4.7 Article

Methods for identifying land use conflict potential using participatory mapping

期刊

LANDSCAPE AND URBAN PLANNING
卷 122, 期 -, 页码 196-208

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.11.007

关键词

Conflict mapping; Land use planning; Public participation GIS; Landscape values; Development; PPGIS

资金

  1. Australian Government

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The number of public participation GIS (PPGIS) applications to inform local and regional land, use planning has increased significantly over the last decade. An important rationale for undertaking, participatory mapping is to anticipate and identify areas of potential land use conflict. To date, there, has not been a systematic evaluation of methods for identifying land use conflict potential with PPGIS data. This study uses data from a regional planning study in Australia to describe and evaluate alternative methods for identifying land use conflict potential. A simple, two dimensional model of land use conflict is presented and operationalized with spatial data to provide a heuristic device for regional land-use planning practitioners. Land use conflict is posited to derive from differences in landscape values and land use preferences that can be formulated into different conflict indices and presented in maps. We demonstrate application of the conflict mapping model using residential and industrial development in the region as examples. The spatial distribution of landscape values, values compatibility scoring, land use preference differences, and a combined values and preferences scoring index are all viable methods for identifying and mapping the potential for land use conflict. The preferred method for assessing the potential for land use conflict is one that integrates two dimensions: land use preference directionality (supporting or opposing) and the importance or intensity of landscape values. We discuss the strengths and limitations of each conflict mapping method. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据