1. Participatory GIS in the Upper Sangamon Watershed: Geovisualization, Collective Decision-Making, and Environmental Governance Miriam A. Cope Sara McLafferty Bruce M. Rhoads Department of Geography, UIUC Wednesday, April 29, 2009

2. Abstract This research examines the impact of participatory GIS on collective decision-making for agricultural and environmental management at the watershed scale. In partnership with the Agricultural Watershed Institute (AWI) and Macon County Soil and Water Conservation District in Decatur, IL, we tested participatory GIS methods in two groups of stakeholders, farmers and professionals, to determine optimal locations for growing biofuels in Central Illinois.

3. Objectives Test influence of geovisualization on attitudes towards developing a perennial energy grass market Compare attitudes between farmers and conservationists

4. GOALS Ascertain how local knowledge can inform GIS development for planting perennial energy grasses Understand how prior knowledge of technology influences PGIS discussions Build upon existing university-community partnerships

5. Presentation Overview Participatory GIS Research Methods  GIS Layers Results  Survey  Maps Conclusion Miscanthus (from:magnoliagardensnursery.com)

6. Participatory/Public Participation GIS (Geographic Information Systems) A GIS that incorporates knowledge and perspectives from community participants  Recognizes need to include socially marginalized individuals and groups  Recognizes and values importance of place and context in decision making Urban/rural, grassroots/ngo/local government  Recognizes and integrates qualitative research tools  Aberly and Sieber, 2002

7. Development of Participatory GIS Instrumentalist applications of GIS excluded local knowledge Constructions of place dependent on experts or most powerful voices Resource poor organizations or voices excluded from decision making process  Elwood, 2006

8. Community Partnership Conducted case study of AWI in 2007  Agricultural Watershed Institute AWI convened a “Landscape Learning Group” for biofuel market assessment Mutually beneficial relationship recognized

9. Energy Grasses Miscanthus (from:magnoliagardensnursery.com) Switchgrass Picture from: mongabay.com

10. Methods Build GIS of Upper Sangamon Watershed Two interest groups  Experts/conservationists in Landscape Learning Group  Farmers in Macon county Design pre and post GIS surveys Convene PGIS Groups: AWI, Farmers

11. Crop Cover, Sangamon Watershed (2005) 30M Resolution

12. Sangamon Watershed SlopeStreets and Stream Features

13. Macon County Layers

14. Farm Parcel Layers

15. Develop Pre and Post GIS Survey Pre-PGIS Survey  Collect Participant’s Demographic Information  Collect Participant Knowledge of Computer and Mapping Technology  Collect Attitudes towards Perennial Energy Grasses Post-PGIS Survey  Attitudes towards energy grasses  Attitudes towards GIS/Geovisualization

16. Learning Group/Expert PGIS Session  13 Participants Farmer Survey  Received 55 Surveys out of 400 Mailed (>10%)  16 Farmers interested in PGIS Farmer PGIS Session  5 Attended PGIS Session (~ 33%) Participatory GIS Sessions

17. Results Both Groups generally agreed that:  Grasses could be grown in Illinois  Important for reducing dependence on foreign oil  Beneficial for wildlife and water quality

18. Results Perennial energy grasses should only be grown on marginal Land

19. Results GIS Criteria for Energy Grasses: Ranking FARMERSLLG Economic Layers (37.5%)Biophysical Layers (27.3%) Biophysical Layers (25%)Current Land Use (27.3%) Land Use/Location (12.5%)Farm Management (27.3%)

20. Results Perennial Energy Grass Market Constraints FARMERSLLG Economic (41.8%)Limited Information (30.8%) Farming Technology (14.5%)Farming Technology (15.4%) Limited Information (1.8%)Economic (7.7%)

21. Analysis: Expert PGIS Session Raised competing environmental issues  Slope: better for water quality, worse for wildlife Emphasized Energy Grass selection  Miscanthus, switchgrass, native polycultures  Dependent on previous crop Discussed spatial concerns: proximity to streams, slope, corridors, and processing facility

22. Learning Group Map Query: Grassland in 100 Meters of Streams

23. Analysis: Farmer GIS Session Greater interaction with maps Brought in personal experience  Time, equipment issues, rotation of crops “Marginal land” depends on farm scale issues: accessibility, tree lines, biophysical properties and productivity Economic Criteria

24. Slope > 2 degrees Slope > 1 degree Farmer preferences for optimal locations Based on slope

25. Conclusions Geovisualization  Helped facilitate conversations about where to plant energy grasses  Interplay between participants’ local knowledge & experiences and geovisualization suitability maps reveal local knowledge and experiences Next Step  PGIS involving both farmers and experts in same conversations “Who, What and Where” of biofuels are interconnected, complex

26. Acknowledgements Community Informatics Initiative Grant Agricultural Watershed Institute Macon County Soil and Water Conservation District Prof. Sara McLafferty, PI, Advisor Prof. Bruce Rhoads, PI, Advisor