Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of Geographical Systems
Published in: Journal of Geographical Systems 4/2023

17-06-2023 | Original Article

Operationalizing participation: experiences and perspectives of participatory GIS program coordinators

Authors: Katherine Iles, Sya Buryn Kedzior

Published in: Journal of Geographical Systems | Issue 4/2023

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Participatory approaches to geographic information systems (GIS) aim to improve program success rates and facilitate community control over data in environmental management and community development programs. But some argue that GIS is ill-suited for participatory applications because of its technical nature and reliance on experts to process publicly sourced data (Chambers in Electron J Inf Syst Dev Ctries 25:1–11, 2006; Dunn in Prog Hum Geogr 31(5):616–637, 2007; Radil and Anderson in Prog Hum Geogr 43(2):195–213, 2018). Yet, little attention has been paid to the outsized role of PGIS program coordinators in shaping relationships between experts and participants and determining how GIS technologies are employed. This study investigates the experiences of PGIS program coordinators and examines how they understand the processes and dynamics associated with participatory approaches, and how those understandings influence the ways in which participation is operationalized across different programs. This investigation highlights key challenges experienced by program coordinators and points to opportunities for intervention into the ways in which programs are designed and administered.
previous article Sensitivity metrics of complex network based on co-occurrence truth table: exemplified by a high-speed rail network
next article An open-source implementation of geographic profiling methods for serial crime analysis

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
Footnotes
1
Since the goal of this study was to understand how PGIS program coordinators understand and operationalize participation and its related concepts, we did not define terms like diversity, community, or even participation for study respondents. Instead, they were encouraged to define and discuss the meaning, significance, and operationalization of these concepts in interviews, which are discussed more fully below.
 
2
Radil and Anderson (2018) point out that it is difficult, if not unlikely, for PGIS programs to empower marginalized populations because they often continue to operate through established frameworks of governance within settings in the Global South. PGIS programs in those contexts must therefore aim not only to empower community members through engagement in the creation, analysis, and control of spatial data, but also operate outside of historic forms of institutionalized governance that contribute to disempowerment of marginalized people.
 
3
The discussion of who shapes and contributes to GIS is not limited to literature on PGIS alone. In Warren et al. (2019), Patricia Solís asks how changing demographics in geography, particularly GIS, is reshaping the field. She notes that that geography is becoming increasingly diverse (particularly in terms of race and ethnicity, gender, and region of origin), less traditional in the constitution of faculty positions, and more interdisciplinary. She asks for attention to how the differential positionalities of these actors are changing ideas about GIS and its role in geography and encourages focus on the ways GIS might include such diverse scholarly voices and associated modes of inquiry.
 
4
Kingston et al. (2000) indicate that web-based GIS applications may improve accessibility among participants. But the ability to access, change, and even use data can be separate from legal issues of data ownership and copyright. Data ownership can default to sponsoring programs that own GIS software when no other data-sharing arrangements are made and unclear or inequitable control of PGIS data can lead to undesirable and even exploitative outcomes (ibid.).
 
5
The first author works and has contacts in community-based GIS programs.
 
6
Population size may be roughly inferred from participation in professional groups and organizations. In 2017, the Participatory Mapping/GIS Conference in San Louis Obispo, California, attracted about 100 participants and dozens of speakers, and in 2022, the Participatory GIS and Technologies dgroup, a PGIS discussion group, had 1,852 members. Neither of these groups represent the whole population of GIS practitioners, but they may indicate a relatively robust, and growing, population.
 
7
Scholarly researchers are often involved in, or serve as consultants on, community programs employing PGIS.
 
8
In this context, the term “expert” can be understood as “persons who are responsible for the development, implementation, or control of a solution, or persons who have privileged access to people or decision-making processes” (Döringer 2020, p. 3). For other practitioner-centered interview studies, see Schroeder (1999) and Cleave et al. (2016).
 
9
Snowball sampling, a method used widely in the social sciences, can be an efficient way to easily access a large number of respondents within a single social network and can be particularly useful for identifying specific members of a subgroup within a larger population who might otherwise be difficult to identify or access (Abubakar et al. 2016). While the PROUA coordinators found this approach effective, it is important to note that snowball recruitment can produce a sample population that it not representative of the larger population as a whole and tends to target participants with similar backgrounds and perspectives (Marcus et al. 2016).
 
10
Many PGIS programs included in this study used PGIS program data for initiatives outside of the scope of their original programs. For example, the participant input from the Virginia’s Recreational Ocean Use program informed other state projects and Weather It Together used PGIS data to evaluate economic impacts on businesses to make a funding case to FEMA.
 
11
While an accepted standard of best practices does not exist within the community of PGIS practitioners, standards and guidelines have been proposed within academia. MacEachren (2000) is closest to suggesting an industry standard that involves a four-stage process of assessment, problem definition, decision-making, and follow-up. Others focus on specific aspects of best practices. Rambaldi et al. (2006) sets out a series questions for practitioners that emphasize empowerment in the context of an ethical PGIS. Craig et al. (1998) emphasize equal access to data among community and program participants, and Dunn (2007) advocates for program design that takes “cultural, institutional and locational framings, the intended objectives and user characteristics, and the broader questions of political embeddedness” into account (620).
 
Literature
Abbot J, Chambers R, Dunn C, Harris T, de Merode E, Porter G, Townsend J, Weiner D (1998) Participatory GIS: opportunity or oxymoron? Particip Learn Action PLA Notes 33:27–34
Abubakar S, Alkassim R, Etikan I (2016) Comparison of snowball sampling and sequential sampling technique. Biom Biostat Int J 1(3):6–7
Afzalan N, Muller B (2018) Online participatory technologies: opportunities for enriching participatory planning. J Am Plann Assoc 84(2):162–177CrossRef
Agarwal B (2001) Environmental action, gender equity and women’s participation. Dev Chang 28:1–39CrossRef
Alawadi K, Dooling S (2015) Challenges and opportunities for participatory planning approaches within Dubai’s urban context. J Urban 9(3):276–301
Backstrand K, Khan J, Kronsell A (2010) Environmental politics and deliberative democracy: Examining the promise of new modes of governance. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamCrossRef
Baker SE, Edwards R (2012) How many qualitative interviews is enough? Expert voices and early career reflections on sampling and cases in qualitative research. National Centre for Research Methods
Bochner AP, Riggs NA (2014) Practicing narrative inquiry. In: Leavy P (ed) The oxford handbook of qualitative methods. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 195–222
Brinkmann S (2014) Unstructured and Semi-structured interviewing. In: Leavy P (ed) The oxford handbook of qualitative methods. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 277–297
Brown G, Kyttä M (2014) Key issues and research priorities for public participation GIS (PPGIS): a synthesis based on empirical research. Appl Geogr 46:122–136CrossRef
Brown G, Kyttä M (2018) Key issues and priorities in participatory mapping: Toward integration or increased specialization? Appl Geogr 95:1–8CrossRef
Bulkeley H, Mol APJ (2003) Participation and environmental governance: consensus. Ambivalence Debate Environ Values 12(2):143–154CrossRef
Chambers R (2006) Participatory mapping and geographic information systems: whose map? Who is empowered and who disempowered? Who gains and who loses? Electron J Inf Syst Dev Ctries 25:1–11CrossRef
Chouinart JA, Cousins JB (2015) The journey from rhetoric to reality: participatory evaluation in a development context. Educ Assess Eval Account 27:5–39CrossRef
Cinderby S, Snell C, Forrester J (2008) Participatory GIS and its application in governance: the example of air quality and the implications for noise pollution. Local Environ 13(4):309–320CrossRef
Cleave E, Arku G, Sadler R, Gilliland J (2016) Is it sound policy or fast policy? Practitioners’ perspectives on the role of place branding in local economic development. Urban Geogr 38(8):1133–1157CrossRef
Cooke B, Kothari U (2001) Participation: the New Tyrrany? Zed Books
Corbett J, Cochrane L, Gil M (2016) Powering up: revisiting participatory GIS and empowerment. Cartogr J 53(4):1–6CrossRef
Cornwall A (2008) Unpacking ‘participation’: models, meanings and practices. Commun Dev J 43(3):269–283CrossRef
D’Ignazio C, Klein LF (2016) Feminist data visualization. In: Workshop on visualization for the digital humanities (VIS4DH), Baltimore. IEEE
D’Iorio M, Selbie H, Wahle C, Gass J (2015) The pacific regional ocean uses atlas. OCS Study BOEM 2015–2014. Monterey, CA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
DeSouza R, Clarke J (2018) Advancing coastal climate resilience: inclusive data and decision-making for small island communities. In: Zommers Z, Alverson K (eds) Resilience: the science of adaptation to climate change. Elsevier, New York, pp 143–150CrossRef
Döringer S (2020) ‘The problem-centred expert interview’. Combining qualitative interviewing approaches for investigating implicit expert knowledge. Int J Soc Res Methodol 24(3):265–278CrossRef
Dryzek JS (2005) The politics of the earth: Environmental discourses. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Dunn CE (2007) Participatory GIS—a people’s GIS? Prog Hum Geogr 31(5):616–637CrossRef
Elwood S (2006a) Negotiating knowledge production: the everyday inclusions, exclusions, and contradictions of participatory GIS research. Prof Geogr 58(2):197–208CrossRef
Elwood S (2006b) Critical issues in participatory GIS: desconstructions, reconstructions, and new research directions. Trans GIS 10(5):693–708CrossRef
Elwood S (2009) Public participation GIS. In: Kitchen R, Thrift N (eds) International encyclopedia of human geography. Elsevier, New York, pp 520–525CrossRef
Fairclough N (1995) Critical discourse analysis. Longman, London
Frey L, Botan C, Kreps G (1999) Investigating communication: an introduction to research methods, 2nd edn. Allyn & Bacon, Boston
Galvin R (2015) How many interviews are enough? Do qualitative interviews in building energy consumption research produce reliable knowledge? J Build Eng 1:2–12CrossRef
Geczi E (2007) Sustainability and public participation: toward an inclusive model of democracy. Admin Theory Pract 29(3):375–393
Goodchild MF (2010) Geographic information systems. In: Gomez B, Jones JP (eds) Research methods in geography. Wiley-Blackwell, New York, pp 376–391
Grossardt T, Bailey K, Brumm J (2003) Structured public involvement: problems and prospects for improvement. Transp Res Rec 1858(1):59–102CrossRef
Harris T, Weiner D (1998) Empowerment, marginalization and community- integrated GIS. Cartogr Geogr Inf Syst 25(2):67–76
Healy S (2003) Public Participation as the performance of nature. Sociol Rev 51(2_suppl):94–108CrossRef
Iyer R (2003) Water: perspectives, issues, concerns. Sage Publications, New DelhiCrossRef
Jordan G, Shrestha B (2000) A participatory GIS for community forestry user groups in Nepal: putting people before the technology. Particip Learn Action PLA Notes 39:14–18
Kamols N, Foth M, Guaralda M (2021) Beyond engagement theater: changing institutional constraints of participatory planning practice. Aust Plan 57(1):23–35CrossRef
Kapoor I (2001) Towards participatory environmental management? J Environ Manag 63:269–279CrossRef
Kar B, Sieber R, Haklay M, Ghose R (2016) Public participation GIS and participatory GIS in the era of GeoWeb. Cartogr J 53(4):296–299CrossRef
Kedzior SB (2017) “Preemptive participation” and environmental awareness across Indian water quality policy. J Environ Dev 26(3):272–296CrossRef
King BH (2002) Towards a participatory GIS: evaluating case studies of participatory rural appraisal and GIS in the developing world. Cartogr Geogr Inf Sci 29(1):43–52CrossRef
Kingston R, Carver A, Evans I, Turton I (2000) Web-based public participation geographical information systems: an aid to local environmental decision-making. Comput Environ Urban Syst 24:109–125CrossRef
Kwan M (2002) Feminist visualization: re-envisioning GIS as a method in feminist geographic research. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 92(4):645–661CrossRef
Kwan M, Ding G (2008) Geo-narrative: extending geographic information systems for narrative analysis in qualitative and mixed-method research. Prof Geogr 60(4):443–465CrossRef
Kyem P (2001) Power, participation, and inflexible institutions: an examination of the challenges to community empowerment in participatory GIS applications. Cartogr Int J Geogr Inf Geovis 38:5–17
Levine AS, Feinholz CL (2015) Participatory GIS to inform coral reef ecosystem management: mapping human coastal and ocean uses in Hawaii. Appl Geogr 59:60–69CrossRef
Livengood A, Kunte K (2012) Enabling participatory planning with GIS: a case study of settlement mapping in Cuttack. India Environ Urban 24(1):77–97CrossRef
Lu H, Ho H (2020) Exploring the impact of gamification on users’ engagement for sustainable development: a case study in brand applications. Sustain MDPI 12(10):1–19
MacEachren AM (2000) Cartography and GIS: facilitating collaboration. Prog Hum Geogr 24(3):445–456CrossRef
Mahmoudi D (2020) Critical geographic information systems. In: Kobayashi A (ed) International encyclopedia of human geography, vol 3, 2nd edn. Elsevier, New York, pp 31–36
Marcus B, Weigelt O, Hergert J, Gurt J, Gelléri P (2016) The use of snowball sampling for multi-source organizational research: Some cause for concern. Pers Psychol 70(3):635–673CrossRef
McCall MK, Minang PA (2005) Assessing participatory GIS for community-based natural resource management: claiming community forests in Cameroon. Geogr J 171(4):340–356CrossRef
McLafferty S (2005) Women and GIS: geospatial technologies and feminist geographies. Cartographica 40(4):37–45CrossRef
Pánek J (2011) Participatory and public GIS: a phenomenon of neocartography with a high potential in developing countries? In: The scale of globalization: think globally, act locally, change individually in the 21st century [conference proceedings]. University of Ottowa, pp 235–243
Phillips R, Johns J (2014) Fieldwork for human geography. Sage, London
Radil SM, Anderson MB (2018) Rethinking PGIS: participatory or (post)political GIS? Prog Hum Geogr 43(2):195–213CrossRef
Rambaldi G, Chambers R, McCall M, Fox J (2006) Practical ethics for PGIS practitioners, facilitators, technology intermediaries and researchers. Participatory learning and action, pp 106–113
Robbins P (2003) Beyond ground truth: GIS and the environmental knowledge of herders, professional foresters, and other traditional communities. Hum Ecol 31(2):233–253CrossRef
Robinson JA, Block D, Rees A (2016) Community geography: addressing barriers in public participation GIS. Cartogr J 54(1):5–13CrossRef
Sayer RA (1992) Method in social science: a realist approach. Psychology Press, London
Schroeder RA (1999) Shady practices. University of California Press, California
Schuurman N, Pratt G (2002) Care of the subject: feminism and critiques of GIS. Gend Place Cult A J Fem Geogr 9(3):291–299CrossRef
Secor AJ (2010) Social surveys, interviews, and focus groups. In: Gomez B, Jones JP (eds) Research methods in geography. Wiley-Blackwell, New York, pp 194–204
Shannon J, Hankins HB, Shelton T, Bosse AJ, Scott D, Block D, Fischer H, Eaves LE, Jung J, Robinson J, Solís P, Pearsall H, Rees A, Nicolas A (2021) Community geography: toward a disciplinary framework. Prog Hum Geogr 45(5):1147–1168CrossRef
Sheppard E (2001) Knowledge production through critical GIS: genealogy and prospects. Cartographica 40(4):5–21CrossRef
Sieber, R.E. and Haklay, M. (2015). The epistemology(s) of volunteered geographic information: a critique. Geo: Geography and Environment, 2(2): 122–136.
Sultana F (2009) Community and participation in water resources management: gendering and naturing development debates from Bangladesh. Trans IBG 34:346–363
Tandon R, Mohanty R (2003) Does civil society matter? Governance in contemporary India. Sage, New Delhi
Tripathi N, Bhattarya S (2004) Integrating indigenous knowledge and GIS for participatory natural resource management: state-of-the-practice. Electron J Inf Syst Dev Ctries 17(1):1–13CrossRef
Valentine G (2005) Geography and Ethics: moral geographies? Ethical commitment in research and teaching. Prog Hum Geogr 29(4):483–487CrossRef
Warren S, Harris T, Goodchild M, Solís P (2019) Commentaries on “evaluating the geographic in GIS.” Geogr Rev 109(3):308–320CrossRef
White I, Kingston R, Barker A (2010) Participatory geographic information systems and public engagement within flood risk management. J Flood Risk Manag 3:337–346CrossRef
Williams C, Dunn CE (2003) GIS in participatory research: assessing the impact of landmines on communities in North-west Cambodia. Trans GIS 7(3):393–410CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Operationalizing participation: experiences and perspectives of participatory GIS program coordinators
Authors
Katherine Iles
Sya Buryn Kedzior
Publication date
17-06-2023
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Journal of Geographical Systems / Issue 4/2023
Print ISSN: 1435-5930
Electronic ISSN: 1435-5949
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10109-023-00416-x

Other articles of this Issue 4/2023

Journal of Geographical Systems 4/2023 Go to the issue

Original Article

Activity triangles: a new approach to measure activity spaces

Original Article

Correcting for informative sampling in spatial covariance estimation and kriging predictions

Original Article

Introducing a spatially explicit Gini measure for spatial segregation

Editorial

JGS Editors’ choice article

Original Article

Sensitivity metrics of complex network based on co-occurrence truth table: exemplified by a high-speed rail network

Original Article

An open-source implementation of geographic profiling methods for serial crime analysis

Premium Partner

    Image Credits