DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7831650
title: ipaast project - community stakeholder survey data and basic analysis

description: This data provides the basis for the report titled "Ready for integrated sustainable agricultural land management? Are practitioners in archaeology and agriculture informed, willing, enabled, and motivated to change how they work with remote and near-surface sensing data to collaboratively address contemporary challenges in sustainable agricultural land management? " Data were collected in compliance with the University of Glasgow's Research Ethics Policy (Application #100200154). As stated in the Methods section of this report: "The participatory survey was conducted between May 2021 and October 2022. Location: The preponderance of stakeholders engaged with are professional practitioners or researchers based in the UK, Belgium, Italy, Cyprus, Spain and France. Sessions occurred remotely (online/phone), as well as on site, during workshops at the University of Glasgow, the Dalswinton Estate, Dumfries, and Manor Farm, Yedingham. Participants Selection: A sub-group of 51 high-level participants were selected from a greater network of 86 stakeholders who were engaged with during the ipaast project. Sector: Farmers, researchers, heritage managers, geophysicists, remote sensing specialists, statisticians, soil scientists, service providers, sensor developers, and data archivists, who all deal directly, or indirectly with datasets relating to the measurement of soil and/or plant properties (physical, chemical, microbial) were represented (Table 1) Expertise: Engagement with mid- to late- career specialists was prioritised, with many participants having over 20 years of experience and most having over 10 years of experience (including time during the PhD). Interview method Engagement with stakeholders was primarily through one-to-one interviews and structured workshop discussions, conducted either in person, or remotely over video conference or phone. In some instances, participants provided written input (see Table 2 summary). Follow-up interviews or written exchanges were used to clarify or continue discussions when required. A semi-structured approach to interviews and discussions was preferred, with a mix of general questions (see sample questions), as well as questions specifically tailored to the participants specialist background and experience. Sample Questions: What types of sensing data do you use/collect? Where/how do you access/collect these data? What are your main aims/applications in using or collecting these data? How often do you access/collect, or anticipate accessing/collecting, these data to be useful to you? What spatial resolution is necessary for these data to be useful to you? What, if anything, would encourage/discourage you from sharing your data? What kinds of additional data types or additional information (metadata) might help you to better understand and use data which you have previously collected or received? What do you see as the main impacts, if any, of ecosystem service frameworks and/or recent changes to rural/environmental regulations on your work? What attitudes to sensing data do you see from other stakeholders in rural affairs? Documentation: Where viable, interviews and workshop discussions were recorded and transcribed; alternatively, notes were made during engagement by either the interviewer and/or dedicated participant observers (e.g. at workshops). Where notes were used, specific quotes and summary reports were checked with the participants for accuracy. "
description: Please see the linked report for details on the analysis and key findings.