Workshop
on Access and Participatory Approaches in Using Geographic Information
Spoleto
Italy, December 5 - 9, 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. PARTICIPANTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Rhina Ghose
4. Susan Hanson
8. Kate Lance
9. Meg Merrick
10. Sarah Niles
11. Nancy Obermeyer
12. Harlan Onsrud
14. David Tulloch
15. Daniel Weiner
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. CHRISTINA DREW
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christina H. Drew
September 2001
Response
to call for participation in the:
Workshop
on Access and Participatory Approaches in Using Geographic Information
Statement
of Interest
For the past 4 years, my work as a Ph.D.
student in Geography at the University of Washington has focused on the
transparency of cleanup decisions at the Hanford plutonium production facility.
I am developing a tool that uses Geographic Information Systems and the Internet
to promote two-way information exchange among Hanford decision-makers, active
stakeholders and the general public about Hanford cleanup. My research is
closely aligned with the themes that will be highlighted at the NCGIA Workshop
this December. As a young scholar, I particularly look forward to the
opportunity to learn from the workshop participants, and I welcome the chance to
contribute my own experiences to the dialogue.
The Hanford site (580 square miles) is
located in southeastern Washington State. The site includes nine retired
plutonium production reactors, three inactive chemical separations facilities,
and 177 aging underground storage tanks filled with high level radioactive
waste. Radioactive and chemical contaminants have leached from these facilities
and caused widespread contamination of soil, groundwater and the Columbia River.
Hanford’s mission is now entirely related to managing nuclear waste and
cleaning up the environment. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) manages Hanford
with a budget of approximately one billion dollars per year.
Many people are interested in learning about
Hanford and getting involved in its cleanup decision processes, but
understanding what is happening there and why is difficult. For example, complex
federal and state regulations have resulted in a vast but poorly organized
collection of documents that are difficult to find, obtain and read. Moreover,
decisions are geographically and technically complex, but are often defined very
narrowly, making it a challenge to see how the pieces fit together across space
and time. My research addresses these problems. Working with several active
Hanford stakeholders I have developed a prototype information system — the
Hanford Decision Mapping System — to present cleanup decision information to
stakeholders and solicit their comments and feedback. The prototype is
available via http://students.washington.edu/cdrew/dms/index.html.
The purpose of the Decision Mapping System (DMS)
is to allow a better understanding of the cleanup activities occurring at
Hanford and thus to make it easier for people to participate in Hanford decision
processes. The system has been created specifically for describing decisions in
one area at Hanford but it is expected to be useful for other sites and other
types of environmental cleanup decisions. The DMS includes six related
information structures intended to unpack the spatial, temporal and
socio-cultural dimensions of a decision:
Unpacking the concept of transparency is an
important theoretical contribution of this research. Our working definition of a
transparent decision is one that "allows all people who are interested in a
decision to understand what is being decided and why." Many organizations
and literatures declare that transparency is essential for public
decision-making in democratic societies, but few have offered full definitions
of transparency, and fewer still have proposed performance measures or other
criteria for its evaluation (Drew and Nyerges 2001). The DMS is intended to
provide a transparent alternative to the current ‘public record’ that
documents decision information. A robust public record is important because the
radioactive contaminants will persist in the environment for tens of thousands
of years. GIS and Internet technology could be powerful tools to manage both
documents and data, but they are currently underutilized at the site.
Several themes for the NCGIA Workshop are
closely aligned with my research. Hanford has been designated as a national
repository for nuclear waste, giving it high priority as a local, regional and
national issue. The DMS was developed using a participatory approach that
incorporated several active local and regional Hanford stakeholders —
including representatives from the U.S. Department of Energy, Washington
Ecology, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, several activist groups and
university researchers. National, regional and local stakeholders will also be
involved in the evaluation of the Decision Mapping System. This evaluation is
currently under development and will serve as the focal point for my
dissertation. Preliminary reactions to the DMS (which has recently been made
available on the Internet) have been overwhelmingly positive. I believe that
this response results mainly from the participatory approach used to develop the
system.
In addition, the topic of access is also an
important theme in my work. Access is a major component of our working
definition of transparency because it is a major concern of Hanford
stakeholders. One group of stakeholders, the Hanford Openness Workshops, looked
closely at access to Hanford information. They concluded that physical access to
documentation is only a first step. Tools to comprehend technical information
contained in the documents, tools to see how documents and decisions fit
together, and tools to provide feedback on the documents and decisions are
needed. These concerns have also been a driving force behind the DMS and
Transparency research.
References
Drew, CH., Nyerges,
TL., McCarthy, K, Moore, JA. (2001 in press). "Using decision paths to
explore three environmental cleanup decisions: a cross-case analysis" International
Journal of Environment and Pollution.
Drew, CH., Nyerges,
TL. (2001 submitted). "Decision transparency for long-term stewardship: a
case study of soil cleanup at the Hanford 100 area." Journal of Risk
Research.
The research described here
was prepared with the support of the U.S. Department of Energy to the Consortium
for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP), under Award No.
DE-FG26-00NT40938. However, any opinions, findings, conclusions, or
recommendations expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the DOE.
Biographical Sketch
Christina H. Drew
September 2001
Professional Preparation
Undergraduate Institution:
The College of
William and Mary, Williamsburg,
Virginia
Major: Government
Degree: Bachelor of
Arts
Graduation: May
1991
Graduate Institutions:
Johns Hopkins
University, Baltimore, Maryland
School of Hygiene and Public Health
Major: International Health Systems Management
Degree: Master of
Health Science
Graduation: May
1995
University of
Washington, Seattle, Washington
Department of
Geography, School of Arts and Sciences
Dissertation Topic: Long-term Environmental Decisions: Promoting Transparency with Geographic Technology.
Degree: Ph.D.
(Currently ABD)
Graduation:
(expected June 2002)
Appointments
University of
Washington Seattle, Washington
August 1997 to Present - Research Assistant
Consortium for Risk Evaluation and Stakeholder Participation (CRESP).
Institute for
Evaluating Health Risks Washington,
DC
August 1995 to August 1997 - Research Associate with the Consortium for Risk Evaluation and Stakeholder Participation (CRESP) project.
World Health
Organization Copenhagen, Denmark
Regional Office for Europe, Environmental Health Planning Unit
Environmental
Health Services Evaluation Project
June and October,
1996 - Temporary Advisor
September 1994 to May 1995 - Short-term Consultant/Visiting Scholar
Johns Hopkins
University Baltimore, Maryland
School of Hygiene and Public Health. Health Program Alliance
January 1994 to
August 1994 - Research Assistant
Institute for
Evaluating Health Risks Washington,
DC
June 1992 to
October 1994 - Technical Project Manager
June 1991 to May 1992 - Administrative Assistant
U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Washington,
DC
May 1989 to August 1989 - Summer Intern
Toxic Release Inventory Management Staff (Office of Pesticides and Toxic
Substances).
Publications
Directly related
to the proposed activity
Drew, Christina H.,
Nyerges, Timothy L., McCarthy, Kieran, Moore, John A. 2001 (in press).
"Using decision paths to explore three environmental cleanup decisions: a
cross-case analysis" International Journal of Environment and Pollution.
Drew, Christina H.,
Nyerges, Timothy L. 2001 (submitted). "Decision transparency for long-term
stewardship: a case study of soil cleanup at the Hanford 100 area." Journal
of Risk Research.
Additional
publications
Hedley, Nicholas
R., Drew, Christina H., Arfin, Emily A., and Lee, Angela. 1999. "Hagerstrand
Revisited: Interactive Space-Time Visualization of Complex Spatial Data." Informatica.
23:2 (155-168).
Drew, Christina H.,
van Duvenboden, Jaco, Bonnefoy, Xavier. 2000. Environmental Health Services 5:
Guidelines for the Evaluation of Environmental Health Services in the European
Region. World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe. (197 pages).
(Order or view online at: http://www.who.dk/docpub/documents/es90)
Nyerges, Timothy,
Jankowski, Piotr, Drew, Christina. 2001 (in press). "Data Strategies for
Social Behavioral Research in Participatory Geographic Information
Science." International Journal for Geographic Information Science.
Synergistic Activities
Currently developing the Decision Mapping
System — an interactive website designed to help stakeholders understand
cleanup decisions and decision processes at the Hanford plutonium production
facility. The site is accessible at http://students.washington.edu/cdrew/dms
.
A full copy of my CV is available at http://students.washington.edu/cdrew/resume.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. GREGORY ELMES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction: Interests and past contributions
I have been interested in the broad philosophic issues of geographic information and society in the academic and public arenas for several years. In the context of the workshop on access and participation I have greatest interest in access to geographic information, understood as exploring alternative models for providing access and their social implications. I participated in seminal conferences dealing with GIS and Society in Minnesota, Lyon, and Savannah, and was heavily involved in refining the topic as an element of the UCGIS research agenda. In my public-health research I have had the opportunity to experience at first-hand the potentials and limits of geographically-referenced data across a wide range of authorities and administrations. Currently, I have a particular stake in the comparative assessment of access to public geographic information as a means to enable regional and local development. I am also associated with research projects in Appalachia and southern Africa that seek to foster the public use of geographic information.
Understanding the dimensions of the engagement between geographic information and society depends to a large extent on revealing the differing access to and participation in the use of digital forms of geographic information on society’s individual members and constituent groups. Differential use of geographic information influences on the relative power of authorities, individuals and institutions. Additionally, adherence to or disregard for the underpinning philosophies and ethics of the use of geographic information has implications for emerging structures and relationships. The rapid rise, evolution and adoption of geographic information systems and related technologies have brought about a concomitant growth and rationalization within society of knowledge about geographic information and its uses. On one hand, this growing knowledge suggests a fuller appreciation of the prevalence, contributions, and use of geographic data for the public (and private) good. On the other hand, it speaks of the great potential for its deliberate misuse or abuse, for the invasion of privacy for example, or the further alienation of the marginalized within society, and therefore as geographic information experienced as a public and private bad. Assessing the extent and effect of this knowledge is a major focus of the GIS and society undertaking.
The UCGIS assessment exercise on GIS and
society recommended multiple avenues of research. One approach focused on
questions relating to the reciprocity between access to geographic information,
Geographic Information Systems, and society. Research questions about that
relationship fall into two main groups: 1) questions about the capabilities and
limitations of current GIS practice and how these capabilities have evolved, and
2) questions about the implications of these capabilities for society in general
and different social groups. Central to answering these broad questions are
sub-questions relating to who has access to what spatial data, and how
accessibility affects the influence of users over social processes? Evidently
current GIS practice is more advantageous for some cultures and social groups
than others but how do these advantages play out. There is considerable interest
in how various complex and ambiguous spatial concepts and representations of
social and physical space can be embedded within GIS? Some have asked whether
alternative GISs are possible, and who would be best served by their development
(modified from UCGIS, 1999).
Our on-going research addresses how GIS is affecting the relationships between different types of users and non-users, and the relative influence of differential access to information. A collaboratory has been established between West Virginia University, the Catholic University of Mozambique and the University of Pretoria. We are seeking comparisons between ways GI is empowering social groups and individuals, making them aware of their rights (for example, to land, utilities, health) and increasing their participation in and influence over democratic processes. At West Virginia we are studying ways unequal access to geographic information could differentiate between social groups and individuals through unequal access to social and environmental monitoring and to effective tools for geographical analysis.
GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SCIENCE AND SOCIETY: Access and Participation
GREGORY ARTHUR ELMES
Dept. of Geology and Geography
PO Box 6300
Phone: (304) 293-5603
West Virginia University
Fax: (304) 293-6522
Morgantown, WV 26506-6300
E-Mail: gelmes@wvu.edu
a. Professional Preparation.
M.Sc. in Geographical Information Systems,
November 1987, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, Department of Geography.
Dissertation: "Design and Implementation of Quadtree Encoding on a
Relational Database."
Ph.D., May 1979, Pennsylvania State
University, Department of Geography. Dissertation: "Coal Transportation in
Pennsylvania: A Maximum Likelihood Approach."
M.S., November 1974, Pennsylvania State
University Department of Geography. Thesis: "Urban Accessibility: Relative
Location in Minneapolis-St. Paul Area."
B.Sc., June 1972, University of
Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, England, First Class Honors, Geography.
b. Appointments
Professor of Geography, Department of Geology
and Geography, West Virginia University, August 1994 - present.
Faculty Research Associate, Regional Research
Institute, WVU, 1996 -- present.
Co-Director, West Virginia GIS Technical
Center, 1995 - present
c. Publications
Co-editor with
Richard Wright (2000) URISA Journal, Special Issue on University Consortium for
Geographic Information Science White Papers Vol 12 No.2.
Rushton J., Elmes G
and McMaster R. (2000) Considerations for Improving Geographic Information
System Reserch in Public Health, Journal of the Urban and Regional Information
Systems Association, Vol 12 No. 2. Pp. 31-47
Barnett E., Braham
V.E. Halverson J. A., and Elmes G. A. (2000) Urban-Rural Trends in Coronary
Heart Disease Mortality in Appalachia, 1980 —1993, Annals of Epidemiology
Casper, M, Barnett
E., Braham V.E. and Halverson J. A. (forthcoming, 2001) Heart Disease in Men,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Office for Social and
Envronmental Health Research
Casper M., Barnett,
E., Halverson, J.A., Elmes G. A., Braham, V.E. and others (1999) Heart Disease
in Women: An Atlas of Racial and Ethnic Disparity in Mortality, in cooperation
with the CDC, Office for Social and Environmental Health Research, WVU,
Morgantown, ISBN 0-9665085-0-6, 225 pages. (Reviewed and cleared for publication
by CDC and NCHS).
d. Synergistic Activities
In my role as a delegate and officer of UCGIS,
I have been active in the liason with AGILE. On sabbatical leave in 2000-2001, I
participated in the evaluation of distance-learning GIS courses in Sweden and
for the European Commission. The thrust in part was to educate and involve
mid-career professionals in geographic information technology.
Funded Research Projects
Co-Investigator (Calvin Massilela), GIS for
Urban Indicators in Beria, Mozambique, UCGIS/HUD, 2001
Co-Investigator (Trevor Harris, Ge Lin), GIS
disease mapping and analysis, NIOSH, 2001
Investigator (Dan Weiner et al) ASARD,
Appalachia — South Africa Regional Development — A Collaboratory for
Community GIS, 2000- 2001, US Information Agency.
Co-Investigator (Elizabeth Barnett, P. I.;
Luc Anselin, Co-Investigators) Stroke in the Elderly: Small Area Analyses to
Support Prevention Efforts Among Medicare Beneficiaries," West Virginia
Medical Institute, Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA)
Principal Investigator, "Developing
Dynamic Multimedia-based Educational Outreach Software for Presentation of NSDI
Concepts," US Gelogical Survey, 1999/2000
Co-Principal Investigator (T Harris) National
and Regional Level Area Integrator Concepts Using Multi-Scale, Feature-Based
Digital Transportation Data in WV, USGS, 97-2000
Co-Director with T. M. Harris, "West
Virginia GIS Technical Support Center,"WV Geological and Economic Survey,
State of WV, 1995-2002
Co-Principal investigator (T. M. Harris and
J. Sewash) "NSDI Clearinghouse Node for West Virginia and Advancing
Metadata Standards though Education", US DOI/ USGS
SELECTED PRESENTATIONS
DICEA (Dipartimento Di Caratteri Degli Edifici
E Dell'Ambiente) "From the Irrational to the Rational?"Recent Trends
in the Application of GIS in Urban and Regional Planning in the United
States" La Sapienza, University Rome, Italy, March 2001 (invited)
Association Of American Geographers,
"Geographic Information Science and Society: Investigation,
Conceptualization, and Some Methodological Parallels" April 2000,
Pittsburgh, Pa
European Commission 6th Workshop
on Geographic Information, "Sustaining Health and Human Services:
Encouraging the Creative Application of GIS", Lyon, France, (Invited), June
2000
University Consortium for Geographic
Information Science, "UCGIS — AGILE Cooperative Activities," Mt.
Hood, Oregon, June 2000
International Symposium on Spatial Data
Handling, Beijing, "Advancing the GISc. Research Agenda Through
International Co-Operation" July 2000
Korea Institute for Human Settlement
Research, "Grand Challenges in Geographic Information Science: Current
Research Issues", August 2000 (Invited)
Karolinska Institute, Stockholm,
"Explorations in the geographic disparity of heart disease mortality in the
US: gender, race and ethnicity." September 2000 (invited seminar)
First International Conference on Geographic
Information Science, "Reality, Abstraction and Representation: Seeking
Common Ground between Geographic Information Science and Social Theory,"
Savannah GA, October 28-31,2000
"GIS Challenges: beyond
technology", INFOSYS, European Commission, Helsinki, November 1999
"GIS Research and Education Challenges:
The Role of UCGIS," 30th ESRI Users Conference, San Deigo, CA,
July 29th 1999.
"GIS and Society: Towards Methodological
Unity?" Geographic Information and Society, First International Conference,
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, June 20th 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. RINA GHOSE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement of Interest, Dr. Rina Ghose, Department of Geography-Geology, Illinois State University, Campus Box 4400, Normal, IL 61790-4400
GIS has been critiqued as an elitist,
anti-democratic technology, by virtue of its cost and technological complexity.
The societal implications of GIS along with the hegemonic power relations
embedded within GIS caused by differential access to data and technology have
been studied by scholars in the GIS and Society research arena.
Consequently, the issue of making GIS/IT available to marginalized
citizens and grassroots community organizations has received considerable
attention among GIS professionals and scholars. The establishment of
"Empowerment, Marginalization and Public Participation GIS," or PPGIS,
as a research focus addressed by NCGIA and UCGIS demonstrates the importance of
creating a more democratic practice of GIS. Academic researchers and government
officials alike have claimed that such public participation GIS efforts empower
community groups, enhancing their control over decisions and problem solving
strategies in their communities. A range of initiatives have been undertaken to
provide more equitable access to GIS for marginalized groups. Universities,
non-profit organizations, local government agencies, and Federal agencies such
as HUD have been key players in establishing PPGIS among marginalized resident
groups to assist with their planning efforts. Consequently, a new phenomenon in
local governance has taken place — the growing use of GIS by the neighborhood
organizations of distressed inner city neighborhoods as they engage in
neighborhood planning and revitalization efforts.
My previous research has addressed the thorny
issues of uneven access to GIS and the associated social power it confers.
Following the principle that effective access to information leads to better
government as well as to community empowerment, my research has explored the
issues of providing equitable access to GIS at the grass-roots level to
traditionally marginalized citizens and their organizations. As a doctoral
student in the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, I participated in
University/Community partnerships that created PPGIS initiatives in various
inner city neighborhoods of Milwaukee (Myers, Martin and Ghose 1995;Ghose, 2001;
Ghose and Huxhold, 2001b). These initiatives are some of the first efforts in
establishing PPGIS in distressed urban areas in America. Building on such
research, I have then explored the role of local contextual factors and the
network of actors and institutions that foster the PPGIS process in that city (Ghose
and Huxhold, 2001a).
My current research compares the effectiveness and sustainability of PPGIS in different local political contexts (Chicago, Milwaukee and Minneapolis), and in organizations that collaborate with different networks of actors and institutions that assist them. For purposes of this project I conceptualize "effectiveness" of GIS efforts as the extent to which an organization perceives that it has been able to meet its mapping and analysis needs through use of GIS. I conceptualize "sustainability" as the extent to which the hardware, software and data needed for GIS continue to be operational and useful over time, without consumption of organizational resources that members perceive to be detrimental to other activities. This is a joint research project undertaken by myself and Dr. Sarah Elwood of DePaul University. The findings of this research project can greatly contribute to this workshop.
Research Objectives
Development of a more robust theorization of
factors that lead to effective and sustainable PPGIS is vitally important to the
efforts of academics, government actors and social service agencies that seek to
enable technology access and enhance citizen participation in local governance.
Previous studies have proposed local political contexts and collaborative
partner networks as key factors shaping the effectiveness and sustainability of
PPGIS, but it is now essential to systematically investigate the relevance and
validity of these propositions. Further, a comparative study is critical at this
point in the PPGIS research agenda, in order to generate a more robust
theorization of factors that foster or hinder effective and sustainable PPGIS
through comparative investigation in multiple contexts. This research project
aims to explore and compare the PPGIS efforts at Milwaukee, Chicago and
Minneapolis, three mid-western cities that have experienced varying degrees of
deindustrialization and inner city poverty. Given the complex social
relationships and interactions being studied, we rely on ethnographic data
collection techniques, including intensive interviewing, several forms of
participant observation, and document analysis.
The following research questions are being
specifically addressed in this project:
1. How does PPGIS alter participation and
power of neighborhood groups and local residents in neighborhood planning and
problem solving efforts?
2. How have the neighborhood groups
specifically benefited from PPGIS efforts in revitalizing their community? In
particular, how have they utilized geographic information, public database and
their knowledge of their neighborhoods to challenge or reshape existing public
policies in order to create a better neighborhood?
3. How does local political context influence
citizen participation in planning and implementation of PPGIS? Studies have
shown this local political context to consist of various factors such as the
openness of local government to sharing necessary resources for urban GIS
analysis (such as government-collected data on housing conditions or tax
valuations), openness to including community groups as authoritative
participants in planning, and local government agencies’ own experience and
expertise with using GIS for urban applications.
4. What varying impacts do the network of
different partners and institutions have on the effectiveness and sustainability
of PPGIS initiatives among the various inner-city community organizations? PPGIS
studies have shown that grassroots community organizations of inner city
neighborhoods often assemble a complex network of partners (ranging from
university partnerships with faculty and student researchers to federal and
local government agencies to non profit organizations supporting community based
research or technological access) to support their PPGIS efforts .
5.How do PPGIS efforts compare in different
cities with respect to the variables being studied? Such comparison will be
examined in two ways: 1) comparison of PPGIS efforts situated within the same
local political context but collaborate with different networks of collaborative
partners and 2) cross-comparison of PPGIS efforts in differing local political
contexts.
Professional Preparation:
University of Calcutta, India Geography
(Honors) Bachelor of Arts 1988
University of Montana Geography
Master of Arts 1993
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Geography
Ph.D.
1998
Appointments:
Fall 1998 to Fall 2001: Assistant
Professor, Department of Geography-Geology, Illinois State University.
1997. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Graduate School Fellowship by the Graduate School for the academic year of
1997-1998.
1996.University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Graduate School Fellowship by the Graduate School for the academic year of
1996-1997.
Summer 1995-Summer 1996. Research Assistant
in the NSF funded research project "Connecting Satellite and Surface
Measures of Spring's Onset", led by Dr. Mark Schwartz at Geography
Department, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
Fall 1994. Teaching Assistant in 416-403.
"Remote Sensing: Environmental and Land Use Analysis" at Geography
Department, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Upper level U/G class.
Independently led discussions and laboratory sessions on remote sensing.
Summer 1994. Research Assistant in the
research project "Phenological Model To Predict Peach Maturity From
Meteorological Variables", led by Dr. Mark Schwartz, at Geography
Department, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
Fall 1993-Spring 1994. Teaching Assistant in
416-110. "The World: Peoples and Regions" at Geography Department,
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
Summer 1993. GIS Researcher in the "
Montana Taxation Project" for the Montana Department of Revenue, led by Dr.
Kelsey Milner at the School of Forestry, University of Montana.
Fall 1992-Spring 1993. Research Assistant for
Social Science Research Group, University of Montana.
Summer 1992. Principal researcher for
the Missoula Housing Task Force, led by Mayor Dan Kemmis. Research Project-
"A Study of the Housing Supply of Missoula, Montana through GIS".
Spring 1992-Fall 1991. Teaching Assistant in
"Introduction to Geography" at Geography Department, University of
Montana.
Spring 1991. Teaching Assistant in
"Introduction to Cartography" at Geography Department, University of
Montana.
Fall 1990. Teaching Assistant in
"Thematic Cartography" at Geography Department, University of Montana.
Publications and Papers in Progress:
2001. Ghose, R. "Use of Information
Technology for Community Empowerment: Transforming Geographic Information System
into Community Information Systems", Transactions in GIS journal,
vol. 5, no.2, 141-163.
2001. Ghose, R. and Huxhold, W.E. "Role
of Local Contextual Factors in Building Public Participation GIS: The Milwaukee
Experience", Cartography and Geographic Information Science journal,
vol. 28, no. 3, 195 - 208.
2001. Ghose, R. and Huxhold, W.
E."Developing GIS-based Indicators Studies for Assessing Housing and
Neighborhood Quality: The Case of Milwaukee", Journal of URISA, in
review.
2001. Adams, P. and Ghose, R. "India.com:
Online Community Formation and the Asian Indian Diaspora", Annals of the
Association of American Geographers, in review.
2001. "Cowboys and Cappuccinos: Growth,
Gentrification and the Changing Cultural Landscapes of Western Montana".
Submitted to Urban Geography.
2001. "Big Sky or Big Sprawl? Public Policy Responses to Growth and
Rural Gentrification in Western Montana". Submitted to Journal of
American Planning Association.
2001."Cities of the Future and the
Future of Cities", Brunn, S. and Ghose, R. In "Contemporary World
Urbanization", third edition, edited by Stanley Brunn, Jack Williams,
Donald Zeigler, (Rowman & Littlefield).
1995. Myers, J., Martin, M., and Ghose, R.
"GIS and Neighborhood Planning: A Model for Revitalizing Communities",
Journal of URISA, vol.7, no.2, 63-67.
1994. Ghose, R. "Using G.I.S. to Analyze
Housing Shortage Situation". Annual Conference Proceedings, Vol. I, URISA.
Synergistic Activities:
Facilitating the participation of groups
traditionally underrepresented in science and technology — My research in
Public Participation GIS began in a university/community partnership entirely
led by a group of graduate students from University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee that
established a model for building public participation GIS. In this project, the
members of an extremely distressed inner-city neighborhood organization in
Milwaukee were interested in gaining access to methods of spatial inquiry and
technologies that would enable them to participate more effectively in the
formal process of the City’s neighborhood revitalization program. The citizens
represented traditionally marginalized sections of the American society as they
were poor, blue collar, African Americans living in one of the worst
neighborhoods of Milwaukee. The project enabled the members to become active
participants in building a community information system, in learning to access
and utilize public database for their neighborhood inquiries, in gathering
relevant neighborhood data to create and analyze new databases derived from
their own neighborhood surveys, and in performing spatial inquiries in GIS, all
with the purpose of making these residents useful actors in city management and
in the formation of public policy. I was involved in guiding the citizens in
conducting neighborhood surveys and in providing GIS and spatial analysis
training to the citizens. As the main GIS person in the University team, I was
also responsible for creating digital maps of the neighborhood, creating the
databases, geocoding and performing spatial analysis. While the project was
unable to build an in-house GIS within the neighborhood organization, it created
an awareness of the value of geographic information, spatial inquiry and GIS in
terms of neighborhood planning to citizens who had no prior knowledge of
computer technologies or spatial analysis. The project enabled these citizens to
utilize geographic information in challenging or reshaping public policy in
Milwaukee. It also created opportunities for other similar university/community
partnerships to take place between the GIS students and faculty of University of
Wisconsin-Milwaukee and the citizens of inner city Milwaukee.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. SUSAN HANSON
------------------------------------------------------------------------
keynote co-author
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. FRANCIS J. HARVEY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposal
for Participation in the
Workshop
on Access and Participatory Approaches in Using Geographic Information
Dr. Francis J. Harvey
Department of Geography
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Overview
The upcoming workshop in Spoleto, Italy covering the themes of access and participatory approaches in using geographic information provides a unique and timely opportunity to share research and discuss future projects. The opportunity is large, but I want to emphasize three aspects of the workshop themes relevant to my research:
1) present results of my recent work on participation of local governments in the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI)
2) discuss and compare recent European and North American work on developing geographic information infrastructures
3) revitalize international contacts and work on enhancing collaborative research projects that address the differences between U.S. and European geographic information "philosophies."
Participation of Local Governments in the
NSDI
Having studied and worked in Europe I already have a well-developed knowledge of basic European issues, but as responses to two articles I published last year in the European trade magazine GIM International indicate, substantial differences are increasing that perhaps root in fundamentally different historical roles of governance, epitomized on this side of the Atlantic by the American saying: "The best government is that which governs least."
Following earlier work by Azad and Wiggins (1996), my recent FGDC/UCGIS funded research on local government involvement underscores the relevance of government agency autonomy and the role of informal relationships in defining the character of many data sharing arrangements. In work published in GIM International in Europe and GeoSpatial Solutions in the US, with more academic publications in progress, I highlight that these arrangements should be understood as indicators of vital political cultures in which trust plays the utmost role in determining inter-governmental sharing arrangements.
Researchers at the Macauley Land Use Research Station contacted me after this publication and we have begun to share some pre-press work which indicates that trust also plays a key role in developing information infrastructures in Scotland. Differences between pricing and business models emphasized in the EU over sharing and incentives in the U.S. may reflect more complex government administrative differences that also need to be considered.
Developing Geographic Information
Infrastructures
This is one of the starting points for continuing work in this area. David Tulloch of Rutgers University and I are commencing a research project to study these issues and establish local government "best practices." While an approach drawing on organizational sociology and political science is essential, we will also be exploring technological dimensions, particularly interoperability. Semantic interoperability and participatory design are issues that I have addressed in previous publications. Recently, in light of my research with local governments and discussions with colleagues developing information resources in impoverished areas of the U.S., I have focused on examining the potential for developing locally-situated information infrastructures that support both the formal information resources of public agencies and the informal information of local citizen groups. Related to Tim Berners-Lee’s work and others’ work on the Semantic web, the infrastructure I have proposed in response to an invitation from the NSF Digital Government program would build on Amith Sheth’s InfoQuilt architecture and extend it to support discursive modes of learning and constructing geographic meaning.
International Collaborative Projects
As the proposal to fund participation of U.S. scholars in this workshop indicates, divergences between research priorities in Europe and the U.S. seem to be growing in the two key workshop themes. I feel my hybrid background in U. S. and European higher education, government institutions, research, and publications in this area provide a unique preparation for contributing to developing common research themes for future international collaborative projects. In particular, I am interested in collaborating with researchers from Europe on comparative projects that study the policy and technological dimensions of developing geographic information infrastructures at the local level. This research should include a strong emphasis on citizen involvement and projects ranging from the British Common Ground project, the U.S. Library of Congress work on folklore, and research in developing economies on PPGIS. Parallel to this research, initiatives to document and study the policy differences in developing geographic information infrastructures should complement locally-orientated work and provide useful insights for researchers and policy makers in countries around the world. Finally, but no less importantly, international collaboration on semantic interoperability research can benefit from bettering our understanding of meaning in settings involving multiple cultures and issues in sharing data.
Summary
In conclusion, I would like to state that this workshop provides an unparalleled chance to share and discuss research among key researchers working in Europe and North America. I am keen to attend this workshop and find out about projects conducted under auspices of the EU’s Fifth Framework program and Agenda 2000. I have been interested in reviving contacts to the AGILE community that I made at the first AGILE conference and would incorporate insights into GI activities in Europe from this workshop in a paper discussing local government sharing practices for the Fifth AGILE conference this coming Spring.
After somewhat of a hiatus in organized scholarly activities bridging the Atlantic in the GIScience community, I would be privileged to participate and would do my utmost to assure a successful workshop that becomes the foundation for ongoing collaboration in years to come.
Dr.
Francis J. Harvey
Assistant
Professor of Geography, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455
(612)
625-2586; (612) 624-1044 (fax); e-mail: fharvey@geog.umn.edu
Vitae
Professional Preparation
9/92 - 5/96
University of Washington, Geography, PhD May 1996
9/84 - 6/91
University of Dortmund, Germany, Spatial Planning, Diplom-Ingenieur
(Master of Science) June, 1991
9/83 - 5/84
University of Wisconsin, Sociology
Appointments
7/01 - present
University of Minnesota, Department of Geography, Assistant Professor
8/98 - 6/01
University of Kentucky, Department of Geography, Assistant Professor
8/96 - 8/98
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne, Lecturer and Researcher
Publications
Harvey, F. (2001). Constructing GIS: Actor Networks of Collaboration. URISA Journal, 13(1), 29 - 37.
Harvey, F. (2001, May 2001). NSDI from the Trenches. Local Government Perspectives. Geospatial Solutions, 11, 38-40.
Harvey, F. (In Press). Visualizing Data Quality through interactive metadata browsing in a VR environment. In P. Fisher & D. Unwin (Eds.), Virtual Reality in Geography (pp. xx). London: Taylor and Francis.
Harvey, F., Buttenfield, B. P., & Lambert, S. C. (1999). Integrating geodata infrastructures from the ground up. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 65(11), 1287-1292.
Harvey, F., Kuhn, W., Bishr, Y., Pundt, H., & Riedemann, C. (1999). Semantic Interoperability: A Central Issue for Sharing Geographic Information. Annals of Regional Science, 33(2), 213-232.
Harvey, F. (1998). National Cultural Influences on GIS Design. In M. Craglia & H. Onsrud (Eds.), Geographic Information Research: Trans-Atlantic Perspectives (pp. 55-68). London: Taylor & Francis.
Harvey, F., & Chrisman, N. R. (1998). Boundary objects and the social construction of GIS technology. Environment and Planning A, 30(9), 1683-1694.
Harvey, F. (1998). Designing for Interoperability. Overcoming Semantic Differences. In M. F. Goodchild & M. Egenhofer (Eds.), GIS Interoperability. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Synergistic Activities
1) Editor of a special issue of the
International Journal of Geographic Information Science, The Social
Construction of GIS, 14(8), December 2000
2) Organized workshop for social scientist
and geographers interested in application of science and technology studies work
to GIS, Intersections: Society, Technology, and Geographic Thought,
May 1999, Red River Resort, Kentucky
3) Co-organized conference, GIS and
Critical Geographic Research, February 25th, 2000, Hunter
College, New York City
4) Member of the GeoData Alliance Drafting
Team, 2000 - 2001
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. PIOTR JANKOWSKI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Position Statement
Piotr Jankowski
Department of Geography
University of Idaho
My interest in the Workshop on Access and
Participatory Approaches in Using Geographic Information comes from both,
theoretical and technological perspectives on PPGIS and collaborative spatial
decision making.
From a technical perspective, there are many
arguments in the literature of decision making suggesting that more
participatory arrangements are likely to lead to greater effectiveness of
decision processes — almost no matter which criterion of measuring the
effectiveness is employed. Collaborative learning, shaping of preferences, and
social construction of meaning through interpretative processes are seen as
significant benefits of more open decision processes. Similarly, processes that
involve parties in conflict are seen as increasing the credibility and perceived
legitimacy of resulting decisions. Benefits attributed to more open decision
processes include consideration of diverse perspectives and interests resulting
in better understanding of others’ views, and improvement in communication and
cooperation through sharing values and interests.
From a technical perspective, it is difficult
to imagine that the benefits of more open participation in decision processes
can be realized without a technological support. Development of group support
systems (GSS), including group decision support systems (GDSS), as well as
theoretical and empirical studies of its use, have been carried out in the
management and decision sciences since the early 1980’s. During the 1990’s,
geographic information systems and their offspring - spatial decision support
systems (SDSS) were suggested as information technology aids to support
participatory decision making for groups, including groups embroiled in
environmental conflict. Reducing the complexity of a decision process by
reducing cognitive workload of stakeholders and participants is one goal of
developing collaborative decision support systems and PPGIS. Reducing cognitive
workload will hopefully lead to a more thorough treatment of information,
exposing initial assumptions more clearly, and subsequently resulting in more
participatory decisions.
I believe that a fruitful approach to
developing effective collaborative spatial decision support systems is to learn
through experimental studies about human-computer-human interactions during
collaborative decision processes. A few studies of public/group participation in
GIS-aided decision making and problem solving, conducted so far, tell only a
partial story about the potential impacts of GIS use on collaborative decision
making for location-based problem. One shortcoming of these studies is the use
of students and other volunteers instead of true stakeholders, which limits the
generalizability of findings across non-academic settings. Hence, I am
interested in developing a research agenda for experiments involving true
stakeholders and decision makers, cutting across institutional, cultural and
national boundaries. Experiments with true stakeholders and decision makers are
difficult to organize for at least two reasons: the lack of time on the part of
participants and their mistrust to participate in a framed experiment. For these
reasons most of the experiments looking into the effects of using computerized
decision support tools on group decision processes and decision outcomes were
laboratory experiments involving students. A few field studies rather than using
experimental controls simply reported about the use of group decision support
systems (GDSS) by teams of workers charged with solving business domain tasks.
Instead of laboratory experiments and field studies on PPGIS, a field experiment
may be a fruitful research vehicle for the discovery of interrelationships
between participatory processes and geographic information technology in the
context of spatial decision making and problem solving. Field experiment is the
trade-off between a "field" study and a laboratory
"experiment". It is an attempt to garner the best of both worlds where
a laboratory study offers a researcher control over experimental settings at the
expense of results generalizability and a field study require a researcher to
relinquish much of experiment control in exchange for greater external validity
and generalizability of results.
Past Work Related to Participatory Approaches in Using Geographic
Information
In 1994 Nyerges and Jankowski received a
three-year NSF funding for the project "Collaborative Spatial Decision
Making Using Geographic Information Technology and Multiple Criteria Decision
Models". The research funding of $176,000 came through the National Science
Foundation Grant No. SBR-9411021, funded jointly by the Geography and Regional
Science Program and the Decision, Risk and Management Science Program. Most
recently, Jankowski and Nyerges received a two-year NSF funding for the research
project "A Study of Geographic Information Technology Use in Collaborative
Water Resource Planning".
In the 1994-97 project, using an experimental
design of a conference room setting, the authors conducted a study of
human-computer-human interaction with 109 volunteer participants formed into 22
groups, each group representing multiple (organizational) stakeholder
perspectives. The subjects who volunteered were mostly students from the U of
Washington Seattle campus. The experiment involved the use of GIS integrated
with multiple criteria decision models to support group-based decision making
concerned with the selection of habitat restoration sites in the Duwamish
Waterway of Seattle, Washington. Findings of this study address four categories
of research questions about the use of maps and decision models during
collaborative spatial decision making process. Concerning the first category,
the experiment demonstrated that groups used maps predominantly to visualize the
evaluation results and much less to structure/design the decision problem. Maps
played only a limited support role in various decision stages of the experiment.
In regard to the second category, while the use of multiple criteria decision
models by groups remained steady throughout different phases of the decision
process, the use of maps was much lower during the initial
(exploratory-structuring) phase, than during later (analytic-integrating) phase.
In regard to category three, amount of prior and acquired group member
experience with computer tools had no influence on the use of decision aids. For
category four, different phases of the decision process had two different levels
of conflict: exploratory-structuring phase characterized by a lower level of
conflict and analytic-integrating phase characterized by high conflict level.
The higher level of conflict during analytic-integrating phase tells us that
analytical decision aids aimed at conflict management are likely to help work
through conflict; such conflict now being recognized as a necessary part of
making progress in public decision problems.
The research resulted in a number of
publications on the subject of collaborative spatial decision making. Five
papers were published between 1995 and 2000 in refereed journals including
International Journal of Geographical Information Science, Geographical Systems,
Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, and Journal of Hydroinformatics. Other
publications included five book chapters. More recently Jankowski and Nyerges
wrote a book titled "Geographic Information Systems for Group Decision
Making". The book was published by Taylor & Francis in March of 2001.
The PIs also co-authored a paper "GIS-Supported Collaborative Decision
Making: Results of An Experiment" to appear in the March issue of Annals of
AAG, and a book chapter "GeoChoicePerspectives, A Collaborative Spatial
Decision Support System" in The Analytical Hierarchy Process in
Natural Resource and Environmental Decision Making. 2001. Eds. D. L. Schmoldt,
J. Kangas, G. Mendoza, and M. Pesonen, Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht,
Netherlands.
Piotr Jankowski
Position or Title:
Professor, Department of Geography,
Office Location:
College of Mines and Earth Resources, University of Idaho,
Moscow, ID, 83843, phone: 208 885-6452
208 885-2855 (fax), piotrj@uidaho.edu (e-mail).
PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION
APPONTMENTS
7/01- present Professor, Dept of Geography, U of Idaho
7/95- 6/01 - Assoc. Prof, Dept of Geography, U of Idaho
2000 summer -
Visiting Researcher, German National Research Center for Information
Technology
1999 summer — Visiting Researcher, German
National Research Center for Information
Technology
7/89-6/95 -
Assist. Prof, Dept of Geography, U of Idaho
7/85-6/89 - Computer Consultant, Center for
Social Science Computation
and Research, University of Washington,
Seattle, WA
FIVE MOST RELEVANT PUBLICATIONS
P. Jankowski and T. Nyerges, 2001 Geographic Information Systems for Group Decision Making, Taylor & Francis: London. equal contribution; eight chapters synthesizing co-authors’ research 1995-2000.
P. Jankowski and T.
Nyerges. (equal contribution) 2001 "GIS-Supported Collaborative Decision
Making: Results of an Experiment", Annals of the AAG, in press for
March 2001 issue.
P. Jankowski. 2000. Collaborative spatial
decision making in environmental restoration
management: an experimental approach. Journal of Hydroinformatics,
2:3, pp.197-
206.
P. Jankowski, A. Lotov, and D. Gusev.
Application of Multicriteria Trade-off Approach
to Spatial Decision Making. 1999. In: J-C. Thill (Ed.) GIS and
Multiple Criteria
Decision Making: A Geographic Information Science Perspective,
London:
Ashgate.
P. Jankowski, M. Stasik, 1997. Spatial
Understanding and Decision Support System: A
Prototype for Public GIS, Transactions in GIS, 2:1,
pp73-84.
FIVE RELATED PUBLICATIONS
P. Jankowski, N.
Andrienko, G. Andrienko. 2001. Map-centered exploratory approach to multiple
criteria spatial decision making. International Journal of Geographical
Information Science, in press.
P. Jankowski and T.
Nyerges. 2001.Using GeoChoice Perspectives in Collaborative Spatial Decision
Making. In Schmoldt, D.L., Kangas, J., Mendoza, G.A. and Pesonen, M.I. (eds.)
2000. The Analytic Hierarchy Process In Natural Resources and Environmental
Decision Making. Dodrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers, in press
P. Jankowski, 1997.
T. Nyerges, A.Smith, T.J.Moore, and E.Horvath, Spatial Group Choice: A Spatial
Decision Support Tool for Collaborative Decision Making, International
Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 11:6, pp.577-602.
T. Nyerges and P.Jankowski, 1997. Enhanced
Adoptive Structuration
Theory: A theory of GIS-supported
Collaborative Decision Making,
Geographical Systems, 4:3, pp225-257.
P. Jankowski. 1995. Integrating GIS and
Multiple Criteria Decision Making Methods,
International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 9:3,
pp.251-273.
SYNERGISTIC ACTIVTIES
Principal Investigator (PI), A Study of
Geographic Information technology Use in Collaborative
Water Resource Planning, National Science
Foundation, funded jointly by Geography and
Regional Science
Program and Decision, Risk, and Management Sciences Program, 8/01 — 7/03.
Co-principal
investigator, Design for watershed management using GIS and simulation models.
Curriculum development grant funded by the USDA Higher Education Challenge
Grant, 2000-02.
Co-principal
investigator, Geographic and Numeric Digital Data Center, grant from the
National Institute of Libraries and Archives to develop a large, geographic data
and document library, 3/99 — 9/00.
Principal
Investigator (PI), Idaho Virtual Geospatial Data Library and Training Center,
technology grant to develop a clearinghouse for GIS data for Idaho, State Board
of Education, 1/97-10/98.
PI, Collaborative
Decision Making Under Distributed Space and Time Conditions, design,
implementation and analysis of participatory geographic decision support system
on the Internet, State Board of Education, 7/96-7/97.
PI, Collaborative
Spatial Decision Making with Geographic Information Technologies and
Multicriteria Decision Models, GIS-based tools for prioritizing habitat
redevelopment sites in Duwamish Waterway, National Science Foundation, Division
of Social and Behavioral Research, 9/94 - 9/97.
PI, Decision
Analysis Tools for Health Resource Allocation, Idaho Department of Health
and Welfare, 8/98 — 5/99.
Co-authors and Collaborators in Past 48 months
Gennady Andrienko
Natalia Andrienko
Peter Goodwin
Maria Jankowska
Alexander Lotov
Timothy Nyerges
Milosz Stasik
Steven Tanimoto
Bogdan Wilamowski
Hans Voss
Graduate Student Advisees - over the last five years
Roger Adams, M.S.
Ilze Barga, M.S.
Undral Batsukh.
M.S.
Gregory Haddock,
Ph.D.
John Kackley, M.S.
Joshua Mass, M.S.
Jody Paulson, M.S.
Milosz Stasik, Ph.D.
William Reynolds, M.S.
Beau Webber, Ph.D.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. MELINDA LAITURI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application
for Participation:
Workshop
on Access and Participatory Approaches in Using Geographic Information
Spoleto,
Italy 5- 9 December 2001
Melinda
Laituri, Department of Earth Resources
Colorado
State University
Ft.
Collins, CO 80521
Phone:
(970) 491-0292; Fax: (970) 491-6307
Email: mell@cnr.colostate.edu
Interest Statement
In light of the recent terrible events in the
United States, this workshop appears to be incredibly timely. Information
technologies will play an increasingly important role in the quest for security
while at the same time participatory activities with regard to access to and use
of information may be severely curtailed. How to finesse the intricate and
complex response to achieve a balance between security and the
"techno-freedoms" we have enjoyed will be a critical question to
address and are not tangential to the other issues identified in the original
workshop proposal.
I have maintained an active interest in
issues related to access and equity with regard to geographic information
systems (GIS). The focus of my research has been marginal populations -- broadly
defined as those groups of people who traditionally have been oppressed and
denied access to the fundamental resources to enhance everyday lives -- and
their ability to use and access information technology generally and GIS
specifically.
My contributions have focused on applied
research projects to develop methods and strategies to effectively integrate GIS
into useful output for specific user groups. These projects include the
following:
The result of these projects has been the
development of methodologies and strategies to facilitate public participation
in using, creating and developing applications for spatial information
technologies. I have learned the different representative groups of the public I
have worked with are keen to use this type of technology. These groups envision
important rewards such as empowerment and increased representation in
decision-making from making an investment in time and trust by learning ways to
utilize this technology for their particular needs.
Melinda
Jean Laituri
Department
of Earth Resources, Colorado State University
Ft.
Collins, CO 80521
(970)
491-0292
mell@cnr.colostate.edu
Professional Preparation
University of California, Berkeley
Geography
B.A., 1979
California State University, Chico
Geography
M.A., 1985
University of Arizona, Tucson
Geography
Ph.D., 1993
University of Auckland, New Zealand Geography
1993-1995
Appointments
(2001 - present)Associate Professor, Dept. of Earth Resources, Colorado State University
(1995-2001) Assistant Professor, Dept. of Earth Resources, Colorado State
University
(1994-95) Lecturer, Geography, University of Auckland - Tamaki Campus, New
Zealand
Publications
Related publications
M. Laituri and L. Harvey, 1995, Bridging the space between indigenous ecological knowledge and New Zealand conservation management using GIS, In: Nature Conservation: The Role of Networks, D. Saunders, J. Craig, and E. Mattiske, eds., NSW: Surrey Beatty and Sons, pp. 122-31.
M. Laituri, In Press, Equity and Access to GIS for Marginal Communities, W. Craig,T. Howard, and D. Weiner, eds., Community Empowerment, Public Participation and Geographic Information Science, Taylor and Francis.
M. Laituri and S. Linn, 1999, Graduate students + Grade School (K-12) + Geography Standards + GIS = Great Success!?, In: Nineteenth Proceedings of the ESRI Annual Users Conference, ESRI, Proceedings CD-ROM, paper #324, http://www.esri.com/library/userconf/proc99/navigate/proceed.htm
C. Flanagan and M. Laituri, submitted September 2001, Local cultural knowledge and water resource management: the Wind Rivers Indian Reservation, Environmental Management.
J. Osleeb and M. Laituri, 1997, Access and equity, University Consortium for Geographic Information Systems: Education White Paper, http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/other/ucgis/ed_priorities/access.html
Unrelated publications
S. Michaels and M. Laituri, 1999, Exogenous and indigenous influences on sustainable management, Sustainable Development, 7(2), pp. 77-86.
R. Watkins, C. Cocklin, and M. Laituri, 1997, The development of geographic information systems for sustainable resource management, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 40(1), pp. 37-57.
M. Laituri, 2000, Cultural perspectives of floods, In E. Wohl, ed., Inland Flood Hazards: Human, Riparian and Aquatic Communities, Cambridge University Press, pp. 451-68.
M. Laituri, 1996, Cross-cultural dynamics in the eco-city: Waitakere City, New Zealand, Cities, 13(5), pp. 179-87.*
M. Laituri and A. Kirby, 1994, Finding fairness in America’s cities, The Journal of Social Issues, Fall 50(3), pp. 121-39.
Synergistic Activities
M. Laituri and E. Paredes, Manual de Exercicios do Sistema ArcView, Colorado State University and Universidade Estadual de Maringa, Brazil, 1999.
Development of a training manual in Portuguese to teach geographic information systems and ArcView at the Universidade Estadual de Maringa, Brazil.
Colorado State University - Poudre School District Spatial Information Technologies Partnership, http://www.cnr.colostate.edu/avprojects/csu-psd (1997 - current).
Partnership with PSD to develop hands-on GIS activities for teaching geography, science and mathematics. CSU graduate students partner with K-12 teachers to develop on-line materials and hands-on exercises.
K-12 Teacher Training in GIS and ArcView, Poudre School District, Ft. Collins, CO., 1997 - 2000.
Training for K-12 teachers to facilitate the development of methods to integrate GIS into the curriculum.
High School Teacher Training in GIS and ArcView, Big Thompson School District, Loveland, CO, 2001.
Training for high school teachers to facilitate the development of methods and exercises to integrate GIS into the curriculum.
Colorado State University - Larimer County GIS Partnership, Current.
Partnership with Larimer County to utilize their GIS database and create on-line applications and examples GIS products and outputs.
participated in the 1997 Varenius Project meeting on PPGIS in Santa Barbara
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. KATE LANCE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement of Interest
I ended up studying ‘data access’ through
the back door. Originally, I was a forest scientist. I liked mucking it,
measuring trees, collecting plant specimens, assessing regeneration. Gradually,
I started looking for more efficient means to acquire and integrate data. I
gravitated towards geospatial tools — GPS, GIS, remote sensing.
I listened to fellow researchers’ concerns
about their lack of data for specific analyses, particularly temporal and
cross-scale analyses. Even if relevant data had been collected, more often that
not, the data had been summarized and shelved in annual reports, donor reports
and miscellaneous government reports. Potentially useful datasets were not
available for subsequent use. In effect, since there was no coordinated effort
for documenting and tracking information, data and money were wasted. High-paid
consultants were repeatedly brought in to recollect information that had already
been collected.
In time, I gave up my dbh tape, my GPS, my
boots, and started working with government authorities in developing countries
to improve data management. National strategies were needed to ensure that data
were properly documented and archived and that a potential data users had access
to spatially-related information from many different sources. I had not formally
studied ‘national spatial data infrastructure,’ but I had the good fortune
of being hired to coordinate a project in Central America in which I worked with
government officials from the national mapping agencies, national statistics
institutes, ministries of environment, and ministries of agriculture on a daily
basis.
I learned about data archiving, data
protection, data access, and data distribution through the eyes of developing
country government employees. I documented practices in the region, from an
academic standpoint, but I also was a catalyst. As I learned about spatial data
infrastructure initiatives around the world, I shared the information with my
colleagues in Central America. I encouraged them to consider data access trends
in the United States, Canada, Europe, Australia, and Malaysia and reason amongst
themselves what they thought would work best for them in their countries.
El Salvador is one of the few cases in Latin
America in which GIS data are offered on-line free of charge. Ana Maria Majano,
the Minister of the Environment for El Salvador, trained as an economist in the
electrical sector, said, "I think people have already realized that a lot
of data in today’s world cannot be said to belong to any one person. We need
to meet government mandates on the one hand, and give the society the capacity
for solving its own problems, on the other — and up-to-date, reliable,
accessible data is key to both." She defended her ministry’s decision to
offer data online from the budgetary point of view. "It’s cheaper for us
to have a certain amount of data on the web instead of having to pay personnel
to attend to every request that comes through our office."
Ana Maria is one of the region’s
‘champions’ for open access to data. Many government data producers are in a
transition from ‘guarding’ their information to exploring mechanisms for
disseminating it on-line. However, there is an overall trend towards pricing
data for cost recovery and increasing restrictions on the use of data.
The national mapping agencies tend to have a
different philosophy towards data access than the ministries of environment. In
a number of ways, the differences in U.S. versus European approaches to data
handling are mirrored between these two government entities. The national
mapping agencies and the ministries of environment often have become rivals, at
least with respect to geographic information distribution. However, on the
positive side, among all government staff, most agree that data should be shared
freely amongst government agencies for the benefit of the country. Guatemala is
setting up a government data cooperative so that member agencies can share data
with each other.
Most countries are reviewing their current
copyright laws and seeing what adjustments can be made to address GIS
technology. The current laws were written before maps were digital. As part of
my work, I tried to clarify how GIS processes were viewed in terms of data
development. For instance, the following responses were given by one of the
national mapping agency directors regarding whether work done to a map resulted
in a new product:
|
Type of process |
Is a new product |
Is not a new product |
|
Scanning |
|
X |
|
Digitizing |
|
X |
|
Interpolation |
X |
|
|
Filtering |
|
X |
|
Join with other databases |
X |
|
|
Improvement of detail of geographic entities |
X |
|
|
Update of geographic entities |
X |
|
|
Generalization |
|
X |
|
Change of symbols |
X |
|
|
Transformation using algorithms/arithmetic |
X |
|
I learned of several cases in which maps from
Central America were being scanned by U.S. or European companies and sold over
the Internet. This is one of a number of ways in which U.S. and European
activities are affecting data access trends in developing countries. Government
institutions are sensitive to unauthorized use of their resources, and now they
are reluctant to share and/or sell their data, since they have not yet had
adequate opportunity to set up mechanisms to protect their data.
Although the USGIS/AGILE workshop is focusing
on North American and European perspectives, I expect that I could contribute in
a significant way to the discussions by providing perspectives from the
developing world. Developing countries have become ‘sounding boards’ for
North American and European policies, since they are adopting aspects to varying
degrees. Also, as developing countries address data access issues, their
policies will influence the global data access debate. North American and
European researchers undertake much of the research that is currently being done
in the developing world, so a joint North America/European research agenda is
likely to influence research in the countries in which I work.
The USGIS/AGILE workshop is of particular interest to me from an academic standpoint, since it will help me refine my research framework for my PhD. I seldom have the opportunity to share experiences with colleagues from North America and Europe. I personally would benefit from the cross-fertilization of ideas, and I look forward to being able to pass on new ideas to my colleagues in Latin America and Africa.
Biographical Sketch
Kate Lance
University of Wisconsin-Madison
USGS/EROS Data Center
Professional Preparation
Tufts University
Biology, English, Environmental Studies (Triple Major)
B.S. 1988
Yale University
Tropical Forest Management
M.F. 1993
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Environmental Monitoring / Land Resources
Ph.D. (in progress)
— completed course requirements; conducting research on NSDI development in
Latin America and Africa.
Appointments
· Senior Scientist, August 2001 — present. Science Department, International Program, Raytheon/USGS EROS Data Center, Sioux Falls, SD.
Publications
Synergistic Activities
(a) I recently co-led (with GSDI and FGDC) an
SDI seminar during the 2nd meeting of the Committee of Development
Information (CODI) at the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (ECA).
Approximately 40 participants attended, mostly Directors and Sub-directors of
national mapping agencies. We provided an overview of spatial data
infrastructure concepts, including presentations on NSDI leadership and policy,
fundamental data, international and national data standards, metadata catalogs,
OpenGIS and Internet mapping. Participants also split up into working groups to
discuss selected topics in detail: a) NSDI organization and leadership/role of
national mapping agencies, b) strategies for obtaining high level government
support for NSDI, c) tangible measures for monitoring NSDI development, and d)
national websites for presenting harmonized data and information. The seminar
was viewed as one of the most useful events of the conference. The delegates
agreed to move forward on establishing a Permanent Committee for Spatial Data
Infrastructure for Africa. In the coming months, I will continue working with
the national mapping agencies, promoting fundamental data development, data
policies, and data access mechanisms.
(b) For 2 years, I investigated and promoted
national spatial data infrastructures in Latin American and the Caribbean
(economic, legal, and political factors affecting the dissemination of GIS data
and products). I conducted surveys, organized seminars, helped draft agreements
between institutions, met with ministers and donors, maintained a website, and
regularly circulated materials to a network of GIS government users. Government
institutions are now establishing high-level NSDI committees and developing
framework documents. I also was on the Organizing Committee for the NSDI Seminar
in Bogota, Colombia in 2000, during which delegates agreed to establish the
Permanent Committee for Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Americas. My work
was on behalf of the Central American Geographic Information Project (PROCIG, http://www.procig.org/main.htm)
- a project designed to facilitate Central American government information
specialists in managing and disseminating demographic, environmental and
agricultural data. I have several manuscripts in development that I will submit
for publication shortly.
(c) In order to raise awareness of the value
of spatial data, I conducted an impact assessment of CIAT’s digital Atlas of
Honduras. With research colleagues, we interviewed a range of GIS users and
documented cases in which spatial data directly impacted decision-making.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. MEG MERRICK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GIS
& SOCIETY WORKSHOP STATEMENT OF INTEREST
Meg
Merrick
merrickm@pdx.edu
The mission of the Community Geography
Project of the Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies at Portland State
University is to train community members of all ages in geographic information
systems (GIS) technology and asset mapping methods to empower them to: (1)
critically evaluate information about their communities and; (2) pose new and
better questions about their communities and the region. I have been the
coordinator of the project since its inception in 1998. In January 2001, the
project was awarded a $259,000 grant from The Ford Foundation to train
volunteers from six community nonprofits in partnership with K-12 schools over
two years (three partnerships in year one; three new partnerships in year two).
The sustainability of this expertise within
the communities in which we are working is a top priority. Because experience
taught us that the adult volunteer community is highly fluid, we required, under
our Ford Foundation funding, the nonprofits we work with to partner with K-12
schools. Community based education has been adopted by many school districts in
our region and we believe that GIS education will be incorporated into the
districts’ curricula in the not so distant future.
Currently, we are working on a wide variety
projects with partners from the downtown core, a low-income single-family
neighborhood in north Portland, and a suburban community at the edge of the
metropolitan urban growth boundary. Our partners include:
Citizen empowerment and community building
through the use of GIS technology is the focus of my work in the urban studies
doctoral program at Portland State. I went into this work believing that GIS
technology could transform the way people understand and mobilize around issues
of concern to them. And that in order to be able explore those issues on their
own terms, they would have to be able to use the tool, have access to it and
data. Thus far, we have learned and continue to learn a great deal about issues
of access, both in terms of physical access to computers, software, and data,
and "cognitive" (for lack of a better term) access. Through the
Project, we are also learning beginning to learn about how popularizing the use
of GIS impacts the questions that our partners and associated local decision
makers want to explore and the collection and sharing of data.
I am interested in all aspects of the
workshop; my work concerns both topics. However, I would be most interested in
the participatory processes topic. This is my work and my passion.
BIOGRAPHICAL
SKETCH
Meg Merrick
Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies, PSU
merrickm@pdx.edu
503-725-8291
Portland State
University
Geography
BS 1995
Portland State
University
Geography
MS 1998
Portland State
University
Ph.D. student
2001
1998 — Present. Coordinator, Community Geography Project. Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies, College of Urban and Public Affairs. Portland State University.
1999 — Present. Instructor. University Studies. Portland State University. Senior Capstone courses (Asset Mapping).
2001. Instructor. College of Urban and Public Affairs. Portland State University. Introduction to GIS (410/510).
1999 — 2000. Instructor. Department of Geography. Portland State University. Urban Geography (spring 1999, winter 2000, fall 2000).
1997 — 1998. Coordinator, PSU@HOME. Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies, College of Urban and Public Affairs, Portland State University.
1996 — 1997. Graduate Teaching Assistant. Department of Geography. Portland State University.
1995-1996. Graduate Research Assistant. Department of Geography. Portland State University.
Merrick, M. 2001. "GIS
as a Catalyst for Community Building Between Neighborhoods and Schools". ESRI
Educators’ Conference. July.
Merrick, M. et al. 2000. "Periodic Atlas of the Metroscape: Hillsboro in 2100." Metroscape. Winter.
Merrick, M. 1999. "Periodic Atlas of the Metroscape: Healthcare — How accessible is it?". Metroscape. Summer.
Merrick, M. and Mohamed Abdel-Hamid. 1998. "A Citizens’ Guide to Geographic Information". http://www.upa.pdx.edu/IMS/comgeo/Previous_Projects/Previous%20Projects.htm
Merrick, M. and Mohamed Abdel-Hamid. 1998. Community Development Corporations/Nonprofit Housing Atlas: an exploratory study. Institute of Portland Metropolitan Studies.
Merrick, M. 1998. Patterns of Time. Place, and Culture: Land Use Zoning in Portland Oregon, 1918-1924. Masters Thesis. Portland State University.
Community Geography Project. The nature of this project is to demonstrate to an uninitiated public the power of GIS to see and understand information in new ways and to put that power into their own hands.
Senior Capstone Courses. The courses I teach are focused on what it means to be engaged in community through the use of technology.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. SARAH NILES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
keynote co-author
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. NANCY OBERMEYER
------------------------------------------------------------------------
keynote co-author
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. HARLAN ONSRUD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
keynote co-author
------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. LAXMI RAMASUBRAMANIAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Institutionalizing
Critical Reflective Practice in CBOs
Statement
of Interest
Workshop
on Access and Participatory Approaches in Using Geographic Information
Laxmi
Ramasubramanian
Background and Past Contribution
My research examines community-based
decision-making processes and the extent to which participatory GIS assists or
hinders these efforts (Ramasubramanian, 1995, 1998, 1999). My research has
focused on documenting how community-based organizations (CBOs) in the United
States use data, information and GI technologies to facilitate both their
strategic planning and day-to-day decision-making. Among the community-based
organizations I studied, I discovered that GIS improves organizational
efficiency, facilitates the working of group processes, and assists in mediating
situations where trust is absent. GIS adoption and use at the community level
follows the general trends of GIS adoption in other institutional contexts. Of
particular interest, however is the confirmation of the theoretical claims of
PPGIS¾GIS
empowered small, relatively vulnerable grassroots groups to ask difficult
questions of more powerful entities such as a city administration. The strategic
use of GIS leveled the playing field within which community-based organizations
operate (Ramasubramanian, 1998). To a large extent, my research on how and why
community groups use GIS confirms and supports the theoretical and empirical
work of others who have examined GIS implementation in public agencies (e.g.,
Onsrud & Pinto, 1993, Obermeyer & Pinto, 1994, and Campbell & Masser,
1995) as well as those who have focused their attention on community-based
organizations including Craig & Elwood, 1998.
In particular, however, my research
suggests that the most unique contribution of GIS and other information
technologies at the local level lies in their potential to re-define or re-frame
problems, particularly persistent policy debates. The frames I refer to are
institutional action frames–beliefs, values, and perspectives held by
particular institutions and interest groups from which particular policy
positions are derived (Schön and Rein, 1994). The community organizations that
participated in my research embedded the use of GIS into their decision-making
process. GIS along with more traditional community organizing and advocacy
strategies influenced both local and national policy decisions. These CBOs were
able to transcend the limits imposed by conventional off-the-shelf GIS packages
by integrating quantitative information with experiential knowledge to establish
their claims.
Through my research, I have come to the
conclusion that empowerment, particularly community empowerment should not be
viewed as a fixed resource. It is important to note that some organizations can
act "empowered" in one situation or context and appear "disempowered"
in another. Empowerment is not an end in itself (or a static state to be
attained by the creation of certain favorable conditions). Empowerment must be
seen as a guiding principle that should form the basis of problem solving and
decision-making throughout the life of a community organization. Following this
reasoning, I argue that empowerment is both the process and outcome of critical
reflective practice (Ramasubramanian, 1998). Critical reflective practice,
when embedded in the decision-making processes of community-based organizations
transforms CBOs; these organizations are dynamic, they are not resistant to
change, they support organizational learning, and most importantly, these
organizations are able to evaluate both the opportunities and pitfalls that come
with using GIS (i.e., they recognize that GIS can be a double-edged sword that
can simultaneously marginalize and empower).
Future Research Directions
I continue to be interested in
understanding how and why some community organizations and not others are
able to harness the benefits of GIS while transcending both organizational and
technical barriers. I will use community decision-making as a lens to examine
both the benefits and constraints associated with PPGIS. We are well aware that
PPGIS means different things to different people. In its narrowest
configuration, PPGIS is often interpreted as providing community groups with a
limited set of GIS tools, some training and access to public data. Reports of
such "empowerment encounters" are success stories that typically
describe and present a simple story with readily identifiable and manageable
problems and offer a (pre) structured set of solutions. While theoretical
discussions emphasizing the complexities inherent in the use of GIS and IT to
support decision-making abound, the rapid proliferation of GIS at the community
level underscores the need for rigorous qualitative research to organize and
evaluate the wide range of examples and case studies that are reported in both
popular and academic literature. Specifically, I would like to address the
following three research themes/questions in the workshop:
Mediating between Local and Global
The local CBO is often ill equipped to
cope with the impacts of globalized decision-making process. For example, CBOs
are not always aware of the implications related to data access (e.g., updates,
costs associated with creating a refined end-product) or intellectual
copyrights. However, in some instances, CBOs are able to jump scale (Obermeyer,
2001) in order to achieve their objectives. I am interested in examining the
extent to which spatial literacy and an understanding of legal issues such as
copyright laws and privacy laws and globalization empower CBOs in their efforts
to be effective community advocates.
Elite Institutions Versus Grassroots
Empowerment
GIS and other information technologies
tend to be shaped by powerful institutional cultures. While government and
private philanthropy continue to invest in grassroots access to technology,
universities have emerged as powerful intermediaries in efforts to democratize
access to data, information and GIS technology. There is considerable interest
in exporting this model to developing countries. Rather than uncritically
endorsing all university-community partnerships, I would like to develop a set
of evaluation criteria to rigorously assess both positive and negative impacts
of university-community partnerships that aspire to develop technological
capacity among community groups.
Community Empowerment in Developing
Countries
Continuing my earlier research on GIS
adoption and use in developing countries, I would like to explore participatory
GIS adoption in developing countries, focusing on Senegal in West Africa. I am
currently involved in a research project to build local capacity to facilitate
community-based planning in Dakar, Senegal. In this project I am investigating
issues related to institutional cultures, planning traditions, and language all
of which introduce complexities in our efforts to support participatory planning
using GIS. While the marginalization of the citizenry is not as dramatic as in
the case of South Africa, the emphasis on techno-centric planning limits local
citizen action. Examining the transformative potential of PPGIS in the Senegal
context will provide additional insights regarding GIS adoption and use by
community groups.
References
Campbell, H.,
& Masser, I. 1995. GIS and Organizations: How effective are GIS in
practice? London, Taylor & Francis
Craig, W., &
Elwood, S. 1998. How and why community groups use maps and geographic
information. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems, 25,
95-104
Obermeyer, N,
& Pinto, J. 1994. Managing Geographic Information Systems. New York:
Guilford Press.
Obermeyer, N.
2001. Presentation at a panel session, Constructing Place, Identity and Meaning:
Critical Perspectives on Community Mapping. 97th Annual Meeting of
the AAG, New York, 2/28-3/3, 2001.
Onsrud, H, &
Pinto, J. 1993. Evaluating the correlates of GIS adoption success and the
decision process of GIS acquisition. Journal of the Urban and Regional
Information Systems Association, 5 18-39
Ramasubramanian,
L. 1995. Building communities: GIS and participatory decision-making. Journal
of Urban Technology, Volume 3, 1, pp. 67-79.
Ramasubramanian,
L. 1998. Knowledge production and use in community-based organizations:
Examining the impacts and influence of information technologies. Unpublished PhD
dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
Ramasubramanian,
L. 1999. Nurturing community empowerment: Participatory decision-making and
community-based problem solving using GIS, in Onsrud, H. and M. Craglia (Eds.) Geographic
Information Research: Transatlantic Perspectives. London, England: Taylor
& Francis.
Schön, D &
Rein, M. 1994. Frame Reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy
controversies. New York: Basic Books
Biographical Sketch
Laxmi Ramasubramanian
a. Professional
Preparation
University of Madras, Madras, India: Bachelor
of Architecture, December 1986
Anna University, Madras, India: Master of
Architecture, January 1989
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT):
Master in City Planning, June 1991
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM): PhD
in Architecture, May 1998
b. Appointments
From January 2001 Lecturer, Department of Geography,
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
From January 2001
Principal Researcher and Project Manager, UCGIS Urban Indicators Research
Project
1999-2000
Post-doctoral Research Fellow, University of New England, Armidale,
New South Wales,
Australia
1998-1999
Post-doctoral Research Fellow, University of Auckland, New Zealand
c. Publications
(i) Publications most closely related to
the proposed project
King, M. &
Ramasubramanian, L. 2000. From access to power: Knowledge production and use in
community-based organizations in de Abreu, P., & de Melo, J. (Eds). Public
Participation and Information Technologies 1999. Lisbon, Portugal: CITIDEP
(Research Center on Information Technology and Participatory Democracy) pp. 71 -
77
Ramasubramanian, L.
1999. Where’s the power in empowerment? Case Studies of Information Technology
Adoption and Use by Community-based Organizations in Proceedings of
the 1999 Urban and Regional Information Systems Association (URISA) conference,
August 21st — 24th, 1999, Chicago. CD-ROM.
Ramasubramanian, L.
1999. Nurturing community empowerment: Participatory decision-making and
community-based problem solving using GIS, in Onsrud, H. and M. Craglia (Eds.) Geographic
Information Research: Transatlantic Perspectives. London, England: Taylor
& Francis.
Ramasubramanian, L.
1996. Knowledge Production and use in Community-based Organizations. Examining
the impacts and influence of information technologies in H. Couclelis (Ed.). Spatial
Technologies, Geographic Information and the City. National Center for
Geographic Information and Analysis (NCGIA) Technical Report 96/10.
Ramasubramanian, L.
1995. Building communities: GIS and participatory decision-making. Journal of
Urban Technology, Volume 3, 1, pp. 67-79.
(ii) Five other
significant publications whether or not related to the proposed project
Ramasubramanian, L.
(in press). Enabling technologies, transformative pedagogies: Integrating
Geo-Information Technologies in Education Curricula, in R. Gerber and M.
Robertson, (Eds.), Children’s Knowing. Canberra: Australian Council for
Educational Research.
Witten, K.,
Mc.Creannor, T., Kearns, R., & Ramasubramanian, L. (in press).
Narratives on the impacts of school closure: The Invercargill case in Health
and Place
Ramasubramanian,
L., Huxhold, W., Albrecht, J.
Ajirotutu, C. 2001. Analyzing urban indicators using GIS: Building local
capacity in developing countries through participatory research, in Proceedings
on the 7th International Conference on Computers in Urban Planning
and Urban Management (CUPUM), July 18th—21st, 2001,
at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Witten, K., Parkes,
M., & Ramasubramanian, L. 2000. Participatory Environmental Health
Research in New Zealand: Constraints and Opportunities in Health
Education and Behavior Volume 27, 3, pp. 371-384
Ramasubramanian, L.
1999. GIS Implementation in Developing Countries: Learning from Organisational
Theory and Reflective Practice. Transactions in GIS, Volume 3, Issue 4,
pp. 359 — 380
d. Synergistic Activities
2001 — 2002
Member of the Steering
Committee convened to plan an International PPGIS Congress "GIS and Public
Access", scheduled for Summer 2002.
Co-conveners: Nancy Obermeyer and Renee Sieber
Feb 2001
Co-chaired with Prof. Peter Keller a panel discussion at the 97th
Annual Meeting of the Association of American Geographers (AAG) at New York
Session Title: Constructing
Place, Identity and Meaning: Critical Perspectives on Community Mapping
Session Participants: Will Craig, Renee Sieber, Nancy Obermeyer, Emily
Talen, Trevor Harris, Jochen Albrecht, and the two session chairs
Mar 2001
Invited Presenter, The Impact of Information Technology on Civil
Society, a conference organized by the Independent Sector and The Nonprofit
Sector Research Fund of the Aspen Institute on (www.IndependentSector.org)
2001 — 2002
Currently managing a
participatory action research project to support the development of local
capacity to use GIS for community-based planning at the City of Dakar. Project
includes research, education and training, and community outreach. Some of this
research is related to the development of appropriate urban indicators at
the sub-city (neighborhood) scale.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. DAVID TULLOCH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATEMENT OF INTEREST/INVOLVEMENT
David L. Tulloch — Rutgers University
From the perspective of
landscape architecture and environmental planning, public land-resource
decisions serve as one of the major determinants of landscape change. And, while
many factors are seen as being necessary in decision-making processes,
information and participation are both treated as critical to the long-term
success of such public decisions. Working within this perspective, I have placed
emphases on both public access to information and participation in public
decisions, with an interest in ways they intersect.
It has been argued that the most important environmental controls in the
US are local land-use controls. As such, much of my interest has been on
information-dependent, public resource decisions made locally with a focus on
the ways that the public can affect change within the processes, and be affected
by them. Government agencies have often been a barrier themselves with policies
that prevent sufficient access to data and information that is used as the basis
of public decisions. Increasingly, I suspect, many public officials do not
realize the degree to which they impede participation simply through their
failure to actively develop dissemination policies and practices (see Tulloch
2002).
I am becoming very interested in the way that tools or interface impact
the ability of untrained citizens to participate in the public decision-making
processes. Developments range from static on-line maps to interactive IMS
applications. However, there are still limited explorations of how well
individuals are able to understand the thematic data used to guide the
relatively complex local-level resource decisions. Lew Hopkins has developed a
combination of a light table and computer monitor allowing citizens to
"draw" areas of concerns on the map with their fingers.
The level of interaction
that users have showed in Hopkins’ tests raise questions about how many other
worthwhile creative techniques remain untried.
RELAVENT RESEARCH PROJECTS
Since completing my doctorate 4 years ago, I have pursued opportunities
to examine the ways that GIS impacts deliberate efforts to affect landscape
change. This research includes both participatory uses and broader questions
about access and sharing. I am currently leading a project exploring the
automation of county-level farmland preservation with an active public
participation element. The project investigates the ability and interest of
landowners to interact with products of the automated process, but also seeks to
identify whether the technology alters the participants’ trust or confidence
in the public decisions being made.
New Jersey’s non-profit GIS community has proven to be an interesting
hot-bed of public participatory GIS activity (Tulloch 1998, 2002). I continue to
study the ways that these advocacy groups are using the technology to alter
their position within the policy processes that are shaping the landscapes of
their constituencies. Thus far it has been clear that the technologies have
empowered a number of the organizations and "earned" them a
participatory role in decision processes. It is already clear that, empowered by
the technology, they have altered public decisions in some cases.
A core element in my research has been the role of "community
multipurpose land information systems" (MPLIS) and how these systems can be
employed to benefits their agency, the larger organization, and their entire
community (Tulloch and Epstein 2001). The MPLIS development model, (Tulloch
1999) stresses the importance of access to the data and to the technology as
central to the ultimate success or failure of a community MPLIS.
Finally, my research has included involvement in the Federal Geographic
Data Committee’s (FGDC) efforts to study the potential for a National Spatial
Data Infrastructure (NSDI). The entire NSDI concept is dependent upon a high
level of access. Initially this research came from a national FGDC survey, which
revealed that many organizations claimed to allow access to their data, but few
had taken formal steps to ensure it (like dissemination policies or
clearinghouses) (Tulloch and Fuld 2001). We have also sought specific
organizational characteristics that directly impact data sharing and access (Tulloch
2002). The result is a cooperative project with Dr. Francis Harvey exploring
"best sharing and coordination practices."
WORKSHOPS
An additional indication of
my interest is participation in a variety of special meetings and workshops
exploring these topics. In 1995 I participated in the NAS National Mapping
Committee’s Workshop on The Future of Spatial Data and Society, Mapping
Science Committee at which I presented some preliminary community benefits
research. The Specialist Meeting on Empowerment, Marginalization, and Public
Participation GIS in 1998 helped me begin to formalize my interest in PPGIS. I
also attended the GI and Society workshop in the summer of 1999. This year I
participated in the NSF-funded Workshop on Landscape Change, which included a
significant emphasis on the role of PPGIS in shaping our environment. Also this
year, I participated in the Batelle Institute-sponsored workshop on Geographic
Information Systems in a Changing Society. Finally. I have agreed to help
organize the PPGIS Congress for the summer of 2002. My consistent involvement in
workshops like these demonstrate that my interests continue to focus on issues
central to this meeting.
PROFESSIONAL PERSPECTIVE
It seems that many of researchers involved in participation and access
issues represent either the social science perspective or the technical
perspectives. However, an important third perspective has been emerging — the
planner/practitioner perspective. Groups like the planners, and landscape
architects bring experience in participatory techniques and describe the
barriers to access, and appropriate solutions, in fairly different terms.
I have argued (Tulloch 2000) that these groups have not been nearly as
active in using the technology as they should be, and risk being left out of
major policy decisions as a result. I would also argue that many of their
efforts are less visible in the arenas of GIS research because the applied
research often does not get published as widely as it should.
In no way can I speak on behalf of this diverse group, but my training
lends itself to a much better understanding of this perspective. I would be very
interested in helping to ensure this perspective is better represented in the
larger mix of interests at this workshop.
REFERENCES
Tulloch, D. L.
1998. "Environmental NGOs: Community Access to Technology as a Force for
Change," Workshop Paper for National Center for Geographic Information
Analysis Specialist Meeting on Empowerment, Marginalization, and Public
Participation GIS (http://ncgia.ucsb.edu/varenius/ppgis/papers/tulloch/tulloch.html).
Tulloch, D. L.
1999. "Theoretical Model of Multipurpose Land Information Systems
Development," Transactions in Geographic Information Systems, 3: 3,
259-83.
Tulloch, D. L.
2000. "Data Shaping The Landscape: GIS and Stewardship," Landscape
Journal, 19: 211-219.
Tulloch, D. L.
2002. "Environmental NGOs: Community Access to Technology as a Force for
Change," chapter in, Community Empowerment, Public Participation and
Geographic Information Science. W. Craig, T. Harris, and D. Weiner (Eds.).
Integra/Taylor and Francis: London. (Forthcoming)
Tulloch, D. L.
2002. "The Role of Staff Size in GIS Data Development and Sharing: An
Initial Investigation" Journal of the Urban and Regional Information
Systems Association. Available on-line at: http://www.urisa.org/Journal/Under_Review/2tulloch/the_role_of_staff_size_in_gis_data_development.htm
(Under Review).
Tulloch, D. L., and
E. Epstein. 2001. "Benefits Of Community MPLIS: Efficiency, Effectiveness,
And Equity," Transactions in Geographic Information Systems (Accepted).
Tulloch, D. L., and
J. Fuld. 2001. "County-level Production of Framework Data: Pieces of a
National Spatial Data Infrastructure?" Journal of the Urban and Regional
Information Systems Association. Available on-line at: http://www.urisa.org/Journal/accepted/tulloch/exploring_county_level_production_of.htm
(Accepted).
Biographical
Sketch
DAVID L. TULLOCH, PH.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Landscape Architecture
Blake Hall
93 Lipman Drive
Cook College, Rutgers University
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8524
(732) 932-3611 (732) 932-1940 (fax)
Associate Director for Program Development
and GIS Applications Program Leader
Grant F. Walton Center for Remote Sensing and
Spatial Analysis
Environmental and Natural Resource Building,
Room 133
14 College Farm Road
Cook College, Rutgers University
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551
(732) 932-1581 (732) 932-2587 (fax)
Professional Preparation
Ph.D. in Land Resources, University of Wisconsin-Madison, May 1997
M.L.A., Louisiana State University, May 1994
B.S.L.A.,
University of Kentucky, May 1992
Appointments
Assistant Professor,
Department of Landscape Architecture
Associate Director
for Program Development and GIS Applications Program Leader, Center for Remote
Sensing and Spatial Analysis, Cook College, Rutgers University, 1997 — present
Graduate Faculty of
Geography, 1997 — present
Publications
Workshop-related Publications
Tulloch, D. 2002.
"Environmental NGOs: Community Access to Technology as a Force for
Change," chapter in, Community Empowerment, Public Participation and
Geographic Information Science. W. Craig, T. Harris, and D. Weiner (Eds.).
Integra/Taylor and Francis: London. (Forthcoming)
Tulloch, D. L.
2002. "The Role of Staff Size in GIS Data Development and Sharing: An
Initial Investigation" Journal of the Urban and Regional Information
Systems Association. Available on-line at: http://www.urisa.org/Journal/Under_Review/2tulloch/the_role_of_staff_size_in_gis_data_development.htm
(Under Review)
Tulloch, D. L., and
E. Epstein. 2001. "Benefits Of Community MPLIS: Efficiency, Effectiveness,
And Equity," Transactions in Geographic Information Systems. (Accepted;
In Press)
Tulloch, D. L.
2000. "Data Shaping The Landscape: GIS and Stewardship," Landscape
Journal, 19: 211-219.
Tulloch, D. L.
1999. "Theoretical Model of Multipurpose Land Information Systems
Development," Transactions in Geographic Information Systems, 3: 3,
259-83.
Other
Publications
Tulloch, D. L.
2002. "Locally Produced Geodetic Control And Cadastral Framework Data In
The United States," Surveying and Land Information Systems. (Under
Review)
Tulloch, D. L., and
J. Fuld. 2001. "County-level Production of Framework Data: Pieces of a
National Spatial Data Infrastructure?" Journal of the Urban and Regional
Information Systems Association. Available on-line at: http://www.urisa.org/Journal/accepted/tulloch/exploring_county_level_production_of.htm
(Accepted; In Press)
Tulloch, D., and M.
Robinson. 2000. "A Progress Report on a U.S. National Survey of Geospatial
Framework Data," The Journal of Government Information, 27: 285-298.
Tulloch, D. L., D.
Barnes, D. Bartholomew, D. Danielson, and N. von Meyer. 1997. "The
Wisconsin Land Information Program: Supporting Community Land Information System
Development," Surveying and Land Information Systems, 57 (December):
4, 241-248.
Tulloch, D. L.
1994. "Areal Changes in US Forested Wetlands from 1940-1990," Wetlands
Ecology and Management, 3 (1994) 1, 49-53.
Funded Research
Harvey, F., and D.
Tulloch. "Best Sharing and Coordination Practices," The Universities
Consortium for Geographic Information Sciences /FGDC $20,000, 10/01-6/02.
Lathrop. R., D.
Tulloch and C. Hatfield. "Assessment of the New York/New Jersey
Highlands," US Forest Service/US Congress, $175,000 5/01 — 6/02.
Tulloch, D., R.
Lathrop, and P. Parks, United States Department Of Agriculture Cooperative State
Research, Education, And Extension Service, National Research Initiative
Competitive Grants Program, "Developing Community-based Tools for Farmland
Preservation Evaluation," $145,000, 9/99-8/01.
Tulloch, D. "
Exploratory Studies of the NSGIC/FGDC Framework Survey: Looking at the State
of the Nation," The Universities Consortium for Geographic
Information Sciences, $29,000.
Strom, S., J. M.
Hartman, and D. L. Tulloch, United States Department Of Agriculture - National
Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council, $104,700, 7/97-12/99.
Tulloch, D.
"Comparative Study of Community GIS," Rutgers University, Research
Council Grant, $900.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. DANIEL WEINER
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Participatory GIS, Development
Geography and Regional Political Ecology: Perspectives from Appalachia and
Southern Africa
Proposal to participate in the "Workshop
on Access and Participatory Approaches in Using Geographic Information" (Spoleto,
Italy, December 5-9, 2001)
by Daniel Weiner (September, 2001)
Public participation geographic information
systems (PPGIS) are being implemented within the context of academic GIS and
Society debates. As a result, PPGIS has a rich and diverse conceptual history
that draws upon several intellectual traditions, including: political economy
and critical theory; participatory planning and community development; democracy
and social justice; anthropology and ethnography; political ecology; and,
philosophies of science. There is, however, a spontaneous fusion of
participatory forms of development planning with new information technologies
that are not linked with the academy. This rapid integration of participatory
development with geographic information systems (GIS) and technologies (GIT) is
occurring in all world regions.
My interest in participatory geographic
information systems began in 1992 while working on a South African participatory
land reform project. Our research team was collecting and analyzing community
perspectives pertaining to local land issues and it became clear that GIS and
GIT could potentially be very useful. We experimented with cognitive maps
overlaid onto 1:50,000 topographic base maps of the case study area and the
results confirmed that community ‘countermaps’ could successfully be
incorporated within a traditional geographic information system. The
participatory GIS product combined "expert" with "local"
knowledge and socially differentiated representations of the regional political
ecology emerged. Specifically, community perspectives on land potential, the
history of forced removals, local politics of water access and land use, and
perspectives on land reform were represented and analyzed.
This initial experiment led to an NSF project
which explored how participatory geographic information systems could further
the study of regional political ecology. The project also addressed basic
questions about how to build a PPGIS. These data are still being analyzed, but
initial results indicate that: (1) the GIS and Society literature privileges
space and society and is surprisingly quiet on fundamental questions related to
nature and society; (2) participatory GIS offers an excellent tool and
methodological framework for exploring uneven development and regional political
ecology; (3) PPGIS platforms are increasingly Internet-based within a broad
spatial multi-media technological platform; (4) the powerful functionality of
GIS tends to be underutilized in PPGIS projects; and (5) participatory GIS
research and PPGIS development projects require very different political and
institutional frameworks.
While working on the NSF project, I became
co-leader (with Trevor Harris) of NCGIA Initiative # 19, "GIS and Society:
The Social Implications of How People, Space and Environment are Represented in
GIS." One outcome of the initiative was the support of specific PPGIS
research projects. These experiences with participatory GIS contributed to the
development of an NCGIA Varenius project. I was co-leader (with Will Craig and
Trevor Harris) of "Empowerment, Marginalization and Public Participation
Geographic Information Systems." Our edited volume on Community
Participation and Geographic Information Systems is now in press and draws
upon Varenius project case studies and conceptual contributions. The book
situates PPGIS within the broader GIS and Society debates, and addresses six
core concerns:
More recently, I am directing a project
titled "Researching Community-Integrated Geographic Information Systems for
a Comparative Analysis of Uneven Development in Appalachia and Southern
Africa." The project brings together researchers at West Virginia
University, the University of Pretoria (UP) and the Catholic University of
Mozambique (UCM). With this project, participatory GIS research is
operationalized for the study of uneven development with particular focus on natural
resource access, ownership and use. Regional comparisons will be made
with place-specific information. In this way, the research examines how
participatory GIS and GIT can be employed in specific social and geographic
contexts while also contributing to regional research and comparative
international studies. The WVU contribution includes mentoring UP and UCM with
participatory GIS and the development of a Monongalia County, West Virginia
participatory GIS. The project has received some initial funding from the
(former) USIA College and University Affiliations Program.
In summary, I am excited about the
possibility of participating in the Spoleto workshop. The discussion topics
include issues that I have been thinking about and struggling with for ten
years. I am quite interested in how participatory models and methods are merging
with GIS/GIT, and continue to believe that the GIS and Society debates need to
connect more with the regional political ecology and environment and development
research and literature. I also believe that there needs to be a much clearer
understanding of the fundamental differences between participatory GIS research
and PPGIS development projects. They are very different types of GIS
practice.
DANIEL WEINER
Department of Geology and Geography Phone: (304) 293-5603 (x4326)
West Virginia University Fax: (304) 293-6522
425 White Hall E-Mail: daniel.weiner@mail.wvu.edu
P.O. Box 6300, Morgantown, WV 26506-6300
United States
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Education
B.A. Geography, Clark University (1979)
M.A. Geography, Clark University (1981)
Ph.D. Geography, Clark University (1986)
Professional Employment
2001 - present: Professor,
Department of Geology and Geography, West Virginia University (WVU)
1997 - present: Director,
WVU Office of International Programs
1995 -1997: Associate Chair, WVU Department
of Geology and Geography
1993 -1999:
Associate Professor, WVU Department of Geology and Geography
1990 -1993:
Assistant Professor, WVU Department of Geology and Geology
1986 -1990:
Assistant Professor, Department of Geography and Planning, The University of
Toledo
Selected Publications
five publications most directly related to project
Craig, W., Harris, T., and D. Weiner (eds.,
in press). Community Participation and Geographic Information Systems.
London: Taylor and Francis.
Weiner, D. and T. Harris, 1999. "Community-Integrated GIS for Land Reform in South Africa." WVU
Regional Research Institute Research paper # 9907, Morgantown W.V.
(http://www.rri.wvu.edu/wpapers/1999wp.htm)
Harris, T. and D. Weiner, 1998. "Empowerment, Marginalization and Community-Integrated GIS."
Cartography and Geographic Information Systems, 25(2): 67-76.
Harris, T., Weiner, D., Warner, T. and R. Levin, 1995. "Pursuing Social Goals through Participatory Geographic Information Systems: Redressing South Africa's Historical Political Ecology." In J. Pickles, (ed.), Ground Truth: The Social Implications of Geographic Information Systems. New York: Guilford Publications.
Weiner, D., Warner, T., Harris, T., and R. Levin, 1995. "Apartheid Representations in a Digital Landscape: GIS, Remote Sensing and Local Knowledge in Kiepersol, South Africa. Cartography and GIS, 22(1): 30-44.
five other relevant publications (and reports)
Nesbitt, T., and D. Weiner, 2001.
"Conflicting Environmental Imaginaries and the Politics of Nature in
Central Appalachia." Geoforum, 32: 333-349.
Craig, W., Harris, T., and D. Weiner, 1999. "Empowerment, Marginalization and Public Participation GIS." Specialist Meeting Report compiled for Varenius NCGIA’s Project to Advance Geographic Information Science. NCGIA, University of California - Santa Barbara, February.
Abbot, J., Chambers, R., Dunn, C., Harris, T., de Merode, E., Porter, G., Townsend J., and D.
Weiner, 1998. "Participatory GIS: Opportunity or Oxymoron." PLA
Notes, 33: 27-34.
Levin, R. and D. Weiner (eds.), 1997. ‘No More Tears:’ Struggles for Land in Mpumalanga, South Africa. Trenton: Africa World Press.
Harris,
T., and D. Weiner, 1996. "GIS and Society: The Social Implications of How
People, Space and Environment are Represented in GIS." Scientific Report
for NCGIA Initiative # 19 Specialist Meeting, University of California - Santa
Barbara, November.
Recent (and Relevant) Competitive Research Grants
Co-Principal Investigator (with
Greg Elmes, Ge Lin and Calvin Masilela): "Monitoring Beira (Mozambique)
Using Geographic Indicators: An Analysis of Urban Indicators Using GSCci."
($39,861; University Consortium for Geographic Information Science; January 22,
2001 — February 1, 2002.)
Project Director:
"College and University Affiliations Program for a Partnership Between West
Virginia University, the University of Pretoria and Catholic University of
Mozambique." ($144,000; U.S. Information Agency; September 1, 2000 — June
30, 2003).
Co-Principal Investigator (with
Trevor Harris): "Integrating Regional Political Ecology and GIS for Rural
Reconstruction in the South African Lowveld." ($150,000; National Science
Foundation; January, 1997 - June, 2000).
Project Manager (with
Richard Levin): "Community Perspectives on Land and Agrarian Reform in
South Africa." ($254,494; John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation;
January, 1992 - June, 1994).
Synergistic Activities
In 1996 and 1997, I was co-leader (with Trevor Harris) of the NSF funded National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (NCGIA) Initiative # 19, "The Social Implications of How People, Space and Environment are Represented in GIS." (see: http://www.geo.wvu.edu/i19/). Initiative # 19 supported GIS and Society research at NCGIA and non-NCGIA sites. As a follow-up to this project, I was co-leader (with Will Craig and Trevor Harris) of the NCGIA sponsored Varenius Project entitled "Empowerment, Marginalization and Public Participation GIS."(see: http://ncgia.ncgia.ucsb.edu:80/varenius/).