The school's scientific objectives.

Quantifying the perception of environmental issues by local citizens, stakeholders and decision-makers represents a major scientific challenge for environmental and territorial management. But this is a scientific approach that is difficult to implement over vast territories. Conventional semi-directive surveys of environmental risks and issues social perceptions- which represent a qualitative approach - make it difficult to apprehend geographical entities over vast areas, which makes it difficult to cross-reference them directly using geomatics and modelling tools. Yet biophysical data from satellite remote sensing, or at very high spatial resolution (aerial photos or long-range drone flights beyond the line of sight), increasingly need to be confronted with a spatialized social and/or anthropological perception.

In this context, we propose a quantitative method called "Zonage À Dires d'Acteurs (ZADA)" or Perception-based regional mapping - (PBRM), using cartography whose spatial coverage is carefully selected according to territorial criteria. It allows us to question the areas known and used by stakeholders in relation to an environmental and/or local development issue. Stakeholders will then partition the area according to their own criteria to qualify geographical zones according to quality levels.

Setting up a PBRM requires between 1 and 3 field surveyors. This work can take between 1 and 3 months to collect a minimum number of maps exceeding 30, ensure their representativeness and extract the most significant issue categories. The optimum number of maps is around one hundred interviews per territorial unit. Once the data has been put into GIS (i.e., the geographical entities have been vectorized), the next step is to merge the issues (i.e., the different categories filled in by the interviewees, which will be present in the attribute table under GIS) according to criteria of kinship/similarity. This procedure could give rise to semi-automated data processing, which will be the subject of a discussion point and perspectives addressed in this CNRS thematic school.

Bibliographic overview :

1.         Arnstein, S.R. A Ladder of Citizen Participation. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 1969, 35, 216–224.

2.         Caron, P. Zonage à dires d’acteurs: Des représentations spatiales pour comprendre, formaliser et décider. Le cas de Juazeiro, au Brésil. In Représentations Spatiales et Développement Territorial; Lardon, S., Maurel, P., Piveteau, V., Eds.; Hermes: Paris, France, 2001; pp. 343–357.

3.         Bailly, A.S. Subjective Distances and Spatial Representations. Geoforum 1986, 17, 81–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7185(86)90013-8.

4.         Touré, I.; Bah, A.; D’Aquino, P.; Dia, I. Savoirs experts et savoirs locaux pour la co-élaboration d’outils cartographiques d’aide à la décision. Cah. Agric. 2004, 13, 546–553.

5.         Lavigne-Delville, P. Regards Sur Les Enquêtes et Diagnostics Participatifs: La Situation d’enquête Comme Interface; Etude/Document de Travail GRET; Paris, France, 2001.

6.         Bommel, P. Définition d’un cadre Méthodologique pour la Conception de Modèles Multi-Agents Adaptés à la Gestion des Ressoureces Renouvelables. Ph.D. Thesis, Université Montpellier II-Sciences et Techniques du Languedoc, Montpellier, France, 2009.

7.         Saqalli, M.; Caron, P.; Defourny, P.; Issaka, A. The PBRM (Perception-Based Regional Mapping): A Spatial Method to Support Regional Development Initiatives. Appl. Geogr. 2009, 29, 358–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2008.11.003.

8.         Saqalli, M.; Maestripieri, N.; Jourdren, M.; Saenz, M.; Maire, E. Spatialiser un risque environnemental via les perceptions locales: Une démarche, trois terrains (Equateur, Tunisie, Laos). In Pathologies Environnementales—Identifier, Comprendre, Agir; CNRS Editions.77; Gaille, M., Ed.; CNRS: Paris, France, 2018.

9.         Saqalli, M.; Cifuentes, C.R.; Maire, E.; Alves, M.J.d.S.; Santo, R.C.; Kaced, D.; Gaudou, B.; Fiamor, A.-E. Resource Flows, Uses and Populations Territorial Attachments: The Case of the OyapockWatershed (French Guiana, Amapá State of Brazil). Land 2023, 12, 991. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12050991

Training objectives:

Social survey methods are rarely directly and accurately spatialized. A thematic school is really the best tool for implementing spatialized survey methods. The workshop setting enables participants to really understand how interviews are conducted and how they should be carried out in the field. Indeed, if the survey is non-directive (it's the interviewees who decide on the issue/theme to be spatialized), the geographical and methodological framework is strict enough for the data to be representative and usable in a GIS. Interviewers must have this precise methodological framework in mind. This requires at least one or two experiences in the field or during a dedicated workshop.

At the end of the training course, participants will be able to deploy this spatialized survey methodology in the field and adapt it to their own scientific problems.

Target audience:

- Priority: researchers in geography, planning, social sciences, PhD students. CNRS staff can benefit from financial support from the CNRS permanent training program.

- Secondarily: people involved in research into ecological and/or energy transition, anthropology, etc.

Prerequisites: minimum knowledge of the practice of social field surveys. GIS skills in QGIS are not essential, but appreciated.

EXPECTED CONSEQUENCES

For social science researchers, the aim is to acquire a method for assessing social perceptions that is "more quantitative" than conventional semi-structured and/or directive interviews, the results of which are difficult to spatialize. What's more, the method is non-directive, which corresponds to an interest in re-enriching the direct involvement of stakeholders and citizens necessary to the process of adapting a territory's populations to the major threats and global changes weighing on the environment (risks, resources, biodiversity, climate change, etc.) and also to certain planning intentions that may concern protected areas and the rewilding of certain geographical areas.

For the anthropologist, it's a question of perhaps going beyond classic participant observation (and possibly others), which can last several years. The main bias of the PBRM method is that it provides a "quasi-anthropological photograph" which then corresponds to a recent period (typically the last 6 months). Recent research projects have demonstrated the value of co-constructing research objects with population groups. This non-directive method really takes into account the major issues described by the stakeholders concerned. It also enables the anthropologist to carry out an initial territorial diagnosis of virgin or little-explored areas. We have also obtained results on the memorial dimension, which is transcribed in the PBRM.

For the geographer, it's a way of directly correlating human data with biophysical data via geographic information systems (GIS). These data can also be fed into a multi-agent model. PBRM methodology also opens the door to environmental and territorial foresight and planning, as a spatialized perception of future socio-ecological risks.

For researchers in the so-called exact sciences, it may be a question of providing a territorial framework for carrying out an environmental diagnosis, coupled with a desire to respond to local managers responsible for implementing public policies, and to find out about the social acceptability of a development. In this respect, the results of the ZADA can be a tool for understanding the territory and promoting bottom up consultation.

PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS

The aim is to understand the scientific challenges of this non-directive survey and its adaptation to different problems. This methodology can be used by research teams from different disciplines. In this sense, it is truly transdisciplinary. The main thrusts of the program are PBRM theoretical approach and relevance. Data porting in a Geographic Information System and/or a multi-agent system. How to automate and/or optimize data processing. Examples of several PBRMs. Data collection in the field and creation of a PBRM by the trainees if the technical feasibility conditions are met.

TEACHING METHODS

Day 1: Presentations, feedback from various speakers and lectures.
Day 2: Work in small groups. TD: GIS implementation of PBRMs on a workstation with QGIS using an existing dataset. Presentation of the following day's fieldwork.
Day 3: Field interviews and meetings with local players. Workshops.
Day 4: Digitization of PBRMs. Data merging and processing in QGIS. Production of issue maps.
Day 5. Workshop, presentations and conclusions. Training evaluation.

(For more details, please refer to the School's provisional program).

Main partners