Developments in Spatial Data Handling
DOI: 10.1007/3-540-26772-7_3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Local Knowledge Doesn’t Grow on Trees: Community-Integrated Geographic Information Systems and Rural Community Self-Definition

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Publication Types

Select...
4
1
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This marks a trend toward increasing publicly volunteered geographic information, where various forms of geodata are provided voluntarily by individuals (Goodchild 2007). Depending on its instantiation, VGI can be viewed either as an extension of public participation geographic information systems (PPGIS; Sieber 2006), collaborative GIS (Balram and Dragicevic 2006), participatory GIS (Elwood 2006b;Kyem 2004), and Community Integrated GIS (CIGIS; Elmes et al 2004) to laypeople, or as a version of these that is more inclusive by virtue of its emergence among endusers, based on their own particular interests and goals (sometimes called ''GIS/2;'' see Miller 2006). Indeed, some argue that contemporary geographic and spatial practices such as those described above signal neogeography (Jackson 2006;Turner 2006), based on nontraditional GIS techniques that spawn ''geography without geographers'' (Sui 2008, p. 5).…”
Section: Social Computing and Volunteered Geographic Informationmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…This marks a trend toward increasing publicly volunteered geographic information, where various forms of geodata are provided voluntarily by individuals (Goodchild 2007). Depending on its instantiation, VGI can be viewed either as an extension of public participation geographic information systems (PPGIS; Sieber 2006), collaborative GIS (Balram and Dragicevic 2006), participatory GIS (Elwood 2006b;Kyem 2004), and Community Integrated GIS (CIGIS; Elmes et al 2004) to laypeople, or as a version of these that is more inclusive by virtue of its emergence among endusers, based on their own particular interests and goals (sometimes called ''GIS/2;'' see Miller 2006). Indeed, some argue that contemporary geographic and spatial practices such as those described above signal neogeography (Jackson 2006;Turner 2006), based on nontraditional GIS techniques that spawn ''geography without geographers'' (Sui 2008, p. 5).…”
Section: Social Computing and Volunteered Geographic Informationmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Far less attention has been given to the question of how local government spatial data might be more accessible and useful for these institutions. Consequently, after a decade of PPGIS research and practise, there is still abundant evidence that spatial data access and appropriateness continue to be a problem for grassroots groups (Elmes et al 2004, Elwood 2006b, Ghose 2007. To more fully understand these continuing challenges, it is important to also consider research that has examined the socio-political and technological practices of existing structures for distributed data access, such as SDIs, data clearinghouses, and geoportals.…”
Section: Geospatial Data Challenges At the Grassroots: Propositions Fmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Or, these groups may need attributes that are not available from existing public sources (Ghose and Huxhold 2002, Elwood and Leitner 2003, Warren 2004). Local government data may fail to represent the perceptions and priorities of grassroots groups, articulate spatial attributes in vocabularies unfamiliar to these users, or rely on semantic systems for describing spatial conditions that differ significantly from those of grassroots groups (Rundstrom 1995, Elmes et al 2004.…”
Section: Geospatial Data Challenges At the Grassroots: Propositions Fmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Environmental planning requires the integration and synthesis of scattered information from numerous sources and coupling of this information for problem solving and decision-making (Fedra, 1993;Elmes et al, 2004). The emphasis is on increasing the use of local geospatial knowledge through local stakeholders' participation (Steinmann et al, 2006).…”
Section: Participation In Environmental Planningmentioning
confidence: 99%