No abstract

Public Participatory GIS (PPGIS) is a very broad field, and because of the direct outgrowth addressing questions raised regarding inequitable access to GIS and its societal impacts, PPGIS has become an exhaustive research area. Over the past two decades, several PPGIS initiatives have taken place in the western and non-western world. Several avenues have opened up, but nonetheless, questions regarding the effectiveness of such initiatives remain to be answered. Current research addressing the societal and political impacts of GIS have witnessed novel use of the technology and specialized spatial data provision such as volunteered geographic information, neogeography, geoweb, and map 2.0 (Goodchild, 2007; Elwood 2010; Sui 2008) and have received increased attention from GIS scholars (Goodchild 2007;Elwood 2009;Sui 2008). A common thread tying such specialized use of technology is the participation by citizens with little or no GIS training, a long standing objective of the PPGIS area of inquiry. So, as we move into an era that is gravitating rapidly toward more specialized use of technology built on a similar foundation, it seems timely to ref lect on the effectiveness and sustainability of PPGIS initiatives. This article reviews the history of PPGIS, its genesis, and some of the critical work within the PPGIS research arena. Finally, the paper ref lects on where PPGIS stands today.

No abstract

No abstract

Participatory GIS projects are increasingly popular in urban governance. This paper explores the complexities of a community involved pilot project that was implemented in the town of Verona, Wisconsin and critically examines their GIS (Geographic Information Systems) practices and the support structures that played an important role in facilitating GIS use. The paper first traces the evolution of the project, and the role of the various actors in shaping it and then shows that relations between key institutions and actors played a crucial role in shaping the pilot project. While inherently supportive, these actors occupied a dominant power position, setting a top down tone to the project from its onset. As such, the project simultaneously enhanced and constricted the process of participation and spatial knowledge production of the community residents.