Advertisement

Journal of Coastal Conservation

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 399–416 | Cite as

Participatory mobile- and web-based tools for eliciting landscape knowledge and perspectives: introducing and evaluating the Wisconsin geotools project

  • Francis R. Eanes
  • Janet M. Silbernagel
  • David A. Hart
  • Patrick Robinson
  • Max Axler
Article

Abstract

Despite synergistic goals across a wide breadth of fields and modalities, coastal landscape conservation projects that engage the lay public and integrate narratives of place remain elusive. This paper addresses these needs by introducing and evaluating the Wisconsin Geotools, an integrated pair of mobile-and web-based applications that allow users to generate and share spatially defined multimedia observations — including photos, short textual descriptions (or journals), and audio and video clips — of their surrounding bioregional landscapes. We followed a participatory, user-centered design process to develop a mobile application that uses GPS capabilities to geolocate multimedia observations of landscapes and feed them into a web-based application, which displays content through the structure of an interactive story map. The applications were piloted with coastal community user groups in Green Bay (Lake Michigan), Wisconsin, USA. Over 800 observations were recorded by participants in our study area. Results from a user evaluation survey indicate the geotools effectively engaged participants in learning about and exploring their surrounding coastal landscapes. A spatial analysis revealed participants’ affinity for water-related features in landscapes. We close by suggesting a variety of ways in which these tools can support future projects and existing methodologies that are advancing transdisciplinary approaches to engaging the public in coastal conservation.

Keywords

Mobile geospatial tools Participatory landscape mapping Place-based learning Transdisciplinary research 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported primarily by a Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute (NOAA) project. This work was funded by the University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute under grants from the National Sea Grant College Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, and from the State of Wisconsin. Federal grant number NA10OAR4170070, award ID MSN132106. Our team also had extensive in-kind support from the Applications Prototype Lab at ESRI (Redlands, CA), the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and the Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute.

References

  1. Ardoin NM, Clark C, Kelsey E (2013) An exploration of future trends in environmental education research. Environ Educ Res 19(4):499–520.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2012.709823 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arts K, van der Wal R, Adams WM (2015) Digital technology and the conservation of nature. Ambio 44(4):661–673.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0705-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Athman J, Bates T (1998) Technology and environmental education: friend or foe? Legacy 9(3):12–15Google Scholar
  4. Balomenou N, Garrod B (2010) Using volunteer-employed photography: seeing St. David’s Peninsula through the eyes of locals and tourists. Tour Vis Cult Methods Case 2:111–119Google Scholar
  5. Baudrillard J (1994) Simulacra and simulation. University of Michigan Press, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  6. Blackstock K, Carter C (2007) Operationalising sustainability science for a sustainability directive? Reflecting on three pilot projects. Geogr J 173(4):343–357.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2007.00258.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowers CA (2006) Transforming environmental education: making the cultural and environmental commons the focus of educational reform. Ecojustice Press. Retrieved from: http://www.cabowers.net/pdf/TransformingEE.pdf
  8. Brazner J, DeVita W (1998) PCBs, DDE, and mercury in young-of-the-year littoral fishes from Green Bay, Lake Michigan. J Great Lakes Res 24(1):83–92.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0380-1330(98)70801-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown G (2005) Mapping spatial attributes in survey research for natural resource management: methods and applications. Soc Nat Resour 18(1):17–39.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920590881853 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown G, Fagerholm N (2015) Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: a review and evaluation. Ecosyst Serv 13:119–133.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.10.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Castells M (2011) The rise of the network society: The information age: Economy, society, and culture, 1. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  12. Chambers CN (2007) “Well its remote, I suppose, innit?” the relational politics of bird-watching through the CCTV lens. Scott Geogr J 123(2):122–134.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14702540701624568 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chan KMA, Satterfield T, Goldstein J (2012) Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol Econ 74:8–18.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cumming GS, Olsson P, Chapin F III, Holling C (2013) Resilience, experimentation, and scale mismatches in social-ecological landscapes. Landsc Ecol 28(6):1139–1150.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-012-9725-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Daily GC, Polasky S, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM, Mooney HA, Pejchar L, Ricketts TH, Salzman J, Shallenberger R (2009) Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front Ecol Environ 7(1):21–28.  https://doi.org/10.1890/080025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. DeLyser D, Sui D (2014) Crossing the qualitative-quantitative chasm III: enduring methods, open geography, participatory research, and the fourth paradigm. Prog Hum Geogr 38(2):294–307.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132513479291 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dennis SF, Gaulocher S, Carpiano RM, Brown D (2009) Participatory photo mapping (PPM): exploring an integrated method for health and place research with young people. Health Place 15(2):466–473.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2008.08.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eanes F, Silbernagel J, Robinson P, Hart D (2018a) Interactive deep maps and spatial narratives for landscape conservation and public engagement. Landsc JGoogle Scholar
  19. Eanes F, Silbernagel J, Robinson P (2018b) Effects of scale and the biophysical environment on sense of place in northeastern Wisconsin’s mixed-amenity bioregions. Hum Ecol RevGoogle Scholar
  20. Elwood S (2006) Negotiating knowledge production: the everyday inclusions, exclusions, and contradictions of participatory GIS research. Prof Geogr 58(2):197–208.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9272.2006.00526.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eveleigh A, Jennett C, Blandford A, Brohan P, Cox AL (2014) Designing for dabblers and deterring drop-outs in citizen science. In: Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (pp 2985-2994). ACMGoogle Scholar
  22. Gersmehl P, Gersmehl C (2006) Wanted: a concise list of neurologically defensible and assessable spatial thinking skills. Res Geogr Educ 8(1):5–38Google Scholar
  23. Goodchild M (2007) Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal 69(4):211–221.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-007-9111-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Greenwood DA, Hougham RJ (2015) Mitigation and adaptation: critical perspectives toward digital technologies in place-conscious environmental education. Policy Futur Educ 13(1):97–116.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210314566732 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gruenewald DA (2003) The best of both worlds: a critical pedagogy of place. Educ Res 32(4):3–12.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032004003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Haywood KM (1990) Visitor-employed photography: an urban visit assessment. J Travel Res 29(1):25–29.  https://doi.org/10.1177/004728759002900106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hertz T, Schluter M (2015) The SES-framework as boundary object to address theory orientation in social-ecological system research: the SES-TheOr approach. Ecol Econ 116:12–24.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Igoe J (2010) The spectacle of nature in the global economy of appearances: anthropological engagements with the spectacular mediations of transnational conservation. Crit Anthropol 30(4):375–397.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0308275X10372468 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kahn PH (2011) Technological nature: adaptation and the future of human life. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. Karasov WH, Jung RE, Vanden Langenberg S, Bergeson TLE (2005) Field exposure of frog embryos and tadpoles along a pollution gradient in the Fox River and Green Bay ecosystem in Wisconsin, USA. Environ Toxicol Chem 24(4):942–953.  https://doi.org/10.1897/04-213R.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kates R, Clark WC, Hall JM, Jaeger C, Lowe I, McCarthy JJ, Schellnhuber HJ, Bolin B, Dickson NM, Faucheux S, Gallopin GC, Grubler A, Huntley B, Jager J, Jodha NS, Kasperson RE, Mabogunje A, Matson P, Mooney H, Moore B III, O’Riordan T, Svedin U (2001) Sustainability science. Science 292(5517):641–642Google Scholar
  32. Kerski JJ (2015) Geo-awareness, geo-enablement, Geotechnologies, citizen science, and storytelling: geography on the world stage. Geogr Compass 9(1):14–26.  https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12193 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Klump J, LaBuhn S (2014) River-Lake mixing, eutrophication, and hypoxia in Green Bay, Lake Michigan. Paper presented at the AGU Fall Meeting AbstractsGoogle Scholar
  34. Krasny ME, Dillon J (2013) Trading zones in environmental education: creating transdisciplinary dialogue. Peter Lang, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Kudryavtsev A, Stedman RC, Krasny ME (2012) Sense of place in environmental education. Environ Educ Res 18(2):229–250.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2011.609615 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kwan MP (2002) Feminist visualization: re-envisioning GIS as a method in feminist geographic research. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 92(4):645–661.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8306.00309 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P, Swilling M, Thomas CJ (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain Sci 7(1):25–43.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lewicka M (2011) Place attachment: how far have we come in the last 40 years? J Environ Psychol 31(3):207–230.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.10.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Louv R (2008) Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. Algonquin books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Lutz C, Collins JL (1993) Reading national geographic. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  41. Maffey G, Homans H, Banks K, Arts K (2015) Digital technology and human development: a charter for nature conservation. Ambio 44(4):527–537.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0703-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Meine C (1999) Reading the landscape. Forest 35Google Scholar
  43. Musacchio LR (2009) The scientific basis for the design of landscape sustainability: a conceptual framework for translational landscape research and practice of designed landscapes and the six Es of landscape sustainability. Landsc Ecol 24(8):993–1013.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-009-9396-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Naveh Z (2000) What is holistic landscape ecology? A conceptual introduction. Landsc Urban Plan 50(1):7–26.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00077-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Norman D (2002) Emotion & design: attractive things work better. Interactions 9(4):36–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nov O, Arazy O, Anderson D (2011) Dusting for science: motivation and participation of digital citizen science volunteers. In: Proceedings of the 2011 iConference. ACM, pp 68–74Google Scholar
  47. Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325(5939):419–422.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pavlovskaya M, Martin KS (2007) Feminism and geographic information systems: from a missing object to a mapping subject. Geogr Compass 1(3):583–606.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2007.00028.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Payne P (2003) The technics of environmental education. Environ Educ Res 9(4):525–541.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1350462032000126140 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Robinson P, Shepard R (2011) Outreach, applied research, and management needs for Wisconsin's Great Lakes freshwater estuaries: a cooperative extension needs assessment model. J Ext 49(1):13Google Scholar
  51. Rose G (2012) Visual methodologies: an introduction to researching with visual materials. Sage, Newcastle upon TyneGoogle Scholar
  52. Roth CE (1992) Environmental literacy: Its roots, evolution and directions in the 1990s. ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education, ColumbusGoogle Scholar
  53. ​Roth RE, Harrower M (2008) Addressing map interface usability: learning from the lakeshore nature preserve interactive map. Cartographic Perspectives 60:46–66Google Scholar
  54. Rotman D, Preece J, Hammock J, Procita K, Hansen D, Parr C, Lewis D, Jacobs D (2012) Dynamic changes in motivation in collaborative citizen-science projects. In: Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on computer supported cooperative work. ACM, pp 217–226Google Scholar
  55. Seager TP (2008) The sustainability spectrum and the sciences of sustainability. Bus Strateg Environ 17(7):444–453.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.632 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sieber R (2006) Public participation geographic information systems: a literature review and framework. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 96(3):491–507.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.2006.00702.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Silbernagel J, Host G, Hagley C, Hart D, Axler R, Fortner R, Axler M, Smith V, Drewes A, Bartsch W, Danz N, Matthews J, Wagler M (2015) Linking place-based science to people through spatial narratives of coastal stewardship. J Coast Conserv 19(2):181–198.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-015-0380-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Slater D (1998) Analysing cultural objects: content analysis and semiotics. In: Seale C (ed) Researching society and culture. Sage, London, pp 233–244Google Scholar
  59. Stedman R, Beckley T, Wallace S, Ambard M (2004) A picture and 1000 words: using resident-employed photography to understand attachment to high amenity places. J Leis Res 36(4):580–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sui DZ (2015) Alternative GIS (Alt. GIS) and the Six Senses of the New Mind: Is Alt. In: Harvey F, Leung Y (eds) GIS transforming GIS into a liberation technology? In advances in spatial data handling and analysis. Springer International, Cham, pp 1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19950-4_1
  61. Sui D, Goodchild M (2011) The convergence of GIS and social media: challenges for GIScience. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 25(11):1737–1748.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2011.604636 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tan-Hsu T, Tsung-Yu L, Chi-Cheng C (2007) Development and evaluation of an RFID-based ubiquitous learning environment for outdoor learning. Interact Learn Environ 15(3):253–269.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820701281431 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Thayer RL (2003) Lifeplace: Bioregional Thought and Practice. University of California, BerkleyGoogle Scholar
  64. Trentelman CK (2009) Place attachment and community attachment: a primer grounded in the lived experience of a community sociologist. Soc Nat Resour 22(3):191–210.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920802191712 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tress B, Tress G (2001) Capitalising on multiplicity: a transdisciplinary systems approach to landscape research. Landsc Urban Plan 57(3):143–157.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00200-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Vander Zanden MJ, Olden JD (2008) A management framework for preventing the secondary spread of aquatic invasive species. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 65(7):1512–1522.  https://doi.org/10.1139/f08-099 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Velasco D, Garcia-Llorente M, Alonso B, Dolera A, Palomo I, Iniesta-Arandia I, Martin-Lopez B (2015) Biodiversity conservation research challenges in the 21st century: a review of publishing trends in 2000 and 2011. Environ Sci Pol 54:90–96.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.06.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wagler M, Mathews J (2012) Up river: place, ethnography, and Design in the St. Louis River estuary. In: Seann Dikkers JM, Coulter B (eds) Mobile media learning. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 39–60Google Scholar
  69. Wu J (2006) Landscape ecology, cross-disciplinarity, and sustainability science. Landsc Ecol 21(1):1–4.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-006-7195-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wu J (2013) Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landsc Ecol 28(6):999–1023.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9894-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental StudiesBates CollegeLewistonUSA
  2. 2.Nelson Institute for Environmental StudiesUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  3. 3.Sea Grant InstituteUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  4. 4.Environmental Resources CenterUniversity of Wisconsin ExtensionMadisonUSA
  5. 5.Wisconsin Department of Natural ResourcesMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations