GIS and RRA in Local -Level Land Use Planning
A case study in Sri Lanka
M.Mari, P.Bitter
Dept. of Geography
University of Zurich-Irchel
Switzerland
Abstract
Land use planning, here defined as the process of identifying the optimal and sustainable use for a given piece of land under given environmental, social and economic conditions, has been one of the key issues in rural development for many year. Two main schools of thinking on how this process should be accomplished can be found today: The 'pechnocaratic school' argues that modern (western) science is needed to do the job, whereas the 'participatory school' argues that he farmers know the problems and their solutions best and, therefore, land use planners should ask them. There have been arguments between the two schools for years; however, very little research has been done to actually compare the results of the two methodologies. The authors present such a case study from Sri Lanka and outline potential links to combine the strengths of both approaches.
1. Introduction
1.1 The GIS approach
Agricultural land use planning activities are usually started with the objectives to increase productivity,and to improve the sustainability, i.e. to conserve the natural resources. There are various scientific approaches to the goal:
- Land capability evaluation, e.g. according to FAO guidelines
- Process and simulation models
- Process and simulation models
- Parametric indices, e.g. the Storie Index
The point here is not discus the advantages and disadvantages of those approaches. We would like to draw the attention on two important characteristics which they all have in common:
- They combine a (variable) amount of information on natural resources and conditions (soils, rainfall, terrain, etc.).This information is typically represented in map form, i.e. it is spatial data.
- They attempt to utilise knowledge on the relations between environmental conditions, land management practice, and reaction of the land to that practice. This knowledge can stem from experience (trial and error), from experts, or other sources. The crucial point is that this knowledge has been generated elsewhere. The 'scientific' land use planning then tries to transfer this exogenous knowledge by analogy to the area in question.
Since spatial data is used and extrapolation of knowledge is attempted, it seems quite obvious to use a GIS to help in the process. In Sri Lanka, the probably first attempts at using computers in land use planning have been made more than 10 years ago [DENT 1986]. Since then, further attempts with better software and more powerful computers have been launched by various organizations and projects on various scales (loal / District / National); some met with more and some with less success (see for instance DENT 1993, p. 18], [TURNER], [IIMI]. Indeed, the idea to be able to process huge amounts of data, to simulate alternative land use options, and eventually to determine the best land use at the push of a button hasn't lost it's fascination.
The application of these scientific methods has also drawn quite a bit of criticism. We would like to outline two major challenges that are raised:
- Two data which is actually available, especially in developing countries, rarely meets the requirements of the models that are being used. Deficiencies can be the total absence of certain data (e.g. soil maps, climatic data), non-comparable classification schemes (also often
the case with soil maps), inadequate scales, or insufficient geometric and thematic accuracy of the maps [dent 1993]. Thus statements on crop suitabilities and sustainability are made which are not justifiable even by the models. Additionally, the models often tend to focus on 'hard data' on the physical environment (soils, climate, topography), but have no established place for data on socio-economic features (such as access to inputs and markets, availability of labour, land title security, cultural preferences) and for local knowledge.
- the second line of criticism argues that the use of computers re-inforces tendencies of top-down planning. Scientific land use planning has been a largely centralized, sectoral, and top-down affair even before the advent of computers [DENT 1993, P.5]. The interests, needs, and also the knowledge of the farmers as actual land users have been completely neglected. The philosophical reason for this may be that the central state with its institutions is perceived as the only grantor of development, and consequently, also as the custodian of the natural resources. The practical reason is that the application of scientific methods requires scientifically qualified staff which is available only at central levels.
However, the capacities of any Government for planning and, even more severely, implementation of the plans, are limited. Thus land use plans have often remained a piece of paper, if they came to that stage al all. If can be assuemed that the introduction of computers raises new hopes in Government institutions that they can now perform their Herculean task without changing the basic concept. Moreover, the operation of computers requires even more specialized staff which can be found only in central places, and the communication gap between planners and land users widens once again.
1.2 The participatory approach
Participatory planning has been promoted as an alternative to top-down land use planning. There are various degrees of participation; we understand it here as an active involvement of the land users in the identification of needs, planning, and implementation. The fundamental belief of participation advocates is that the farmers know their situation best and thus should play a key role in land use planning. Another objective, sometimes also on the hidden agenda of donors, is the objective of policically empowering local communities through participatory planning.
PRA /PRA
RRA is a set of methods to extensively understand problematic situations in certain areas and to provide foundations for development planning. The starting point is the knowledge of the local people. The aim of RRA is the creation of a framework for communication and learning. Some important tools in RRAs are sketch mapping, transect walking, listing and ranking of properties, group discussions, semi - structured interviews, analysis of seasonal and historical trends. While RRA initially developed mainly as an alternative to information collection by questionnaire surveys, PRA also leaves the planning responsibility. I.e. the decision-making, to the villagers. Outsiders are supported to act as catalysts [CHAMBERS].
The main criticisms on participatory planning include the following points:
-
There is a risk of de-linking local from regional and national planning. The integration of local plans within a wider framework (e.g. agricultural development policies, subsidy schemes, conservation plans) is technically and institutionally plans) is technically and institutionally difficult, and, ultimately, local development efforts may collapse through lack of higher level support [DENT 1993, p. 104]. The underlying problem is that local interests are often different from regional / national interests; a problem which is known in every society. What further compounds the problem in the contest of development cooperation is the lack of institutionalized platform for negotiating between the diverging interests. If outsiders unilaterally focus on the local development interests and leave after their project ends, there will be no base for continuation.
- The results of RRA / PRA sessions often resemble 'shopping lists; of individuals or groups rather than strategic plans for a sustainable development of potentials. People tend to expect instant solutions to their immediate problems, if outsiders, supposedly with funding enter the village, Accordingly, they will tell what they suppose the outsiders expect to hear [LEACH]
2. The case study in Weeraketya
2.1 land use planning with GIS
The Sri Lanka Land Use Policy Planning Division [LUPPD] issued guidelines for the preparation of land use plans for Divisional Secretary Divisions, which are units of decentralized administration in Sri Lanka. The guidelines are similar to the FAO guidelines for land use planning. Based on these guidelines, we implemented a model for land ue planning on commercial GIS software (Arc/Info).
The intermediate results of this model GIS are planning maps for the various produce, e.g. coconut, paddy etc. They consist of two parts: the present and the calculated, ideal area of cultivation for each crop. To achieve this objective, one has to assess certain variables which restrict the cultivation of plants, e.g. water availability, nutrition, temperature regime, erosion hazard, ease of land use. The classification and combination of these restriction or suitability variables leads to suitability maps and to the ideal habitats of the crops (fig. 1).
Figure 1 GIS land use planning model
The first step in the GIS -model is the production of the base converages of different suitability variables L range, slope, soil rockiness, rainfall annural mean and rainfall with 75 per cent expectancy. The next step is to classify the variables for each crop separately into most (S1), moderately (S2), marginally (S3), and not suitable (S4). This classification, which we termed 'crop suitability coverage' in fig. 1, is based on [DENT 1985].
The final step is the combination of above factor-specific crop suitability coverages into an overall suitability which expresses the ideal area of cultivation of a particular cop. Another combination with the present area of this crop will result in the crop planning maps, e.g. for coconut (see fig. 2); or paddy etc.
Figure 2 Planning map for coconut
The result shows a relatively small area (dark grey) where the cultivation of coconut is ideal and actually being practiced. Large areas (light grey), principally in the north, are suitable but not is use. Mainly in the south coconut is growing n many places (middle grey) although it is unfavorable.
2.2 Main results of RRA in villages
The aim of the RRAs in two villages in Weeraketya in southern Sri Lanka was to collect information from peasant about their strategies and reasons for a certain land usage and land use planning and thus to cross-check the results of the GIS application. The perspective of the land users is in the center. However, since we didn't have the possibilities to implement any plans, we tried to avoid disappointment on the side of the farmers by not going to the extent of actually planning for land use changes.
We investigated four main areas:
Present land use
Current land use
Cultivation criteria and -decisions
Crop requirements
Agricultural input
Importance of crops for household
Land tenure
Seasonal differences
Seasonal land use
Task distribution
Other incomes
Land use changes
Recent and historical changes
Changes in land tenure
Cultivation practices
Influence on land use
Effect, impact of the changes
Wishes for future land use
Problems, needs, expectations
Alternatives
Realization, implementation
One of the RRA results are sketch maps of village areas that were drawn by the local people in the first evening meeting. Besides getting to know each other and forming faith between locals and outsiders, the most important geographical information and the local problems of land use were discussed in this way. Other RRA activities were interview with caretakers, peasants, big and interviews with caretakers, peasant, big and owners, smalholders as well as transect walks and group discussions.
Another outcome are the requirements of several plants, e.g. coconut, banana pepper, teak in relation to the suitability variables of the GIS model (see chapter 2.1). By means of listing and ranking, local people express their knowledge about physical needs of the plants, the relative important of certain requirements, advantages and disadvantages of different soil types for certain crops.
Further results are various sketch maps from peasants that show he personal property with the present land use or plans for future land use
Finally, a lot of information about he socio-eco-nomic and ecological situations in these communities has been acquired.
