Public Participation GIS and Participatory GIS in the Era of GeoWeb – editorial for a special issue

As part of the AAG 2015 conference, Bandana Kar, Rina Ghose, Renee Sieber and I organised a set of sessions on Public Participation GIS – you can read the summary here. After the conference, we’ve organised a special issue of the Cartographic Journal (thanks to Alex Kent, the journal editor) dedicated to current perspectives of public participation GIS (PPGIS) and participatory GIS (PGIS).

The process of organising a special issue is quite involved – not all the papers that start the journey managed to finish, and even at the last point, 2 papers that are part of the special issue will appear in the next issue of the journal due to physical limitations and the number of pages that appear in each issue!

Working with an editorial group across the US, Canada, and the UK was also a challenge, especially as we were all busy, as usual. Bandana Kar kept us going and because of her continued efforts and encouragement, the special issue was evolving. So it’s only right that she is the lead author of the editorial piece. Our editorial points to the evolution of PPGIS and the need to understand how it is shaped up in the era of web-based mapping and rapid increase in the use of mobile technologies. The papers in the special issue (you can find them here) are addressing this evolving landscape and are all worth reading. We finish our editorial with the following statement:

‘In this sea of changing tools and technologies it appears that P/PGIS may be competing with other approaches and terminologies. At its core many of the new projects remain mission-driven, are led by local residents, and requires generation of data and knowledge to resolve a specific problem. The data generated through platforms old and new still suffer from lack of interoperability and data quality issues. Analytics may have been improved since the days of the command-line but still require considerable expertise; moreover, evidence-based policy, especially from the non-credentialled, must have entree into politics. Moving forward, researchers and practitioners should focus on not answering the place of P/PGIS amid new technologies and approaches but instead examine the extent to which new participatory technologies are effective in integrating local, scientific and personal knowledge in resolving political decisions and societal issues of interest to local communities.’

The paper is available here and if you don’t have access to the journal, email me and I’ll send you a copy.


AAG 2015 notes – day 4 – Citizen Science & OpenStreetMap Studies

The last day of AAG 2015 is about citizen science and OpenStreetMap studies.

The session Beyond motivation? Understanding enthusiasm in citizen science and volunteered geographic information was organised together with Hilary Geoghegan. We were interest to ‘explore and debate current research and practice moving beyond motivation, to consider the associated enthusiasm, materials and meanings of participating in citizen science and VGI.’

As Hilary couldn’t attend the conference, we started the session with a discussion about experiences of enthusiasm – for example, my own experience with IBM World Community Grid.  Jeroen Verplanke raised the addiction in volunteer thinking projects, such as logging in to Zooniverse or Tomnod project, and time fly-by. Mairead de Roiste described mapping wood-pigeon in New Zealand – public got involved because they wanted to help, but when they hear that the data wasn’t use, they might lose interest. Urgency can also be a form influencing participation.

Britta Ricker – University of Washington Tacoma – Look what I can do! Harnessing drone enthusiasm for increased motivation to participate. On-going research. Looking at the Geoweb – it allow people to access information, and made imagery available to the public, and the data is at the whim of whoever give us the data. With drones, we can send them up when we want or need to. Citizen Science is deeply related to geoweb – challenge is to get people involve and make them stay involved. We can harness drone enthusiasm – they evoke negative connotation but also thinking about them for good – humanitarian applications. Evidence for the enthusiasm is provided by YouTube where there are plenty of drone video – 3.44M – lots of action photography: surfing community and GoPro development. People are attached to the drone – jumping to the water to save them. So how the enthusiasm to drones can be harnessed to help participatory mapping. We need to design a workflow around stages: pre-flight, flight, post processing. She partnered with water scientists to explore local issues. There are considerations of costs and popularity – and selected quadcopter for that. DJI Phantom Vision 2+. With drones need to read the manual and plan the flight. There are legal issues of where it is OK to fly, and Esri & MapBox provide information on where you can fly them. Need to think of camera angle – need also to correct fisheye, and then process the images. Stitch imagery can be done manually (MapKnitter/QGIS/ArcGIS). Possible to do it in automated software, but open source (e.g. OpenDroneMap) is not yet good enough in terms of ease of use. Software such as Pix4D is useful but expensive. Working with raster data is difficult, drones require practice, and software/hardware is epensive – not yet ready to everyone. NGOs can start using it. Idea: sharing photos , classifying images together by volunteers.

Brittany Davis – Allegheny College – Motivated to Kill: Lionfish Derbies, Scuba Divers, and Citizen Science. Lionfish are stunning under water – challenging to differentiate between the two sub species but it doesn’t matter if you’re trying to catch them. They are invasive species and are without predators, exploded – especially from 2010. There is a lot of informational campaign and encouraging people to hunt them, especially in dive centres – telling people that it is a way to save a Caribbean reefs. When people transform themselves from ‘benign environmental activity’ to ‘you tell me that I can hunt? cool!’. Lionfish is tasty so having the meat for dinner is a motivation. Then doing ‘lionfish derbies’ – how many can you kill in a day. Seen a lot of enthusiasm for lionfish derbies. Trying to sign up people to where they go but they are not recording where they hunt the lionfish. People go to another site for competition as they want to capture more. REEF trying to encourage a protocol for capturing them, and there are cash prizes for the hunting. They use the catch to encourage people to hunt lionfish. Derbies increase in size – 14832 were removed from 2009 to 2014 and some evidence for the success of the methodology. There was a pressure on ‘safely and humanely capture and euthanase these fish’ – challenge for PADI who run special scuba courses that are linked to conservation. People hear about the hunting and that motivate people to go diving. There is a very specific process of REEF sanctioned lionfish derby, so trying to include recording and public information. But there are challenges below the depth of recreational divers. She also explored if it is possible to improve data collection for scientists.

Cheryl Gilge – University of Washington – The rhetorical flourish of citizen participation (or, the formation of cultural fascism?) offered a theoretical analysis of citizen science and web 2.0 as part of a wider project to understand labour relationships and power. She argues that there is agency to the average citizen to link to their environment. They have the ability to contribute, and to receive information is part of Web 2.0. As a technology layer, it changes both the individual and society levels. The collaboration and participation in Web 2.0 is framed around entrepreneurialism, efficiencies, and innovation. The web is offering many opportunities to help wider projects, where amateur and expert knowledge are both valued. However, there is a risk of reducing the politics of participation – semblance of agency. Democratic potential – but also co-opting the spirit is in evidence. There is plenty of examples of inducing individuals to contribute data and information, researchers are eager to understand motivation over a long period. Rational system to explain what is going on can’t explain the competing goals and values that are in action. The desire to participation is spread – fun, boredom etc. From understanding people as ‘snowflakes’ to unashamed exploitation. Why do people contribute to the wider agenda? As provocation, harnessing crowd potential to neoliberalisation agenda of universities. We give freedom to the efficiency and promise of digital tools. Government promise ‘open government’ or ‘smart cities’ that put efficiency as the top value. Deep libertarian desire for small government is expressed through technology. The government have sensors that reduce cost of monitoring what is happening. In the academic environment – reduce funding, hiring freeze, increase in pressure to publish – an assumption that it is possible to mechanically produce top research. Trading in ideas are less valued. Desire for capacity of information processing, or dealing with humanitarian efforts – projects like Galaxy Zoo require more people to analyse the masses of data that research produces, or mapathons to deal with emergencies. Participants are induced to do more through commitment to the project and harnessing enthusiasm. Adding inducement to the participants. She introduce the concept of micro-fascism from Guattari  – taking over freedoms in the hope of future promises. It enable large group formation to happen – e.g. identities such as I’m Mac/PC – it is harder to disconnect. Fascism can be defined as an ideology that rely on the masses in believing in the larger goals, the unquestioned authority of data in Web 2.0. Belief in technology induce researchers to get data and participation regardless of the costs. Open source is presented as democracy, but there are also similarities with fascism. Participation in the movement and participants must continue to perform. It bring uncomfortable participation – putting hope on these activities, but also happens in top down and bottom up, and Web 2.0. What is the ethical role of researchers who are involved in these projects? How do we value this labour? Need to admit that it is a political.

In a final comment, Teresa Scassa pointed that we need to consider the implication of legitimising drones, killing fish or employing unpaid labour – underlying all is a moral discomfort.

Afternoon, the two sessions on OpenStreetMap that Alan McConchie and I organised, taking the 10th birthday of OSM as a starting point, this session will survey the state of geographical research on OpenStreetMap and recognising that OSM studies are different from VGI. The session is supported by the European COST Energic (COST Action IC1203) network: European Network Exploring Research into Geospatial Information Crowdsourcing.

OpenStreetMap Studies 1 

Jennings Anderson, Robert Soden, Mikel Maron, Marina Kogan & Ken Anderson – University of Colorado, Boulder – The Social Life of OpenStreetMap: What Can We Know from the Data? New Tools and Approaches. OSM provides a platform to understand human centred computing. The is very valuable information in OSM history file, and they built a framework (EPIC OSM) that can run spatial and temporal queries and produces JSON output that can be then analysed. They are use existing tools and software frameworks to deliver it. The framework was demonstrated: can ask questions by day, or by month and even bin them by week and other ways. Running such questions which are evaluated by Ruby, so easy to add more questions and change them. They already use the framework in a paper in CHI about the Haiti earthquake (see video below).  Once they’ve created the underlying framework, they also developed an interface – OSM Markdown – can embed code and see changesets, accumulative nodes collected and classification by type of user. They are also providing information with tags. When analysing Haiti response, they see spike in noted added and what they see in buildings – the tags of collapse=yes

Christian Bittner – Diverse crowds, diverse VGI? Comparing OSM and Wikimapia in JerusalemChristian looked at differences in Wikimapia and OSM as sources of VGI. Especially interested in the social implications such as the way exclusion plays in VGI – challenges between Palestine/Israel – too contradicting stories that play out in a contested space, and there are conflict and fights over narratives that the two sides enact in different areas. With new tools, there is a ‘promise’ of democratisation – so a narrative of collaboration and participation. In crowdsourced geographic information we can ask: who is the crowd, and who is not? Studying social bias in OSM is a topic that is being discussed in the literature. The process is to look at the database of OSM. Analysing the data and metadata and used the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem. Simplified representation of the city, and region are classified by majority – Arab or Jewish. Then used cartograpms according to size of population and the amount of information collected.In OSM, Jewish areas are over-represented, while Arab areas are under-represented. Bias toward male from privileged socio-economic background as participants. In Wikimapia, the process is tagging places and uses visual information from Google. Wikimapia is about qualitative information so objects are messy and overlap, with no definitions of what consist of a place. In Wikimapia, there is much more descriptions of the Arab areas which are over-represented. The amount of information in Wikimpaia is smaller – 2679 objects, compared to 33,411 ways in OSM. In OSM there is little Arabic, and more Hebrew, though Latin is the most used language. Wikimapia is the other way around, with Hebrew in the minority. The crowd is different between projects. There are wider implications – diverse crowd so diverse VGI? VGI is diverse form of data, and they are produced in different ways from different knowledge cultures. He call for very specific studies on each community before claiming that VGI is general form of information.

Tim Elrick  & Georg Glasze – University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany –  A changing mapping practices? Representation of Places of Worship in OpenStreetMap and other sourcesThe start of the process is noticing that churches are presented on official maps, but not a masques, noticing how maps are used to produce specific narratives. What happen in new forms of mapping? In Google Maps, the masque is presented, but not the church, in OSM both are mapped. What is happening? In the old topographic maps, the official NMAs argue that it provides a precise representation – but failing to do so in terms of religious differences. Some state do not include non-Christian places of worship – the federal mapping agency came with symbols for such places (masques, synagogues) but the preference from the states NMAs was for a generic mark for all non-Christian places that do not differentiate between religions. USGS just have single mark for house of worship – with cross. The USGS suggested to carry out crowdsourcing to identify places of worship so they are willing to change. In OSM there are free tagging and marks for religion, but the rendering dictate only some tags. In 2007 there was suggestion to change rendering of non-Christian places. Once Steve Chilton created cartographic symbols for the change. OSM do-ocracy can lead to change, but in other places that use OSM this was not accepted – there are different symbols in OpenCycleMaps. In Germany, there are conflicts about non visible places of worship (e.g. Masque in social club). Adaptive approach to dealing with location in OSM. In Google there is a whole set of data sources that are used, but also crowdsourcing which go to moderators in Google – no accountability or local knolwedge. Places of worship is not transparent. Categorisation and presentation change with new actors – corporate and open data. Google use economy of attention.

Alan McConchie – University of British Columbia – Map Gardening in Practice: Tracing Patterns of Growth and Maintenance in OpenStreetMap. Looking at history of OSM. Editing existing features is an important as adding new ones – having to collaborate and dealing with other people data. In the US, OSM is a mixed of volunteer and imported data – it’s ongoing aspect of the project. Questions: do the ‘explorers’ stick around? the people who like empty spaces . Do imports hinder the growth of the community? and does activity shift to ‘gardening’? The TIGER import in 2007 have been significant to the growth of the project. There are also many other imports – address in Denmark, French land cover, incomplete land cover imports in Canada. There was community backlash from people who were concerned about the impact of imports (e.g. Crowe 2011; Fredrik Ramm, 2012, Tobias Knerr, 2015). The debate is also between different regional factions. There is an assumption that only empty areas are exciting. That is problematic in terms of someone joining now in Germany. New best practices that are evolving Imports in Seattle were used to encourage the community and build it. Zielstra et al. 2013 explored imports show different growths, but not so simple as just to pin it on imports. Alan takes the ‘Wiki Gardening’ concept – people who like to keep things tidy and well maintained. Analysing small areas. Identifying blank spots, but trying to normalise across city in the world – e.g. population from the gridded population of the world. Exploring edits per month. We see many imports happening all the time. At individual city, explore the behaviour of explorers and those that never mapped the unknown. In London, new mappers are coming in while at Vancouver the original mapper are the one that continue to maintain the map. There is power law effects that trump anything else, and shift to new contributors and it is not clear cut.

Monica G. Stephens – University at Buffalo – Discussant: she started looking at OSM only few years ago, because of a statement from Mike Goodchild that women are not included, so done survey of internet users in Google Maps and OSM. She found that geotagging is much more male – more then just sharing image. In her survey she noticed gender bias in OSM. Maps are biased by the norms, traditions, assumptions and politics of map maker (Harley 1989). Biases – but biases of map maker – bikes in Denver (what interest them), or uneven representation of Hebrew in Jerusalem, or Religious attributes. Also there is how the community makes decision – how to display information? what to import? There are issues of ethos – there are fundamental differences in UK and Germany communities to US mapping communities. This lead to interesting conversations between these communities. There are also comparison, Wikimapia, Google Maps, Topo Maps – the tell us what OSM is doing. OSM democracy is more efficient and responding to communities ideas. The discussions on tagging childcare – rejected but there are discussions that led to remapping of tags in response to the critique. Compare to Google Maps, who was creating local knowledge? in Google Maps 96% of reviewers are male (in Google Map Maker 2012), so the question is who is the authority that govern Wikimapia.

OpenStreetMap Studies 2  included the following:

Martin Loidl – Department of Geoinformatics, University of Salzburg – An intrinsic approach for the detection and correction of attributive inconsistencies and semantic heterogeneity in OSM data. Martin come from data modelling perspective, accepting that OSM is based on bottom-up approach, with flat data modelling and attributes, with no restriction on tag usage. There are attributive inconsistencies. Semantics heterogeneity is influencing visualisation, statistics and spatial analysis. Suggesting to improve results by harmonization and correction through estimation. There has been many comparison of OSM quality over the years. There is little work on attribute information. Martin suggested an intrinsic approach that rely on the data in OSM – expecting major roads to be connected and consistent. Showing how you can attributes in completeness. Most of the road in OSM are local roads and  and there is high heterogeneity, but we need them and we should care about them. There are issues with keeping the freedom to tag – it expose the complexity of OSM.

Peter A. Johnson – University of Waterloo Challenges and Constraints to Municipal Government Adoption of OpenStreetMap. The collaboration of MapBox with NYC – agreement on data sharing was his starting point and motivation to explore how we can connect government and citizens to share data. Potentially, OSM community will help with official data, improve it and send it back. Just delivering municipal data over OSM base map is not much – maybe we need to look at mirroring – questions about currency, improvement of our services, and cheaper/easier to get are core questions. Evaluating official data and OSM data. Interview with governments in Canada, with range of sizes – easy in large cities, basic steps in medium and little progress in rural places. No official use of OSM, but do make data available to OSM community, and anecdotal evidence of using it for different jobs unofficially. Not seeing benefits in mirroring data, and they are the authoritative source for information, no other data is relevant. Constraints: not sure that OSM is more accurate and risk averse culture. They question fit with organisation needs, lacking required attributes, and they do see costs in altering existing data. OSM might be relevant to rural and small cities where data is not being updated.

Muki Haklay – University College London COST Energic – A European Network for research of VGI: the role of OSM/VGI/Citizen Science definitionsI’ve used some of the concepts that I first presented in SOTM 2011 in Vienna, and extended them to the general area of citizen science and VGI. Arguing that academics need to be ‘critical friends’, in a nice way, to OSM and other communities. The different talks and Monica points about changes in tagging demonstrate that this approach is effective and helpful.

Discussant: Alan McConchie – University of British Columbia. The later session looked at intrinsic or extrinsic analysis of OSM – such as Martin’s work on internal consistency, there are issues of knowing specific person in the bits of the process who can lead to the change. There is a very tiny group of people that make the decisions, but there is a slow opening towards accountability (e.g. OSM rendering style on Github). There are translation of knowledge and representation that happen in different groups and identifying how to make the information correctly. There is a sense of ‘no one got the right answer’. Industry and NGOs also need to act as critical friends – it will make it a better project. There is also critical GIS conversations – is there ‘fork’ within the OSM studies? We can have conversations about these issues.

Follow up questions explored the privacy of the participants and maybe mentioned it to participants and the community, and also the position as participant or someone who alters the data and as a researcher – the implications of participatory observations.

AAG 2015 notes – day 3 – Civic Technology, Citizen Science, Crowdsourcing and mapping

The sessions today covered Civic technology, citizen science, and the new directions in mapping – Open Source/Crowdsourcing/Big Data

First, Civic technology: governance, equity and inclusion considerations, with Pamela Robinson – Ryerson University (Chair) and Peter A. Johnson – University of Waterloo, Teresa Scassa – University of Ottawa and Jon Corbett – University of British Columbia-Okanagan. The Discussant is Betsy Donald – Queen’s University.

The background of the panel is participatory mapping (Jon), government use of open and geoweb tools (Peter), law (Teresa), urban planning (Pamela), and geography (Betsy) .

First question for the panel: what are the challenges to civic technologiy support government?

Peter – taking technology perspective. Looking at Chicago Open Data site – had a section that doesn’t only deliver CSV that is, actually, specialised knowledge. They have a featured data set – you can download it, or look at it on the map. The ‘problem landlord dataset’ only show points on the map – no information what does it mean or how it came about. The focus is on tech-savvy users that will access open data, and assumption of tech-intermediaries who will use it for civic purposes. If that is the case, shouldn’t it be city staff who use the data and act as infomediaries? Pamela – looked at civic hackathons (see yesterday). City staff are asked to make  a business case for open data and hackathon. It ask to bring business thinking into something that is not about civic engagement (how you monetise that?). It’s a weird tool in terms of the aim of the process which are not financial. There is also pressure to demonstrate an outcome of ‘killer app’ and they are more about bringing people together with tech knowledge and civic minded people. Teresa – open data is equated with free – from regulations, costs, no limitation to use. There are costs associated in making the data free in the first place, and that is a problem in terms of government not giving thought to these costs. Datasets are being opened without due thought to privacy concern. Is open data just a subsidy to companies that use to pay for it? Also free from regulations – part of neoliberalism view of removing all the bureaucracy that is halting the market. But part of it is there with social justice perspective – e.g. requirement about accessibility, language, regulations that are there to protect vulnerable people against abuse. So the concept of free is not simple. Also what happen when the government pass it to the private sector, so they circumvent their own regulations, or the private sector to use the data but without protection. Jon – problematise the question. Relationship of municipal and state. There are examples in Canada that don’t fit the model – e.g. first nation governance. There the data is not that simple. The other issue is the support to government – is the open data movement can be used to resist and challenge government? Renee – the non-profit open north use data to cause problems to the city and demonstrated corruption in government – a very tech-savvy  organisation. Pamela – some forms of collaboration is to get out of the way of community organisations to allow them to do the work. Jon – there can be high level of cynicism on how the data is going to be used. Access to data is not the same as accessibility. There are issues of scale – in large cities there are enough capacity but in smaller cities there is no capacity in government and or civic society to deal with data. Pamela – in Toronto there are urbanists community coming in search of tech support. There are blurred lines between civil servant and civic engagement in free time. Thomas (audience) – in Chicago, people build visualisation at a county budget, also exposing data about closing schools. Also good applications such as streamlining expunging negative records to allow people to develop new career There was also the city lands project – – you can buy a lot for $1, and that can be a burden to people who are involved. Renee – heterogenise the state, not to think about local government as ‘them’ and it is organisation in which people make decisions about opening or resisting opening data. There are plenty decisions that are done at individual level. Also worth looking at prior data acquisition. There are examples of extracting data from the city and relationships before the open data. Betsy – what open government mean? What about digital divides? gender, age, social-economic background. Mike – there is a need to consider Marxist notion of free – it is not free in reality as it just allow people to be consumed into a system with different power relationship. I’ve raised that ‘open government’ is coming from view of ‘government as platform’. Renee – civic tech is a mutating terms over the years. Teresa – open government rhetoric are around transparency and accountability where the agenda is around innovations and market solutions to civic problems.
The second question was: How would we start to evaluate the impact of civic technology? Peter – what metrics will we use? money (time saved, internal and external benefits, eyeballs – evaluating hits). Municipal staff want to measure that they do and are looking to justify their work. Jon – need to evaluate impact and value. Scale, and point of evaluation. Scale of interaction and intervention. Should projects be evaluated by the number of people involved? We usually evaluate during the project lifetime but fail to do longer analysis. need to understand long term impacts – beyond page views. Teresa – which impact – economic? use? engagement? from privacy perspective – when government encourage engagement through Google or Twitter – you are actually giving data to Big Data engines not just the government. There is erosion of public/private distinction in services, leading to erosion of citizen rights and recourse? When transit apps record information, there is plenty of information that leaks to private sector companies who don’t have the same responsibilities and obligations. Pamela – civic for whom? when there are income distribution is so different in cities, and we need to understand digital divide at the city level. Teresa – some of the legal infrastructure to deal with protection and access to information when private sector work so closely with the government. Betsy – there are groups that work in big tech companies, which were curios of geographers and what they do, but no idea of social science. Privacy have been given away. Jon – there are windows of opportunity around edifices of open data, where are we going to end up? Teresa – contracting out to external companies can lead to issues of data ownership and that require managing it at the contracting stage.

Citizen Science and Geoweb, with Renee Sieber (Chair) with talks covering a range of areas – from cartography to bird watching.

Andrea Minano – University of Waterloo – Geoweb Tools for Climate Change Adaptation: A Case Study in Nova Scotia’s South Shore. Her work explores the link between participation and citizen science. In terms climate change adaptation it is about understanding impacts in local context, lack of risk awareness – and it also political issue. The participatory Geoweb can be used to display and share information online. She carried out research in Nova Scotia which rely on fisheries, most people live by the shore. People are aware and they’ve seen climate change in front of them – Municipal Climate Change Action Plan (MCCAP) are being developed. Each of the 5 municipalities that she worked with created plan and they are concerned with flooding. They had 3D LiDAR data and can visualise prediction of floods and return periods, but they didn’t know how to use it and what to do with it. She created two prototypes and tested them. She used satellite images as backdrop, she made LiDAR data usable on the web. AdaptNS allow multiple geographic scales and temporal scales – allow people to show concerns and indicate them on the map. Carried out a workshop of 2 hours with 11 participants. People were concerned about critical infrastructure – single road that might be flooded. The tool help people to understand what climate change mean and adaptation discourse at wider scales.

Jana M Viel – UW-Milwaukee – Habitat Preferences of the Common Nighthawk (Chordeiles minor) in Cities and Villages in Southeastern Wisconsin. Nighthawk is active in dawn and dusk – new tropical migrants, they don’t do much during the day. They nest on the ground or flat gravelled roofed. They experience slow population decline in the last 40 years. Maybe there is lack of roof sustrate – not enough gravelled roofs – volunteers started installing gravelled section on roof with little success. In Wisconsin, they try to understand the decline with data from breeding bird survey , Wisconsin nightjar survey, Wisconsin Breeding Bird Atlas – studies don’t cover urban area and lacking observation in dusk. There is a limitation, that need to do the study in the months when the birds are there. The aim of the research is to help monitoring and improve methodology. The study measured some variables in the field but then used other geographic information for analysis. There was help from both volunteers and organisation – there was special volunteer trianing – easy because it’s one type of bird that people should recognise. Volunteers – reason: love birds, fun, help conservation. Half of the people that participate are retired and most people with education and not for profit. Some volunteers drop out but not too many. People used phones to navigate to survey site. People use point count with paper forms. Information was also recorded on eBird. Results – total 31000 survey hours, with 1412 survey in which 98 nighthawks where detected. Isseus: no data, problems with Google Maps, unfamiliar with technology. The summary – success in carry out baseline survey. Clear research question, clear protocol, training and resources, need coordinator that is active, researchers need to update about the analysis and do outreach and thanking volunteers. Sustainability and who will continue the work is an issue – answering phone calls.

Kevin Sparks, Alexander Klippel &Jan Oliver Wallgrün – The Pennsylvania State University with David Mark – NCGIA & Department of Geography, University at Buffalo – Assessing Environmental Information Channels for Citizen Science Land Cover Classification. Kevin looked at COBWEB goals – the project is enabling citizens to collect data and working with them to deal with data quality. Geo-Wiki project which allow people to manage information about land cover. Kevin looked at Degree confluence Project – collected 770 photos and link them to land cover database, and corresponding value to each one of them. – they have 7 samples in each class of the 11 land cover classes – then compared lay participants, vs educated lay participants vs experts. They ask people to select class and say how confidence they are. They created experiment with ground-based photo and another with ground & aerial-based images. Participants recruited through AMT. There was 45.97% agreement with National Land Cover Data. when shown the aerial image, reduced to 42.97% – when looking at the confidence level, the success goes to 71.91% agreement. Variation in participants, interface and stimuli – you see similar patterns that are not influence by these factors but by the semantic nature of land cover classification. Aerial photoes favour more homogonized classes.

Robert Edsall – Idaho State University –  Case Studies in Citizen-enabled Geospatial Inquiry. Exploring from cartographic perspective and interested how society interact with maps. How maps being intermediaries in citizen science projects. From Citizen Science 2015 ocnference, he noticed that there is a growing understanding of the potential of citizen science to be collaborative or co-created projects. In Geogrpahy, we got success in VGI. Asking people to develop hypotheses is less developed, although that happened in PPGIS and PGIS. Participatory GIS and citizen science are parallel in helping the shaping of the environment. Rob is interested in visualisation and visual analytics. Collabroative citizen science does seem to be a good match for visual analytics. Although the tools are sometime design for experts, they can be used by citizens. Incorporating serious games seem to work in some cases – and attract citizen scientists (MacGonigal 2012). We can think of volunteered geographic analysis. Now we can look at examples – nature mapping in Jackson Hole to suggest to people that they can analysed their data, after a while, people disengaged and didn’t want to expose their data and other reasons. The second case study is about historical data – images from different collection, but they are not catalogued or geolocated. They are doing Metadatagems project that helps people to locate information. People can specify ranges and location. We can enable engaged citizens in higher levels of the analysis.

New Directions in Mapping 2: Open Source, Crowd-sourcing and “Big Data”. With Matthew Zook – University of Kentucky (chair) Sean Gorman – Inc. ,  Andrew Hill – CartoDB, Courtney Claessens – Esri , Randy Meech – Mapzen and  Charlie Lloyd – Mapbox.

Questions: future of the map and the mapable? question that what can be mapped doesn’t need to be mapped. Definition of what is the map and what is mappable changes. Mapping is becoming so pervasive that it ‘disappear’. Fear about view of the world that is not representative – only of the digital haves. If the future of the map is crowdsourced what should we do about places that are left out? History the map was always biassed.

What does ‘open mapping’ mean? Is open source/FOSS still a real thing and how do we maintain an open mapping ethos? agreement on the panel that open source is here to stay, and a belief that open mapping where companies and different bodies collaborate to share data openly will win over proprietary datasets.

How do we address the uneven nature of crowd-sourcing and its impact on what and where is mapped? Assumption that people want to map empty areas and it is less motivating when the map is full (wonder if that is true). Issues of what do we do if the crowd falsify information. It is not either/or, we should have an hybrid of government and crowdsourced information together. Need to understand that community diverse and data is diverse – imports, power users, one timers, local and people from far away.

How might we push geographers/mappers ‘beyond the geotag’ and consider other other (and non-spatial) aspects of data? By dragging just the geo part from data in its context, we are losing a lot of important information. Need to tell stories about geo and integrate narratives. We need to tell real stories more naturally. Need to consider relational mapping – we are in network society and extending into different spaces. Adding meaning to mapping has remained difficult – maybe should promote slow mapping. People do create maps and get meaning from them. Fast mapping – it’s easy to make bad map that doesn’t give you any information that help you to understand place. What people are getting out of maps? What happen when you produce bad maps and how to tell it to people?

AAG 2015 notes – day 2 – Public Participation GIS symposium

The second day was dedicated to reflections on Public Participation GIS or Participatory GIS. The day was organised by Rina Ghose and Bandana Karr with some comments from Renee Sieber and me at some stage. It turned out to be an excellent symposium.DSC01463

The following are my notes from the different talks during the day.

Jon Corbett, Associate Professor – University of British Columbia-Okanagan
Rachelle Hole, Associate Professor – University of British Columbia Okanagan: Plain Language Mapping: Rethinking the Participatory Geoweb to Include Users with Intellectual Disabilities. Jon talked about the background of participatory mapping – starting from development context. Within the geoweb, it is easy to forget what the aim of the system. He describes people who are with intellectual disabilities, and because work is so meaningful in society, they wanted to enable such people to share experience about employment. They wanted to especially focus on positive experiences that can be shared. They started created an employment mapping tool using the GeoWeb, to understand how to overcome barrier for employment. They are working with different stakeholders  – and  the map uses classification with the job type and the process stage. They see it as opportunity for people to share details and create a network of support. They used co-design which included people with intellectual disabilities. There are issues in the design – dealing with ‘contribution bottleneck’ and change the interface of the wizard that enter information to the system so that is not text driven. The assumption of tech poverty for people with intellectual disabilities is wrong – but they use it differently to other users, so need to recognise what they use (e.g. smartphones) and adjust to them. Hammering spatial literacy – do we need to solve everything with maps? Can we solve it without it? it is a thing that we need to ask.

Greg Brown – University of Queensland –  The Vexing Problem of Spatial Aggregation in PPGIS/PGIS/VGI for Sustainable Land Use. The problem of spatial aggregation and crowdsourcing. Over 25 studies from different planning contexts  – described at . Within participatory mapping, terminology is maddening: is it PPGIS, PGIS or VGI? In reviewing the area, he suggests PPGIS (west), PGIS (development), VGI (technology). In PPGIS, which Greg focused on, it is dominated by rational, synoptic planning – but there is an alternative, radical planning that make it all contextualised and situated. Participatory mapping bring three aspects about places: place ecology, place phenomenology (experience) and place management. The breakthrough in PPGIS/PGIS was to move from GIS that focuses on the physical world, to one that is about values and the experiences that people have. We need to get beyond the rhetoric and in participatory mapping we need to improve the substantive quality of decision-making. Is public participation is the wisdom of the crowds or the tyranny of the masses? Crowdsourcing can get better decision-making through Surowiecki type analysis on ‘wisdom of crowd’. In many participatory mapping we haven’t made difference – and there are multiple reasons for it, from concern about the role of expert and the public to regulatory reasons. When you aggregate the data, you have a challenge of how to count the voices. PPGIS/PGIS/VGI have not substantively influenced land use decisions – technology is search of actual impact. The issue is political – how to weight and agree on weighting etc. Bridging the spatial and the political is the challenge.

Patrick Oberle – Syracuse University – Web-Mapping Practices and Challenges in Syracuse, NY. Covering experience in Syracuse Community Geography programme. Syracuse is very poor, and community-based organisations (CBOs) have an important role in the city with lots of CBOs. The main points to explore are neogeography and alow citizen ‘scientists’, democratisation of knowledge production and considering local information. He run a series of local workshops on how to use Google Maps Engine to CBOs and to what degree they support CBOs. He looked a the Syracuse Poster Project (public art with poems), and PEACE inc. which is community action agency, with ‘head start/early start programme for children, and other poverty-reduction programmes. They wanted a map to show where they presented their posters – they created an effective map with details that lead you to prints. It took them 7 months to create map. They had a sense of place that made it easy to adopt cartographic viewpoint – they had narrow goals. PEACE wanted to engage with population and had vague goals of managing their places. They had broad organisation mission and complex needs – which mean that the effort was not successful. They found it hard to dedicate staff to focus on the task. However, even for the poster project it was challenging to work through and deal with technology. Data is also not accessible – in contrast to NYC, Syracuse cannot afford to prepare data for sharing and provide open data. We need to engage the producers of the technologies, need experimentation with technology and processes, and help people to understand the paradigm of data-driven perspective. It is not obvious to unfamiliar organisations and groups. Now that Google Map Engine is discontinued they need to figure out how to move it to a new ways of delivering, but they are capable of recruiting interns.

Muning Wang – University of Washington and Isabel Carrera Zamanillo – University of Washington – Comparing institutional resistance between PGIS VGI, Citizen Science implementation in environmental management. Looking at the way that the information that is provided by the citizens – who use them and for what. From a literature review, they analysed what people do with volunteer collected  geographic information. It is described in education and outreach, land value investigation of landscape planning, TEK in management of fish population, and decision-making support for community conservation. Barriers: credibility, administrative jurisdiction, conflict with existing hierarchies, time that it takes to create collaboration, information capabilities and insufficient direct benefits to managers. Current synthesis – Francis Harvey volunteered vs contributed, Tulloch VGI data/knowledge creation vs PPGIS uses data to make decision, while Lin 2013 aruge that they are intertwined. Haklay argue that VGI/Citizen Science doesn’t provide enough participatory space. Trying to explain the differences is challenging! One way to look is to explore cases. To do the cross-case comparison, they are trying to generalise patterns, using systematic review or meta-analysis. A workshop helps to carry out the analysis of cases. They suggested meta-categories: prupose, environment focus, role of technology, actors interaction and other factors. They analysed 12 cases – but they want to compare more. They want to carry out cross-case comparison and provide analysis across cases, completeness of data collection. They are aiming to demonstrate the diversity of PGIS, VGI, and citizen science projects

Stephen R Appel – University of Wisconsin Milwaukee Department of Geography  – Information Justice and Public Geospatial Data. The aim of his research was to understand the scope and purpose of access to data and in what way data is accessed. The run a survey of municipalities, counties, land information association and then interviews with participants and web site survey. Referred to GIS & Society literature. The aspects of power in access the data and legal issue with data. He found variety of practices among counties in terms of opening and licensing the data. Most counties have web services, but it is variable. Conclusions are – extreme variation in policy, availability, and activities. Most allow academic use, and academic users need to get ready to use web services.

The second session 2253 Looking Backwards and Forwards in Participatory GIS: Session II started with a short discussion, due to gap in the schedule.

Some discussion points started to emerge: how data should be integrated with other systems? how to be inclusive? but also how to make the data active and relevant to decisions and results? How to give voices to people who are marginalised – all participatory process have double objectives: empowerment but also want content that is actionable. Sometime they contradict each other. A very small group of people are participating . Though need to accept that all democratic processes are messy.

Yoshiki Wakabayashi – Tokyo Metropolitan University & Mikoto Kukimoto – Oita University –  Possibilities and Limitations of Childcare Support Maps from the Viewpoint of Participatory GIS. The GeoWeb in Japan became part of the technologies used by government. The relationship between the voluntary sector and government is something need to be explored. Increase maps of childcare support, with about 10% of the total of online maps. There are more working mothers and childcare is an issue that concerns local government. He analysed 360 maps of childcare support in Tokyo Metropolitan Area, defining 3 levels – Level 1 – static, 2 some interaction, 3 – adding data (participatory), using the Sieber and Johnson framework. There are only few examples of level 3. More than half of the maps are interactive, but only few are truly participative. You also see the use of Google Maps as basemap and that increase usability. There are also maps that were made by voluntary group – made by mothers in the Meguro Ward. The group funded by local government, and core group of 5 mothers collected the data. The technical skills include Google Docs, Yahoo! mailing lists. Maps were printed and delivered in community meetings. They also include comments on the map (e.g. ‘cannot enter with buggy’ but also ‘delicious bagel’). The voluntary group cross jurisdiction issues. Maps were also shared on facebook – the purpose of the maps is to make link between community members, exchange childcare information and facilitate face to face communication – so they didn’t want an online map. The conclusion is that the local government maps while web-based, are not encouraging participation.

Renee Sieber – McGill University. Frictionless Civic Participation and the Geospatial Web. The increasing view of participation as frictionless. ‘Participation is very easy now – you just harvest sentiment from twitter or other social media’. She wonder if participation is effortless and in the background – just getting it from extracting what people say on media. In Smart Cities there is a view that the city need to be frictionless. Observations: 1. via frictionlessness participation is increasingly rooted in technocratic governance. The technocracy is setting the problem and the solution, but it’s not to be discussed but to be communicated. 2. Participation is not a transaction. Making public participation as a transaction and not engaging democratically. Relationship between government and citizen as transaction and consumptive experience. 3. Frictionless participation is increasingly unitary & lacks resilience – individuals interacting separately and therefore can’t build movement. 4. Geo-carpetbaggers who can ‘deliver participation’ much faster – computer scientists offer it in a faster way, what is the point in deep engagement if it is possible to create an app in 2 hours. 5. Participation is not 140 characters – it’s not about harvesting stuff for meaning. There is algorithmic regulation to set why you are engaging and who you are. Conclude: we make the assumption that the web/mobile is  democratising – we problematise the government or the private sector, but citizens want convenience and we should challenge them too. Also public on the Internet can be trolls or game the system.

Mike McCall – Universidad Nacional Autonoma De Mexico, with Jeroen Verplanke – ITC University of Twente and Claudia Uberhuaga – Technical University of Madrid – What does PGIS have to learn from VGI/Crowd Sourcing, so that we survive and prosper? PGIS and VGI have common purpose? there are changes in image of authority and offering alternative authority (UGC, citizen science, counter-maps, promoting feelings of Agency. Maybe we should think of VGI.2 – vulgar grounded intelligence. PGIS offer verification – trust, interaction, reputation & accountability. It’s physical, tactile, material, visual and sharing the process which is meaningful. Participation has to be slow and costly per unit of information – even volunteers need compensation. VGI provides speed, currency. Less manipulation – it is very cheap per quantitative unit of information. But the downside of VGI that it doesn’t give 2-way interaction and feedback, no rich data, no FPIC (Free & Prior Informed Consent), transparency and commercialisation. Both forms are open to ‘Elite Capture’. PGIS the question who control the framing or the inputs. The framing is easy to manipulate and take over. Very easily to control. VGI control the aggregation and the framing. The question is: can we speed up PGIS when we need it? That will mean the focus on the results. Most PGIS are short-term work done by NGOs or research organisations. It is one-off because of funding. Also need to think about the scale beyond parochial – broader dissemination in time, broader dissemination in place, share good practices fast. Scale can be in online participatory mapping and we want to make it more participatory – even hinder elite capture. Not to have naive belief in community solidarity or in crowd wisdom. Also where the trust come from -internal and external.

Rina Ghose – University Of Wisconsin Milwaukee – Deconstructing Citizen Participation and Spatial Knowledge Production. Rina looks at places where people are marginalised along class and race – multiple marginalisation. Working since 1993 with community groups in inner city neighbourhood. Very racialised landscape. Strong digital and other divides, and geospatial divides. The context of PPGIS is that in many cities there is a mandate for community participation in the US, participation is not smooth due to neoliberalisation in different form. It leads to inequities and poverty. The collaborative governance model is about public private partnership that are shaped around restructuring the role of the state and reduction of funding to community organisation and social welfare. Service delivery is not done by the state. She use political economy analysis from Kevin Cox work – spaces of dependence where there are some spaces of engagement , with politics of turf. Rhetoric of citizen participation is done through performative acts – volunteerism, self help (right to the city – prove that you are good enough to deserve the rights). Many activists led organisations are being put out of action by removing the funding. In Milwaukee university there is a long tradition of supporting CBOs and can see the complex network. CBOs have challenges such as reduced funding, and they wanted to bring facts to demonstrate the needs are not being met. Role of activists are shifting, but they are asked for rationale for investment and demonstrate professionalism. There is on going data collection and using maps for traditional activities. Using paper maps overlays . Neoliberal rationalities are dictating the way CBOs operate and work. Maps were used to communicate, plan and create spatial strategies – e.g. mapping liquor stores, but also asset mapping to show potential for economic development and show successful project outcomes. Maps are ‘brag sheets’ – demonstrate fiscal outcomes or client demand, dealing with health issues. Neoliberal impacts: spatial knowledge production is shaped by rationalities as project goals. The organisations lack GIS abilities and it is crucial for them to get support from the university and other people who offer help. Politics shape use of data. Is there also neoliberalisation of PPGIS in terms of how it operates? This is an open question.

the third session 2453 Looking Backwards and Forwards in Participatory GIS: Session III included the following

Kumkum Bhattacharyya – Eastern Michigan University, Aditi Sarkar – Indian Statistical Institute – Land Use and Land Cover (LULC) Change Detection in the Ganga-Damodar Region – A Participatory GIS Perspective, which covered participation at government scale, in water and resources management.

Pamela Jean Robinson – Ryerson University and Peter Johnson – Waterloo – Civic Hackthons: New Terrain for Citizen-Local Government Interaction? They been looking at civic hackathons – the empowerment of local communities and their meaning. civic Hackathons are linked to the concept of open data – they are time-limited event (weekend), mix of people – lots of people who can code, with open data and prizes and government host. People work to create the data into play. There is a difference between the civic hackathons and app competition is very different. Are they a form of procurement – are they getting a product outside the usual processes and did the events led to change in government activities? Secondly there is the issue of citizen engagement. In terms of backdoor procurement – is it getting technology for free? Are they get products without proper scrutiny? People have mixed view if open data will improve accountability and processes. Are people exploited and fairly compensating for software development effort? Are there obligations for government to treat people differently?
Civic hacking is new form of civic engagement (Levitas 2013). They went to core values of public participation as defined (core values for the practice of public participation). In hackathon people decide and design how they want to participate and have the information. This is one-off event so how impactful it is. Early finding from researching with government that done hackathon. Actually, there are no products coming out of them and very little procurement happening because sustainability of app development is an issue. There is no concern within participants about virtual sweatshops, but there are concerns in the terms of employment of the municipal staff who spend big part of the weekend on this activity. In terms of engagement, the most important aspect is new space for interaction between municipal staff and community. Different kinds of sharing expertise. What do hackathons mean over time and they are developing hackathon assessment tools. How you have ethics form so it doesn’t kill the process.

Nancy J. Obermeyer, PhD, GISP – Indiana State Univ – Preserving Small Town Cinemas through Crowdsourcing. Nancy talked about how using kickstarter to community asset. The town Batesville, IN is small – 6500 people, Germanic roots. Have industrial history – furniture, medical equipment etc. The Gibson Theatre was around from the 1920s, in small towns, the relationships are familial and know people personally. There was a kickstarter campaign to preserve the place, and they reached out to news stations and that helped them to raise the funding. One of the emerging question in the discussion is the degree of ‘crowdfunding’ community assets, and the abdication of local and national government from protecting and funding heritage – another form of neoliberalisation in which the communities are left to fend for themselves, and because of inequalities, it’s the people without major financial assets who are expected to volunteer their income to such services.

Zachary A. Jones, MA, MS, PhD (ABD) – Eastern Michigan University Using Charrettes and other Pedagogical Tools to Develop Participatory Geospatial Technology Plans and Support Ecojustice Planning Decisions. Using technology in master planing and find a way to education and group pedagogy -and avoid reliance on mechanism and scientism. The knowledge base is usaully of experts, but local stakeholders have lots ofknowledge and there are people without voices – children, non-humans. Sophistication level necessary for GIS operation is high and only small group of experts can use it – surely not general population. A consortium of municipalities (SEMCOG) doesn’t have geospatial information and technology plan as part of their master plans. Growing reliance on GIS and geographic technologies in decision-making creased a deficit for local stakeholders. Would like to adopt PGIS to democratise geospatial information collection and use. Borrow tools for educators and planners -lesson plans (to deal with deficit thinking) and charrettes to encourage decision-making by community members, and expect that to be run by municipalities. Aim to run workshops that explore issues and technologies. Initial sessions explored expectation from PGIS and where it fails. That will be followed by the need to address concepts – master plans, feed of information act, privacy issues, Geographic Information Technologies plan.

Antonello Romano – DISPOC, Università di Siena – Noise busters: noise detection and perception through citizen science approach and crowdsourced information. Exploring gamification of experience about noise in the city aim to increase user contribution. The idea is to put gamification to engage people in problem solving. The aim is to improve data collection – game your place. not to emphasise the competition but to have the playfulness. The objective is to encourage participation and collect data about loudness pollution – used NoiseTube to do data collection. The basic elements are to create the game board, game rule, finding a way to create a situation that everyone win. Game elements are trying to encourage participation and not about the observation itself. The first results – they had 123,500 measurement and 28h of data collection in a week. The geography of games covered the whole city centre. A closer look at the data show level of noise across the area. Highlighting the participatory layer: everyday life, participation, VGI, sociability, problem solving and discovering places.

Finally we had a panel session 2553 Looking Backwards and Forwards in Participatory GIS: Session IV, including Bandana Kar (Chair), and Renee Sieber, Nancy J. Obermeyer, Melinda J. Laituri and myself as panellists.

Renee started the discussion – PPGIS past, present and future, and using a definition which we had many discussion that complexify every aspect of it – is it about marginalised people or increase participation? Skills and abilities continue to be challenges for practitioners. You need to be system admin and developer to run system and maintain them. There is also a numbers game – how many people are involved? Also Social Darwinism – if you can’t deal with the system, it is your problem and we can’t help. PPGIS is seen as effeminate participation compared to proper masculinity in VGI and crowdsourcing. Losing sight of boundaries that matter – such as jurisdictions.

Nancy Obermeyer, students understand that they need GIS knowledge and expertise. GIS is poorly integrated into the curricula of public administration. In public administration and participation – how we get more input from the people that will be effected by the actions that they are making.

Melinda coming from the participatory GIS approach, thinking about fine scale data collection with TEK and indigenous groups – what people want to map and not, how to deal with ethics and what should be mapped. The relationships with the community are complex – what the impact to the people who change the community and long-term changes. To work with responding to disaster and deal with rapid response and activities like mapathons through Mapgive – learning from the success in Haiti response. We need to unpack that a bit more. We need to look linkage between participatory mapping and remote collaborative mapping. Making digitising fun because of the context and atmosphere. Thinking about VGI/PGIS – this is a different approach but need to explore opportunities. 1. start with a blank map or an image? 2. in experience with state department: academics are fish out of the water – what academics need to figure out with the practice? 3. digital divide – don’t assume access to technology and need to think about that 4. education 5. excitement about data collection – how do we analysed that? how that enrich our information base?

My take own take away from the day where the following:  First, in PPGIS there is always an element of ‘conforming (to) the opposition’ (Renee paper from 2001 is relevant here) – and this is how the external governance structure set the agenda of the processes. Secondly, we need to work beyond individualism & neoliberal framing of citizenship and development: this has clearly gone worse over the past 20 years, so in many ways it is not more difficult to do PPGIS. This also mean that we must position PPGIS within the wider context of technology and society (with issues such as 99% and inequality, prevailing cyberlibertarian modes of thinking in technology products that shape society etc.). We need a more nuanced concept of participation: work hard so all voices are heard – but allow people to ‘delegate’ and not actively participate. Some people will be happy just to attend meeting to check that views are like theirs, and other will happy to trust a friend. We should allow for that. The next thing is that because of Big Data, more attention to the end use of the data, ownership and credits are important signifiers of purpose and values. Finally, because of the way tech companies are hijacking social terms, we need to explicitly define empowerment, inclusion, marginalisation, participation and democratisation.

Piotr Jankowsi mentions the power of numbers. We started doing PPGIS on the premise that the right of people to have a say on decisions that influence their life – that’s what PPGIS is about. We try to facilitate the ability to pass information to those in positions of power. Numbers do matter – between 5, 10 or 2000 people. Those who are in position of power tend to listen to bigger groups. When we facilitate public participation, we need to give an avenue for larger number – in order to make it effective.

Cristina Capineri –  noted the need to recognise changes and the way that we need to understand opinions and values which then opened the door for new ways and methodologies that are being used. when we are mapping we deal with problems and challenges in society and work at hyper local levels.

Peter Johnson – increase focus on separation between science and decision-making, how does that fit into encouraging the public to carry out research and doing the work itself? The general view was that it is working side by side with science – not replacing.  There is also funding and stopping funding to the bits of science that are inoffensive. However, I noted that there is a huge increase in people with higher education, and that does create an issue for decision makers, as the general population is more sophisticated and can use information.

Greg Brown pointed that we must notice the mega-trend is that people are losing civic engagement, we have lost of connection to place and decline and knowledge and connection to place. PPGIS works again these trends.

Bandana Kar – there is marginalisation within the PPGIS community, we should keep links. Though it might outlast GIScience.

Piotr – part of the problem with civic engagement is lack of impact. People participate but see no outcomes and they don’t feel that they see the impact. Something need to be done with the results. Greg – need to see the process and the outcomes, and people need to see how the outcomes of the process are based on the consultation.

Mike McCall – there is participation fatigue that growing, and we need to ask question about representativeness which can be manipulated by those involved. Who is selected (even deciding women participation) is important. Using individual maps is different from the community mapping. Can do snowball mapping where the size is growing with each maps. Another point is that starting with a blank map is that people mark their territory, and within it. Satellite or image can be used in suitable context when they are relevant – need to consider context.

Finally, a question was raised to what extent questions are rising from the communities themselves?