IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envira/v49y2017i5p1181-1205.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using participatory and mixed-methods approaches in GIS to develop a Place-Based Food Insecurity and Vulnerability Index

Author

Listed:
  • Mahbubur R Meenar

Abstract

This paper discusses the development of a Place-Based Food Insecurity and Vulnerability Index (PFIVI) , which incorporates six indicators and 30 variables. It also presents an application of this Index within the context of Philadelphia, a postindustrial U.S. city. The paper argues that in order to thoroughly measure a multidimensional socioeconomic problem that is tied to the built environment (e.g., food insecurity and vulnerability), the use of participatory and mixed-methods approaches in GIS (e.g., participatory GIS or PGIS) may produce more comprehensive results compared to other commonly used methods. This paper makes an intervention in the food environment literature, which tends to analyze food access in a narrow way, by applying a methodology conceptually grounded in community food security and operationalized through a PGIS project. It also contributes to still-evolving PGIS methodologies by directly engaging stakeholders in a complicated GIS-based analytical process.

Suggested Citation

  • Mahbubur R Meenar, 2017. "Using participatory and mixed-methods approaches in GIS to develop a Place-Based Food Insecurity and Vulnerability Index," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 49(5), pages 1181-1205, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envira:v:49:y:2017:i:5:p:1181-1205
    DOI: 10.1177/0308518X16686352
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0308518X16686352
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0308518X16686352?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gundersen, Craig & Kreider, Brent, 2009. "Bounding the effects of food insecurity on children's health outcomes," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(5), pages 971-983, September.
    2. Brown, Greg & Fagerholm, Nora, 2015. "Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: A review and evaluation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 119-133.
    3. Thomas Macias, 2008. "Working Toward a Just, Equitable, and Local Food System: The Social Impact of Community‐Based Agriculture," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1086-1101, December.
    4. Moore, L.V. & Diez Roux, A.V., 2006. "Associations of neighborhood characteristics with the location and type of food stores," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 96(2), pages 325-331.
    5. Anton Oleinik, 2011. "Mixing quantitative and qualitative content analysis: triangulation at work," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 45(4), pages 859-873, June.
    6. Sarah A Elwood, 2002. "GIS Use in Community Planning: A Multidimensional Analysis of Empowerment," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 34(5), pages 905-922, May.
    7. Molly Anderson & John Cook, 1999. "Community food security: Practice in need of theory?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 16(2), pages 141-150, June.
    8. Bryan Preston & Matthew W. Wilson, 2014. "Practicing GIS as Mixed Method: Affordances and Limitations in an Urban Gardening Study," Annals of the American Association of Geographers, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 104(3), pages 510-529, May.
    9. Raymond, Christopher M. & Bryan, Brett A. & MacDonald, Darla Hatton & Cast, Andrea & Strathearn, Sarah & Grandgirard, Agnes & Kalivas, Tina, 2009. "Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1301-1315, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mahbubur Meenar & Bradley Flamm & Kevin Keenan, 2019. "Mapping the Emotional Experience of Travel to Understand Cycle-Transit User Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-21, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Rechciński, Marcin & Tusznio, Joanna & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2022. "Divergent or convergent? Prioritization and spatial representation of ecosystem services as perceived by conservation professionals and local leaders," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    2. Loc, Ho Huu & Park, Edward & Thu, Tran Ngoc & Diep, Nguyen Thi Hong & Can, Nguyen Trong, 2021. "An enhanced analytical framework of participatory GIS for ecosystem services assessment applied to a Ramsar wetland site in the Vietnam Mekong Delta," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    3. Jennifer Hodbod & Emma Tebbs & Kristofer Chan & Shubhechchha Sharma, 2019. "Integrating Participatory Methods and Remote Sensing to Enhance Understanding of Ecosystem Service Dynamics Across Scales," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-30, August.
    4. Burdon, D. & Potts, T. & McKinley, E. & Lew, S. & Shilland, R. & Gormley, K. & Thomson, S. & Forster, R., 2019. "Expanding the role of participatory mapping to assess ecosystem service provision in local coastal environments," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    5. Schröter, Matthias & Kraemer, Roland & Mantel, Martin & Kabisch, Nadja & Hecker, Susanne & Richter, Anett & Neumeier, Veronika & Bonn, Aletta, 2017. "Citizen science for assessing ecosystem services: Status, challenges and opportunities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 80-94.
    6. Dorceta E. Taylor & Katherine Allison & Tevin Hamilton & Ashley Bell, 2023. "Race, Socioeconomic Status, and Food Access in Two Predominantly White Cities: The Case of Lansing, East Lansing, and Surrounding Townships in Michigan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-49, October.
    7. Michal Rzeszewski & Tomasz Sowada & Jacek Kotus, 2024. "Assessing the usefulness of PPGIS for qualitative exploration of human relationships with places: an empirical study," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 58(4), pages 3635-3654, August.
    8. Matthew R. Sloggy & Francisco J. Escobedo & José J. Sánchez, 2022. "The Role of Spatial Information in Peri-Urban Ecosystem Service Valuation and Policy Investment Preferences," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-18, August.
    9. Péter Palásti & Ágnes Gulyás & Márton Kiss, 2022. "Mapping Freshwater Aquaculture’s Diverse Ecosystem Services with Participatory Techniques: A Case Study from White Lake, Hungary," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-20, December.
    10. Haozhi Pan & Si Chen & Yizhao Gao & Brian Deal & Jinfang Liu, 2020. "An urban informatics approach to understanding residential mobility in Metro Chicago," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 47(8), pages 1456-1473, October.
    11. Paudyal, Kiran & Baral, Himlal & Keenan, Rodney John, 2018. "Assessing social values of ecosystem services in the Phewa Lake Watershed, Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 67-81.
    12. Enrica, Garau & Josep, Pueyo-Ros & Amanda, Jiménez-Aceituno & Garry, Peterson & Albert, Norström & Anna, Ribas Palom & Josep, Vila-Subirós, 2023. "Landscape features shape people’s perception of ecosystem service supply areas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    13. Brown, Greg & Helene Hausner, Vera & Lægreid, Eiliv, 2015. "Physical landscape associations with mapped ecosystem values with implications for spatial value transfer: An empirical study from Norway," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 19-34.
    14. Garcia, Xavier & Benages-Albert, Marta & Vall-Casas, Pere, 2018. "Landscape conflict assessment based on a mixed methods analysis of qualitative PPGIS data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 32(PA), pages 112-124.
    15. Enrica Garau & Josep Vila-Subiros & Josep Pueyo-Ros & Anna Ribas Palom, 2020. "Where Do Ecosystem Services Come From? Assessing and Mapping Stakeholder Perceptions on Water Ecosystem Services in the Muga River Basin (Catalonia, Spain)," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-21, October.
    16. Semmens, Darius J. & Sherrouse, Benson C. & Ancona, Zach H., 2019. "Using social-context matching to improve spatial function-transfer performance for cultural ecosystem service models," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    17. Elina Viirret & Kaisa J. Raatikainen & Nora Fagerholm & Niina Käyhkö & Petteri Vihervaara, 2019. "Ecosystem Services at the Archipelago Sea Biosphere Reserve in Finland: A Visitor Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-18, January.
    18. Depietri, Yaella & Ghermandi, Andrea & Campisi-Pinto, Salvatore & Orenstein, Daniel E., 2021. "Public participation GIS versus geolocated social media data to assess urban cultural ecosystem services: Instances of complementarity," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    19. Pingarroni, Aline & Castro, Antonio J. & Gambi, Marcos & Bongers, Frans & Kolb, Melanie & García-Frapolli, Eduardo & Balvanera, Patricia, 2022. "Uncovering spatial patterns of ecosystem services and biodiversity through local communities' preferences and perceptions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    20. Kyler B. Stanley & Lynn M. Resler & Lawrence W. Carstensen, 2023. "A Public Participation GIS for Geodiversity and Geosystem Services Mapping in a Mountain Environment: A Case from Grayson County, Virginia, U.S.A," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-23, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envira:v:49:y:2017:i:5:p:1181-1205. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.