WHAT PPGIS
REALLY NEEDS IS...
David Tulloch
Department of Landscape Architecture and
Center for Remote Sensing and Spatial Analysis
INTRODUCTION
As a relatively new field in the GI Sciences (GIS), PPGIS
has struggled to make sense of itself. More precisely, the researchers
and participants in PPGIS meetings have offered presentations about disparate
issues and experiences, wondering if they are really talking about the same
topic.
The
core literature of the field (what little there is) contributes to this
confusion as it uses an inconsistent vocabulary, and often does not build well
on past PPGIS research. The result is a
field that struggles to establish itself and seems to make more lateral
progress than forward. It is worth
noting that this paper takes liberties in proposing some materials for future
use. These materials are not meant as
much as final products, but provocative materials for response and discussion
at the 2nd Annual Public Participation GIS Conference.
IDENTITY – A DEFINITION OF PPGIS
Perhaps the single greatest impediment to research is the
lack of a clear definition of the field. What is PPGIS?[1] A
singular definition seems impossible, but the literature (as it exists today)
suggests some basic situations that researchers frequently treat as being
included in PPGIS.
As a start point for a PPGIS survey, Sawicki
and Peterman (2002, 24) developed a working definition of PPGIS organizations
as those that:
(a) collect demographic,
administrative, environmental or other local-area databases,
(b) do something to the data to make
it more useful locally (e.g., address matching of individual records; creating
customized tables), and
(c) provide this information to
local nonprofit community-based groups at low or no cost. This can
include local non-profit community groups that are collecting and processing
data in-house, or data ‘intermediaries’ that process and analyze data for
others (data intermediaries might be government offices, nonprofit groups,
university-based centers, etc.).
While their chapter explained a number of issues that might
lead us to make minor modifications to their definition, the most important is
that they were defining PPGIS as a type of system, not as a sub-disciplinary
field under the larger umbrella of GIS.
As a field within GI science, PPGIS needs to also be treated
as a science and not simply a technology. Public participatory geographic
information science (PPGIS) should be accepted as a meaningful field within GIS
that studies the many ways that elements of PPGIS are used. Ultimately
this will need to include both GI and/or GI systems technologies. PPGIS
needs to include the entire public including both individuals (like IMS users)
and groups (like Sawicki and Peterman’s
organizations). Finally, PPGIS needs to be defined in regards to the process or
activity in which the public is participating. Some research has
emphasized the participation in mapping and data collection while other work
has focused more on participation in public agency decisions.
The author has no intent establishing a permanent definition
of PPGIS, but offers the following working definition as a way of developing
the previously mentioned criteria.
Public participatory geographic
information science is
(1) a study of the uses and
applications of geographic information and/or geographic information systems
technology
(2) used by members of the public,
both as individuals and grass-root groups,
(3) for participation in the public
processes (data collection, mapping, analysis and/or decision-making) affecting
their lives.
Upon review, the definition seem inclusive enough to capture
most of the various examples that have been included in both PPGIS Conferences
(2003 and 2002) and Community Participation and Geographic Information Systems
(Craig, Harris and Weiner 2002) and the GI and Society Conference in
1999. Moreover, it seems to exclude a variety of work that is being shown
elsewhere. It can be hoped that this definition will be explored and
altered through this conference.
While this
proposal of a definition may seem relatively safe, it lacks resolution of many
issues that could be debated further.
For example, Aitken (2002) reminds us of
important questions about the very nature of “public”. Fundamental issues like this need to continue
to be discussed as PGIS researchers work towards a general agreement on what
the field is about.
VOCABULARY – A LEXICON OF PPGIS
The 1st Annual PPGIS Conference included moments
that seemed like a visit to the fallen
As PPGIS matures it becomes increasingly important for
researchers to share their information in a common language. The formal
development of a lexicon of PPGIS could aid these discussions and facilitate
the incorporation of new researchers and practitioners into PPGIS meetings and
discussions. There are many terms (e.g., equity, engagement, empowerment,
participation, access) that continue to be used so loosely as to risk losing
any significant meaning with in the field.
One interesting approach would be to revisit the methodology
used by Dueker and Kjerne
(1989) in defining a variety of GIS related terms. Using a form of the
STRUCTURE – A TAXONOMY OF PPGIS
A successful and central element of PPGIS research has been
the development of case studies. These examples need to be organized into
a more structured order that recognizes the commonalities and differences in
the various examples. For example, one major distinction (perhaps the
greatest) is the venue for participation. Some PPGIS case studies have
shown examples of citizens participating in mapping. Others have
emphasized the participation in owning and/or operating the GIS. Still
others have illustrated participation in public decisions.
What seems to be needed is a relatively simple structure (or
model) that helps researchers and observers view the more complex PPGIS
landscape and compare and contrast such different projects as the South African
field work of Harris and Weiner (2002) and the participatory planning processes
used in Verona, WI (Ventura et al. 2002).
A basic and systematic categorization of PPGIS cases would
facilitate these efforts. Over time, this categorization could be
developed into a formal taxonomy of PPGIS. The notion of using taxonomy
in GIS research is not new (Obermeyer 1989; Calkins
and Weatherbee 1995) and is simply meant to provide a
simple way to group and describe different situations.
The literature provides many implied distinctions, but also
includes some specific places to start. For instance, Leitner
et al. (2002, 41) list six different means of PPGIS delivery:
1.
community-based (in house) GIS
2.
university-community partnerships,
3.
publicly accessible GIS facilities at universities and libraries,
4.
‘map rooms’,
5.
Internet Map Servers, and
6.
neighbourhood GIS centres.
The problem with this as a system is that these categories
do not stand as mutually exclusive categories. In fact, many public
systems could be hoped to employ all of these means of delivery.
Carver (2003) described how the Ladder of Participation
could be applied to areas like PPGIS as a Ladder of e-Participation.
Tulloch and Shaprio (2003) offered a similar
6-category version of a Ladder of Access. Ultimately, this resulted in a
simplified comparison of participation and access that allowed a quick
categorization of successful and unsuccessful projects into 8 categories
(Figure 1). While the distinction between participation and access is
critical, it doesn’t necessarily serve well to inform a taxonomy of PPGIS.
Figure 1 – Matrix of the 8 classes of access
and participation from Tulloch and Shapiro (2003).
Still,
these examples were offered in other contexts and do not seem to fully satisfy
the need of a taxonomy. An initial
review of the literature suggests some distinct classes that could be used as a
potential basis for a taxonomy of PPGIS cases.
Like the previously provided definition, this is offered as a place to
begin, not a final product. As an
example, these distinctions are mapped out in a graphic identification key
(Figure 2).
Most of the
cases fit into one of three classes based on the activity in which the public
is participating: mapping, analysis, and decision. Mapping would
include a variety of ways in which the public is allowed to help in the process
of mapping and/or data collection that will be incorporated into larger public
processes. The proliferation of GIS (especially
web-based GIS) is allowing more participation in the process of analysis. Participation in analysis includes examples
in which individuals with are given data and allowed to analyze it before
public meetings, and cases in which citizens are assisted in developing their
personal multi-criteria model describing their preference. Finally, some PPGIS examples emphasize the
public’s ability to participate in, or influence, a public decision.
As a second
level of classification, the cases can be sorted based on the
participants. The first distinction
involves situations in which individuals are participants. This might include most of the web-based
participation examples. The second
possible class involves those situations in which groups are the primary
participants. These include situations
in which participation is welcome, but where barriers (like cost and training)
force groups (like NGOS) to participate on behalf of segments of the public.
Figure 2 – Preliminary example of a possible
PPGIS Identification Key
CONTEXT – THE DOMAIN(S) OF PPGIS
Like the GISciences, PPGIS needs
to better determine the nature of its domain.
What fields contribute to its science?
For the field to advance it will need to build on the advances and
traditions of many different disciplines.
Clearly GIScience contributes to PPGIS, but
there are a number of other fields on which PPGIS has already built. An obvious contributor is geography which
represents a significant expertise on spatial problems as well as social
science. But, as attendance at the first
annual PPGIS conference demonstrated, it is broader than that field.
An important element of PPGIS that makes it distinct from
other GIS work is participation which is a difficult problem for research. Social science provides a sophisticated basis
on which to build, but the fields of planning and landscape architecture have
established different approaches that can contribute as well. This multi-disciplinary approach can create
conflicts as some social scientists will feel uncomfortable with the hands-on
approaches of some planning researchers.
As mentioned previously, much of the participation is
occurring within some public process with an intent to influence the process
or, perhaps, to change the final public decision that will be made. Understanding these institutional and
political processes and the power structures on which they are based will
benefit greatly from the incorporation of expertise from human ecologists and
political scientists. The implications
of these technologies for these public processes will include a need for an
economic perspective as well.
Thus far, an important element in the PPGIS literature has
been the technological aspect of various case studies. The case studies have often offered new
technological solutions to disseminate information, facilitate participation or
overcome barriers. Much of this work can
be advanced through the work of computer scientists who bring research
expertise on a variety of relevant areas.
It is important for PPGIS to move towards describing its
domain. The many fields that contribute
to PPGIS need to be identified and credited for their roles in defining this
emerging field.
MAKING IT WORK
What
PPGIS really needs is to encourage exploration and professional development of
ideas while embracing scientific traditions of research. It should be noted that this paper has explored goals for a PPGIScience.
However, those goals are somewhat different (especially in the short
term) than one might expect if this paper were intended to promote the actual
existence of PPGISystems. However, in the long term, PPGIS cannot
advance significantly without greatly improved scientific advances supporting
the professional developments in the field.
A
major element of the described goals is consensus. Some consensus is necessary, but unanimity is
not. Science is full of dissension but
it generally occurs against the majority.
This allows largely accepted definitions to be used and allows a
minority to still hack at these definitions and cause a slow and deliberate
change. PPGIS has reached a point where
it could really benefit from a generally agreed upon definition of itself. Additionally, PPGIS needs a working vocabulary
and a structure to advance discussions and research and prevent unnecessary
amounts of reinvention. This still
leaves room for change and new directions, but facilitates those in the
professional and academic communities who simply seek a meaningful context into
which their work can be placed.
Thus far, the paper has attempted to identify needs for the
scientific advancement. This list could
be supplemented with some items that belong more on a wishlist. It seems clear that a research agenda in
PPGIS will be advance more quickly by greater communication of work in the
field. This annual conference is a great
step towards that, but a more formal network and multiple meeting opportunities
would help keep the ideas alive. Funding
for exploring these topics and for genuine scientific research in the field
would make an enormous difference.
Additionally, a research center could serve to identify and promote some
of the best work in the field. However,
the recognition that these require seems unlikely until the field addresses
some of the formal needs described above.
REFERENCES
Aitken, S., 2002, “Public participation, technological discourses
and the scale of GIS,” Chapter 27 in W. Craig, T. Harris and D. Weiner (Eds.),
2002, Community Participation and
Geographic Information Systems,
Calkins, Hugh W., and Richard Weatherbe, 1995,
“Taxonomy of spatial Data Sharing,” Chapter 4 in Sharing Geographic
Information (Onsrud, H. J. and G. Rushton, Eds.).
Carver, S., 2003, “The Future of Participatory Approaches Using
Geographic Information:
Developing a Research Agenda for the 21st Century,” URISA Journal
(Forthcoming).
Dueker, K., and D. Kjerne, 1989, Multipurpose
Cadastre: Terms and Definitions.
Harris, T., and D. Weiner, 2002, “Implementing a community-integrated
GIS: perspectives from South African fieldwork,” Chapter 18 in W. Craig, T. Harris
and D. Weiner (Eds.), 2002, Community
Participation and Geographic Information Systems,
Leitner, H., R. McMaster, S. Elwood, S. McMaster, and E. Sheppard, 2002,
“Models in making GIS available to community organizations: dimensions of
difference and appropriateness,” Chapter 3 in W. Craig, T. Harris and D. Weiner
(Eds.), 2002, Community Participation and
Geographic Information Systems, London: Taylor and Francis, p. 37-52.
Obermeyer, N. J. 1989. “A Systematic Approach to the Taxonomy of
Geographic Information Use,” GIS/LIS ‘89: Conference Proceedings, Vol. II.
421-9.
Sawicki, D., and D. Peterman, 2002, “Surveying the extent of PPGIS
practice in the
Tulloch, D., and T. Shaprio, 2003, “The Intersection
of Data Access and Public Participation: Impacting GIS Users' Success?” URISA
Journal (Forthcoming).
Ventura, S., B. Niemann, T. Sutphin, and R. Chenoweth, 2002, “GIS-enhanced land-use
planning,” Chapter 9 in W. Craig, T. Harris and D. Weiner (Eds.), 2002, Community Participation and Geographic
Information Systems, London: Taylor and Francis, p. 113-124.
W. Craig, T. Harris and D. Weiner (Eds.), 2002, Community Participation and Geographic Information Systems,