Quantifying the Qualitative:

GIS analysis of sociocultural values from participatory mapping

Alexa Todd & David Banis, Portland State University 2013 GIS in Action May 1, Portland State University

Introduction
1. 2. 3. 4. Qualitative GIS Case Studies Digitizing Qualitative Data Data Analysis
o o o o Quantifying the Qualitative Dissecting the Data Comparative Analysis Feature Analysis

Qualitative GIS
WHAT IS QUALITATIVE GIS? VALUES MAPPING

What is Qualitative GIS?

Mixed methods approach
o o o o o Grounded visualization Multimedia representation Narratives PGIS Mapping landscape values and perceptions

Qualitative data or methodology

What is Cultural Values Mapping?

Tenure & resource use mapping Local ecological knowledge mapping Sense of place mapping
o o o o Landscape values mapping Place attachment mapping Wilderness perceptions mapping Collaborative mapping

Source: McLain, R. et al., 2013 Making Sense of Human Ecology Mapping: An Overview of Approaches to IntegraFng Socio-SpaFal Data into Environmental Planning. Human Ecology.

Case Studies
STUDY AREA HUMAN ECOLOGY MAPPING (HEM) MAPPING VISITOR PERSPECTIVES (MVP)

Olympic Peninsula

Human Ecology Mapping

HEM Stats
2010-2011 8 - workshops 169 - participants 818 - values features
= Workshop City
Port Angeles Port Townsend

Forks Quilcene

Quinault

Hoodsport

Shelton

Collective marking of a map

Aberdeen

Mapping Visitor Perspectives

Red = Visitor Center (x5) Blue = Campground (x4) Green = Trail Access Point (x4)

Individual maps

Mapping Visitor Perspectives

MVP Stats
2012 (Summer) 14 - Locations 345 - Surveys 1559 Features
Bainbridge Island/Seattle Ferry

Landscape Values
Aesthetic Economic Environ. Quality Future Health Heritage Home Intrinsic Learning Recreation Social Spiritual Subsistence Wilderness Aesthetic Biodiversity Economic Entertainment Future Heritage Home Learning Recreation Social Spiritual Subsistence Therapeutic Wilderness

HEM

MVP

Activities
Motorized recreation Non-motorized recreation Cultural Science/education Economic Hunting Fishing Foraging Active recreation Non-cardio recreation Sociocultural Observation Water sports Foraging R&R Education Travel Work

HEM

MVP

Digitizing Qualitative Data

FEATURE SHAPES SCALE MAP ILLITERACY INTELLIGENT INTERPRETATION

Polygons

Points

Point/Line Areas

Map Illiteracy

Intelligent Interpretation

Quantifying the Qualitative

DENSITY HOT SPOTS DIVERSITY

Density
1. Create quarter-mile fishnet grid 2. Spatially join (one-toone) survey feature data to quarter mile grid 3. Join count = density

Resident Values Density

Visitor Values Density

Classification?

Hot Spot Analysis

Diversity of Resident Values

1. Spatially join individual values to grid 2. Convert features to raster by join count 3. Reclassify raster to binomial (-1 = 0, >0 = 1) 4. Use raster calculator to add all the value layers

Dissecting the Data

DEMOGRAPHICS LOCATION EXPERIENCE ACTIVITIES & VALUES

Participant Demographics
5% 11% 11% 30% 27% 4% 2% 2% 12%

AGE

GENDER

18-25 26-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 70+ None

11%

1%

5%

AGE
18-25

16% 22%

26-35 36-45 46-65 66+ none

45%

38% 58%

Female Male None 6% 0%

2%

0%

2% 13%

EDUCATION
8% no hs hs

GENDER
Female Male Both none

36% 58%

partial college 2-Year Degree 75% 4-Year Degree (+) none

Resident Values Density by Gender

FEMALE

MALE

Resident Zip-code Groups

Forks North Central North Hood

Quinault

Grays Harbor

South Hood

Visitor Zip-code Groups

40 participants 184 participants 92 participants

Q1: How often do you visit the Olympic Peninsula?

First Time Occasionally Often

350 features

334 features

472 features

Resident Top Values Density

Economic Aesthetic

Home

Recreation

Resident Values Density by Year

2010

2011

442 features

376 features

Wild Olympics Wilderness Proposal 2011

Claiming Working Forests at the Quinault Workshop

Contrasting Map Styles Port Townsend & Quinault

2010 2011

Comparative Analysis
RESIDENT VS. VISITOR LAND MANAGEMENT FEATURE SIZE

Resident

vs.

Visitor

Comparing residents workshop vs. field collection

HEM MVP

818 features

196 features

Land Management
Top QuarFle Resident Values Density and Land Management
Land Management National Park Forest Service State Tribal Private % of Total Area 0.20 0.15 0.12 0.05 0.47 % Total Occurrences 0.23 0.34 0.17 0.02 0.24 Frequency Ratio 1.15 2.22 1.42 0.28 0.51 Correlation None Positive Weak positive Negative Negative

Top QuarFle Visitor Values Density and Land Management

Land Management National Park Forest Service State Tribal Private % Total Area 0.20 0.15 0.12 0.05 0.47 % Total Occurrence 1.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Frequency Ratio 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Correlation Positive Negative Negative Negative Negative

Resident Values: Top 100 Largest Features

Visitor Values: Top 100 Largest Features

Considerations when using GIS to quantify the qualitative

Tease out information based on attributes
o Must disaggregate o Plan your questions wisely

Compare to other data

o Know the limitations

How we interpreted the GIS analysis

Highlight meaningful places Find concentrations of activities Study familiarity with place Explore insider / outsider views Find spatial representations of politics Examine the homogenized voice vs. the individual

Psychology of your data

o See David Banis

Many thanks!
Mazamas and the PSU Rebecca McLain (Institute for Department of Geography for Culture and Ecology) for her
funding the MVP project insights

USFS for funding the HEM

project

Corinna Kimball-Brown for

help with analysis and cartography

Questions?
Alexa Todd alexatodd@gmail.com David Banis dbanis@pdx.edu

http://www.pdx.edu/geography/human-ecology-mapping