Associations between landscape values, self-reported knowledge, and land-use: a public participation GIS assessment

References

• Arias-Arévalo P, Martín-López B, Gómez-Baggethun E. 2017. Exploring intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values for sustainable management of social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc. 22:art43. doi:10.5751/ES-09812-220443.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown G. 2004. Mapping spatial attributes in survey research for natural resource management: methods and applications. Soc Nat Resour. 18:17–39. doi:10.1080/08941920590881853.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown G. 2006. Mapping landscape values and development preferences: a method for tourism and residential development planning. Int J Tourism Res. 8:101–113. doi:10.1002/jtr.562.
   Google Scholar
• Brown G. 2012. Public participation GIS (PPGIS) for regional and environmental planning: reflections on a decade of empirical research. J Urban Reg Inf Syst Inf Assoc. 25:12.
   Google Scholar
• Brown G. 2013. The relationship between social values for ecosystem services and global land cover: an empirical analysis. Ecosyst Serv. 5:58–68. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.06.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown G. 2015. Engaging the wisdom of crowds and public judgement for land use planning using public participation geographic information systems. Aust Planner. 52:199–209. doi:10.1080/07293682.2015.1034147.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown G, Brabyn L. 2012. An analysis of the relationships between multiple values and physical landscapes at a regional scale using public participation GIS and landscape character classification. Landsc Urban Plan. 107:317–331. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.06.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown G, Fagerholm N. 2015. Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: a review and evaluation. Ecosyst Serv. 13:119–133. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.10.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown G, Kyttä M. 2014. Key issues and research priorities for public participation GIS (PPGIS): a synthesis based on empirical research. Appl Geogr. 46:122–136. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.11.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown G, Reed P. 2009. Public participation GIS: a new method for use in national forest planning. For Sci. 55:166–182. doi:10.1093/forestscience/55.2.166.
   Google Scholar
• Brown G, Sanders S, Reed P. 2018. Using public participatory mapping to inform general land use planning and zoning. Landsc Urban Plan. 177:64–74. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.04.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown G, Weber D, Zanon D, de Bie K. 2012. Evaluation of an online (opt-in) panel for public participation geographic information systems surveys. Int J Public Opin Res. 24:534–545. doi:10.1093/ijpor/eds001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell TA, Long DB. 2009. Feral swine damage and damage management in forested ecosystems. For Ecol Manage. 257:2319–2326. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2009.03.036.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan KMA, Balvanera P, Benessaiah K, Chapman M, Díaz S, Gómez-Baggethun E, Gould R, Hannahs N, Jax K, Klain S et al. 2016. Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113:1462–1465. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1525002113
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CLC. 2018. 2018 — Copernicus land monitoring service [WWW Document]. Copernicus. accessed 2020 Oct 12. https://land.copernicus.eu/pan-european/corine-land-cover/clc2018.
   Google Scholar
• Davenport MA, Anderson DH. 2005. Getting from sense of place to place-based management: an interpretive investigation of place meanings and perceptions of landscape change. Soc Nat Resour. 18:625–641. doi:10.1080/08941920590959613.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Díaz S, Demissew S, Carabias J, Joly C, Lonsdale M, Ash N, Larigauderie A, Adhikari JR, Arico S, Báldi A, et al. 2015. The IPBES conceptual framework — connecting nature and people. Curr Opin Environ Sustainability Open Issue. 14:1–16. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Díaz S, Pascual U, Stenseke M, Martín-López B, Watson RT, Molnár Z, Hill R, Chan KMA, Baste IA, Brauman KA, et al. 2018. Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science. 359:270–272. doi:10.1126/science.aap8826.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drews S, van den Bergh JCJM. 2016. Public views on economic growth, the environment and prosperity: results of a questionnaire survey. Global Environ Change. 39:1–14. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.04.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engen S, Runge C, Brown G, Fauchald P, Nilsen L, Hausner V. 2018. Assessing local acceptance of protected area management using public participation GIS (PPGIS). J Nat Conserv. 43:27–34. doi:10.1016/j.jnc.2017.12.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fagerholm N, Käyhkö N, Ndumbaro F, Khamis M. 2012. Community stakeholders’ knowledge in landscape assessments – mapping indicators for landscape services. Ecol Indic. 18:421–433. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.12.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fazey I, Moug P, Allen S, Beckmann K, Blackwood D, Bonaventura M, Burnett K, Danson M, Falconer R, Gagnon AS, et al. 2018. Transformation in a changing climate: a research agenda. Clim Dev. 10:197–217. doi:10.1080/17565529.2017.1301864.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fazey I, Schäpke N, Caniglia G, Hodgson A, Kendrick I, Lyon C, Page G, Patterson J, Riedy C, Strasser T, et al. 2020. Transforming knowledge systems for life on earth: visions of future systems and how to get there. Energy Res Soc Sci. 70:101724. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2020.101724.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fielding KS, Head BW. 2012. Determinants of young Australians’ environmental actions: the role of responsibility attributions, locus of control, knowledge and attitudes. Environ Educ Res. 18:171–186. doi:10.1080/13504622.2011.592936.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrido P, Elbakidze M, Angelstam P. 2017. Stakeholders’ perceptions on ecosystem services in Östergötland’s (Sweden) threatened oak wood-pasture landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan. 158:96–104. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.08.018.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gifford R, Nilsson A. 2014. Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: a review. Int J Psychol. 49:141–157. doi:10.1002/ijop.12034.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gren I-M, Andersson H, Mensah J, Pettersson T. 2020. Cost of wild boar to farmers in Sweden. Eur Rev Agric Econ. 47:226–246. doi:10.1093/erae/jbz016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hakkarainen V, Anderson CB, Eriksson M, van Riper CJ, Horcea-Milcu A, Raymond CM. 2020. Grounding IPBES experts’ views on the multiple values of nature in epistemology, knowledge and collaborative science. Environ Sci Policy. 105:11–18. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2019.12.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harper EE, Miller CA, Vaske JJ, Mengak MT, Bruno S. 2016. Stakeholder attitudes and beliefs toward wild pigs in Georgia and Illinois. Wildl Soc Bull. 40:269–273. doi:10.1002/wsb.653.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill R, Adem Ç, Alangui WV, Molnár Z, Aumeeruddy-Thomas Y, Bridgewater P, Tengö M, Thaman R, Adou Yao CY, Berkes F, et al. 2020. Working with Indigenous, local and scientific knowledge in assessments of nature and nature’s linkages with people. Curr Opin Environ Sustainability. 43:8–20. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2019.12.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kearney AR, Bradley GA. 2011. The effects of viewer attributes on preference for forest scenes: contributions of attitudes, knowledge, demographic factors, and stakeholder group membership. Environ Behav. 43:147–181. doi:10.1177/0013916509353523.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kenter JO, Reed MS, Fazey I. 2016. The deliberative value formation model. Ecosyst Serv Shared Plural Cult Values. 21:194–207. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.09.015.
   Google Scholar
• Ledman K, Rosvall P-Å, Nylund M. 2018. Gendered distribution of ‘knowledge required for empowerment’ in Swedish vocational education curricula? J Vocational Educ Training. 70:85–106. doi:10.1080/13636820.2017.1394358.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li Y, Westlund H, Liu Y. 2019. Why some rural areas decline while some others not: an overview of rural evolution in the world. J Rural Stud. 68:135–143. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.03.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muñoz L, Hausner V, Brown G, Runge C, Fauchald P. 2019. Identifying spatial overlap in the values of locals, domestic- and international tourists to protected areas. Tourism Manage. 71:259–271. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2018.07.015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munro JK, Moore SA. 2005. Using landholder perspectives to evaluate and improve recovery planning for Toolibin Lake in the West Australian wheatbelt. Ecol Manage Restor. 6:111–117. doi:10.1111/j.1442-8903.2005.00227.x.
   Google Scholar
• Munro J, Pearce J, Brown G, Kobryn H, Moore SA. 2017. Identifying ‘public values’ for marine and coastal planning: are residents and non-residents really so different? Ocean Coast Manage. 148:9–21. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.07.016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Natura 2000 data- the European network of protected sites [WWW Document]. 2020. European Environment Agency. accessed 2020 Oct 12. https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/natura-11.
   Google Scholar
• Otto S, Pensini P. 2017. Nature-based environmental education of children: environmental knowledge and connectedness to nature, together, are related to ecological behaviour. Global Environ Change. 47:88–94. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.09.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pannell DJ, Marshall GR, Barr N, Curtis A, Vanclay F, Wilkinson R. 2006. Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders. Aust J Exp Agric. 46:1407–1424. doi:10.1071/EA05037.
   Google Scholar
• Pereira LM, Karpouzoglou T, Frantzeskaki N, Olsson P. 2018. Designing transformative spaces for sustainability in social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc. 23:art32. doi:10.5751/ES-10607-230432.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pike K, Johnson D, Fletcher S, Wright P. 2011. Seeking spirituality: respecting the social value of coastal recreational resources in England and Wales. J Coast Res. 61:194–204. doi:10.2112/SI61-001.14.
   Google Scholar
• Plieninger T, Rana HÁA, Fagerholm N, Ellingsgaard GF, Magnussen E, Raymond CM, Olafsson AS, Verbrugge LNH. 2018. Identifying and assessing the potential for conflict between landscape values and development preferences on the Faroe Islands. Global Environ Change. 52:162–180. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.07.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raymond C, Brown G. 2006. A method for assessing protected area allocations using a typology of landscape values. J Environ Plann Manage. 49:797–812. doi:10.1080/09640560600945331.
   Google Scholar
• Raymond C, Brown G. 2007. A spatial method for assessing resident and visitor attitudes towards tourism growth and development. J Sustainable Tourism. 15:520–540. doi:10.2167/jost681.0.
   Google Scholar
• Raymond CM, Bryan BA, MacDonald DH, Cast A, Strathearn S, Grandgirard A, Kalivas T. 2009. Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecol Econ. 68:1301–1315. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.12.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raymond CM, Fazey I, Reed MS, Stringer LC, Robinson GM, Evely AC. 2010. Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. J Environ Manage. 91:1766–1777. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.03.023.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherrouse BC, Semmens DJ, Clement JM. 2014. An application of Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES) to three national forests in Colorado and Wyoming. Ecol Indic. 36:68–79. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.07.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Statistical database [WWW Document]. 2020. SCB. accessed 2020 Dec 15. https://www.statistikdatabasen.scb.se/pxweb/en/ssd/START__UF__UF0506/.
   Google Scholar
• Stenseke M. 2016. Integrated landscape management and the complicating issue of temporality. Landscape Res. 41:199–211. doi:10.1080/01426397.2015.1135316.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stoutenborough JW, Vedlitz A. 2014. The effect of perceived and assessed knowledge of climate change on public policy concerns: an empirical comparison. Environ Sci Policy. 37:23–33. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2013.08.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svensson A. 2019. Befolkningsstatistik [WWW Document]. Mjölby. accessed 2020 Dec 15. https://www.mjolby.se/34988.html.
   Google Scholar
• Sverige N. 2013. Sweden’s environmental objectives: an introduction. Stockholm: Swedish Environmental Protection Agency.
   Google Scholar
• Tengö M, Hill R, Malmer P, Raymond CM, Spierenburg M, Danielsen F, Elmqvist T, Folke C. 2017. Weaving knowledge systems in IPBES, CBD and beyond—lessons learned for sustainability. Curr Opin Environ Sustainability Open Issue Part II. 26–27:17–25. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torralba M, Fagerholm N, Hartel T, Moreno G, Plieninger T. 2018. A social-ecological analysis of ecosystem services supply and trade-offs in European wood-pastures. Sci Adv. 4:eaar2176. doi:10.1126/sciadv.aar2176.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Riper CJ, Foelske L, Kuwayama SD, Keller R, Johnson D. 2020. Understanding the role of local knowledge in the spatial dynamics of social values expressed by stakeholders. Appl Geogr. 123:102279. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2020.102279.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Riper CJ, Kyle GT, Sherrouse BC, Bagstad KJ, Sutton SG. 2017. Toward an integrated understanding of perceived biodiversity values and environmental conditions in a national park. Ecol Indic. 72:278–287. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.07.029.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Riper CJ, Kyle GT, Sutton SG, Barnes M, Sherrouse BC. 2012. Mapping outdoor recreationists’ perceived social values for ecosystem services at Hinchinbrook Island National Park, Australia. Appl Geogr. 35:164–173. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2012.06.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Varghese J, Crawford SS. 2020. A cultural framework for Indigenous, Local, and Science knowledge systems in ecology and natural resource management. Ecol Monogr. e01431. doi:10.1002/ecm.1431.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vulturius G, André K, Swartling ÅG, Brown C, Rounsevell M. 2020. Successes and shortcomings of climate change communication: insights from a longitudinal analysis of Swedish Forest owners. J Environ Plann Manage. 63:1177–1195. doi:10.1080/09640568.2019.1646228.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• West S, Haider LJ, Stålhammar S, Woroniecki S. 2020. A relational turn for sustainability science? Relational thinking, leverage points and transformations. Ecosyst People. 16:304–325. doi:10.1080/26395916.2020.1814417.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zafra-Calvo N, Balvanera P, Pascual U, Merçon J, Martín-López B, van Noordwijk M, Mwampamba TH, Lele S, Ifejika Speranza C, Arias-Arévalo P, et al. 2020. Plural valuation of nature for equity and sustainability: insights from the Global South. Global Environ Change. 63:102115. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102115.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zoderer BM, Tasser E, Erb K-H, Lupo Stanghellini PS, Tappeiner U. 2016. Identifying and mapping the tourists’ perception of cultural ecosystem services: a case study from an Alpine region. Land Use Policy. 56:251–261. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.05.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar