Transactions in GIS, 16, 39–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raymond, C. M., Bryan, B. A., MacDonald, D. H., Cast, A., Strathearn, S., Grandgirard, A., & Kalivas, T. (2009). Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 68, 1301–1315.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riley, S. J., Decker, D. J., Carpenter, L. H., Organ, J. H., Siemer, W. F., Mattfield, G. F., & Parsons, G. (2002). The essence of wildlife management. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 30, 585–593.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schusler, T. M., Decker, D. J., & Pfeffer, M. J. (2003). Social learning for collaborative natural resource management. Society & Natural Resources, 15, 309–326.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sieber, R. (2006). Public participation geographic information systems: A literature review and framework. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 96, 491–507.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silvano, A. L., Grand, J. B., Irwin, E. R., Kleiner, K. J., Mackenzie, M. D., Mitchell, M. S., … Williams, S. G. (2007). Provisional predicted habitat distribution map of Alabama. Auburn, AL: Alabama Gap Analysis Project. Retrieved from www.auburn.edu/gap
   Google Scholar
• Smith, P. D., & McDonough, M. H. (2001). Beyond public participation: Fairness in natural resource decision making. Society & Natural Resources, 14, 239–249.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Theobald, D. M., Spies, T., Kline, J., Maxwell, B., Hobbs, N. T., & Dale, V. (2005). Ecological support for rural land-use planning. Ecological Applications, 15, 1906–1914.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Treves, A., Wallace, R. B., Naughton-Treves, L., & Morales, A. (2006). Co-managing human-wildlife conflicts: A review. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 11, 383–396.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). State quickfacts: Alabama. Retrieved from http://quickfacts.census.gov
   Google Scholar
• Zhu, X., Pfueller, S., Whitelaw, P., & Winter, C. (2010). Spatial differentiation of landscape values in the Murray River region of Victoria, Australia. Environmental Management, 45, 896–911.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar