PPGIS Methodologies

Geography 600 – Methods in Geography

Jordan Miller

Blog 1

Public Participation GIS Methods in Geographic Research

As geographic technologies have advanced rapidly over the last two decades, a new method of data collection involving public participation has emerged within the discipline.  According to Renee Sieber, “public participation geographic information systems (PPGIS) pertains to the use of geographic information systems (GIS) to broaden public involvement in policymaking as well as to the value of GIS to promote the goals of nongovernmental organizations, grassroots groups, and community-based organizations” (Sieber 491). The term PPGIS was established in 1996 through meetings at the National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (NCGIA) as a result of the struggle to frame the future of GIS that would ground technological advancements in social and political contexts (Sieber 492).  Since then, PPGIS has been applied as a primary research method for endeavors that span diverse arenas and institutions.  The following investigates the various ways in which PPGIS has been utilized in geographic research.

Steve Cinderby’s research aims to describe the development of PPGIS methodology through inclusive urban design and urban regeneration in UK cities (Cinderby 239).  Cinderby’s project “developed Participatory [GIS] techniques to rapidly assess and integrate local concerns, knowledge and design ideas into the urban development process” and attempted to include ‘hard-to-reach’ groups in the policy and design process (239-240).   

To do this, Cinderby engaged in three different case studies that took advantage of local on-street events in which ‘hard-to-reach’ residents could conveniently participate by giving a short amount of their time to answer questions from the research team.  The first study was undertaken during a community fun-day event that allowed citizens from a “low-income community to communicate their local knowledge and preferences for the proposed walking route to the research team” (Cinderby 241).  A pension payment day was chosen for the second case study to encourage participation from the elderly while also attracting children and teenagers returning from school (Cinderby 241).  The final case study “specifically requested engagement with young people and those with mobility issues,” and was conducted on different days and time slots to “maximize potential involvement of these interest groups” (Cinderby 241). 

Cinderby postulates that the on-street approach has three particular advantages for encouraging involvement from groups who often fail to participate in established engagement procedures (Cinderby 241).  He notes convenience (e.g. no special arrangements by the participants required), low time commitment, and the benefits of one-on-one conversation between participants and facilitators (participants do not have to justify their opinions, unlike a public meeting). 

During these case studies several approaches to on-street mapping were attempted (Cinderby 243).  The facilitators utilized flags and stickers to spatially locate participant responses during the first and second case study.  In the third case study, “each individual was given an A3-sized base map of air photograph imagery” to assess their comments and annotations for “options to regenerate a local shopping precinct” and “improving transport links and sustainable transport infrastructure in the local area” (Cinderby 245). 

            Enrico Bernard, Luis Barbosa, and Raquel Carvalho applied participatory GIS “to gain information on how human populations are living and using natural resources in the Maués State Forest, an SUR [sustainable use reserve] in Brazilian Amazonia” (Bernard et. al. 564).   Collecting data in these protected regions “is often compromised by under-funded environmental agencies, by a lack of qualified human resources or, still, by an unawareness of accessible, quick, simple and inexpensive geographical methodologies” (Bernard et. al. 565).  In 2003, an NGO named Conservation International “developed a protocol to be adopted in candidate areas to be designed as sustainable use reserves” in Brazil’s Amazon rain forest (Bernard et. al. 565).  This procedure utilized PPGIS to acquire information about the residents and their surrounding environment. 

The data that was acquired was based on the “participation of local residents, users and managers” that “were introduced to a combination of low-cost and short-duration basic mapping and cartography techniques” (Bernard et. al. 565).  Between 2003 and 2006, visits were scheduled with 15 communities in Maués State Forest.  The process of data collection began with basic cartography instruction, and was followed by residents to locate features and reference points familiar to them.   The participants were then given an explanation of PPGIS methodologies, and then, using “a color-coded system, asked to identify and locate houses (yellow), agricultural production areas (orange), hunting (red), fishing (deep blue), natural resource use (green) and areas used for animal raising (light blue), i.e., stables, poultry yards and pigpens, even if they were located in the houses’ backyards” on color satellite images (Bernard et. al. 566).  Semi-structured interviews were then conducted to ascertain additional information of each of the identified points. 

In their article, Greg Brown and Delene Weber evaluate PPGIS methods with regards to national park planning.  In their research, “visitor perceptions of park experiences, environmental impacts, and facility needs were collected via an internet-based mapping method for input into a national park planning decision support system” (Brown & Weber 1).  Brown and Weber implemented a PPGIS framework in their methodology because they contend that national parks should be managed for both visitor enjoyment and environmental protection and preservation (Brown & Weber 1). 

Prior to the survey, consultations from national park staff members and current literature established “park experience and environmental impact variables for investigation” (Brown & Weber 3).  The researchers then recruited participants on-site at national parks and by advertising the web site (Brown & Weber 3).  These participants were asked to complete an online survey that “consisted of two components:  (a) a spatial mapping component and (b) 10 questions documenting respondent demographics (Brown & Weber 3).  Participants were then prompted to read background information and give consent to participate, followed by an optional demonstration of PPGIS methods.

For survey respondents to enter data, “they would click on a map tile representing a park section they had visited and then select and drag different park experience and environmental impact markers to the relevant location on the map,” with “each person provided a total of six markers for each of the 18 variables” (Brown & Weber 4-5).  Respondents had the option to annotate their markers with text, and were subsequently offered copies of the results, of which were made available to all interested users via the Internet (Brown & Weber 5). 

Bugs, Granell, Fonts, Huerta, and Painho assessed the use of PPGIS and Web 2.0 technologies in urban planning practices.  The authors note the frequent complications that arise with public participation for urban planning decisions, and offer that PPGIS capabilities and mapping services found in Web 2.0 tools can circumvent these issues.  By using a Web 2.0 PPGIS prototype, users were allowed “to explore urban planning information with the eligible geospatial layers and satellite imagery” (Bugs et. al. 176).  Users can navigate through layers to identify specific criteria (e.g. educational layer pinpoints all educational places on the map), with icons providing information about specific locales.  A commenting tool “allows users to enter their opinion by selecting an icon whose color identifies a planning topic and placing it on the map” and is georeferenced from eligible geospatial layers (Bugs et. al. 176).  Users can also navigate through and inspect comments from other participants.

The authors contend that “PPGIS and Web 2.0 technologies help to develop alternative ways for public participation, engage more people, and encourage open communication between citizens and decision makers” (Bugs et. al. 180).  They found that their Web 2.0 PPGIS prototype was user-friendly, communicative, and that it supports participatory urban planning (Bugs et. al. 180).

Ana Simao, Paul Densham, and Mordechai Haklay investigate the use of web-based GIS in collaborative planning as it is applied to the strategic planning of wind farm sites.  Spatial planning is complex, and the planner often is not fully aware of the range of factors and stakeholders involved (Simao et. al. 2027).

After selecting a study area, “the conceptual framework was implemented to enable stakeholders (experts and the public) to collaborate in sub-regional strategic planning of wind farm locations” of which “was called WePWEP – Web-based Participatory Wind Energy Planning” (Simao et. al. 2030).  The system consists of three tiers – (a) information area, (b) MC-SDSS, and (c) an argumentation map.  The information area consists of survey logistics, registration, and actual information related to the topic (Simao et. al. 2031).  The second tier, MC-SDSS, allows users to spatially “explore the problem of wind farm siting and express their views where wind farms can, should and should not be located” (Simao et. al. 2031).  The argumentation map’s aim is to provide feedback to users and to initiate dialogue between them regarding the citing of wind farms (Simao et. al. 2034). 

Sieber notes that “PPGIS provides a unique approach for engaging the public in decision making through its goal to incorporate local knowledge, integrate and contextualize complex spatial information, allow participants to dynamically interact with input, analyze alternatives, and empower individuals and groups” (Sieber 503).  As these five articles have shown, PPGIS can be used in a variety of ways across diverse approaches to geographic research.  Cinderby’s research was concerned with case studies that employed face-to-face interaction between facilitators and participants to spatially locate areas of concern within the community.  Bernard et. al. utilized a similar method, but incorporated tutorials about the methods of PPGIS followed by semi-structured qualitative interviews.  Brown and Weber implemented a user-friendly, online program to gain public input of areas of concern within national parks.  Bugs et. al. and Simao et. al. both assessed and described the role of new web technologies that can aid in participatory planning decisions, enabling all collaborative stakeholders to participate. 

References

Bernard, Enrico, Luis Barbosa, and Raquel Carvalho. "Participatory GIS in a    Sustainable Use Reserve in Brazilian Amazonia: Implications for Management and Conservation." Applied Geography 31 (2011): 564-72.

Brown, Greg, and Delene Weber. "Public Participation GIS: A New Method for National Park Planning." Landscape and Urban Planning 102 (2011): 1-15.

Bugs, Geisa, Carlos Granell, Oscar Fonts, Joaquin Huerta, and Marco Painho. "An Assessment of Public Participation GIS and Web 2.0 Technologies in Urban Planning Practice in Canela, Brazil." Cities 27 (2010): 172-81.

Cinderby, Steve. "How to Reach the ‘hard-to-reach’: The Development of Participatory Geographic Information Systems (P-GIS) for Inclusive Urban Design in UK Cities." Royal Geographical Society 42.2 (2010): 239-51.

Parker, Brenda. "Constructing Community Through Maps? Power and Praxis in Community Mapping." The Professional Geographer 58.4 (2006): 470-84.

Sieber, Renee. "Public Participation Geographic Information Systems: A Literature Review and Framework." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 96.3 (2006): 491-507.

Simao, Ana, Paul J. Densham, and Mordechai Haklay. "Web-based GIS for Collaborative Planning and Public Participation: An Application to the Strategic Planning of Wind Farm Sites." Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009): 2027-040.