GIS Applications to Wilderness Management - Forest … · GIS applications to wilderness...

United StatesDepartmentof Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky MountainRocky MountainRocky MountainRocky MountainRocky MountainResearch StationResearch StationResearch StationResearch StationResearch Station

General TechnicalReport RMRS-GTR-80

September 2001

GIS Applications toWilderness Management:

Potential Uses and Limitations

Peter Landres

David R. Spildie

LLoyd P. Queen

Abstract

Landres, Peter; Spildie, David R.; Queen, LLoyd P. 2001. GIS applications to wilderness management:potential uses and limitations. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-80. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 9 p.

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are increasingly being used in all areas of natural resourcemanagement. This paper first presents a brief primer on GIS, and then discusses potential applications ofGIS to wilderness management in the areas of inventorying, monitoring, analysis, planning, and commu-nication. Outlined are the limitations and pitfalls that could compromise the effectiveness of a wildernessGIS, and several suggestions are included for improving the chances of successfully using GIS inwilderness management.

Keywords: Geographic Information Systems, GIS, remote sensing, wilderness, wildernessmanagement, spatial data, geospatial data, monitoring

You may order additional copies of this publication by sending yourmailing information in label form through one of the following media.Please specify the publication title and series number.

Fort Collins Service Center

Telephone (970) 498-1392

FAX (970) 498-1396

E-mail [email protected]

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/rm

Mailing Address Publications DistributionRocky Mountain Research Station240 West Prospect RoadFort Collins, CO 80526

Rocky Mountain Research Station240 West Prospect RoadFort Collins, CO 80526

Author Bios

Peter Landres is a Research Ecologist at the Rocky Mountain Research Station’s Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institutein Missoula, MT. He has a B.S. degree in natural science from Lewis and Clark College and Ph.D. degree in ecology and biologyfrom Utah State University. He is active in developing the knowledge to improve the ecological management of wilderness.

David R. Spildie is a Biologist at the Rocky Mountain Research Station’s Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute inMissoula, MT. He has a B.S. degree in zoology from the University of Wisconsin and an M.S. degree, also in zoology, from theUniversity of Wyoming. His interests include human impacts on wilderness ecosystems, ecological relationships among fire,small mammals and vegetation, and the use of Geographic Information Systems in wilderness management.

LLoyd P. Queen is Professor of remote sensing and Geographic Information Systems in the School of Forestry at the Universityof Montana in Missoula, MT. He has a B.S. degree from Mankato State University, and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from theUniversity of Nebraska. His research focuses on applications of GIS and remote sensing to resource assessment and inventory,and he is involved in research in data calibration, forest monitoring, change detection, and landscape geography.

GIS Applications to Wilderness Management:Potential Uses and Limitations

Peter Landres

David R. Spildie

LLoyd P. Queen

USDA Forest ServiceGeneral Technical Report RMRS-GTR-80 September 2001

Contents

Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1

Background........................................................................................................................................... 1

GIS: A Primer ...................................................................................................................................... 2

GIS Applications to Wilderness Management ......................................................................................4 Inventorying..................................................................................................................................... 4 Monitoring ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Planning ........................................................................................................................................... 6 Communication ................................................................................................................................ 6

Problems and Limitations in Developing a Wilderness GIS ................................................................ 6

Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................... 8

References ............................................................................................................................................ 8

Appendix — Additional GIS References ............................................................................................. 9

ii

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-80. 2001 1

Introduction

This paper introduces wilderness managers tothe potential benefits and limitations of using a Geo-graphic Information System (GIS). Although some wil-derness managers are familiar with and routinely useGIS, there have been only a few published accountsshowing how GIS could be used to improve wildernessmanagement. For example, Kliskey (1994) used GISto explore how visitor perceptions varied from one areato another, and Gimblett and others (2001) combinedGIS and simulation techniques to examine how alterna-tive trail systems would affect use by different groups,and the resulting potential conflicts among these groups.Brown and others (1994) used GIS to assess how wellthe prescribed natural fire program matched thepresettlement fire regime in the Selway-Bitterroot Wil-derness in Montana and Idaho. In a broad use of GIS,Loomis and Echohawk (1999) assessed ecosystem rep-resentation within the National Wilderness PreservationSystem.

The use of GIS in all areas of natural resourcemanagement is increasing dramatically, but our experi-ence suggests that the people who manage wildernessmay not fully understand the benefits and limitations ofthis rapidly developing technology. Likewise, the peoplewho know this technology may not understand the needsand constraints of wilderness and wilderness manag-ers. This mutual lack of understanding results in lostopportunities to improve wilderness management.

This paper links these two disparate disciplinesof GIS and wilderness. Specifically, we discuss whatGIS is, highlight potential applications where GIS maysubstantially improve wilderness management, andbriefly discuss general approaches and limitations thatshould be considered in developing a wilderness GIS.We conclude that GIS offers a new way of thinking aboutand improving wilderness management, a new way thatoffers much promise but also poses substantial hurdlesand limitations. We do not discuss the technical issues

of how to build a wilderness GIS because every areahas a unique set of goals, conditions, threats, availabledata, and computing environment (the hardware, soft-ware, and computer expertise); instead we offer a se-lected set of references for people interested in thesetechnical issues.

Background

Wilderness management decisions and actions arebased ideally on an intimate knowledge of the natural land-scape, its use, and the multitude of internal and externalthreats to wilderness. In reality, most wildernesses haveinsufficient information about current resource conditions,uses, threats, and the interrelationships among these. Thislack of information likely results from the perception thatthese areas are intact ecological systems with little needfor active management, and there are no commodity val-ues within wilderness, both suggesting that there is no needfor new or better information. In addition, the large areaand general inaccessibility of wilderness contributes to theperception that collecting new information would be toocostly and time-consuming. Exacerbating this lack of in-formation is inadequate staffing in proportion to the areaof wilderness managed, and traditional reliance on “shoe-box” recordkeeping and paper maps. These traditionalmeans for keeping records and analyzing issues workedwell in their day, but in comparison to computer-basedmethods, paper-based records are difficult to analyze andeasily lost, especially as staff relocate or retire. In addi-tion, interactively demonstrating the effects of differentmanagement options to the public on paper maps is diffi-cult or impossible. Furthermore, understanding complexspatial relationships among different types of variables, suchas the influence of trailhead location on the availability ofsolitude and the influx of exotic plants, is difficult withpaper maps, especially for issues that cross traditionaladministrative boundaries.

GIS Applications to Wilderness Management:Potential Uses and Limitations

Peter Landres

David R. Spildie

LLoyd P. Queen

2 USDA Forest Service Gen.Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-80. 2001

GIS and other rapidly developing computer-basedtechnologies, such as remote sensing and spatial analysis,offer the means for overcoming some of the problemsmentioned above. The availability of large amounts ofgeospatial data and powerful analysis tools to help under-stand relationships among these different types of data,and being able to manipulate these data over large areasfor different planning goals, allow new ways of thinkingabout wilderness. For example, programmatic questionsabout wilderness and other natural areas that could beasked with these new technologies include: What is thecontribution of wilderness to municipal water supplies?What is the contribution of wilderness to the protection ofwildlife? Where are the greatest opportunities for primi-tive recreation and solitude? At the local level of manag-ing a wilderness, questions might include: Where are weedinfestations the greatest and how are these changing overtime? Where are campsite impacts the worst and howmight a quota system affect these impacts? Where couldtrails be routed to minimize soil erosion and impacts towildlife habitat? Readily answering questions such asthese is the hope of GIS application to wilderness man-agement. Fulfilling this hope, however, requires under-standing what GIS is and what it isn’t, and its limitations.

GIS: A Primer

A GIS is a computer application that stores, re-trieves, manipulates, analyzes, and displays geographi-cally referenced information or geospatial data.Geographic referencing ties objects to a known locationon the ground and can relate this object to all other ob-jects or features on the ground. Two basic types of dataare managed by a GIS: geospatial data that define thelocation of a feature or object on the ground, and attributedata that describe the characteristics of this feature. Table1 illustrates different types of spatial objects and describespotential attribute data for each. GIS offers the uniqueability to link spatial and attribute data, and then to ma-nipulate and analyze relationships among them.

There are also two distinct GIS data structures orways that data are represented and stored within a GIS:vector and raster. In a vector data structure, geospatialdata are represented as points, lines, or polygons. As ex-amples, fire rings or campsites would be stored as points,trails or streams as lines, and forest stands or recreationopportunity classes as polygons (fig. 1a). In contrast, araster data structure represents geospatial data in a regu-lar grid of cells and the attribute applies to the entire cell(fig. 1b). Raster data provide continuous coverage of anarea. For example, a Digital Elevation Model showingslope, aspect, and elevation in a grid for an area is a rasterdata structure (fig. 2). A discussion of vector and rasterdata structures and their specific benefits and limitationsis beyond the scope of this paper; readers wanting more

Table 1. Examples of spatial objects and potentialattributes for each type of object.

Spatial object Type of data Attributes____________________________________________

Administrative Point Name and condition structures of buildings,

bridges, or culverts

Campsite Point Bare area, treedamage

Trail Line Name, amount ofuse, length, mainte-nance needs

Stream Line Name, intermittentor perennial

Lake Polygon Name, amount ofaccessible shoreline, number ofpeak season users

Recreation Polygon Class opportunity class

Grazing allotment Polygon Leaseholder, (ani-mal unit months)

Patent claim Polygon/point Type of patent andactivity status

Exotic plant Polygon/point Species, date ofdetection, density

Figure 1. The samegeospatial data can be rep-resented by vector (a) andraster (b) data structures.Vector geospatial data areorganized as x,y coordi-nates. In contrast, rastergeospatial data are orga-nized as cells in a matrixof rows and columns thatcover the entire area.

a.

b.


technical information should refer to the references in theAppendix. All of the uses, benefits, and limitations of GISdiscussed below apply equally to both vector and raster datastructures.

The attribute data of a GIS are stored in a rela-tional database and the geospatial data are stored in whatare commonly called map coverages, map layers, orthemes. These layers, geographically referenced to oneanother, are the core of the GIS (fig. 3). Each map layertypically represents distinct features of interest. For ex-ample, topography, trails, campsites, opportunity classes,sensitive species habitat, and soil erosion potential allcould be map layers. The most important criteria usedto choose which map layers should be in the GIS are thedesired goals and the availability of data with the ap-propriate content and data resolution. Managementgoals determine everything else, from the types of datathat are used to the analyses performed and the mapsthat are finally produced. The content of a map layerrefers to both spatial and attribute data; the spatial datashould be accurately located on the ground, and the at-tribute data should be accurate, up-to-date, and appro-priate for the intended uses. Data resolution is dependenton the scale of the map (for example, 1:24,000 or1:100,000) and refers to the accuracy of the depictionof the map elements. While a GIS can zoom in or out tomagnify or reduce the view, no GIS can improve dataquality, or increase the amount of detail once it is en-tered into a GIS. As is true for any information-basedtool, if poor quality information is put into the GIS, mis-leading information comes out. Also, as layers are addedand merged throughout the analysis process, errors arecompounded. These problems are especially acute in a

GIS because many different sources of information areassembled into the final GIS database, and poor qualityattribute data are difficult to discern on a map that other-wise “looks good.”

There are several different methods for enteringdata into a GIS database. One method is to digitize (orconvert into electronic form) already existing maps us-

Hydrography (lines

Trails (lines)

Recreation OpportunClass (polygons)

Campsites (points)

Exotic Plants(points or polygons

Resulting Overlay

COVERAGESCOVERAGES

Trails (lines)

Hydrography (lines)

Recreation OpportunityClass (polygons)

Campsites (points)

Exotic Plants(points or polygons)

Resulting Overlay

Hydrography (lines)

Trails (lines)

Recreation OpportunityClass (polygons)

Campsites (points)

Exotic Plants(points or polygons)

COVERAGES

Resulting Overlay

Figure 3. A GIS is composed of individual coverages, all geo-graphically referenced to one another.

Figure 2. A Digital ElevationModel showing continuouscoverage of slope, aspect, andelevation in a raster grid acrossan entire area. This area is theeast side of the CascadeMountains in west-centralWashington State. Each regu-lar grid cell is 1 km on a side.Figure developed and providedby Steve Brown at the Univer-sity of Montana.


ing a manual digitizer or a scanner. Manual digitizingcan be laborious, depending on the complexity of themap layer, and may introduce significant errors depend-ing on the skill of the operator. Scanning is quicker andprovides a more objective electronic rendition of a papermap, but requires access to a large scanner and is alsosubject to several sources of error. Scanning errors in-clude linework that varies in width and continuity, inad-vertent smears or smudges, and incorrect or missingregistration marks. For a complete discussion of scan-ning and scanning errors, see references cited in the Ap-pendix. Both manual and scanned data must be proofedand edited to correct inevitable errors that occur.

One alternative to map digitizing is acquiringdigital data files from a GIS data clearinghouse, such asthe U.S. Geological Survey, the USDA Forest Service,or other government agencies that have many differenttypes of digital map coverages, such as political bound-aries, topography, and hydrography (streams and lakes).Other alternatives to digitizing include processing satel-lite images to obtain vegetation cover, and, while in thefield, using a Global Positioning System (GPS) to di-rectly record digital data on features of interest, such asthe location and condition class of campsites. Digitalfiles of map layers derived from satellite and other re-motely sensed images, as well as from a GPS, can bedirectly entered into a GIS. A key consideration whenacquiring any digital data from other organizations is toreview data content and format standards in what is re-ferred to as a metadata record (literally, “data aboutdata”). These metadata records help users evaluatewhether data format, attributes, and source data resolu-tion are appropriate for their intended purpose.

Map coverages from a GIS database, and resultsfrom GIS analyses, can be displayed and printed in dif-ferent forms—maps, figures, and tables—and can alsobe shared between different GIS software packages.Some types of maps that are difficult to create using tra-ditional cartographic methods can now be easily pro-duced using GIS. For example, within a GIS program itis usually a simple operation to overlay different cover-ages on top of one another to illustrate relationships, orderive an entirely new coverage resulting from the com-bination of two or more coverages. Similarly, modelingtools available in GIS software packages can easily pro-duce map measurements and analyze attribute data.There are many technical issues related to GIS and read-ers can refer to the texts listed in the References andsidebar for more information.

GIS Applications to WildernessManagement

What can GIS do for wilderness management?The unique ability of a GIS to store, manipulate, andanalyze spatial and attribute data provides one of the best

means for assessing and understanding the status andtrends of resource conditions, threats to these resources,and the consequences of different proposed managementactions on these resources. In the past, this resource in-formation was stored in hard-copy documents and onmaps. With GIS, this information can be stored digitally,making it readily accessible for evaluation and analysis,and it can be shared among wilderness managers, otherstaff, and the public. Specifically, GIS offers the poten-tial to significantly improve the accuracy and long-termcost-efficiency of five basic actions of wilderness man-agement: inventorying, monitoring, analysis, planning,and communication.

Inventorying

Inventorying is simply identifying things of in-terest, their location, and their current condition, and isunarguably one of the earliest uses of GIS and now oneof the most common uses. Campsites, fire rings, trails,recreation opportunity classes, common vegetation types,exotic plants, and vegetation types used by threatenedand endangered species can all be inventoried andmapped into a GIS. If GIS and other digital technolo-gies such as GPS receivers are not currently availablefor use in a wilderness, it will take time and money tobuy these new technologies and learn their use. In thelong-run, inventory tasks will be easier and quicker withthese new technologies. For example, inventory data canbe directly entered into a GPS during field surveys andthen into the GIS. Finding particular maps, and particu-lar dated versions of maps, would take less space and befar quicker on a computer than searching storage roomsfor paper maps. Computerized maps are also easily up-dated as new or more accurate information becomesavailable. Most important, within a GIS all inventoriedattribute information about map features is readily avail-able for tabulation, analysis, and graphical display.

Monitoring

Monitoring is the process of repeatedly measur-ing an attribute over time to determine changes in loca-tion or condition. Nearly all of the resources traditionallymonitored by wilderness staff can be assessed within aGIS, including the amount of use an area receives; camp-site location, condition, and size; the location and condi-tion of official and social trails; the location and densityof exotic plants; or the location and condition of struc-tures. By facilitating the storage, retrieval, and compari-son of any attribute data over any time frame, a GIS cansimplify the process of monitoring, assessing change,and determining trends.

Still in various stages of development, some in-ventory and monitoring needs may be accomplished bybringing satellite imagery and other remotely sensed datafor a wilderness directly into a GIS. For example, as-


sessing vegetation types, wildlife habitat types, and es-tablishment of exotic plants or exotic insect pests orpathogens within a wilderness could be accomplishedby purchasing appropriate satellite imagery, classifyingthe various components of this image, and loading thisinformation into a GIS. With sufficient development,this process could significantly decrease the time andfunding needed to inventory and monitor valued wilder-ness attributes in large and remote areas. A major trendto watch for are spatial data from NASA’s Earth Observ-ing System satellite, which will provide frequent, highresolution data directly to the GIS user.

Analysis

GIS is much more than a tool for making maps.It is the analytical capabilities of GIS — the ability to

integrate and overlay any number of data layers limitedonly by the imagination and experience of the user — thatoffer the most promise to wilderness managers. A GIS canexplore relationships and determine trends and conse-quences of potential or planned actions. The analytical ca-pabilities of GIS allow wilderness managers to pose“geographic questions” (Falbo and others 1991). Thesequestions include: (1) What objects occur in a specific lo-cation? (2) What are the attributes of certain objects incertain locations? (3) What are the spatial patterns of cer-tain objects? Specifically related to wilderness manage-ment, one could ask “Where are campsite standardsexceeded?” and determine if there are patterns in wherethese standards are exceeded by examining the relation-ship of these campsites to other attributes such as eleva-tion, soil erosion potential, and proximity to lakes, streams,or trailheads (fig. 4). One could ask, “What trails and

Figure 4. Campsites and areasthat are monitored in the Emi-grant Wilderness, StanislausNational Forest. Campsite con-dition class 1-2.5 is low impact(O), 3-4 is high impact (D).Campsite condition class ismonitored to assess changeover time. Stock areas are moni-tored for compliance and camp-fire rings above the 9,000 ft lineare identified for removal. TheGIS analysis allows wildernessrangers and support crews toeasily identify monitoring areasand sites where campfire ringswill be removed. Figure devel-oped and provided by MartyGmelin.

T TT

SS

N

E m igran t W ilde rnessS tanis laus N a tiona l Fores t

C ond ition C lass : 1 - 2 .5C ond ition C lass : 3 - 4

4 S tock L im it

90 00 ’ line , N o C am pfire sA bo ve th is E leva tio n

N o S to ck A llow ed

Tra il

S tream

La ke

0 0 .3 0 .6 M iles


campsites occur in habitat areas or corridors importantfor species of special concern?” These areas could thenbe monitored more frequently and trail rerouting planned.Using time-series analysis, it would be possible to un-derstand how campsite and trail conditions are changingover time. Or, one could ask “How would the paving ofa new road close to a wilderness influence that area?”Using a GIS-based analysis, a wilderness manager couldexamine whether that new road might create habitat prob-lems for threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TES) spe-cies, or overburden existing trails, and even predictpotential reduced impact on some areas of the wilder-ness caused by the new road displacing use from onearea to another. In this case, the analyst has the ability tobuild virtual roads within the GIS, analyze the outcomesfrom alternative road networks, and assess the compara-tive advantages and disadvantages of these alternatives.GIS modelers often refer to these as “scenario-building”exercises.

Many wilderness managers intuitively know theanswers to these questions. In these cases, a GIS maynot provide new information. Instead, the GIS providesa long-term record of these relationships and how theyare changing over time. As work duties become morefilled and fragmented, and as personnel change, suchlong-term records will be invaluable. GIS tools also al-low the decisionmaker to frame questions in alternativeways to examine the sensitivity or efficacy of a given“answer” to such questions. In addition, this computer-ized information allows other individuals who may notbe as familiar with a particular area to examine potentialrelationships and analyze changes over time. If GIS isapplied over entire management areas, the cumulativeeffects of land management decisions could be analyzed(Queen and others 1995).

Planning

GIS could facilitate wilderness planning in sev-eral ways. Once relationships among wilderness re-sources and threats to these are understood, managerscould play “what-if” scenarios within the GIS, varyingdifferent aspects of wilderness conditions and threats(Wing and Shelby 1999). For example, the location andintensity of different types of uses such as recreation,mining, or livestock grazing could be altered one-at-a-time to discern the effects of alternative managementoptions. GIS could also allow greater integration of wil-derness planning across administrative units if these unitsare using a common, shared GIS database (Queen andArthaud 1994). The ability to share information acrossspatial scales, from a single wilderness to an entire for-est, State, and region, would facilitate and enhance land-scape-level planning (Landres and others 1998). Sharedand integrated data would also allow administrative unitsto more efficiently allocate budgets, time, personnel, andresponsibilities related to wilderness management. A

GIS may also compel collecting better quality informa-tion and new types of information because of the poten-tial for improved analysis and planning (Coppin andQueen 1995).

Communication

GIS is an effective tool for public outreach, com-munication, and education (Blinn and others 1993). GISis effective because most people understand informationmore readily when it is portrayed graphically, and oneof the principal outputs of GIS is a map, combined withother data in graphical form. Land management issuesare often contentious, requiring a good understanding ofseveral variables and their interrelationships, and whereimpacts and potentials occur within the wilderness. Bygraphically showing these interrelationships and loca-tions, GIS-produced maps can improve communicationamong management personnel and the public, as well asamong different stakeholders (Lime and others 1995).Further, a GIS can be set up in public meetings to allowimmediate exploration of “what-if” scenarios to illus-trate potential effects and outcomes of different decisions.For example, if one user group wants to improve roadaccess to a wilderness trailhead, a GIS could be used toshow the likely impact of a greater number of recreationistson campsite conditions, density of people around lakes, andeffects on trails. This information would be useful for man-agers to communicate to various stakeholders the potentialimpacts and tradeoffs of different management alternatives,as well as to improve communication among the differentstakeholders.

Problems and Limitations in Developing aWilderness GIS

GIS is one tool among many that wildernessmanagers can use. While GIS may be a valuable andunique tool, there are basic issues in developing a wil-derness GIS that must be resolved before any action istaken, and several practical issues can prevent or com-promise the use of GIS (see sidebar 1 on Potential Prob-lems with GIS). These basic issues include determiningif GIS is appropriate for the situation and which datalayers are necessary and sufficient to accomplish the in-tended task.

Assessing whether GIS is appropriate is crucialbecause there are substantial ethical issues about usingthis sort of technology in wilderness, as well as signifi-cant costs in terms of time, effort, and money in devel-oping a GIS. Borrie (2000) discusses the philosophicaland ethical concerns about using such technology as GPSreceivers inside wilderness, as well as using this tech-nology to manage wilderness. One of Borrie’s chief con-cerns is the “loss of the unknown” and all that wilderness


stands for in a world increasingly circled, studied, andmapped by our technological devices. Borrie concludesby asking: “How does technology irrevocably change us

and our views of wil-derness, and how do weweigh the advantagesand disadvantages oftechnology?” Parsonsand Graber (1990)raised similar questionsabout the role of scien-tific activities in wilder-ness, and the necessity

of understanding the relative benefits and costs of ac-quiring knowledge about wilderness.

Although every situation is different, GIS prac-titioners have developed recommendations for initiatingthese types of projects and ensuring that costs are con-trolled. One recommendation is a systematic planningand design process prior to GIS acquisition, startup, orthe initiation of a new project on a GIS that has alreadybeen established (Blinn and others 1993). Somers (1990)developed the GIS Lifecycle planning and design frame-work, consisting of a “data core” and four cyclical phasesof GIS adoption (fig. 5). At the center of the Lifecycleare the spatial data that are to be managed and analyzedby the GIS user. In this framework, data appropriate tothe desired analyses are the core of the GIS effort. Also,with the growing role of the Internet and local networksin connecting different GIS users, data sharing and con-sequent liability are issues that should be anticipated(Freimund and Queen 1996, Blinn and others 1993).

The four cyclical phases of the GIS Lifecycleare common-sense steps in project design and analysisthat are often overlooked in the “technical” arena of GIS.

Phase 1—planning—begins with the crucialquestion “why consider a GIS?” Many planning, moni-toring, and assessment tasks can and are effectively ac-complished using methods other than GIS. Users needto be aware of what a GIS is and is not designed to

accomplish (see sidebar 2 on What GIS Is. What GIS IsNot). The substance of phase 1 is a systematic assess-ment of (1) who the GIS users are, (2) what their goalsare, (3) what the anticipated products are, (4) what dataand analyses are needed to provide these products, and(5) how decisionmakers will use this information. Alsoduring this phase it is critical that all users assess theirroles and responsibilities in GIS adoption because most“users” will not be GIS technicians trained to use thesoftware. Rather, they will provide data to be enteredinto the GIS, will use the products created by the GIS, orwill work with a GIS technician to pose questions dur-ing “what-if” scenarios.

Phase 2—design—matches user needs and expec-tations to the appropriate GIS functions. Included in thisphase are tasks of software selection, allocation of resourcesto training and education, and staging or scheduling tasksand outcomes so that progress toward planning goals canbe measured. Phase 3—implementation—is where manyusers assume that GIS projects actually begin. During phase3, data are compiled, maps digitized, metadata records com-piled, analyses conducted, and output products (for example,maps, tables, charts) are generated. Phase 3 is the realiza-tion of the planning and design goals (see sidebar 3 on Re-quirements for Successful GIS Implementation).

Finally, in phase 4—maintenance—data must bekept current and up to date. Users may require addi-tional training in use of software, system upgrades maybe needed, and the overall effort may be expanded froma pilot to a full implementation. These maintenance tasksclearly are necessary to support ongoing GIS use but mayalso be required even if the project has no longer termprogrammatic use. That is, even if user needs are met atthe close of phase 3, the data compiled for the projectmay have real utility for other uses or users. Mainte-nance of data and expertise developed earlier in the GISLifecycle guards that investment and provides the opportu-nity for a longer term return on the original investment.

Users need to be aware of the limitations andadded costs of selecting GIS-based data management andanalysis. The success of a GIS project will ultimately bemeasured against the abilities of the system to meet andrespond to user needs and expectations (see sidebar 3 onRequirements for Successful GIS Implementation). Thestructured planning process should carefully consider thedesign and adoption of GIS, with the setting of clear,reasonable design goals that can be used to measure thereturn on a GIS investment. In many instances, usersmay decide that pilot or prototype projects are useful fortesting the feasibility and costs of a GIS solution.

Conclusions

Increasing use of GIS in many areas is insufficientjustification for developing a wilderness GIS: time and fund-ing are in too short a supply for wilderness managers to

Sidebar 1 -- Potential Problems with GIS

* Poor planning * Poor training * Poor documentation * Data compilation is too involved and costly * Overemphasis on technology * Unrealistic expectations

______________________________

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

___

____

____

____

____

____

____

___

Figure 5. The GIS Lifecycle denoting four distinct phasesshown in boxes (from Somers 1990). See text for expla-nation of this figure.


jump on bandwagons oradopt the newest tool insearch of a problem.Experience has shownthat selecting an appro-priate GIS solution thatmeets user needs andexpectations can bechallenging. Refer-ences in this paper (andin the appendix) willhelp the reader under-stand the issues and the“learning curve” associ-ated with new or ex-panded GIS projects.

GIS projects can flounder on poorly defined goals and theuse of poor quality or inappropriate data. Without clearlystated goals and precise questions or objectives, GIS can beeasily mired in costly details of technology and data. Ifanything, the lack of clearly defined goals and adequateplanning is exacerbated by using GIS.

Despite these concerns, GIS can bring significantbenefits to wilderness management, and we firmly believethat wilderness managers need to be proactive in under-standing what GIS is, how it can be used, and its limita-tions. Introducing GIS into wilderness management mayfundamentally change the way data are compiled, analyzed,and shared. Ultimately, GIS is not so much about a newtechnology as it is a stepping stone for a new way of think-ing about and improving our understanding of wildernessand its management.

References

Blinn, C., D. Martodam, and L. Queen. 1993. Enhancing access fornatural resource professionals to Geographic Information Systems:An example application. The Forestry Chronicle 70(1):33–37.

Borrie, W. T. 2000. Impacts of technology on the meaning of wil-derness. Pages 87–88 in Personal, Societal, and Ecological Val-ues of Wilderness: Sixth World Wilderness Congress Proceedingson Research, Management, and Allocation, Vol II (A. E. Watson,G. H. Aplet, J. C. Hendee, compilers). Proceedings RMRS-P-14, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station,Odgen, UT.

Brown, J. K., S. F. Arno, S. W. Barrett, and J. P. Menakis. 1994.Comparing the prescribed natural fire program with presettlementfires in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness. International Journalof Wildland Fire 4:157–168.

Coppin, P., and L. Queen. 1995. GIS and forest management: bring-ing data layers up to standard. FORS Compiler 13(2):29–37.

Falbo, D., L.Queen, and C. Blinn. 1991. Introduction to data analy-sis using a geographic information system. Minnesota ExtensionService Publication, NR-FO-5740-E. 11 p.

Freimund, W., and L. Queen. 1996. Examining the potential formulticultural electronic Wilderness communication using theInternet. International Journal of Wilderness 2(1): 33–36.

Gimblett, H. R., M. T. Richards, and R. M. Itami. 2001. RBSimgeographic simulation of wilderness recreation behavior. Jour-nal of Forestry 98(2):36–42.

Kliskey, A. D. 1994. Mapping multiple perceptions of wildernessin New Zealand, II: An alternative multivariate approach. Ap-plied Geography 14:308–326.

Landres, P.B., S. Marsh, L. Merigliano, D. Ritter, and A. Norman.1998. Boundary effects on wilderness and other natural areas.Pages 117–139 in Stewardship Across Boundaries (R.L. Knight,P.B. Landres, editors). Island Press, Washington D.C.

Lime, S., D. Lime, L. Queen, and M. Lewis. 1995. Using the Internetto communicate tourism, recreation, and resource information.Pages 330–333 in Proceedings of the Trends in Recreation Re-source Management Conference. St. Paul, MN.

Loomis, J., and J. C. Echohawk. 1999. Using GIS to identify un-der-represented ecosystems in the National Wilderness Preser-vation System in the USA. Environmental Conservation26:53–58.

Parsons, D. J., and D. M. Graber. 1990. Horses, helicopters, and hi-tech: managing science in wilderness. Pages 90–94 in Preparingto manage wilderness in the 21st century: proceedings of the con-ference (P.C. Reed, compiler). USDA Forest Service GeneralTechnical Report SE-66, Southeastern Forest Experiment Sta-tion, Athens, GA.

Queen, L., and G. Arthaud. 1994. Database design for integratedmultiple ownership data sets. Northern Journal of Applied For-estry 11(3):73–79.

Queen, L., K. Brooks, and W. Wold. 1995. Assessing cumulativeeffects in the Nemadji River Basin, MN. Pages 239–249 in Wa-tershed Management: Planning for the 21st Century (T.J. Ward,editor). American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY.

Somers, R. 1990. Management topics in GIS development. URISA/GIS ‘90 Workshop (J. Antennuci and A. Levinsohn, editors).Urban and Regional Information Systems Association, Vancouver,B.C.

Wing, M., and B. Shelby. 1999. Using GIS to integrate informationon forest recreation. Journal of Forestry 97(1):12–16.

Sidebar 3 -- Requirements for Successful GIS Implementation

* Funding and administrative support * Willing users * Knowledgeable staff * Cost-effective applications * Appropriate hardware and software * Adequate and appropriately scaled GIS data * Implementationplan that includes how GIS products will support decisionmaking * Monitor and evaluate effectiveness of GIS improving resource management * Clear protocols for data handling operations

______________________________

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__


Antenucci, J.C., K. Brown, P.L. Croswell, M.J. Kevany, and H. Ar-cher. 1991. Geographic information systems: a guide to thetechnology. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.

Aronoff, S. 1995. Geographic information systems: a managementperspective. WDL Publications, Ottawa, Canada.

Burrough, P., and R. McDonnell. 1998. Principles of GeographicalInformation Systems. Oxford University Press. 333pp.

Clarke, K.C. 1997. Getting started with geographic informationsystems. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Cowen, D.J., J.R. Jensen, P.J. Bresnahan, G.B. Ehler, D. Graves, X.Huang, C. Wiesner, and H.E. Mackey. 1995. The design andimplementation of an integrated geographic information systemfor environmental applications. Photogrammetric Engineeringand Remote Sensing 61:1393–1404.

Goodchild, M., and B. Parks. 1993. Environmental modeling withGIS. Oxford University Press, Inc., New York, NY.

Haines-Young, R., D.R. Green, and S. Cousins. 1993. Landscapeecology and GIS. Taylor and Francis, New York, NY.

APPENDIX — ADDITIONAL GIS REFERENCES

Heit, M. 1990. Making it Work Symposium Proceedings. GIS90.International Symposium on GIS: March 1990. Forestry Canadaand Reid, Collins and Associates.

Hunter, G. and M. Goodchild. 1996. Communicating uncertaintyin spatial databases. Transactions in GIS 1(1): 13–24.

Korte, G. 1994. GIS book: the smart manager’s guide to purchas-ing, implementing, and running a GIS, 3rd edition. OnWordPress. 220 p.

Longley, P.A., M.F. Goodchild, D.J. Maguire, and D.W. Rhind.2001. Geographic information systems and science. Wiley,Chichester, UK 480 p.

Montgomery, G.E., and H.C. Schuch. 1993. GIS data conversionhandbook. GIS World Books, GIS World, Inc., Fort Collins,CO.

Parker, H.D. 1988. The unique qualities of a GIS: a commentary.Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing.54(11)1547–1549.

Peuquest, D. and D. Marble, editors. 1990. Introductory readingsin geographic information systems. Taylor and Francis. 371 p.

The Rocky Mountain Research Station develops scientificinformation and technology to improve management, protec-tion, and use of the forests and rangelands. Research isdesigned to meet the needs of National Forest managers,Federal and State agencies, public and private organizations,academic institutions, industry, and individuals.

Studies accelerate solutions to problems involving ecosys-tems, range, forests, water, recreation, fire, resource inven-tory, land reclamation, community sustainability, forest engi-neering technology, multiple use economics, wildlife and fishhabitat, and forest insects and diseases. Studies are con-ducted cooperatively, and applications may be found world-wide.

Research Locations

Flagstaff, Arizona Reno, NevadaFort Collins, Colorado* Albuquerque, New MexicoBoise, Idaho Rapid City, South DakotaMoscow, Idaho Logan, UtahBozeman, Montana Ogden, UtahMissoula, Montana Provo, UtahLincoln, Nebraska Laramie, Wyoming

*Station Headquarters, Natural Resources Research Center,2150 Centre Avenue, Building A, Fort Collins, CO 80526

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimina-tion in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, nationalorigin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation,or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to allprograms.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means forcommunication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape,etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voiceand TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Officeof Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 IndependenceAvenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964(voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

ROCKY MOUNTAIN RESEARCH STATION

RMRS

Federal Recycling Program Printed on Recycled Paper

GIS Applications to Wilderness Management - Forest … · GIS applications to wilderness...

Documents

Transcript of GIS Applications to Wilderness Management - Forest … · GIS applications to wilderness...