GIS and RRA in Local -Level Land Use Planning
A case study in Sri Lanka
3. Potential links be between the two approaches
3.1 Complementing GIS with RRA
Verification and completion of based data
The coconut planning map (see fig. 2) shows large areas where the cultivation of this crop would be ideal but is ideal but is apparently not being practiced. Most of those reqions are mapped as homesteads. The RRA fieldwork has revealed that that in fact a lot of coconut cultivation is taking place in these regions. However, these are "home gardens' whereas the class "coconut" in the land use map refers to estates only.
Such information could be documented by photographs and stored in the GIS. Other results from RRA sessions (sketch maps, problematic issues) can be photographed and included in the GIS to complete the picture of natural environment and society.
Adjustment of models
In some places coconut is grown although it appears unfavorable. Based on discussions on crop requirements and other RRA activities, the GIS model, especially the weighting of suitability variables, was adjusted, differentiated and complemented. The result of the revised planning map for coconut presents a more realistic picture of the situation. The unsuitable areas are below the 1300 mm "75% rainfall level". This corresponds with the experiences from the RRA fieldwork: rainfall is the most important constraint.
Gaining insight into functional relationships
The GIS model considers physical factors only and offers no explanation for the present land use situation. The relationship between environment, social and economic conditions of the land users are certainly an important dimension in land use planning. We found that RRAs are an excellent method to provide insight into the way of thinking and reasons for acting of different stakeholders.
Detail planning
Our GIS model is essentially based on data at a scale of 1:50'000. This is already better than can be expected in many cases, but still too small for village level planning. Thus GIS models can reasonable be used at higher planning levels to define policies and broad structure plans. On the other hand, PRA could be used to "put the meat on the bones", that is, to work out detail plans at village level.
3.2 Complemening PRA with GIS?
Documentation of indigenous knowledge
The potential links between both approaches in the sense of a completion of RRA through GIS can be found at different stages of the bottom-up land use planning process.
The basis of this planning is the indigenous knowledge of the target group. The reception, discussion and assessment of this knowledge are essential steps of bottom-up planning. GIS could be used to systematically document and integrate such knowledge, e.g. local classification and usage systems for soils [MULLER-BOKER], [BLIEK]. However this raises the question who will benefit from such a collection.
It is also thinkable to try to use GIS to homogenize information on indigenous knowledge, i.e. to bring to into comparable formats, or to interpolate results from spatially dispersed RRA's. However this approach is an intrinsic contradiction to the concept of indigenous knowledge, which is essentially local in nature.
Provision of additional information into PRA
The combination of indigenous and scientific knowledge promises a greater success in hand use planning. GIS with their analysis, modeling and visualization tools can bring scientific knowledge into participatory local planning exercises. This could be information on p potentials for non-agricultural development, distributions of services, changes and trends etc. Moreover, the excellent possibilities of GIS to create customized visuals can be used to communicate villages relevant information on regional conditions, structure plans or scenarios. Such visuals could easilty be provided by Government officials as well as NGO professionals-provided they get access to the necessary data. Thus, communication between the planning levels can be improved, and the risk of detaching local from regional / national planning which is inherent in PAN can be minimized.
4. Conclusions
we compared two approaches to local 0level and use planning : the 'technocratic' approach which applies 'modern' science and GIS v. the
participatory approach which is based on traditional indigenous knowledge. Although there are certain shortcomings in the present study (e.g. we did not consider the implementation of land use plans, and 'local level' was interpreted differently in the two cases), we would like to draw some preliminary conclusions on the methodologies.
-
After some field checking, the GIS model meets the ground situation surprisingly well
- With the GIS model it was possible to prepare an indicative land use map for a relatively large area with very little effort (not accounting for the collection of base data). However, the scale of available data is too small for land use planning on the base of single plots.
- From the first two conclusions it follows that GIS can be a suitable tool in the definition of policies and broad structure plans at a regional level.
- Applying PRA for land use planning implicitly assumes the existence of a village community what a mandate for land use planning. However, we found no such communities, farmers act largely as individuals.
- RRA/ PRA appears to be a very effective method to build awareness on both sides and to improve communication between locals and outsiders, i.e. farmers and professional planners.
- Therefore we conclude that GIS and RRA / PRA are complementary rather than alternative methods. They both have their role to play at different stages and different levels of land use planning. The debate between paradigms of planning, and not between methods. The underlying question is L Who controls the land resources - central Government, local communities, or individuals - and who is in charge of land use planning ? this is a political question, not a methodical one.
- We identified a few potential entry points to link the two methodologies more closely. Whether a better integration of methods will help to bring about a resolution of underlying political conflicts has yet to be seen. It would be interesting to undertake more comprehensive research in this direction.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish is to thank the people of Kuda Bedigama and Muruthawela, the Sri Lanka Land use Policy Planning Division, the Center for Remote Sensing at the Survey Department, and Mrs. Julie van der Bliek and Mr. Mahinda Seneratne for their support in this research.
References
-
BLIEK J. van der (1995) : Land Planning : land users' Perspective, Summary Information Kuda Bedigama Colombo, (unpublished)
- CHAMBERS, R (1992): Rural Apprasisal : Rapid, Relaxed and participatory Discussion Paper 311, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, UK
- DENT, D L & R B Ridgway (1986): Land use planning handbook for Sri Lnaka UDP / Ministryof Lands and Land Development, Colombo
- DENT, D L & K P Goonewrdene (1993): Resource Assessment and land use Planning in Sri Lanka : A Case Study International Institute for Environment and Development, London
- IIMI, International Irrigation management institute (1994): GIS for Watershed Resource Planning SCOR Monitor Vo; 1 / No 2 &3
- MULLER - BOKE, U (1995): Ethnookologie. Ein Beitraz zur geographischen Entwicklungs forchung (in German) Geographische Rundschau Vol. 47 No. 6: 375-
- LEACH, M& J Fairhead (1994)L Natural Resource Management : The production land use of Environment Misinformation in Guinea's Forest-Savannah Tranistion Zone IDS Bulletin Vol. 25 No 2, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, UK
- LUPPD (1993) : Guidelines for the preparation of land use plans for Divisional Secretary Division Ministry of Lands, Colombo
- TURNER, S T D & R White (1994) : Geographical Information Systems for natural resource management in South East Asia Environment and Forest Conservation Division, Mahaweli Authority of Sir Lanka
