Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Gregory Brown, Corinne Smith, L. Alessa, A. Kliskey (2004)
A comparison of perceptions of biological value with scientific assessment of biological importanceApplied Geography, 24
R. Sieber (2006)
Public Participation Geographic Information Systems: A Literature Review and FrameworkAnnals of the Association of American Geographers, 96
A. Morzillo, A. Mertig, Nathan Garner, Jianguo Liu (2007)
Spatial Distribution of Attitudes Toward Proposed Management Strategies for a Wildlife RecoveryHuman Dimensions of Wildlife, 12
(2012)
Urban-rural interfaces: Linking people and nature
M. Moyer, J. Mccown, M. Oli (2007)
FACTORS INFLUENCING HOME-RANGE SIZE OF FEMALE FLORIDA BLACK BEARS, 88
(2011)
Alabama inventory list: The rare, threatened, & endangered plants & animals of Alabama
D. Bengston, Jennifer Fletcher, K. Nelson (2004)
Public policies for managing urban growth and protecting open space: policy instruments and lessons learned in the United StatesLandscape and Urban Planning, 69
A. Pocewicz, Max Nielsen-Pincus, Greg Brown, Russell Schnitzer (2012)
An Evaluation of Internet Versus Paper‐based Methods for Public Participation Geographic Information Systems (PPGIS)Transactions in GIS, 16
H. Kretser, P. Curtis, B. Knuth (2009)
Landscape, Social, and Spatial Influences on Perceptions of Human–Black Bear Interactions in the Adirondack Park, NYHuman Dimensions of Wildlife, 14
Andrew Carlos, A. Bright, Tara Teel, J. Vaske (2009)
Human–Black Bear Conflict in Urban Areas: An Integrated Approach to Management ResponseHuman Dimensions of Wildlife, 14
Greg Brown, D. Weber (2013)
A place-based approach to conservation management using public participation GIS (PPGIS)Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 56
S. Riley, D. Decker, L. Carpenter, J. Organ, W. Siemer, G. Mattfeld, G. Parsons (2016)
The essence of wildlife managementWildlife Society Bulletin, 30
Angela Wetzel (2010)
Internet, mail, and mixed‐mode surveys: The tailored design methodJournal of Continuing Education in The Health Professions, 30
M. Burgman, J. Fox (2003)
Bias in species range estimates from minimum convex polygons: implications for conservation and options for improved planningAnimal Conservation, 6
(2010)
State quickfacts: Alabama
A. Treves, R. Wallace, L. Naughton-Treves, Andrea Morales (2006)
Co-Managing Human–Wildlife Conflicts: A ReviewHuman Dimensions of Wildlife, 11
(2007)
Provisional predicted habitat distribution map of Alabama
Christopher Raymonda, Brett Bryanb, Darla MacDonaldb, Andrea Castb, Sarah Strathearnb, Agnes Grandgirardb, Tina Kalivasb (2009)
Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem servicesEcological Economics, 68
Shannon Donovan, C. Looney, Thor Hanson, Y. León, J. Wulfhorst, S. Eigenbrode, M. Jennings, J. Johnson-Maynard, N. Pérez (2009)
Reconciling social and biological needs in an endangered ecosystem: The palouse as a model for bioregional planningEcology and Society, 14
Max Nielsen-Pincus (2011)
Mapping a Values Typology in Three Counties of the Interior Northwest, USA: Scale, Geographic Associations Among Values, and the Use of Intensity WeightsSociety & Natural Resources, 24
T. Schusler, D. Decker, M. Pfeffer (2003)
Social Learning for Collaborative Natural Resource ManagementSociety & Natural Resources, 16
Greg Brown (2012)
An empirical evaluation of the spatial accuracy of public participation GIS (PPGIS) dataApplied Geography, 34
(1998)
What is the future for human dimensions of wildlife
B. Bryan, C. Raymond, N. Crossman, D. King (2011)
Comparing Spatially Explicit Ecological and Social Values for Natural Areas to Identify Effective Conservation StrategiesConservation Biology, 25
Gregory Brown (2006)
Mapping landscape values and development preferences: a method for tourism and residential development planningInternational Journal of Tourism Research, 8
W. Morse (2012)
Changing Stakeholders and the Planning Process
Xuan Zhu, S. Pfueller, P. Whitelaw, Caroline Winter (2010)
Spatial Differentiation of Landscape Values in the Murray River Region of Victoria, AustraliaEnvironmental Management, 45
L. Alessa, A. Kliskey, Gregory Brown (2008)
Social–ecological hotspots mapping : A spatial approach for identifying coupled social–ecological spaceLandscape and Urban Planning, 85
D. Lowery, W. Morse, Todd Steury (2012)
Biological and Social Investigation of Human–Black Bear Conflicts in the Panhandle of FloridaHuman Dimensions of Wildlife, 17
Patrick Smith, M. McDonough (2001)
Beyond public participation: Fairness in natural resource decision makingSociety & Natural Resources, 14
K. Manfreda, M. Bošnjak, J. Berzelak, Iris Haas, Vasja Vehovar (2008)
Web Surveys versus other Survey Modes: A Meta-Analysis Comparing Response RatesInternational Journal of Market Research, 50
M. Patterson, J. Montag, Daniel Williams (2003)
The urbanization of wildlife management: Social science, conflict, and decision makingUrban Forestry & Urban Greening, 1
D. Theobald, T. Spies, J. Kline, B. Maxwell, N. Hobbs, V. Dale (2005)
ECOLOGICAL SUPPORT FOR RURAL LAND‐USE PLANNINGEcological Applications, 15
Gregory Brown (2004)
Mapping Spatial Attributes in Survey Research for Natural Resource Management: Methods and ApplicationsSociety & Natural Resources, 18
Wildlife management increasingly incorporates public participation to be more inclusive and reduce tensions between management and the general public in the decision-making process. There is also a need, however, to include spatial data since most wildlife biological and biophysical data are stored spatially in geographic information systems (GIS). This article presents a method for integrating this information using public participation geographic information systems (PPGIS). We asked stakeholders to identify specific places on a map that they would like to see maintained for the conservation of particular threatened species. This information is useful for identifying public wildlife management preferences and for allowing comparisons between public and expert opinions. We found high levels of public accuracy in identifying suitable habitat for threatened species conservation. We also identified places of potential conflict due to incompatible stakeholder preferences, but found little conflict between public conservation and development preferences.
Human Dimensions of Wildlife – Taylor & Francis
Published: Mar 4, 2014
Keywords: GIS; conservation; participatory planning; spatial targeting; collaboration
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.