participatory gis peru

7/27/2019 Participatory GIS Peru

1/5

GIS as a Tool in Participatory Natural Resource Management: Examples from the PeruvianAndesAuthor(s): Coen BussinkSource: Mountain Research and Development, Vol. 23, No. 4 (Nov., 2003), pp. 320-323Published by: International Mountain SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3674409 .

Accessed: 14/04/2011 11:05

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=intms. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

International Mountain Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Mountain Research and Development.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=intmshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3674409?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=intmshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=intmshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3674409?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=intms


2/5

Coen Bussink

320

Mountain Research and Development Vol23 No 4 Nov 2003: 320-323

G I S a s T o o l in ParticipatoryN a t u r a l Resource ManagementExamples from the Peruvian AndesGeographic nformation ystems (GIS)areoften seen as incompatiblewithparticipatoryprocesses. However, ince the late 1990s,attempts have been made in numerousproj-ects around he world o define "bestprac-tices" forimprovednaturalresourcemanage-ment projects that integrateparticipation ndaccurate spatial information, sing GIS forexample,see www.iapad.org/participatory_gis.htm). Thisarticle describes a project n

J:P. CA3AMARCADepartmentCUZCUDE

ECADOR ".,-' .?-,:"t

......... . Jequetepel

KmklometerssAMBAYEQUE156300 60 Department1000 - 3000 m

3000-400

%

Klmeters

I-- ---------- CHI....

0 150 60m- - --- -- -- -- ----

FIGURE 1 The geographiclocations of the 3 projectcatchments in Peru.(Map byHenryJuarez,CIP)Three case studies in PeruEnhancement of natural resource manage-ment (NRM) in the Peruvian Andes

the PeruvianAndes wherespatial informationplayeda key role. Can GIShelpnarrow hegap between professionalsand farmersorlocal officials?Or s it reallya top-down oolthat requires oo muchexpert knowledge;and are investments too great for remoteruralareas? Examplesof successful use ofGISare provided n this article, whilepracti-cal complicationsandmethodologicalcon-straints are highlighted.

depends principally on farmers, who arethe main land users. Although decision-making processes take place principally atthe farm and parcel level, farmers' deci-sions affect larger areas-a district or acatchment. It is often at these higher levelsthat NRM problems are observed. Thechallenge, then, is to solve problems on agreater scale by working with decision mak-ers who manage only small parts of an area.From May 2000 until May 2002, theConsortium for the Sustainable Develop-ment of the Andean Ecoregion (CONDE-SAN) and collaborating NGOs (Table 1)implemented a project that applied geo-graphic information systems (GIS) toimprove NRM and to help design ruraldevelopment projects using participatoryprocesses. The project was initiated in 3catchments, 2 in the northern departmentof Cajamarca and 1 in the southerndepartment of Puno, with 1 NGO workingin each catchment (Figure 1).

During the project, NGO staff partici-pated in training workshops on the use ofGIS. Inexpensive software (IDRISI) and,as far as possible, existing, secondary datawere used to make the methodology con-venient and replicable for local organiza-tions in the Andes. GIS aspects of the proj-ect were further supported by a GIS spe-cialist from the International PotatoCenter (CIP) and by GIS students who didinternships with the NGOs.In each catchment, committees wereorganized consisting of stakeholders suchas municipal authorities, community lead-ers, and local institutions. A series ofworkshops were held in selected commu-nities and Participatory Rural Appraisals(PRAs) were carried out to analyze prob-lems related to NRM and agricultural pro-duction.


3/5

Development

TABLE Characteristicsof the three projectcatchments.

Catchment Mafiazo Cuzcud6n-Card6n Asunci6nCentrode Investigaci6n e CentroEcum6nico e Promo- Asociaci6nparael Desarrollo

ParticipatingNGO Recursos Naturales y Medio ci6n y Acci6n Social (CEDE- Rural de CajamarcaAmbiente(CIRNMA) PAS) (ASPADERUC)

Areaof catchment(hectares) 26,915 4240 8516Elevation ange (m) 3860-4850 1220-3275 1650-4130Average nnualrainfallmm) 280-980 360-920 500-1000Numberf households 1700 733 1300

To feed the GIS, a "minimum dataset" on natural resources was defined andconstructed. It included climate data,maps and databases on soil and groundcover, as well as altitude data from con-tour line maps. In addition, availablesocioeconomic and agricultural produc-tion data were collected.

If information was insufficient orunavailable, primary (new) data had to becollected. For example, few preexistingdetailed data were available on hydrologi-cal networks, location of springs, irriga-tion canals, and community boundaries.These data were collected by project mem-bers with GPS receivers, accompanied bycommunity representatives.Practical complications with datacollectionA common problem in gathering data isthat databases are not freely available. Fre-quently, success in accessing data dependson able diplomacy or interpersonal rela-tions with the staff of an institution.Because of the NGOs' lack of experiencein digitizing information and the relativecomplexity of IDRISI, it took 1 year tocomplete the minimum data sets.

The NGOs in the 2 Cajamarca catch-ments were compelled to produce primarydata on soils and ground cover because ofthe lack of sufficiently detailed data. A soilspecialist from the University of Cajamar-ca was hired to carry out this task (Figure2). Generating information rather thanusing existing information offers theadvantage of rapid collection of informa-tion with standardized (formal) methodsfor the entire study area. But it is also arelatively expensive approach that may notalways be possible. In Mafiazo, only exist-

ing studies on natural resources wereused; this led to problems due to theincompatibility of studies done in differ-ent years, with different coverage, at dif-ferent scales, and elaborated with differ-ent methods, legends, and classifications.Practices in the catchmentsConcurrent with the data collectionprocess, the NGOs tried to identify usefulGIS applications on the basis of the priori-ty settings that resulted from the PRAexercises. Experiences in the 3 catchmentsare described below.

Mafiazo: Because of the high altitudesin the Mafiazo catchment, there is not FIGURE Data collection onsoils in the Cuzcud6n-Card6ncatchment. (Photo byauthor)

321


4/5

322

Coen Bussink

FIGURE Afinalmapof the potentialforpasture improvementsnthe Mahiazo atchment. (MapbyMathieuPlantecoste and JuvertCoila,CIRNMA)

SNo dataVery low

SLow- Moderate1 2 3 4 5km High

much crop production and most of theland is used as pasture grazed by cows,llamas, alpacas, and sheep. It was thus nosurprise that local communities identifiedimprovement of pasture production as apriority. In IDRISI, different biophysicalcriteria were combined to create a mapshowing the potential for pastureimprovements. The analysis includedslope, drainage, salinization risk, and soilacidity data that were integrated byclassification as high, medium, and low interms of profitability. The resulting map(Figure 3) was presented to the localauthorities and farmers. They agreed onthe outcome, although the results werenot a surprise to them. "We know where togrow a specific crop, or where not, but wedidn't know how large these areas are andthat the reason why some areas do notproduce well is the acidity or salts in thesoil," was the general reaction of thefarmers in the community of Canllocollo(cited in the final project report byCIRNMA). The farmers recognized theimportance of prioritizing areas whenlarge investments must be made toimprove productivity. Unfortunately, therewere no funds available to actually carryout real improvements.

Farmers particularly appreciated par-cel-level maps, such as current land usemaps, because these reflected their day-to-day reality most closely and helped themcalculate exact parcel areas (at 1:5000scale). Nevertheless, the scale of the natu-ral resources data (1:25,000) did not allowany spatial modeling at this detailed level.

Cuzcudin-Card6n: The Cuzcuden-Card6n catchment is a semiarid catch-ment with mixed production systems andsevere constraints on water for irrigation.CEDEPAS made a participatory inventoryof the water sources and canals, using GPSreceivers and streamflow measurements.Because of lack of data on a comparablescale, spatial modeling was not possible onthis scale. GIS, therefore, was mainly atool to register and visualize the availableresources.Catchment-level data, such as the soiland topography maps, were used to identi-

fy soil conservation priority areas andpotential production areas, such as thepotential for different timber tree speciesand pastures. As in Mafiazo, the stakehold-ers did not dispute the results, but theseresults were not implemented. Farmersand local authorities stated that they firstneeded more explicit plans.

Asunci6n: The Asunci6n catchment isanother area with mixed production sys-tems but it is less dry than the Cuzcuden-Card6n catchment. ASPADERUC has putgreat effort into developing participatorymethods to support community-basedNRM-by developing participatory soilmaps and using aerial photographs incommunity workshops.The results of this approach motivatedstakeholder groups that worked on practi-cal environmental issues (integrated pestmanagement, soil conservation). Althoughthe use of aerial photographs gives stake-holders a feeling of being "in the picture,"it requires expert knowledge for geometri-cal correction of spatial distortions anddisplacements that occur in aerial photosin mountainous areas when using GIS.Potential production maps were devel-oped for a number of crops such as taya(Caesalpinia spinosa) and cherimoya(Annona cherimola), but no further use wasmade of them. However, ASPADERUCexperienced the value of GIS and the

MountainResearchandDevelopmentVol23 No4 Nov2003


5/5

D e v e l o p m e n t

maps as a stimulating contribution to dia-logue on collective decision making andimprovement of future project proposals.Conclusions and recommendationsIn the 3 catchments, GIS proved to be aneffective tool for integrating and present-ing environmental information that fre-quently existed but was not yet availableor displayed in a GIS mapping format.Observing this information helped moti-vate stakeholders and is a useful way tobuild awareness regarding the environ-ment at community workshops (Figure 4).Nevertheless, stakeholders are inter-ested in the parcel level and focus moreon improvements in production than oncatchment (communal) problems. TheNGOs involved in the project tried to getcloser to the reality faced by farmers. First,they attempted to be as participatory aspossible (farmer field schools, participato-ry maps) and elaborate detailed georefer-enced base maps that zoom in on theparcels. Second, they focused on produc-tion potential at the catchment level. Inthe first case, where a very basic GIS wasapplied, they achieved good responsesfrom the farmers. However, the scale ofthe remaining databases (1:25,000) wasnot sufficiently detailed to exploit the fullpotential of GIS, in terms of multicriteriamodeling exercises at the parcel level, forinstance. Developing more detailed geo-referenced information at parcel level is avery time- and money-consuming activityand would not be a realistic aim. The sec-ond effort-elaboration of productionpotential maps-had a limited effect, prin-cipally because of the lack of clients whocould benefit from such analyses. This wasprimarily determined by the design of thisproject, where catchment data sets weregenerated without urgent demand. Localauthorities will be important potentialclients at the municipality and catchmentlevel if they obtain greater power. For

F I G U R E f a r m e r C a n i l o c o l l o c o m m u n i t yf a c i l i t a t o r M a h a z o c a t c h m e n t d i s c u s s l a n d

m a p . ( P h o t o a u t h o r )

lillrQDI?ur~ uwurcpuc :. "";I:~:r

/td*:~.cbr;, Ill-rmr 88~-FSIC?~ ?;-?

~ccl

~~:-~t5~ec",Ylrrr

~CI juct~i~sirr I??Izr+uu ,(+sare--~-~?_:-u ??

e x a m p l e , n e i g h b o r i n g c o u n t r i e s s u c hC o l o m b i a a n d B o l i v i a , d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o nm o r e a d v a n c e d , a n d m u n i c i p a l t e r r i t o r i a lp l a n n i n g w i t h G I S b e e n m o r e e x t e n -

s i v e l y a p p l i e d .G i v e n s u c c e s s s i m p l e m a p s a n d

r e l a t i v e c o m p l e x i t y I D R I S I ,p r e f e r a b l e w o r k w i t h m o r e u s e r - f r i e n d l yG I S . F o c o m m u n i c a t io n p u r p o s e s , e a s yg e n e r i c a n d f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e G I S s o f t w a r e( T a t u k G I S - v i e w e r , M a p M a k e r ) s u f f i c i e n t

c o m b i n e m a p l a y e r s , v i s u a l i z e s p a t i a lc ha r a c t e r i s t i c s , a n d m a k e s t r a i g h t f o r w a r dp r i n t s . D e s p i t e d i f f i c u l t i e s o b t a i n i n gp r i m a r y d a t a , i n c r e a s i n g a v a i l a b i l i t yf r e e d a t a I n t e r n e t w i l l f a c i l i t a t e t h i S

t y p e w o r k , e x a m p l e u s i n g d i g i t a le l e v a t i o n d a t a ( w i t h r e s o l u t i o n ) p r o -

v i d e d S h u t t l e R a d a r T o p o g r a p h yM i s s i o n (wwwtjpl.nasa.gov/srtm).

N G O s h a v e b e n e f i t e d m o s t f r o mG I S . T h e y h a v e l e a r n e d

t o o l s , w h i c h h e l p e d t h e m a n a l y z e n a t u r a lr e s o u r c e s c a t c h m e n t . GI S m a p s h a v eb e c o m e i m p o r t a n t m e a n s s u s t a i n i n gt h e i r p r o j e c t p r o p o s a l s a n d p u t t i n g c a t c h -

m e n t s d o n o r s ' m a p . B u f i n a li m p a c t d e v e l o p m e n tp r o v e n .

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThis article is based on the work of 3 NGOs:CIRNMA,CEDEPAS,nd ASPADERUC. am especially grateful to theirGISspecialists: Juvert Coila, Carlos Cerd~n, Pablo S~nchezde Francesch, and community facilitators Hector Machicao,MarianoGodoy,and Luis Chuquiruna.I also wish to thank

the farmers and other stakeholders in the Cuzcud6n-Card6n, Asunci6n, and Mafiazocatchments; CraigFicenec,who did his Masters thesis on this subject; the CONDESANcoordinators duringthis project, Joshua Posner and EliasMujica;Mathieu Plantecoste, who did his internship atCIRNMA; nd Robert Jan Hijmansand DavidYanggen atCIRThe projectwas financed by the Ford Foundation.

AUTHORCoen BussinkGeographical Information Systems andNatural Resources Management,International Potato Center (CIP),Apartado 1558, Lima 12, [email protected] [email protected] Bussink works with GIS and inthe field of NRM.He was an associateresearcher at the International PotatoCenter until August 2003. Besides theproject described in this paper, he alsoworked on mapping of periurban agri-cultural areas, biodiversity mapping,and geographic impact targeting forpoverty alleviation and crop production.He is currently a visiting researcher atthe International Institute for Geo-lnfor-mation Science and Earth Observation(ITC) n Enschede, The Netherlands.FURTHER READINGAbbot JR, Chambers C, Dunn T,HarrisE, De Merode G, Townsend Porter J,Weiner D. 1998. Participatory GIS:Opportunity or oxymoron? ParticipatoryLearning and Action Notes. Volume33. London: International Institute forEnvironment and Development (IIED).Also available at: www.iapad.org/publications/ppgis/participatory_gis_opportunity_or_oxymoron.pdf.Craig WJ,Harris TM et al, editors.2002. Community Participation andGeographic Information Systems.London: Taylor& Francis.[IAPAD] Integrated Approaches to Par-ticipatory Development. 2003. Partici-patory GIS. http://www.iapad.org/participatory_gis.htm. Accessed in July2003.Various authors. 2002. GIS and thefingertips [Special issue]. Asean Biodi-versity 2:10-52.

Development

maps as a stimulating contribution to dia-logue on collective decision making andimprovement of future project proposals.Conclusions nd recommendationsIn the 3 catchments, GIS proved to be aneffective tool for integrating and present-ing environmental information that fre-quently existed but was not yet availableor displayed in a GIS mapping format.Observing this information helped moti-vate stakeholders and is a useful way tobuild awareness regarding the environ-ment at community workshops (Figure 4).Nevertheless, stakeholders are inter-ested in the parcel level and focus moreon improvements in production than oncatchment (communal) problems. TheNGOs involved in the project tried to getcloser to the reality faced by farmers. First,they attempted to be as participatory aspossible (farmer field schools, participato-ry maps) and elaborate detailed georefer-enced base maps that zoom in on theparcels. Second, they focused on produc-tion potential at the catchment level. Inthe first case, where a very basic GIS wasapplied, they achieved good responsesfrom the farmers. However, the scale ofthe remaining databases (1:25,000) wasnot sufficiently detailed to exploit the fullpotential of GIS, in terms of multicriteriamodeling exercises at the parcel level, forinstance. Developing more detailed geo-referenced information at parcel level is avery time- and money-consuming activityand would not be a realistic aim. The sec-ond effort-elaboration of productionpotential maps-had a limited effect, prin-cipally because of the lack of clients whocould benefit from such analyses. This wasprimarily determined by the design of thisproject, where catchment data sets weregenerated without urgent demand. Localauthorities will be important potentialclients at the municipality and catchmentlevel if they obtain greater power. For

FIGURE Afarmerof the Canllocollo ommunityandanNGO acilitator n the Maiazo catchment discuss a landuse map. (Photo by author)lillrQDI?ur~ uwurcpuc :. "";I:~:

r

/td*:~.cbr;, Ill-rmr 88~-FSIC?~ ?;-?

~ccl

~~:-~t5~ec",Ylrrr

~CI juct~i~sirr I??Izr+uu ,(+sare--~-~?_:-u ??

example, in neighboring countries such asColombia and Bolivia, decentralization ismore advanced, and municipal territorialplanning with GIS has been more exten-sively applied.Given the success of simple maps andthe relative complexity of IDRISI, it ispreferable to work with more user-friendlyGIS. For communication purposes, easygeneric and freely available GIS software(TatukGIS-viewer, Map Maker) is sufficientto combine map layers, visualize spatialcharacteristics, and make straightforwardprints. Despite the difficulties in obtainingprimary data, the increasing availability offree data on the Internet will facilitate thistype of work, for example by using digitalelevation data (with 90 m resolution) pro-vided by the Shuttle Radar TopographyMission (www.jpl.nasa.gov/srtm).NGOs have benefited the most fromthe GIS. They have learned to use thetools, which helped them analyze naturalresources in a catchment. GIS maps havebecome important means of sustainingtheir project proposals and putting catch-ments on the donors' map. But the finalimpact on development has yet to beproven.

ACKNOWLEDGM ENTSThisarticle s based onthe workof 3 NGOs: IRNMA,CEDEPAS,ndASPADERUC.amespeciallygratefulo theirGIS pecialists:JuvertCoila,CarlosCerd~n,PabloSanchezde Francesch,ndcommunityacilitatorsHectorMachicao,Mariano odoy,nd LuisChuquiruna.also wish to thank

the farmersand otherstakeholdersnthe Cuzcuden-Card6n,Asunci6n, nd Mahazo atchments;CraigFicenec,who did his Masters hesis on this subject; he CONDESANcoordinatorsuringhis project, oshuaPosnerand EliasMujica;Mathieu lantecoste,who didhis internship tCIRNMA;nd Robert anHijmansnd DavidYanggentCIR heprojectwas financedby he FordFoundation.

AUTHORCoen BussinkGeographical nformation ystems andNaturalResources Management,International otato CenterCIP),Apartado1558, Lima12, [email protected] [email protected] Bussink works with GIS and inthe field ofNRM.He was an associateresearcherat the International otatoCenteruntilAugust2003. Besides theprojectdescribed n thispaper,he alsoworkedon mappingof periurban gri-culturalareas,biodiversitymapping,andgeographic mpact argetingorpovertyalleviationandcrop production.He is currently visitingresearcheratthe Internationalnstitute orGeo-lnfor-mationScienceand EarthObservation(ITC)n Enschede,TheNetherlands.FURTHER READINGAbbot JR, Chambers C, Dunn T,HarrisE, De Merode G,Townsend Porter J,WeinerD. 1998. ParticipatoryGIS:Opportunityr oxymoron? articipatoryLearning nd Action Notes. Volume33. London: nternational nstitute orEnvironment nd Development lIED).Also availableat:www.iapad.org/publications!ppgis/ participatory.gis.opportunity.or.oxymoron.pdf.Craig WI, Harris TM et al, editors.2002. Community articipationndGeographicnformationystems.London:Taylor& Francis.fIAPAD] Integrated Approaches to Par-ticipatory Development. 2003. Partici-patoryGIS.http://www.iapad.org/participatory-gis.htm.Accessed inJuly2003.Various authors. 2002. GIS and thefingertips[Special issue]. Asean Biodi-versity2:10-52.

323

participatory gis peru

Documents