Participatory GIS - A People's GIS?: Christine E. Dunn

Progress in Human Geography 31(5) (2007)
pp. 616–637 Christine E. Dunn*
Participatory GIS – a
people’s GIS?
Geography Department, Durham University, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE,

UK
Abstract: Recent years have witnessed a burgeoning of applications of GIS which grant
legitimacy to indigenous geographical knowledge as well as to ‘offi cial’ spatial data. By
incorporating various forms of community participation these newer framings of Geographical
Information Systems as ‘Participatory GIS’ (PGIS) offer a response to the critiques of GIS
which were prevalent in the 1990s. This paper reviews PGIS in the context of the
‘democratization of GIS’. It explores aspects of the control and ownership of geographical
information, representations of local and indigenous knowledge, scale and scaling up,
web-based approaches and some potential future technical and academic directions.
Key words: GIS, participatory GIS, public participation.

2000). One tangible shift in the light of such
critiques has been the growth of a more
I Introduction soci
As the social, political, ethical and ally aware type of GIS which gives greater
institutional dimensions of Geographical privilege and legitimacy to local or
Information Systems (GIS) have come indigenous
increasingly into question, dialogues
around ‘critical GIS’ and ‘GIS and society’
(Sheppard, 1995; Harris and Weiner, *Email: c.e.dunn@durham.ac.uk
1996) have become fi rmly established spatial knowledge. Variously labelled as,
both in the literature and through fora such articipatory GIS (PGIS), Public
inter alia, P
as listservers and dedicated conference Participation GIS (PPGIS), and Community
sessions. Debates around the theoretical integrated GIS,1 these newer approaches
assumptions and social implications of GIS are context- and issue-driven rather than
as a technol ogy and Geographical technology-led and seek to emphasize
Information Science (GIScience) as a community involvement in the production
conceptual framework or discipline are and/or use of geographical information. A
thus well rehearsed and have been the Participatory GIS celebrates the multi
subject of a number of recent sum mary plicity of geographical realities rather than
works (Pickles, 1995; 1999; Schuurman,
the disembodied, objective and technical more difficult to articulate as the
‘solutions’ which have tended to charac boundaries between spatial technologies
terize many conventional GIS applications. become increasingly blurred. Goodchild
Of relevance here are the many and varied (2000: 6) defines GIS as ‘a computing
interpretations of what constitutes a GIS application
although a concise defi nition becomes
© 2007 SAGE Publications DOI: 10.1177/0309132507081493 Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com by guest on
May 4, 2016
Christine E. Dunn: Participatory GIS – a people’s GIS? 617

listserver discussion groups. It has been
applied in a wide range of contexts
capable of creating, storing, manipulating, including urban planning and revitalization
visualizing, and analyzing geographic infor with neigh
mation’. Although some definitions of GIS bourhood groups (Craig and Elwood, 1998;
recognize the importance of social and Ghose, 2001; Casey and Pederson, 2002;
institutional dimensions (Chrisman, 1999) Elwood, 2002a; 2002b); managing conflict
most, as Couclelis (2003) notes, focus on over access to land and other natural
software functionality (particularly spatial resources (Weiner et al., 1995; Harris and
data analysis and visualization) and this Weiner, 1998; 2002; Kyem, 2002; 2004;
forms an important component in Weiner and Harris, 2003); resource
proprietary GIS software marketing by management and service access in ‘First
companies such as Environmental Nations’ or indigenous peoples (Bond,
Systems Research Institute (ESRI) a major 2002; Laituri, 2002); land-use and natural
high-end and technically led commercial resource planning (Ventura et al., 2002;
vendor which leads the market in supplying Walker et al., 2002); and conservation and
GIS products (Merrick, 2003; Sieber, 2004; environmental management (Meredith et
Longley et al. , 2005). With calls for a more al., 2002; Sieber, 2002; Tulloch, 2002).
democratic GIS, other defining capacities Despite this rapid progress it could be
have come to the fore such as an argued, however, that use of a more
‘empowerment functionality’ in which socially aware GIS is of limited interest
indigenous technical and spatial knowledge (Abbot et al., 1998; Williams and Dunn,
is regarded as equally legitimate as that of 2003). Indeed Kwan (2002a) proposes
‘experts’ (McCall and Minang, 2005). In this that, despite significant progress in helping
sense, non-profit GIS developers such as us move away from the largely
Clark Labs2 with a focus on applications for antagonistic critical discourses around GIS
the developing world offer a contrasting during the 1990s, insights from Public
ethos. Participation GIS ‘have yet to bear signifi
PGIS, as both concept and tool, has bur cantly upon GIS practices in geographic
geoned in recent years with dedicated research at large and on the relationship
books (Craig et al., 2002b), special journal between GIS and critical geographies in
editions (Cartography and Geographic particular’ (p. 645). Weiner et al. (2002: 5)
Information Systems 1 998; Cartographica add that while ‘the critique of GIS has
2001; Environment and Planning B 2001; helped to launch a fl ood of alternative
Journal of the Urban and Regional community-based GIS applica tions’ the
Information Systems Association [URISA] development of PPGIS should not serve to
2003), conferences (eg, URISA’s Annual diminish the theoretical and philo sophical
Public Participation GIS Conference) and debates around GIS. This seems un likely
given the conceptual relationship between with a social conscience. In so doing the
alternative forms of GIS and critical paper considers four main strands in the
discourses around use of the technology. context of PGIS development: control and
Indeed the continued discussion of this ownership of geographical information;
relationship seems essential if participatory representing local and indigenous spatial
forms of GIS are to retain credibility in the knowledge; the democratization of GIS;
wider disciplinary set and sustainability. The paper does not
tings of human geography and beyond. Ten attempt to repeat the detailed history of the
years after the term PPGIS was fi rst used debates and critiques around the theory
(Schroeder, 1996), it seems timely to and practice behind GIS: these have been
evaluate what a Participatory GIS has to covered else where (Pickles, 1999;
offer for democratic spatial Schuurman, 2000). Nor does it seek to
decision-making. This review seeks to refl provide an exhaustive review of the
ect on some of the developments and practical applications of PGIS (for which
frustrations embedded in attempts to see, for example, Craig et al. , 2002b).
mould conventional GIS into a technology Rather
Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com by guest on May 4, 2016
618 Progress in Human Geography 31(5) occurred solely as a direct reaction to the
critiques of GIS. In the mid-1990s
pioneering attempts to devise alternative
the intention is to explore the potentially approaches, notably through work by
fragile and transitory nature of Participatory Daniel Weiner and Trevor Harris (Weiner
GIS in a world where conventional GIS still et al., 1995) operated alongside criticisms
has the stronger foothold and where recent of GIS as a tool of control and a technology
developments in related ICTs bring of surveillance (Pickles, 1995). Indeed, the
geograph mid to late 1990s witnessed positive
ical information into the public mainstream. collaborative ventures between GIS
The emphasis here is on how PGIS researchers and its critics: see, for
addresses some of the criticisms of instance, work by Harris and colleagues in
conventional GIS, and how users engage Pickles’ seminal text Ground truth ( Harris
with distributed geo et al., 1995) and input from John Pickles
graphical information. The paper begins and Michael Curry in the National Center
with a brief contextual positioning of for Geographic Information and Analysis
Participatory GIS before outlining its (NCGIA) specialist meeting in 1996 (Harris
diverse meanings. It then considers some and Weiner, 1996). Similarly there have
of the simultaneous conflicts and been fruitful collaborations between GIS
opportunities which are em practitioners and development studies
bedded in PGIS and the information it con scholars for applications in lower-income
tains before discussing issues of local and countries (Dunn et al. , 1997; Abbot et al.,
indigenous knowledge in the context of 1998; Rambaldi et al., 2006). The scene
spatial ‘accuracy’ and visual representation. for deeper
The importance of scale, questions raised
by web-based PGIS, and issues of
evaluation and sustainability are then
considered before posing some future and more critical reflections had been set
prospects. earlier than this, though, a fundamental de
termining point being the debates between
II Starting points: historical and spatial Stan Openshaw and Peter Taylor in the
contexts early 1990s (Taylor, 1990; Taylor and
In chronological terms, efforts to devise a Overton, 1991; Openshaw, 1991; 1992).
more socially inclusive GIS have not Although per haps not necessarily
recognized as such at the time, these even ‘PPGIS culture might prove difficult to
earlier exchanges paved the way translate to other places and
for ‘alternative’ approaches to GIS. But organizations’. As Kwan (2002a) argues,
what of the genesis of these alter natives however, although the nature of
and, if they are to be more context driven, conventional GIS is historically and
how do their origins prepare them to spatially contingent, this should not
achieve this? Obermeyer (1998) explains exclude possibilities for reimagin ing
the characteristics of early conventional alternative visions of GIS. Indeed she sug
GIS in terms of the organizational, gests that ‘one of the crucial tasks for
technical and theoretical conditions of the feminist GIS users/researchers is to break
time in which they were developed – the positivist/ masculinist connection that
‘largely white males employed in academic was historically constituted’ (p. 648).
and governmental institutions in North
America and Europe’ (Obermeyer, 1998: III PGIS and participation:
65). One implication here is that the further meanings and representations
away from these conditions a GIS is Just as there is no single interpretation of
implemented, the less successful and the term ‘GIS’, a simple and concise
appropriate it is likely to be. Of course definition of Participatory GIS is equally, if
partici patory approaches to GIS come with not more, elusive, although it is clear that
their own values and assumptions and, like recognition of PPGIS as more than a
most GIS, emerged largely from a North technology is essential (Tulloch, 2003).
American base. Given this starting point, Indeed, Aberley and Sieber (2002) have
then, as Sieber (2003: 54) comments, devised 14 guiding principles

Eachren and Brewer, 2004; Schafer et al.,
2005; Balram and Dragicévic´, 2006;
for PPGIS including, inter alia: aspects of Jankowski et al., 2006). As Schlossberg
community development, capacity building and Shuford (2005: 15) comment, ‘the
and public access to official data; inclusion more one looks to find a common thread or
of marginalized groups; organizational appli meaning about what PPGIS exactly
cation through partnerships and practical means, one quickly realizes that guiding
implementation through a range of formats definitions are not to be found and that
and data types; and links to social theory utilizating [sic] the term ‘PPGIS’ is
and qualitative research tools. This inconsistent across applications and uses’.
complexity and diversity is not only an That said, it is useful to identify those
indication of the many diverse approaches dimensions of Participatory GIS which differ
which PGIS encompasses but is also entiate it from conventional Geographical
reflected in the variety of labels given to Information Systems. PGIS arises from a
these, and related, alternative forms of recognition that traditional GIS represent
GIS, each with its own history and mean an overly simple world-view in terms of two
ing: Participatory GIS, Public Participation interrelated aspects: the type of information
GIS, Community-integrated GIS (Harris and that is fed in and on which spatial decision
Weiner, 1998), GIS-2 (Harris and Weiner, making is based, and the limited source(s)
1996; Schroeder, 1996; Pickles, 1999), GIS of that information. In terms of information
for participation (GIS-P; Cinderby, 1999), types, one understanding of PGIS is as a
Par ticipatory 3-Dimensional Modelling means of integrating local and indigenous
(P3DM; Rambaldi and Callosa-Tarr, 2000; knowledge with ‘expert’ data. The inclusion
2002), Bottom-Up GIS (BUGIS; Talen, of social information has helped to expose
2000), and collaborative the narrowness of conventional GIS and
GIS/geocollaboration (Mac has opened up a platform for ‘alternative’
visual izations of space, place and reality. 2003: 54). Currently the differing notions of
In terms of spatial accuracy which are implicit among
information sources, a PGIS entails the diverse types of geographical
widening the notion of participants or information involved tend, though, to result
‘users’ to include ‘the public’ and, in applications which employ only basic
particularly, marginalized groups. Thus the tech nical operations through spatial
term ‘public participation GIS’ was derived analysis. Future designs may, however,
from the common use among planners of incorporate more sophisticated spatial
the notion of involving an element of understanding capabilities and issue
citizen participation (Obermeyer, 1998). management technol ogy (Nyerges et al.,
PGIS involves local communities in the cre 2002).
ation of information to be fed into the GIS A Participatory GIS then is characterized
and subsequently used in spatial decision by its inclusion of some of the ‘messiness’
making which affects them. Critical to this and fuzziness of much geographical
widening participation, however, is the information and of human-environment
need for PGIS scholars and practitioners relations. In terms of implementation of
to be more explicit about who ‘the public’ is these complexities, a number of different
and what ‘participation’ means if approaches have been proposed and
appropriate goals are to be achieved there is no single PGIS tool. Thus P3DM
(Schlossberg and Shuford, 2005). Levels, integrates spatial information and
or ‘intensities’, of par ticipation (and hence indigenous geographical knowledge in the
control) in PGIS vary from ‘manipulative form of three-dimensional, large-scale
and passive’ participation through to locally physical relief models subsequently
initiated or self-mobilized action (McCall captured in digital form through the use of
and Minang, 2005). Since conventional high-resolution digital cameras and
GIS technology remains a core component on-screen digitizing at a scale to meet the
of PGIS, it may play ‘a strained role in purpose of the exercise
enabling democratic participation’ (Sieber,
620 Progress in Human Geography 31(5) participation through spatial multimedia

and virtual environments such as video
conferencing (Shiffer, 2002). Others, such
(Rambaldi and Callosa-Tarr, 2000; 2002). as that adopted by Hassan (2005) for a
In this approach, participants use low-cost case study of safe drinking water planning
mat erials (wool, cardboard, coloured map in Bangladesh, use GIS technology to
pins) to construct, over a period of several overlay participatory mental maps derived
days, a large model (up to 5 m long) with from group discussions with official
suffi cient vertical exaggeration to allow administrative and resource maps. Thus,
meaningful interpretation and discussion. in the same way that levels of public
This tangible enactment of map-making participation in PGIS vary, so too do the
has clear parallels with ‘mapping as levels of direct public involvement in
performance’ in which a process-based utilizing GIS technology and manipulating
approach to cartography takes on renewed digital spatial data.
importance (Perkins, 2003). Other
approaches combine digital spatial IV Politics and power relations:
information tools such as remote sensing whose PGIS?
and spatial analysis with participatory Of fundamental importance to Participatory
research methods such as participatory GIS implementations are questions of
mapping and diagramming, and use of access, control and ownership of
photographs, video clips and oral histories geographical infor mation and outputs. The
through sound. This may involve public ways in which these issues are played out,
however, depend on cultural, institutional serve to alter existing power relations
and locational fram ings, the intended (Weiner et al., 2002; Robbins, 2003). As
objectives and user charac teristics, and Aitken and Michel (1995: 17) point out,
the broader questions of political ‘participation in the creation of GIS
embeddedness. Harris and Weiner (1998) knowledge does not necessarily give any
advocate aiming for a power to those involved in, and affected
‘community-integrated’ GIS in recognition by, the decision-making’. This may open up
of the fact that, although communities may a Pandora’s box of confl ict within or
increasingly participate in GIS-related between different stakeholder groups:
projects, they lack the political, fi nancial indeed Harris and Weiner (1998: 74) note
and technical control. A community that ‘a confl ictual GIS would be an ex
integrated GIS acknowledges the ‘expert’ pectation’. Similarly, Robbins (2003: 249)
argues for techniques which ‘elicit
competing localities and ground truths, and
so enunciate and draw confl ict to the
nature of GIS as a technology but center of attention’. Transforming vaguely
enhances citizen access and participation demarcated bound aries on the ground into
and, hence, the democratic potential. clearly defi ned lines on a map is
Sieber (2001) calls for a formalized potentially damaging in that con fl ict over
approach to addressing questions about land, for example, may be created where it
ownership, access, expertise and ac otherwise did not exist. By drawing
countability whereby PPGIS the concept attention to contrasting knowledges and
as well as PPGIS the tool is recognized: a power imbalances, a Participatory GIS car
more inclusive ‘PPGIScience’. Distinctions ries a greater onus in terms of justifying its
between tools and concepts, though, may composition and approach and should be
be blurred as tools are incorporated within implemented with a health warning since,
the context of use. as Weiner et al. ( 2002) point out, PPGIS
The political dimensions of geographical projects can still be exploitative. In the
information have been brought into particu same way that these authors warned us a
larly sharp focus by the potential uses of decade ago that ‘in the mode of “top-down”
GIS in surveillance and control. The very data creation and “expert” policy-making,
act of intro ducing GIS, whether GIS empowers the powerful and
participatory or not, in specifi c settings disenfranchises the weak’
adds new technological and political
dimensions which, in themselves, can

decision-making with ‘offi cial’ agencies on
a more equal basis, or at least serve to
(Weiner et al., 1995: 32), in commenting on raise public awareness. For a case study
a set of 18 PPGIS case studies they noted eliciting citizens’ views of air pollution in
recently that ‘in all regions … there is UK cities, Cinderby and Forrester (2005)
evidence of the simultaneous describe how participants found that
empowerment and marginalization of simply having access to, and looking at,
people and communities’ (Weiner et al., large scale Ordnance Survey maps was
2002: 11). interesting in itself. Other examples have
Cinderby (1999) argues, however, that shown that ‘offi cial’ or digital
the ability to integrate multiple perspectives representation of a local area can lead to
in a visual spatial medium offers a powerful community participants viewing their
representation which should enable local environs in new ways. Thus Weiner et al.
groups to engage in spatial (1995: 34) reported that during mapping ex
ercises in village workshops in South Africa in a sociopolitical vacuum. McCall (2003)
participants were ‘excited about having warns of the dangers of indigenous spatial
access to the 1:50,000 topographic maps, knowledge following the marketization route
which they felt helped to ‘offi cially’ confi of conventional geographical data. Good
rm their personal social histories’. In a governance through improved transparency
study of parish mapping with village between people and state, and people and
community groups in Scotland, Wood private sector, should help the legitimacy of
(2005) showed how participants local interests to be recognized (McCall and
considered paper maps to be ‘fl at’ whereas Minang, 2005). It is incumbent on those
transferring mapped information to a PC work ing on Participatory GIS then to adopt
and linking it to attribute data enhanced the a code of good practice, particularly so
sense of interactivity. given the ease with which digital
Participatory GIS, then, has the potential information can be garnered by others. In
to be both more enabling to those whom it this sense MacEachren (2000) suggests a
seeks to serve and to be misused in the four-stage process involving assessment,
‘wrong’ hands as outside control and problem definition, decision making, and
surveillance are enhanced (Abbot et al., follow-up while Rambaldi et al. (2006) go
1998; Stonich, 2002). ‘Getting on the map’ further and set out a series of ‘Who?’ type
could mean public ac questions around empowerment/dis
knowledgement for marginalized groups empowerment in the context of an ethical
(McCall and Minang, 2005) or increased PGIS. In this scheme informants are
con trol from outside (Abbot et al., 1998) or consulted about disclosing spatial data,
aspects of both. In seeking to reduce and steps are implemented to ensure that
power imbalances and external the outputs are understood by all. In
interventions (which arise either directly addition, it is incumbent upon researchers
through GIS ‘professionals’ taking to give due consideration to the political
excessive control or indirectly through data implications of the information they extract
being extracted by state or private and disseminate and this may involve, for
agencies) example, avoiding questions to participants
the inputs and outputs should be processed about natural resources where those
participatorily, in situ and as a deliberative questions would lead to forced displace
means of empowering local people (McCall, ment (Rambaldi et al. , 2006).
2003). An optimistic view sees
empowerment at grassroots level V Indigenous knowledge and spatial
enhancing opportunities for political power ‘accuracy’
when dimensions of good governance are In the process of representing different geo
addressed. graphical understandings and in attempting
To be avoided, then, is a replication of to ‘reveal contradictions and similarities in
the situation with traditional Geographical spatial thinking and activity’ (Williams and
Information Systems where users ‘do GIS’ Dunn, 2003: 394–95), PGIS seeks not to
622 Progress in Human Geography 31(5) the poorest groups control while their land,
property, resources, or labour are rapidly
appropriated’ (McCall, 2003: 559). But use
privilege any one type of information but to of this knowledge may also need to be
grant equal validity to all. In this way indi protected, for example, through a
genous technical knowledge can grant contractual agreement between providers
poorer groups an equivalent standing to and users (Rambaldi et al. , 2006).
outsiders (McCall, 2003) and in ‘Indigenous knowledge’ is, however, an
participatory spatial planning such inherently intract able concept and Sillitoe
knowledge ‘may be the only resource that (1998) notes how the distinctions between
indigenous knowledge, local knowledge, (Cinderby and Forrester, 2005). In eliciting
popular knowledge and folk knowledge are indigenous knowledge through interviews,
blurred. Warren (1991: 1) equates Grenier (1998) notes how the physical
indigenous and local knowledge – presence of a map can be use
‘knowledge that is unique to a given culture ful as a prompt to encourage discussion of
or society’ – and contrasts it with ‘the inter a particular geographical area, and she de
national knowledge system generated by fines indigenous knowledge with reference
universities, research institutions, and to ‘the unique, traditional, local knowledge
private fi rms’ (Warren, 1991: 1). McCall existing within and developed around the
(2003: 559) highlights how indigenous specifi c conditions of women and men indi
technical know genous to a particular geographic area’
ledge is ‘embodied knowledge to be seen (Grenier, 1998: 1).
as a local resource that belongs to rural In contrasting indigenous knowledge
and urban people both as individuals and and scientifi c knowledge, McCall and
com munities. It should not be denigrated Minang (2005) comment that ‘indigenous
only as primitive, unassimilated, and technical knowledge is normally more
outside of the market’. Of critical relevance reliable, and may
in the present context is the extent to be also more accurate, because it
which this local and indigenous knowledge embodies generations of practical
can be portrayed in a spatial way and essential knowledge, and it operates in
through the use of GIS. Passed down interactive, holistic systems’ (p. 343). In
through generations, indigenous integrating participatory geo
knowledge is expressed through, inter alia, graphical information with ‘offi cial’ spatially
stories, songs, folklore, proverbs, cultural referenced data from technical landmine
values and agricultural practices, and is sur veys, Williams and Dunn (2003) note
com municated orally (Grenier, 1998). how the conventional maps portrayed
While not exclusively geographical, much boundaries only for known minefi elds
indigenous technical knowledge has both while participatory maps provided
an embedded geographical context in complete spatial coverage and included
which the natural environment is central, areas which had been de-mined by
and specific spatial associations – for returning refugees. From the perspective
example, knowledge re of local communities, then, ‘offi cial’ data
lated to location of resources, were regarded as ‘inaccurate’ since their
environmental hazards, ecosystems and experiences were of widespread and
spatial correlations between groups and indiscriminate mining. Different notions of
resources (McCall, 2003). The thematic precision and ‘accuracy’ of information are
data layering properties of particularly important when the intention is
to integrate spatial data for relatively small
geographical scales with indigenous
knowledge from participatory maps drawn
GIS facilitate representation of multiple per at larger scales. As Craig et al. (2002a:
spectives and offer potential for portrayal of 368) assert, ‘PPGIS … redefi nes the
a holistic worldview of indigenous peoples meaning of “accuracy”’. While ‘precision
(McCall, 2003). Some local and indigenous should not be a requirement for entry into
knowledge, then, can be mapped and, the GIS world’ (Goodchild, 2002: xxii),
indeed, in some instances, this can be indistinct boundaries
highly spatially resolved, to the level of one
side of a road junction, for example

social scientifi c literature on the nature of
knowledge, a deeper engagement by the
derived from participatory mapping PGIS community is warranted. Ideas
exercises, for example, should not be used which are based around knowledge refl ect
in the same way as spatially accurate and ing the context from which it comes, and as
precise lines from technical surveys being ‘relative’ to other dimensions such as
(Cinderby, 1999). Recent developments in gender, ethnicity and class (Curry, 2005)
visualization techniques and mapping provide one potentially important foundation
software are relevant here, since for such an engagement. Uncertainty as an
opportunities are now available to better inherent property of knowledge and know
rep resent indigenous spatial knowledge by ledge production has been emphasized by
avoid Couclelis (2003), while Elwood (2006)
ing representations through the use of fi explores how participation in knowledge
xed points and borders, and by using production is negotiated in everyday
instead fuzzy boundaries, soft zoning, PPGIS practices. In arguing for a move
multi-user transparent overlays and away from notions of indigenous
animation (McCall, 2003). knowledge in GIS which regard
Central to representations of indigenous local/traditional environmental knowledge
knowledge in PGIS, though, are questions either as confl icting with, or supplemental
around participatory research itself as to, offi cial/scientifi c information, Robbins
appro priate and relevant as a means of (2003) suggests instead a focus on the
bringing about desirable change. Some partialities of all knowledge, the use of GIS
have argued, particularly in a to explore the nature of knowledge
‘development’ context, that this is far from production itself and emphasis on
the case. Thus Kothari (2001) argues that local/indigenous and scientifi c knowledge
participatory development tech as not being mutually exclusive. Similarly,
niques serve to present ‘cleaned up’ Elwood (2006) notes how research which
versions of participants’ knowledge juxtaposes local knowledge against offi cial
through formal ized graphics: charts, knowledge can serve to conceal their
calendars and diagrams. That which does interrelationships in participatory research
not fi t is necessarily excluded and the practice. The similarities between
framework of visual representation indigenous and scientific knowledge have
remains at the same time unquestioned been noted both in terms of cognitive
(Henkel and Stirrat, 2001). Cooke and structures, such as in resource
Kothari (2001) call for a deeper, more conservation, and functional connections
sophisticated and rigorous refl exivity, such as in the restricted use of sacred or
particularly in terms of the complexities of protected land (McCall and Minang, 2005).
power and power rela This spatial and problem-orientated
tions, while Sanderson and Kindon (2004) technical indigenous or local knowledge,
recommend an approach whereby partici which may be gendered, ‘sets people in
patory methods are negotiated ‘to their environmental context by describing
challenge and open-up the constitution of activity spaces and responsibility spaces,
possible knowledge’ (p. 125). Drawing on and uses an understood natural language’
work with New Zealand and Indian NGOs (McCall and Minang, 2005: 343).
they conclude that, rather than eliciting It is also important, though, to distinguish
local knowledge, participatory those dimensions of indigenous knowledge
development processes ‘produce which fundamentally differ from scientific
knowledge specific to their process and par knowledge: this is not technical knowledge
ticipants’ (Sanderson and Kindon, 2004: but rather ‘deep knowledge’ which places
125, original emphasis). cultural values on land and place, which is
The PGIS community has, for the most manifested in fuzzy, emotional and holistic
part, focused on certain key aspects of the terms (McCall and Minang, 2005) and
concept of knowledge(s) – for example, which may not fi t neatly into the spatially
expert/local, spatiality, capture and precise demands of a GIS. But even here
representation. Given the wide body of there are
624 Progress in Human Geography 31(5) each other and the nature of the earth’ (p.
55). Similarly, McCall and Minang (2005:
343) argue that participatory spatial
ambiguities and a spatial element may be planning in PGIS can ‘build
relevant to the more elusive symbolic, geo-information into the local knowledge
indigen ous knowledge. In this context, process’. Despite improved
Harmsworth (1998) uses GIS to store
layers of information on Maori
environmental values – eg, tribal
landmarks, sacred and ancestral sites, and representations of local spatial knowledge
medicinal plants. In a promising approach in PGIS, however, it remains the case that
to avoiding information reaching those for much indigenous knowledge is ‘tacit’
whom it was not intended, each layer has (Polanyi, 1944). This is the knowledge that
attached to it a level of confidentiality and is accumulated but not systematized
access. Highly sensitive information is (Polanyi, 1944). It is know
given a label or fl ag to indicate restricted ledge which is indirect, intuitive, understood
access and in these cases the information and implied. Although there are degrees of
is linked via a directory to an alternative tacitness (Howells, 1996), this type of know
source such as an individual person (eg, a ledge cannot be represented by an informa
Maori elder) with traditional knowledge. tion technology which relies on a spatial
McCall (2003) adds illegal and ‘anti-social’ framework.
urban activities such as raves, prostitution
and street gangs to these ‘sensitive’ VI Scaling up and democratizing
indigenous cultural actions although he GIS: Global Participatory GIS
cautions against adopting an overly through the web?
protective approach which may serve to If Participatory GIS research is to be policy
safeguard existing elite privileges in situ relevant, concerns are raised over the diffi -
ations where secret or sacred knowledge is culties of extending the fi ndings both spati
directly linked to access to natural ally and in political and organizational terms
resources such as land. since many projects are locally based.
Part of the refl exivity of, and about, Partici ‘Scaling up’ involves not only linking
patory GIS should also be about the types information from different geographical
of information and knowledge which scales to elicit regional, national or global
cannot be objectified (let alone patterns but also, more importantly, being
represented spatially) as well as those able to elicit under standings of
which can. Rundstrom (1995) is human-environment relation ships (Stonich,
fundamentally sceptical about reasons for 2002). Under decentralization, for
wanting to incorporate indigenous know example, Participatory GIS could allow
ledge into a system such as GIS and local priorities to feed into regional policy
argues that ‘the epistemological system and planning if such priorities become more
within which GIS is grounded is largely widely communicated. Stonich (1998; 2002)
incompat ible with the corresponding extends this idea by exploring the potential
systems of indi genous peoples’ (p. 55). He to link community-level PPGIS into a global
argues instead for ‘the crucial value of not PPGIS in an applied research project on a
telling, not writing, not encoding – the global NGO coalition set up to resist
value of not inscribing’ (p. 53), but he also industrial shrimp farming in Asia, Latin
recognizes the possibility that ‘GIS may be America and Africa. Scaling up in this
best understood as only another link in a context presents particular challenges of
long, tangled chain of dialogue between achieving consensus among members of a
Western and indigenous peoples about coalition with diverse perspectives. The
potential of PPGIS to in form activism at the means of matching political power and
multinational level is also considered in organizational scale to the scale of the
work by Sieber (2003) on transborder envir onmental issue, for example by:
PPGIS for conservation associ ations. She widening the ‘reach’ in terms of increased
advocates using PPGIS to help build numbers of
organizational capacity and coalitions as a

many community members as possible
can utilize spatial information in the public
people participating; expanding organiza decision-making process’. Scaling up in
tional diversification by using GIS across a terms of access to Participatory GIS
range of applications; using GIS as a through the internet releases the potential
means to attract funding; and combining for online public participation and
efforts through coalitions of users for discussion, contribution to decision-making
improved political action and in order to processes through online decision support
wield greater infl uence through data systems, citizen feedback
sharing and listservers. for system improvement and enhanced
Scaling up may not always be desirable com munication and political action
if, as Sieber (2003) asserts, the focus of (Stonich, 2002; Tang and Waters, 2005).
GIS is on increasingly large data sets In settings
where ‘GIS may play a role in generalizing which are relatively well resourced, where
out people and places, even as it assists users are familiar with ICTs and western
larger organizations and coalitions. In spatial representations, and where project
PPGIS, ‘bigger’ is neither ne organizational structures are formalized,
cessarily better nor more appropriate’ (p. this approach potentially has a lot to offer,
58). The struggle for balanced and just as shown, for example, in work using
outcomes is refl ected as ‘PPGIS attempts internet map servers for neighbourhood
to leverage larger – perhaps global – environ mental inventories (Leitner et al.,
connections while retaining local context’ 2000) and in work by Kingston et al. (2000)
(Sieber, 2003: 58). Aitken (2002) explores as part of a university-local government
the potential of PPGIS to enable local collaboration using a participatory online
issues to ‘jump scale’. Thus in work on planning system for environmental
pollution-generating facilities and urban decision-making with resi
poverty, community decision-making was dents in northern England. More intuitive
empowered at the local level while the and, perhaps, pared-down versions of the
concept of ‘environmental racism’ was put tech nology are increasingly required,
on a larger political agenda. though, and in this context Haklay and
At one level, web-based GIS is the defi n Tobon (2003) call for greater emphasis on
itive form of participatory and democratic Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) in
GIS since it has the potential, theoretically, PPGIS research. As well as their
to reach a limitless number of people and educational benefi ts, web-based GIS
to elicit views rapidly and effi ciently. learning materials can also prove cheaper
Enablement of wide dissemination and than using traditional printed resources
interactivity in decision-making led where web access is good, as Bishop et al.
Kingston et al. ( 2000: 110) to go so far as (2002) demonstrate for South Africa.
to suggest that ‘the previous criticisms of Drawing on examples from local
GIS being an elitist technology (Pickles, government applications in Norway,
1995) may no longer be valid in the same Berntzen et al. ( 2005) demonstrate how
context’. Sieber (2003: 54) suggests that web-accessible GIS can be combined with
‘PPGIS, by definition, succeeds when as e-participation in which citizens collect and
add data, and value, to a municipal GIS. can play crucial roles for example in
Ultimately their intention is to embed the controlling discussion groups through
front end of such systems into other outlets permissions and passwords (Tang and
such as weblogs and GPS (Global Waters, 2005).
Positioning System). Clearly there are Although there is enormous potential to
issues of quality control and data currency, widen participation in terms of sheer
and visually based information technology, numbers of users, important questions
whether participatory or not, can easily be remain, notably ‘what kind of users and
used to give undue credit to ‘bad’ data where?’ and ‘what kind of participation?’ In
(Dunn et al., 1997). In this way web-based the same way that Blakemore (2005)
GIS raise questions about the need for draws attention to the uneven spatial and
gatekeepers, and system administrators demographic citizen uptake
626 Progress in Human Geography 31(5) and encourage people to remain digitally
connected’ (p. 16). For
analytic-deliberative decision-making and
of e-Government strategies, open-access public participation the web does not yet
web-based GIS are subject to concerns provide ‘anywhere and anytime’ work
about the nature of the user community. (Nyerges, 2005). In addition, although web
The notion of political weblogs as effective based GIS allow non-experts to visualize
tools for increasing participation and and manage geographical data interactively
creating new forms of online mobilization there are still technical demands of the user
and democratic literacies (rather than as in terms of basic GIS skills (Tang and
targets for political address and marketing) Waters, 2005). For Merrick (2003), in a
is open to question (Griffi ths, 2004). Of criticism of internet mapping interfaces,
particular relevance here is the notion of ‘participation requires at least a cursory
access: while blogs can benefi t from the understanding of the importance of spatial
lack of need for traditional media concepts, spatial implications, and spatial
gatekeepers (Griffi ths, 2004), they also data’ (p. 35). With out such understanding,
assume internet availability. Although there she argues, users could become less
are not able similarities between debates empowered. Working with
which take place through political weblogs
and partici pation through GIS, an
important distinction is the emphasis which
the latter places on constantly refl ecting community-based organizations and
on who is participating, controlling, owning, schools she notes how users found
understanding, analyz Internet Map Servers (IMS) ‘manipulative
ing and benefi ting from the process (Abbot and frustrating’ after being exposed to a
et al., 1998; Rambaldi et al. , 2006). Griffi fully fledged and ‘controllable’ GIS such as
ths (2004) expresses concerns that ‘while ESRI’s ArcView.
there’s no doubting the scale of In ‘traditional’ Participatory GIS appli
participation in the blogosphere or its cations, the project researchers, being ‘on
democratic potential, the personalizing the ground’, have a greater (if not
features of the blog seem to give support complete) sense of who is included and
to the idea that new media is individuating who is excluded. In web-based
citizens or causing small like minded approaches, there are fewer opportunities
groups to form’ (p. 156). As Warf (2001) to draw in those without tech nological
argues, not only is it a ‘fantasy’ that the access or skills. In addition, since
internet is, or could be, available to all, but web-based applications are likely to include
internet access is also subject to ‘the ‘occasional’ and/or anonymous users, new
institutional and cultural forces that entice sets of challenges are presented for PPGIS
providers in terms of their role in enables ‘non threatening’ interaction
developing community relationships, compared to the personal identifi cation
training, processing data and interpreting and confrontation of public meetings. In
findings (Wong and Chua, 2001). In a this way, a web-based system can enable
university-community par tnership project those voices which are less often heard in
on development in deprived traditional forms of public participation.
neighbourhoods in West Philadelphia, Issues of data copyright are paramount,
Wong and Chua (2001) found the not least in terms of cost (Kingston et al.,
demands of com munity outreach to be diffi 2000) while issues of confi dentiality are
cult to maintain in terms of project staff also critical. Building researcher-participant
time and resources. Without these relationships around commitment and
relationships they argue that ‘a web-based clarifying expecta
PPGIS may run the risk of pro viding tions is crucial, yet it is unlikely that notions
services that the public does not want’ (p. of trust can be developed in the
74). Some of the characteristics of the user non-personal environment of the web
base can, however, prove advantageous (Wong and Chua, 2001). This relationship
and, for a village-based case study in is interdependent and some user
northern England, Kingston et al. ( 2000) responses may not be verifi able.
and Kingston (2002) note how anonymity

under standing the needs of the user in a
web-based environment, technical
That said, Carver (2003) argues that in a opportunities are pre sented through
broader context openness and enhanced animation, hypermaps, digital libraries,
accountability in decision-making may dynamic sketching (MacEachren, 1998)
serve instead to enhance a sense of trust. and navigable virtual environments
Questions also remain around the ease (or (Dykes, 2000). At the same time,
otherwise) of reaching consensus in a development of the internet has also
web-based decision support environment. enabled GIS concepts to become ‘more
An online system could serve to optimize open, accessible, and mobile to everyone
the potential for agreement, given the thereby facilitating notions such as
opportunities to experiment with different democratization of spatial data, open
scenarios. Alternatively, an excessive accessibility, and effective dissemination’
amount of digital information and spatial (Dragicévic´, 2004: 79). This may call for a
repre sentations may confuse or mislead reworking of the ways in which GIS and
(Shiffer, 2002) and much depends on how PGIS have been defi ned and
decisions are formulated (Kingston, 2002). conceptualized, particularly as interaction
In the same way that Participatory GIS is with digital spatial information increasingly
not a replacement for more traditional becomes part of everyday experience for
public participation processes and many non-expert users, notably through
participatory re search (Abbot et al., 1998; products such as Google Maps, Google
Carver, 2003), it could be argued that Earth and NASA’s World Wind (Butler,
web-based PPGIS en hances and diversifi 2006). Such ‘virtual globe’ tools are
es, rather than replaces, the role of more incorporating increasing levels of
established forms of PPGIS (Wong and interactivity and data manipulation,
Chua, 2001). ICTs and spatial information increasing
systems are evolving rapidly, how ever, the potential for improved democratization
and users are increasingly demanding 3D of GIS and active participation. As Longley
visualizations and process simulation (2000) warns in the context of the explosion
(Gold, 2006). With increasing focus on of digital data, however, we should be
cautious that such newly created visions of services offered over the WWW’
the world have meaning and are not (Goodchild, 2000: 6, my emphasis). In this
‘triumphs of gloss over substance’ (p. 41). way individuals can access information
Negroponte (1995) argues optimistically for systems which have a spatial element
a digital age whose ‘decentralizing, such as fi nding the shortest travel route
globalizing, harmonizing and empowering’ from their home to a specific destination,
elements will result in its ‘ultimate triumph’ using a GPS on a hiking trip, or ‘flying’
(p. 229). But even he acknowledges that above a three-dimensional virtual globe.
‘as we move toward such a digital world, But is this really GIS at its most em
an entire sector of the population will be or powering? Rather this has the makings of a
feel disenfranchised’ (p. 228). The ability of populist GIS (Goodchild, 2000), one which
the non-expert to inte grate information is often an individual and largely visual
from diverse sources and create visual and process, creating something of an illusion
tabular output may repre of geo graphical knowledge dissemination.
sent ‘democratization of the knowledge This may represent one version of
production process’ (Couclelis, 2003: 167) technology democratization through its
but it also lacks assurance regarding the (near) ubiquity, but what of political
quality of the knowledge products engagement and col lective
themselves (Couclelis, 2003). decision-making? Rather than the
One vision then is of a ubiquitous GIS, ‘democratization of GIS’ through this route,
available to millions of people via web con it would seem that technologizing of deliber
nections from desktop PCs. As Goodchild ative democracy through Participatory GIS
(2000) comments ‘on [sic] the order of 107 currently offers a more effective path
people make regular use of GIS-like towards
628 Progress in Human Geography 31(5) It seems self-evident that the success (or
otherwise) of Participatory GIS applications
should be properly evaluated and their
individual and community empowerment – longer term impact assessed through
an analytical as opposed to largely visual follow-up studies. Indeed, Jordan (2002:
process; an interventionist approach which 243) goes as far as saying that ‘without
actively rather than passively seeks citizen detailed system atic evaluation, PPGIS
involvement; and a community-based as could easily fall into the trap of combining
opposed to individualist ethos. The aim sloppy GIS practices with sloppy social
then is to democratize the process of science’. Such an evaluation may be far
engaging with GIS, and with each other to from straightforward and, because much
promote desirable change through relies on ‘measuring’ change, may be why
collective control and action. These are it has largely been avoided. Perhaps, as
issues with which GIScience needs to be Aitken (2002) asserts, an effective PPGIS
more closely engaged. In this respect, is one which politicizes issues of local
recent developments in geocollaborative concern. Thus, if we view PPGIS as a
tools which integrate geospatial technology process (of em
with tools such as shared whiteboards, powerment, motivation, local capacity build
large screen displays and discussion ing) as much as, or more than, a product it
boards offer promising ways forward for becomes diffi cult to ‘measure’ (Jordan,
more sophisticated human-computer 2002; Meredith et al., 2002). In building
dialogue and human-human collaboration local capacity for sustainable development
(MacEachren et al., 2005; Schafer et al., in a case study south of Mexico City,
2005). Meredith et al. ( 2002) demonstrate how,
through community map-making by mural
VII Sustainability and skills painting, the anticipated goals of a PPGIS
project may be achieved before the GIS system with appropriate community
system is even set up. Much depends on capacity building in the context of wider,
understanding the politics and power and tangible, development strategy plans.
relations in which PPGIS is Specifi c means of evaluation include
social cost-benefi t an alyses (Jordan,
2002), systematic social behavioural
research (Nyerges et al., 2002) and
set (Weiner et al., 2002) and, as Kyem meeting criteria for good governance
(2001) highlights, the evaluation of a PGIS (McCall and Minang, 2005) while, in evalu
approach is implicitly encumbered by ating the effi ciency, effectiveness and
difficulties in defining and evaluating equity (empowerment) associated with
empowerment. It remains clear, though, community multipurpose land information
that political integration into local systems (MPLIS), Tulloch and Epstein
infrastructures is a prerequisite for (2002) adopt a traditional economic
empowerment (Weiner et al., 2002). Of key analytical approach.
relevance to evaluation are dimensions of Given that PPGIS as a methodology
participation, access and data (Jordan, involves much more than GIS, and the
2002; Laituri, 2002; Tulloch and Shapiro, level of spatial analysis tends, in any case,
2003) and in this way a taxonomy of to be relatively simple, some authors
successful and un successful case studies (Craig et al., 2002a) have begun to
can be devised in which cases are classifi question the future role of GIS per se
ed according to participatory activities and in PPGIS. The different notions of
who participates (Tulloch, 2003; Tulloch ‘accuracy’ which Participatory GIS calls for
and Shapiro, 2003). Barndt (2002) outlines maintain that many of the sophisticated
three major evaluation guidelines for spatial operations which are embedded in
PPGIS projects: understanding the value of a conventional GIS toolbox are
the results in terms of providing appropriate inappropriate and, indeed, un
and timely information upon which organ necessary. Thus, where many of the spatial
izations can usefully act; managing projects analytical capabilities of GIS remain
to be sustainable and properly integrated unused
into the activities of relevant organizations;
and consensus to support a local working

decision-makers may find the output more
credible and convincing than, say, the
in Participatory GIS, GIS can become an detailed depth of material from participatory
expensive and potentially divisive means of research methods alone or the apparent
representing local knowledge (King, 2002). crudeness of sketch maps drawn as part of
It is crucial to question whether a local Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)
Participatory GIS provides an appropriate exercise.
means of achieving desirable change As Barndt (1998) reminds us, successful
when this may be achieved by techniques public participation is not simply about tech
such as participatory mapping alone nical issues such as hardware and
(Abbot et al. , 1998). A ‘checklist’ of software: ‘GIS is not the center of the
questions to be addressed before public partici pation universe’ (Barndt,
embarking on a PGIS approach is 1998: 105). Since even a Participatory GIS
essential, the critical issue being: who may not necessarily be a contextually
gains and who loses (Abbot et al. , 1998)? appropriate GIS, there is an argument for
A Participatory GIS approach may offer a other starting points and different types of
potential compromise in that policy and organizations shaping their own GIS. This
calls for a ‘closer coupling’ of users and processes which teach students to
software design. Sieber (2000) argues for recognize the limitations of GIS and
greater transferral of power in the design geographical information (Dunn et al. ,
and development of GIS by advocating 1999). The NCGIA Santa Barbara
that grassroots organizations actively Varenius Workshop called attention to the
shape GIS to meet their needs. In so need to educate users and potential users
doing, GIS becomes intrinsic to the social as a ‘mandate for PPGIS’ (Craig et al.,
practice of such organizations and 1999) and important challenges are raised,
engenders a sense of ownership. The given that users may need both technical
likelihood of success of such a strategy GIS skills and familiarity with participatory
depends to a large extent on the local methods. In this sense, Tulloch and
context, however, and, as Sieber (2000) Epstein (2002) point to the need for
acknowledges, a degree of technical leadership from academics and
knowledge is implied. Many early critiques practitioners versed in both technology and
of GIS characteristically ignored the critical social science. Merrick (2003) has adopted
agency (gender, race, cultural identity) of an approach to training grassroots
those who use GIS and, hence, the organizations with a focus on citizen
possibilities for transforming dominant GIS empowerment, critical thinking and
practices (Kwan, 2002b). As Kwan (2002c: questioning the data, analysis and outputs.
262) states, ‘change will not occur through Weiner and Harris (2003: 70) comment
trenchant that they are ‘less than optimistic’ that their
critiques alone, but through everyday work on community-integrated GIS in post
struggle with the technology in GIS labs or apartheid South Africa will have a long-term
“sites” of all kinds’. Capacity (skills) continuity in the local context. Transitions in
building and blurring of role boundaries are government have meant changes in policy
likely to be benefi cial in developing a more and personnel at national and regional
inclusive GIS and should help to foster an levels which subsequently impact on
institutional culture in which the sustainability of a locally based GIS.
technocratic solution is not always seen as Similarly, diffi culties of retaining staff with
the fi rst and only way. Thus environmental GIS skills in public sector or non-profi
activists may also operate as GIS software t-making organizations can have particular
developers while GIS researchers could impacts (Sieber, 2003) and even the
usefully work in NGOs (Sieber, 2004) or presence of ‘a strong local organization’,
multinational organizations (Williams and as advocated by McCall (2003: 566) as a
Dunn, 2003). In addition, national preventative countermeasure, is not a guar
information policies can be shaped to bring antee against staff losses. In a project
about change for the better by educational using
630 Progress in Human Geography 31(5) given less emphasis, and where less rests
on championing ideas about participation.
GIS in community organizations in the City VIII New approaches and future
of Philadelphia, Casey and Pederson prospects: cooperation and feminist GIS
(2002) found that the rapid turnover of Many early exchanges around the social
Community Development Corporation implications of GIS and its place in
(CDC) staff with GIS skills meant that GIS geography as a discipline (Taylor, 1990;
use was ‘insignifi cant’ at the CDC level. Openshaw, 1991; 1992; Taylor and
Such changes are likely to matter less in Overton, 1991; Smith, 1992; Lake, 1993)
the commercial GIS world where staff are were characteristically unhelpful and often
relatively easy to replace, where local unnecessarily polemic, dividing opinion
context, politics and organizations are into two camps and conse quently
squeezing out alternative positions that ‘GIS … can be employed within
(Rundstrom, 1995). More recent debates non-positivist epistemologies’ and comes
have been characterized by less of a dichot from what at fi rst sight may appear a
omy and a more mature and constructive surpris ing corner of the discipline. Recent
integration of different ways of understand work has begun to explore the potential
ing and applying geographical information links between GIS and feminist geography,
and GIS. Two interrelated points emerge arguing that feminist-driven involvement in
from this more optimistic position. First, it developing GIS can bring about critical
can be argued that debates around a more practices which accord with feminist
inclusive and democratic type of GIS have epistemologies (Kwan, 2002a; 2002c).
played a key role in actively bringing about This work has a number of parallels with
this more accommodating perspective. the concepts which frame Par ticipatory
Second, the more cooperative approach GIS, notably the recognition that both
may have the potential to help Participa quantitative and qualitative methods and
tory GIS practitioners avoid some of the information can exist in the same
critiques around participatory methods organizational system; that there is room
more generally. Indeed, since alternative for a grounded, contextualized and
forms of GIS form a focus for inquiry based reflexive GIS; and that such a GIS seeks to
on both process and practice, prospects uncover local knowledges and power
may be good for a more theoretically imbalances. A feminist critique of GIS is
informed ‘GIS-2’. Participatory GIS proposed as one which is constructive and
practitioners, unlike some of their caring, and, crucially, one which is en
counterparts in conventional GIS arenas, gaged in the practices of the technology
are acutely aware of social theorists’ (Schuurman and Pratt, 2002). The
critiques and the contradictory nature of the increasing use of ethnographic materials in
approach so that, as MacEachren (2000: digital form, not only in feminist geography,
448) notes, ‘researchers who are but in social and cultural geography more
developing broadly, is not only an indication of the
potential for blurring of Participatory GIS
and feminist GIS but may also help pave
the way for engagement between two
PPGIS or studying its use are as likely to geographies which currently remain in
be GIScience “outsiders” as “insiders”’. separate worlds (Kwan, 2002a): GIS and
There is a further recent and important de critical geographies. The narrow dualist
velopment with respect to alternative thinking which lies behind those who
visions of GIS which has a number of envision GIS as a place only for
resonances in the context of the present quantitative analysis has served to
discussion and demonstrates clear demonstrate GIS as inherently problematic
opportunities for PGIS to make a stronger (Schuurman and Pratt, 2002) and, in doing
impression within human geography. This so, has suppressed ideas around GIS as
development supports the notion part of a critical analysis (Kwan, 2002b).
articulated by Pavlovskaya (2002: 287)

which geographical information can be
displayed and analyzed. There is an
While in commercial environments there argument, therefore, to ensure that
are fewer incentives or opportunities to software developments refl ect more
engage with notions of a ‘social’ GIS, large strongly ideas around geographical
software developers retain a powerful information as fuzzy, ambiguous and
position in setting agendas for the ways in incomplete. In this con text Sieber (2004)
advocates a ‘rewiring’ of current GIS (2003) and Kingston (2002) recommend
technology in which the software code is exploration of opportunities for
rewritten with a less rigid geometry and Participatory GIS to be used in media such
more opportunities for participation and as digital television and wireless
representation of complexity and disagree communications. Internet-type tele
ment. Early attempts to move towards a vision channels obviate the need to have
‘GIS/2’ in this way include Kwan’s (1998; access to a computer and may also provide
1999) study of women’s mobility and public information and online voting
access in the city of Columbus, Ohio, for services (Kingston, 2002). This type of
which she developed algorithms specifi c participatory democracy was used by
to the research questions posed on Ventura et al. (2002) in a land-use
space-time access. Not available in decision-making project for Wisconsin,
standard GIS software, these algorithms USA, whereby citizens used the web to
exposed gender differences which take part in an electronic town hall
conventional measures of space-time meeting. Responses from elected officials
access obscured. More recent approaches were broadcast simultaneously on local
to develop ing GIS/2 include Sieber’s cable television and radio, as well as the
(2004) ‘rebuilding’ of GIS through a website. Innovative approaches to these
systems-design approach which draws on newer and more mobile forms of ICT do
current developments in computer science. not necessarily demand a highly IT-literate
This seeks to model different ways of user-base. Thus, in an innovative use of
knowing by using markup languages which palm-top computers to collect information
enable retention of narrative richness and for conservation work in South Africa,
allow text or objects to be given tags Liebenberg et al. (1999) de scribe how
relating to, for example, class, cultural non-literate national park rangers and
status, power relations or gender. trackers collect georeferenced informa tion
With proprietary GIS and related systems on wildlife sightings in the fi eld, prior to
ever more affordable and available in more transferring the data to a base-station PC.
accessible forms (eg, mobile GIS using The introduction of computer technology
hand held devices, in-vehicle navigation, has given kudos to the trackers and
web based GIS, GPS for transect walks), generated recognition of their expertise. A
and with the near future likely to bring similar pro ject with traditional hunters and
merging of technologies such as GIS, the trackers in Botswana has, however,
internet, virtual reality and mobile created a degree of community resentment
communications systems (MacEachren, and confl ict around resource access
2000), we are poised at an interesting time (Louis Liebenberg, personal
for potential future directions of GIS and communication).
participation. There are opportunities for In devising prospects for an alternative
conventional GIS tech nology to be framework for the next wave of
replicated ‘as is’ to a large public, and/or Participatory GIS there is also an ongoing
for more innovative and socially need to consider the optimal degree of
aware approaches to capitalize on this coupling, both in terms of people and
wider distribution. The latter include an practice. These are, of course, interrelated,
enhanced citizen input to the design and but the research reviewed here suggests
application of GIS as it becomes two potential directions. First, that there is
increasingly available through more a need for closer coupling between users
accessible routes such as cell and GIS design. Blurring of roles and
phone technology (Rugg, 2003). Carver
632 Progress in Human Geography 31(5)

envisaging different types of user to those
engaged with conventional GIS are likely to where more democratic forms of GIS act as
shape more publicly orientated packages. fuel for another academic battleground. In
Second, participatory methods and GIS this context, it is worth returning to the
tech cautions of the early pioneers in
nology itself should be kept fairly loosely Participatory GIS who, while remaining
coupled. There are, of course, degrees of optimistic for its future, warn that ‘efforts to
coupling and, in the loosest sense, this may hear the voices of “ordinary” people and
simply involve using participatory research “capture local knowledge” are well
methods to qualify GIS analysis and intentioned, but in many instances these
outputs (see, for example, Pain et al., are forms of participation for publication, in
2006). Thus, just as Kwan (2002a) argues which academics undertake research to pro
that while still recog nizing the limitations of duce books and journal articles while
GIS data models ‘feminist geographers leaving the subject communities with little
can appropriate GIS methods’ (p. 653, (if any) tangible benefi ts’ (Harris and
original emphasis), the cur Weiner, 2002: 248, original emphasis).
rent paper suggests that a GIS which is This scenario seems depressingly likely
vested in the interests of the people (as given the current climate, at least in the
defi ned by them) through an approach UK, of pressure to publish research in
based on ‘GIS in participatory research’ outlets which practitioners are unlikely to
may be more success access. In this context, it is worth
ful and achievable than a truly ‘Participatory highlighting the basic tenet that
GIS’. ‘participatory approaches did not originate
Finally, exploration of the social per as a methodology for re search, but as a
spectives around GIS can be regarded as process by which communities can work
a hallmark of a maturing technology; an towards change’ (Pain and Francis, 2003:
enhanced GIS as an effective medium for 46).
communication (Schuurman, 2003). There
Notes
remains, though, a question over the extent
1. Wherever possible in this paper, in referring to the
to which the mainstream GIS and literature, the specific terminology of individual
GIScience literature is both driving and refl authors is retained. Elsewhere, for convenience,
ecting recent developments in the social the general term ‘Participatory GIS’ is used.
aspects of GIS. With system development 2. Clark Labs, Clark University, Worcester,
Massachusetts, USA, developers of IDRISI GIS
of proprietary GIS falling mainly in the
and Image Processing software.
realm of computer scientists rather than
geographers, Longley (2000) warns of the References
dangers for the health of the discipline of Abbot, J., Chambers, R., Dunn, C., Harris, T., de
Geography. Schuurman and Kwan (2004) Merode, E., Porter, G., Townsend, J. and
comment on an increasing prominence in Weiner, D. 1998: Participatory GIS: opportunity or
oxymoron? PLA Notes 33, 27–34.
the last 5–10 years given to scientifi c and
Aberley, D. and Sieber, R. 2002: Public Participation
technical GIS research at the expense of GIS (PPGIS) Guiding Principles First International
papers on the social and political PPGIS Conference. Held by URISA at Rutgers
dimensions of GIScience. They relate this University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 20–22
to a reduction in published research on July.
Aitken, S.C. 2002: Public participation, technological
critiques of GIS and call for a new ‘socially
discourses and the scale of GIS. In Craig, W.J.,
engaged GIScience’ (p. 2). Given its Harris, T.M. and Weiner, D., editors, Community
democratizing potential, Participatory GIS participation and Geographic Information Systems,
should be well placed to fi ll some of this London: Taylor and Francis, 357–66.
gap, and an optimistic view is one in which Aitken, S.C. and Michel, S.M. 1995: Who contrives
the ‘real’ in GIS? Geographic information, planning
PGIS research moves towards centre and critical theory. Cartography and Geographic
stage in the mainstream GIS publication Information Systems 22, 17–29.
outlets. A darker vision is one

editors, Participation: the new tyranny?, London:
Zed Books, 1–15.
Balram, S. and Dragicévic´, S. 2006: Modeling Couclelis, H. 2003: The certainty of uncertainty: GIS
collaborative GIS processes using soft systems and the limits of geographic knowledge.
theory, UML and object oriented design. Transactions in GIS 7 , 165–75.
Transactions in GIS 10, 199–218. Craig, W.J. and Elwood, S.A. 1998: How and why
Barndt, M. 1998: Public Participation GIS – barriers community groups use maps and geographic infor
to implementation. Cartography and Geographic mation. Cartography and Geographic Information
Information Systems 2 5, 105–12. Systems 25, 95–104.
— 2002: A model for evaluating public participation Craig, W., Harris, T. and Weiner, D. 1999: Empower
GIS. In Craig, W.J., Harris, T.M. and Weiner, D., ment, marginalization and Public Participation GIS.
editors, Community participation and Geographic Report of Varenius Workshop, Santa Barbara,
Information Systems, London: Taylor and Francis, California, 15–17 October.
346–56. — 2002a: Conclusion. In Craig, W.J., Harris, T.M. and
Berntzen, L., Steinmann, R. and Krek, A. 2005: Weiner, D., editors, Community participation and
Innovative use of Geographical Information Geographic Information Systems, London: Taylor
Systems to facilitate collaboration between the and Francis, 367–72.
government and citizens. eChallenges, 19–21 — editors 2002b: Community participation and
October, Ljubljana, Slovenia. Geographic Information Systems. London: Taylor and
Bishop, I.D., Barry, M., McPherson, E., Nascarella, Francis. Curry, M.R. 2005: Meta-theory/many
J., Urquhart, K. and Escobar, F. 2002: Meeting theories. In
the need for GIS skills in developing countries: the Castree, N., Rogers, A. and Sherman, D., editors,
case of informal settlements. Transactions in GIS Questioning geography: fundamental debates,
6, 311–26. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 167–86.
Blakemore, M. 2005: All things ‘e’ with a little bit of ‘i’, Dragic´ evic´, S. 2004: The potential of web-based
and hopefully some ‘d’ and ‘p’: basic building blocks GIS. Journal of Geographical Systems 6, 79–81.
and the digitization of European public adminis Dunn, C.E., Atkins, P.J., Blakemore, M.J. and
trations. International Workshop: The Digitization of Townsend, J.G. 1999: Teaching geographical
European Public Administrations: What’s the Political information handling skills for lower-income coun
Dimension of Electronic Governance? EIPA, tries. Transactions in GIS 3, 319–32.
Maastricht, The Netherlands, 31 March–1 April. Dunn, C.E., Atkins, P.J. and Townsend, J.G. 1 997:
Bond, C. 2002: The Cherokee Nation and tribal uses GIS for development: a contradiction in terms?
of GIS. In Craig, W.J., Harris, T.M. and Weiner, Area 29, 151–59.
D., editors, Community participation and Dykes, J. 2000: An approach to virtual environments
Geographic Information Systems, London: Taylor for visualization using linked geo-referenced
and Francis, 283–93. panoramic imagery. Computers, Environment and
Butler, D. 2006: Virtual globes: the web-wide world. Urban Systems 24, 127–52.
Nature 439, 776–78. Elwood, S.A. 2002a: GIS use in community planning:
Carver, S. 2003: The future of participatory a multidimensional analysis of empowerment.
approaches using geographic information: Environment and Planning A 34, 905–22.
developing a research agenda for the 21st — 2002b: The impacts of GIS use for neighbourhood
century. Journal of the Urban and Regional revitalization in Minneapolis. In Craig, W.J., Harris,
Information Systems Association 15, 61–71. T.M. and Weiner, D., editors, Community
Casey, L. and Pederson, T. 2002: Mapping participation and Geographic Information
Philadelphia’s neighbourhoods. In Craig, W.J., Systems, London: Taylor and Francis, 77–88.
Harris, T.M. and Weiner, D., editors, Community — 2006: Negotiating knowledge production: the
participation and Geographic Information everyday inclusions, exclusions, and
Systems, London: Taylor and Francis, 65–76. contradictions of participatory GIS research. The
Chrisman, N.R. 1999: What does ‘GIS’ mean? Professional Geographer 58, 197–208.
Transactions in GIS 3, 175–86. Ghose, R. 2001: Use of information technology for
Cinderby, S. 1999: Geographic information systems community empowerment: transforming
(GIS) for participation: the future of environmental Geographic Information Systems into Community
GIS? International Journal of Environmental Information Systems. Transactions in GIS 5 ,
Pollution 11, 304–15. 141–63.
Cinderby, S. and Forrester, J. 2005: Facilitating the Gold, C.M. 2006: What is GIS and what is not? Trans
local governance of air pollution using GIS for actions in GIS 1 0, 505–19.
participation. Applied Geography 2 5, 143–58. Goodchild, M.F. 2000: The current status of GIS and
Cooke, B. and Kothari, U. 2001: The case for par spatial analysis. Journal of Geographical Systems
ticipation as tyranny. In Cooke, B. and Kothari, U., 2, 5–10.
— 2002: Foreword. In Craig, W.J., Harris, T.M. and Weiner, D., editors, Community participation and
634 Progress in Human Geography 31(5) King, B.H. 2002: Towards a participatory GIS:
evaluating case studies of Participatory Rural
Appraisal and GIS in the developing world.
Cartography and Geographic Information Science
Geographic Information Systems, London: Taylor
29, 43–52.
and Francis, xix–xxiii.
Grenier, L. 1998: Working with indigenous
knowledge. Otawa: International Development
Research Centre. Griffi ths, M. 2004: e-Citizens:
blogging as democratic practice. Electronic Journal of Kingston, R. 2002: Web-based PPGIS in the United
e-Government 2 (3), 155–65. Kingdom. In Craig, W.J., Harris, T.M. and Weiner,
Haklay, M. and Tobon, C. 2003: Usability evaluation D., editors, Community participation and
and PPGIS: towards a user-centred design Geographic Information Systems, London: Taylor
approach. International Journal of Geographical and Francis, 101–12.
Information Science 1 7, 577–92. Kingston, R., Carver, S., Evans, A. and T urton, I.
Harmsworth, G. 1998: Indigenous values and GIS: a 2000: Web-based public participation geographical
method and a framework. Indigenous Knowledge information systems: an aid to local environmental
and Development Monitor 6 (3). decision-making. Computers, Environment and
Harris, T. and Weiner, D. 1996: GIS and Society: the Urban Systems 2 4, 109–25.
social implications of how people, space, and Kothari, U. 2001: Power, knowledge and social
environment are represented in GIS. Scientific control in participatory development. In Cooke, B.
Report for the Initiative 19 Specialist Meeting, 2–5 and Kothari, U., editors, Participation: the new
March, Koinonia Retreat Center, South Haven, tyranny?, London: Zed Books, 139–52.
Minnesota. National Center for Geographic Infor Kwan, M.-P. 1998: Space-time and integral measures
mation and Analysis Report 96–7. of individual accessibility: a comparative analysis
— 1998: Empowerment, marginalization, and using a point-based framework. Geographical
‘community integrated’ GIS. Cartography and Analysis 30, 191–216.
Geographic Infor mation Systems 25, 67–76. — 1999: Gender and individual access to urban oppor
— 2002: Implementing a community-integrated GIS: tunities: a study using space-time measures. The
perspectives from South African fieldwork. In Professional Geographer 5 1, 210–27.
Craig, W.J., Harris, T.M. and Weiner, D., editors, — 2002a: Feminist visualization: re-envisioning GIS
Community participation and Geographic as a method in feminist geographic research.
Information Systems, London: Taylor and Francis, Annals of the Association of American
246–58. Geographers 92, 645–61.
Harris, T.M., Weiner, D., Warner, T.A. and Levin, R. — 2002b: Is GIS for women? Refl ections on the
1995: Pursuing social goals through participatory critical discourse in the 1990s. Gender, Place and
geographic information systems. In Pickles, J., editor, Culture 9 , 271–79.
Ground truth: the social implications of geographic — 2002c: Introduction: feminist geography and GIS.
information systems, New York: Guilford, 196–222. Gender, Place and Culture 9 , 261–62.
Hassan, M.M. 2005: Arsenic poisoning in Kyem, P.A.K. 2001 (published 2004): Power, partici
Bangladesh: spatial mitigation planning with GIS pation and inflexible institutions: an examination of
and public participation. Health Policy 7 4, 247–60. the challenges to community empowerment in
Henkel, H. and Stirrat, R. 2001: Participation as spir participatory GIS applications. Cartographica
itual duty; empowerment as secular subjection. In 38(3/4), 5–17.
Cooke, B. and Kothari, U., editors, Participation: — 2002: Promoting local community participation in
the new tyranny? London: Zed Books, 168–84. forest management through a PPGIS application
Howells, J. 1996: Tacit knowledge, innovation and in Southern Ghana. In Craig, W.J., Harris, T.M.
technology transfer. Technology Analysis and and Weiner, D., editors, Community participation
Strategic Management 8 , 91–106. and Geographic Information Systems, London:
Jankowski, P., Nyerges, T., Robischon, S., Taylor and Francis, 218–31.
Ramsey, K. and Tuthill, D. 2006: Design — 2004: Of intractable conflicts and participatory GIS
considerations and evaluation of a collaborative, applications: the search for consensus amidst
spatio-temporal decision support system. completing claims and institutional demands.
Transacations in GIS 1 0, 335–54. Annals of the Association of American
Jordan, G. 2002: GIS for community forestry user Geographers
groups in Nepal: putting people before the 94, 37–57.
technology. In Craig, W.J., Harris, T.M. and Laituri, M. 2002: Ensuring access to GIS for marginal
Weiner, D., editors, Community participation and societies. In Craig, W.J., Harris, T.M. and Weiner,
Geographic Information Systems, London: Taylor D., editors, Community participation and
and Francis, 232–45. Geographic Information Systems, London: Taylor
and Francis, 270–82. Leitner, H., Elwood, S., Sheppard, E., McMaster, S.
Lake, R.W. 1993: Planning and applied geography: and McMaster, R. 2000: Modes of GIS Provision and
positivism, ethics, and geographic information sys their appropriateness for neighborhood organ izations:
tems. Progress in Human Geography 17, 404–13. examples from Minneapolis and St. Paul,

Nyerges, T., Jankowski, P. and Drew, C. 2 002: Data
gathering strategies for social-behavioural
Minnesota. Journal of the Urban and Regional research about participatory geographical
Information Systems Association 12, 43–56. information system use. International Journal of
Liebenberg, L., Steventon, L., Benadie, K. and Geographical Information Science 1 6, 1–22.
Minye, J. 1999: Rhino tracking with the Cyber Obermeyer, N.J. 1998: The evolution of public partici
Tracker fi eld computer. Pachyderm 2 7, 59–61. pation GIS. Cartography and Geographic
Information Systems 25, 65–66.
Longley, P.A. 2000: The academic success of GIS in
geography: problems and prospects. Journal of Openshaw, S. 1991: A view on the GIS crisis in
Geographical Systems 2, 37–42. geography, or using GIS to put Humpty-Dumpty back
together again. Environment and Planning A 23,
Longley, P.A., Goodchild, M.F., Maguire, D.J. and
621–28.
Rhind, D.W. 2005: Geographic Information
Systems and science. Chichester: Wiley. — 1992: Further thoughts on geography and GIS: a
reply. Environment and Planning A 2 3, 463–66.
MacEachren, A.M. 1998: Cartography, GIS and the
World Wide Web. Progress in Human Geography Pain, R. and Francis, P. 2003: Reflections on par
22, 575–85. 5, 46–54.
ticipatory research. Area 3
— 2000: Cartography and GIS: facilitating Pain, R., MacFarlane, R., Turner, K. and Gill, S.
collaboration. Progress in Human Geography 24, 2006: ‘When, where, if, and but’: qualifying GIS
445–56. and the effect of streetlighting on crime and fear.
Environment and Planning A 38, 2055–74.
MacEachren, A.M. and Brewer, I. 2004: Developing
a conceptual framework for visually-enabled geo Pavlovskaya, M.E. 2002: Mapping urban change and
collaboration. International Journal of Geographical changing GIS: other views of economic
Information Science 1 8, 1–34. restructuring. Gender, Place and Culture 9,
281–89.
MacEachren, A.M., Cai, G., Sharma,R., Rauschert,
I., Brewer, I., Bolelli,L., Shaparenko, B., Perkins, C. 2003: Cartography: mapping theory.
Fuhrmann, S. and Wang, H. 2005: Enabling Progress in Human Geography 27, 341–51.
collaborative geoinformation access and decision Pickles, J., editor 1995: Ground truth: the social and
making through a natural, multimodal interface. economic implications of Geographical Information
International Journal of Geographical Information Systems. New York: Guilford Press.
Science 1 9, 293–317. — 1999: Arguments, debates, and dialogues: the GIS
McCall, M.K. 2003: Seeking good governance in social theory debate and the concern for
participatory-GIS: a review of processes and gov alternatives. In Longley, P.A., Goodchild, M.F.,
ernance dimensions in applying GIS to partici Maguire, D.J. and Rhind, D.W., editors,
patory spatial planning. Habitat International 27, Geographical Information Systems: principles and
549–73. technical issues, New York: Wiley, 49–60.
McCall, M.K. and Minang, P. 2005: Assessing Polanyi, K. 1944: The great transformation: the
participatory GIS for community-based natural political and economic origins of our time. New
resource management: claiming community forests York: Farrar and Rinehart (reprinted by Amereon
in Cameroon. Geographical Journal 1 71, 340–56. in 1996).
Meredith, T.C., Yetman, G.G. and Frias, G. 2002: Rambaldi, G. and Callosa-Tarr, J. 2000: Manual on
Mexican and Canadian case studies of community Participatory 3-Dimensional Modelling for natural
based spatial information management for bio resource management. Essentials of Protected
diversity conservation. In Craig, W.J., Harris, T.M. Area Management in the Philippines volume 7,
and Weiner, D., editors, Community participation NIPAP, PAWB-DENR, Philippines.
and Geographic Information Systems, London: — 2002: Participatory 3-Dimensional Modelling:
Taylor and Francis, 205–17. guiding principles and applications. T he
Merrick, M. 2003: Refl ections on PPGIS: a view from Philippines: ASEAN Regional Centre for
the trenches. Journal of the Urban and Regional Biodiversity Conservation (ARCBC).
Information Systems Association 1 5(2), 33–39. Rambaldi, G., Chambers, R., McCall, M. and Fox,
Negroponte, N. 1995: Being digital. New York: Knopf. J. 2006: Practical ethics for PGIS practitioners,
Nyerges, T. 2005: Scaling-up as a grand challenge facilitators, technology intermediaries and
for Public Participation GIS. Directions Magazine, researchers. PLA Notes 54, 106–13.
Magazine, 20 September. Retrieved 26 June 2007 Robbins, P. 2003: Beyond ground truth: GIS and the
from http://www.directionsmag.com/article. environmental knowledge of herders, professional
php?article_id=1965 foresters, and other traditional communities.
Human Ecology 31, 233–53. Rundstrom, R.A. 1995: GIS, indigenous peoples, and
Rugg, R.D. 2003: A framework for the use of epistemological diversity. Cartography and
geographic information in participatory community Geographic Information Systems 22, 45–57.
planning and development. Journal of the Urban Sanderson, E. and Kindon, S. 2004: Progress in par
and Regional Information Systems Association ticipatory development: opening up the possibility
15(2), 75–80.
636 Progress in Human Geography 31(5) systems across borders. The Canadian
Geographer 47, 50–61.
— 2004: Rewiring for a GIS/2. Cartographica 3 9,
25–39. Sillitoe, P. 1998: The development of
of knowledge through progressive participation.
indigenous knowledge. Current Anthropology 3 9,
Progress in Development Studies 4 , 114–26.
223–52. Smith, N. 1992: History and philosophy of
Schafer, W.A., Craig, H.G., Xiao, L., Coch, G. and geography: real wars, theory wars. Progress in
Carroll, J.M. 2005: Designing the next generation Human Geography 16, 257–71.
of distributed, geocollaborative tools. Cartography
and Geographic Information Science 32, 81–100.
Schlossberg, M. and Shuford, E. 2005: Delineating
‘Public’ and ‘Participation’ in PPGIS. Journal of the
Urban and Regional Information Systems Stonich, S.C. 1998: Information technologies,
Association 1 6, 15–26. advocacy, and development: resistance and
Schroeder, P. 1996: Report on Public Participation backlash to indus trial shrimp farming. Cartography
GIS Workshop. In Harris, T. and Weiner, D., GIS and Geographic Information Systems 2 5, 113–22.
and Society: The Social Implications of how Stonich, S.C. 2002: Information technologies, PPGIS,
People, Space, and Environment are Represented and advocacy: globalization of resistance to indus
in GIS, Scientific Report for the Initiative 19 trial shrimp farming. In Craig, W.J., Harris, T.M.
Specialist Meeting, 2–5 March, Koinonia Retreat and Weiner, D., editors, Community participation
Center, South Haven, Minnesota, National Center and Geographic Information Systems, London:
for Geographic Information and Analysis Report Taylor and Francis, 259–69.
96–7. Talen, E. 2000: Bottom-up GIS – a new tool for indi
Schuurman, N. 2000: Trouble in the heartland: GIS vidual and group expression in participatory
and its critics in the 1990s. Progress in Human planning. Journal of the American Planning
Geography 24, 569–90. Association 66, 279–94.
— 2003: The ghost in the machine: spatial data, infor Tang, K.X. and Waters, N.M. 2005: The internet, GIS
mation and knowledge in GIS. The Canadian and public participation in transportation planning.
Geographer 47, 1–4. Progress in Planning 64, 7–62.
Schuurman, N. and Kwan, M.-P. 2004: Guest Taylor, P.J. 1990: GKS. Political Geography
editorial: Taking a walk on the social side of GIS. Quarterly 9, 211–12.
Cartographica 39, 1–3. Taylor, P.J. and Overton, M. 1991: Further thoughts
Schuurman, N. and Pratt, G. 2002: Care of the on geography and GIS. Environment and Planning
subject: feminism and critiques of GIS. Gender, A2 3, 1087–94.
Place and Culture 9 , 291–99. Tulloch, D.L. 2002: Environmental NGOs and com
Sheppard, E. 1995: GIS and society: towards a munity access to technology as a force for change. In
research agenda. Cartography and Geographic Craig, W.J., Harris, T.M. and Weiner, D., editors,
Information Systems 22, 5–16. Community participation and Geographic Information
Shiffer, M.J. 2002: Spatial multimedia representations Systems, London: Taylor and Francis, 192–204.
to support community participation. In Craig, W.J., — 2003: What PPGIS really needs is… 2nd Annual
Harris, T.M. and Weiner, D., editors, Community Public Participation GIS Conference, Portland
Participation and Geographic Information Systems, State University, Portland, Oregon, 20–22 July.
London: Taylor and Francis, 309–19. Retrieved 26 June 2007 from
Sieber, R.E. 2000: Conforming (to) the opposition: http://deathstar.rutgers.edu/
the social construction of geographical information ppgis/Tulloch.PPGIS.2003.htm
systems in social movements. International Journal Tulloch, D.L. and Epstein, E. 2002: Benefits of
of Geographical Information Science 14, 775–93. community MPLIS: efficiency, effectiveness, and
— 2001 (published 2004): A PPGIScience? equity. Transactions in GIS 6 , 195–211.
Cartographica 38(3/4), 1–4. Tulloch, D.L. and Shapiro, T. 2003: The intersection
— 2002: Geographic information systems in the envir of data access and public participation: impacting
onmental movement. In Craig, W.J., Harris, T.M. GIS users’ success? Journal of the Urban and
and Weiner, D., editors, Community Participation Regional Information Systems Association 15(2),
and Geographic Information Systems, London: 55–60.
Taylor and Francis, 153–72. Ventura, S.J., Niemann, B.J., Sutphin, T. and
— 2003: Public participation geographic information Chenoweth, R.E. 2002: GIS-enhanced land-use
planning. In Craig, W.J., Harris, T.M. and Weiner, participation and Geographic Information
D., editors, Community participation and Systems, London: Taylor and Francis, 137–52.
Geographic Information Systems, London: Taylor Warf, B. 2001: Sequeways into cyberspace: multiple
and Francis, 113–24. geographies of the digital divide. Environment and
Walker, D.H., Leitch, A.M., de Lai, R., Cottrell, A., Planning B 28, 3–19.
Johnson, A.K.L. and Pullar, D. 2002: A Warren, D.M. 1991: Using indigenous knowledge in
community-based and collaborative GIS joint agricultural development. World Bank Discussion
venture in rural Australia. In Craig, W.J., Harris, Paper 127. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
T.M. and Weiner, D., editors, Community

landscape: GIS, remote sensing, and local
knowledge
Weiner, D. and Harris, T.M. 2003: Community in Kiepersol, South Africa. Cartography and
integrated GIS for land reform in South Africa, Geographic Information Systems 22, 30–44.
Journal of the Urban and Regional Information Williams, C. and Dunn, C.E. 2003: GIS in
Systems Asso ciation 1 5(2), 61–73. participatory research: assessing the impact of
Weiner, D., Harris, T.M. and Craig, W.J. 2002: landmines on communities in North-west
Community participation and geographic infor Cambodia. Transactions in GIS 7 , 393–410.
mation systems. In Craig, W.J., Harris, T.M. and Wong, S. and Chua, Y.L. 2001 (published 2004):
Weiner, D., editors, Community participation and Data intermediation and beyond: issues for
Geographic Information Systems, London: Taylor web-based PPGIS. Cartographica 38(3/4), 63–80.
and Francis, 3–16. Wood, J. 2005: ‘How green is my valley?’ Desktop
Weiner, D., Warner, T., Harris, T.M. and Levin, R.M. geographic information systems as a community
1995: Apartheid representations in a digital based participatory mapping tool. Area 37, 159–70.

Participatory GIS - A People's GIS?: Christine E. Dunn

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Participatory GIS - A People's GIS?: Christine E. Dunn

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Participatory GIS - A People's GIS?: Christine E. Dunn

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Progress in Human Geography ​31(5) (2007)

pp. 616–637 Christine E. Dunn*

Geography Department, Durham University, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE,

Key words: ​GIS, participatory GIS, public participation.

Christine E. Dunn: Participatory GIS – a people’s GIS? ​617

Downloaded from ​phg.sagepub.com ​by guest on May 4, 2016

Downloaded from ​phg.sagepub.com ​by guest on May 4, 2016

Christine E. Dunn: Participatory GIS – a people’s GIS? ​619

Downloaded from ​phg.sagepub.com ​by guest on May 4, 2016

620 ​Progress in Human Geography 31(5) participation through spatial multimedia

Downloaded from ​phg.sagepub.com ​by guest on May 4, 2016

Christine E. Dunn: Participatory GIS – a people’s GIS? ​621

Downloaded from ​phg.sagepub.com ​by guest on May 4, 2016

Downloaded from ​phg.sagepub.com ​by guest on May 4, 2016

Christine E. Dunn: Participatory GIS – a people’s GIS? ​623

Downloaded from ​phg.sagepub.com ​by guest on May 4, 2016

Christine E. Dunn: Participatory GIS – a people’s GIS? ​625

Downloaded from ​phg.sagepub.com ​by guest on May 4, 2016

Downloaded from ​phg.sagepub.com ​by guest on May 4, 2016

Christine E. Dunn: Participatory GIS – a people’s GIS? ​627

Downloaded from ​phg.sagepub.com ​by guest on May 4, 2016

Downloaded from ​phg.sagepub.com ​by guest on May 4, 2016

Christine E. Dunn: Participatory GIS – a people’s GIS? ​629

Downloaded from ​phg.sagepub.com ​by guest on May 4, 2016

Downloaded from ​phg.sagepub.com ​by guest on May 4, 2016

Christine E. Dunn: Participatory GIS – a people’s GIS? ​631

Downloaded from ​phg.sagepub.com ​by guest on May 4, 2016

632 ​Progress in Human Geography 31(5)

Christine E. Dunn: Participatory GIS – a people’s GIS? ​633

Downloaded from ​phg.sagepub.com ​by guest on May 4, 2016

Downloaded from ​phg.sagepub.com ​by guest on May 4, 2016

Christine E. Dunn: Participatory GIS – a people’s GIS? ​635

Downloaded from ​phg.sagepub.com ​by guest on May 4, 2016

Downloaded from ​phg.sagepub.com ​by guest on May 4, 2016

Christine E. Dunn: Participatory GIS – a people’s GIS? ​637

You might also like

Progress in Human Geography 31(5) (2007)

Key words: GIS, participatory GIS, public participation.

Christine E. Dunn: Participatory GIS – a people’s GIS? 617

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com by guest on May 4, 2016

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com by guest on May 4, 2016

Christine E. Dunn: Participatory GIS – a people’s GIS? 619

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com by guest on May 4, 2016

620 Progress in Human Geography 31(5) participation through spatial multimedia

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com by guest on May 4, 2016

Christine E. Dunn: Participatory GIS – a people’s GIS? 621

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com by guest on May 4, 2016

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com by guest on May 4, 2016

Christine E. Dunn: Participatory GIS – a people’s GIS? 623

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com by guest on May 4, 2016

Christine E. Dunn: Participatory GIS – a people’s GIS? 625

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com by guest on May 4, 2016

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com by guest on May 4, 2016

Christine E. Dunn: Participatory GIS – a people’s GIS? 627

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com by guest on May 4, 2016

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com by guest on May 4, 2016

Christine E. Dunn: Participatory GIS – a people’s GIS? 629

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com by guest on May 4, 2016

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com by guest on May 4, 2016

Christine E. Dunn: Participatory GIS – a people’s GIS? 631

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com by guest on May 4, 2016

632 Progress in Human Geography 31(5)

Christine E. Dunn: Participatory GIS – a people’s GIS? 633

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com by guest on May 4, 2016

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com by guest on May 4, 2016

Christine E. Dunn: Participatory GIS – a people’s GIS? 635

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com by guest on May 4, 2016

Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com by guest on May 4, 2016

Christine E. Dunn: Participatory GIS – a people’s GIS? 637