Participatory GIS, Volunteered Geographic Information and Citizen Science - GISRUK 2011


Published on

See . Slides from a talk at GISRUK 2011 in Portsmouth

Published in: Technology, Education
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • 2001-2002
  • So what changed that open up this explosion? As an explanation, I would point to several components (based partially Friedman’s (2006)) and there are other versions by Goodchild's (2007b), and Plewe’s (2007). I’m trying to notice societal explanations and not just technical ones.First of all, the opening of GPS to civilian use in 2000 is very significant, with receivers in the range of $150 appearing quickly . Followed by GPX in 2004, so it’s easy to exchange data.Second, the huge increase in bandwidth, which is the result of the dot com crash (Worldcom, Global Crossing) providing the infrastructure for wide availability of cheep broadband in the western world.Third, the evolution of the components of AJAX – I still remember Dave Winer announcing on his ‘blog’ (it wasn’t called a blog) that SOAP has arrived. Then you had to wait until the browsers could handle it.Fourth, storage cost – which in the case of GIS are significant – continued to drop and it was possible to store much more.Fifth, with Google’s engineering approach, the concepts of simple to use API emerged on the web.
  • The Royal Docks Community map has recently been used by community members to record the levels of noise they are being exposed to
  • Some of the readings and comments that have been added to the map.
  • Graph shows data collected from March through to April this year the difference in terms of noise levels during normal flight operations at both Heathrow and LCA, and during a period of no flights.Levels rarely exceed 55dBA
  • The final example are from the Pepys Estate in Lewisham, where the residents are concerns with the noise and pollution from a scrap yard which is located near the community centre and a school.
  • Participatory GIS, Volunteered Geographic Information and Citizen Science - GISRUK 2011

    1. 1. Participatory GIS, Volunteered Geographic Information and Citizen Science <br />Muki Haklay<br />‘Extreme Citizen Science’ group (ExCiteS) <br />Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering <br />UCL<br />GISRUK 2011, Portsmouth<br />
    2. 2. Content<br />Participatory GIS (PPGIS, GIS-P…)<br />The rise of user-generated geographic content and Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI)<br />Citizen Science, Citizen Cyberscience and VGI<br />Extreme Citizen Science<br />Concepts, methodologies and techinques<br />
    3. 3. Public Participation GIS<br />Emerged as a research area in the mid-1990s.<br />Started as an academic interest to open-up GIS to new range of users, based on social-theory based critique of GIS.<br />Has developed into a range of frameworks, procedures and techniques to allow public engagement with GIS.<br />North: urban/regional planning, environmental justice. South: Participatory Rural Appraisal, P3DM, Self enumeration. <br />
    4. 4. The participation Ladder<br />PP in the final decision<br />PP in assessing Risks and<br /> Recommending Solutions<br />Public Participation (PP) in <br />defining interests, actors and agenda<br />Restricted Participation<br />Public Right to Object<br />Informing the Public<br />Public Right to Know<br />(After Arnstein, 1969; Wiedemann and Femers, 1993)<br />
    5. 5. GIS 2 / GIS, Too<br />GIS/2: A set of methods and instruments which emphasize process, and which are oriented toward communication about representations as much as toward the representations themselves. <br />A GIS/2 would increase emphasis on the role of participants in creation and evaluation of data. <br />GIS/2 would accommodate an equitable representation of diverse views, preserving contradiction, inconsistencies and disputes. <br />Outputs would reflect the standards and goals of the participants, rather than closeness of fit to standards of measurable accuracy. <br />A GIS/2 would be capable of managing and integrating all data components and participant contributions from one interface. <br />The GIS/2 would preserve and represent the history of its own development, and be more capable of handling time components than existing GIS.<br />Source: Schroeder, P. (1996) Criteria for the design of a GIS/2.<br />
    6. 6. Wandle Valley Brownfield Project<br />1999 - Environment Agency funded project to evaluate the usefulness of GIS for brownfield regeneration <br />Rebekah Boott, Kate Heppell, Mordechai Haklay, Jeremy Morley -The use of GIS in brownfield redevelopment, GISRUK 2000<br />
    7. 7. Participatory GIS – chauffeurs, facilitators and technology <br />Aurigi, A., Batty, S., Bloomfield, D., Boott, R., Clark, J., Haklay, M., Harrison, C., Heppell, K., Moreley, J. and Thornton, C. (1999), UCL Brownfield Research Network, University College London, London, UK, 42 pp<br />
    8. 8. UCL BrownfiledResearch Network Workshop<br />Local knowledge, experience, memories:<br />Group 1 - 8 min. Anna operates the zoom-in option while drawing a very small box. As result, the software zooms into a very small area (large scale map). Deborah: “It is almost impossible to read it” {“Yeah” of agreement from other participants}. Rose: “cause that mean absolutely zero”. Deborah: “Unless you know exactly where you are…Is it actually possible to put street names on?”.<br />
    9. 9. UBRN Workshop <br />Information integration:<br />Group 2 - 52 min. Kevin “the other thing that is probably important, is {the ability of GIS} to combine dissimilar things, things that you think are previously unrelated, and it seems to be the real power of the thing”. Malcolm notes that using too many data sets will “overwhelm the screen”.<br />
    10. 10. Internet-based PPGIS <br />Virtual Slaithwaite – developed by the University of Leeds in 1998-1999. <br />Based on “Planning for Real”.<br />Carver, S., Evans, A., Kingston, R. and Turton, I. (2001) Public participation, GIS and cyberdemocracy: <br />evaluating on-line spatial decision support systems. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design. <br />
    11. 11. Locating sites for Nuclear Waste <br />PGIS in larger scale analysis<br />Started in the early 1990s, a GIS-Based Multi-Criteria Analysis for the location of nuclear waste disposal<br />Allowed users to create their own weighted map<br />Evans, A., Kingston, R. and Carver, S. (2004) Democratic input into the nuclear waste disposal problem: the influence of geographical data on decision making examined through a web-based GIS. Journal of Geographical Systems<br />
    12. 12. Source: Andy-Hudson Smith, Mike Batty <br />Hudson-Smith, A and Evans, S and Batty, M and Batty, S (2002) Online participation: the Woodberry Down experiment. Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis (UCL), London, UK<br />
    13. 13. GIS-P<br /><ul><li>Used for creating dialogue between local stakeholder, planners, modellers and policy makers – to improve decision outcomes</li></ul><br />
    14. 14. PPGIS in E-government (Wandsworth 2001) <br />Haklay, M., and Tobón, C., 2003, Usability Evaluation and PPGIS: Towards a User-Centred Approach, IJGIS)17(6), 577-592<br />
    15. 15. Listening to the City<br /><ul><li>Discussion on the design of Lower Manhattan after 9/11.
    16. 16. Participation exercise involving over 5,000 people, discussing general design ideas for the area.
    17. 17. Wide use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) during the consultation exercise. </li></ul>Source: LMDC<br />
    18. 18.
    19. 19.
    20. 20. Participatory GIS – first decade <br />From desktop to the Web<br />Experimentation with visualisation, representation and delivery<br />From research to practice in Local authorities and non-governmental organisation<br />Challenges with data access and technology<br />
    21. 21. WEB MAPPING 2.0 <br />
    22. 22. Structural changes <br />1st May 2000 – President Clinton removes selective availability of GPS signal<br />Dot-com crash and the increase of broadband use<br />Data storage: from $10 (2000) to $0.5 (2005) per gigabyte<br />The acronym soup of AJAX: SOAP, XML, Javascript – and support in browsers (2004 – GPX)<br />Web services and simplified APIs <br /> Usable, desktop like web applications<br />Haklay, M., Singleton, A., and Parker, C., 2008, Web mapping 2.0: the Neogeography of the Geoweb, Geography Compass<br />
    23. 23. Mashups and new forms of geographic information<br /> – one of the first Google Maps Mashups. <br />Form of civic intervention in the use of geographic information held by the authorities<br />
    24. 24. Paolo Isoardi, 2006, Creation of London 21 Green Map using Google Maps API <br />
    25. 25.
    26. 26. Bottom Up Participatory GIS<br />Google My Maps ability is used to create a Green Map for the Transition Town Brixton project<br />
    27. 27. Ellul, C., Haklay, M. Francis, L. And Rahemtulla, H., 2009, A Mechanism to Create Community Maps for Non-Technical users, The International Conference on Advanced Geographic Information Systems & Web Services – GEOWS 2009<br />
    28. 28. Non-spatial User Generated Content <br />
    29. 29. Spatially Implicit User Generated Content<br />
    30. 30. Flickr– Locals (blue) vs. Tourists (red) <br />Source: Eric Fischer<br />
    31. 31. Spatial User Generated Content<br />
    32. 32. Google Map Maker<br />
    33. 33. OpenStreetMap<br /><ul><li> User generated (Crowdsourced)
    34. 34. Wiki style
    35. 35. Open access to data and software</li></ul> ‘OpenStreetMap is a project aimed squarely at creating and providing free geographic data such as street maps to anyone who wants them’<br />(Image source: OpenStreetMap)<br />
    36. 36. VGI – from games to civic engagement<br />
    37. 37. Geograph<br />Flickr<br />Picasa Web<br />Panoramio<br />Source: Vyron Antoniou, UCL <br />
    38. 38. Geograph<br />Flickr<br />Picasa Web<br />Panoramio<br />Source: Vyron Antoniou, UCL <br />
    39. 39. Population and completeness<br />
    40. 40. Prosperity and completeness <br />
    41. 41. VGI – characteristics <br />Participation:<br />Voluntary/involuntary<br />Passive/active engagement (citizens as platform for sensors to use of collective intelligence)<br />Information – from facts to perceptions<br />Geographical distribution – highly populated, central places and tourist attractions<br />Bias towards affluent areas (and participants)<br />Demographical analysis: high levels of educations, male dominance, technically savvy<br />
    42. 42. Citizen Science<br />Volunteer rainfall observer Rick Grocke checks the rain gauge at Tanami Downs cattle station in the Northern Territory of Australia<br />Source: Audubon Cal.<br />Source: WMO–No. 919<br />
    43. 43.
    44. 44. Non-spatial citizen (cyber)science <br />
    45. 45. GeographicCitizen Science<br />Source: BioScience 58(3) p. 195<br />Source: BioScience 58(3) p. 192<br />
    46. 46. Aspects of Citizen Science/Cyberscience<br />Role of participants: Active vs. Passive <br />Aim of the system: Implicit vs. explicit<br />Level of engagement: platform vs. sensor vs. participant<br />Level of geographical/temporal engagement: everyday vs. targeted <br />
    47. 47. Cultural problems<br />Citizen Scientists are perceived as untrustworthy <br />No ‘quality control’<br />Not professional <br />Evaluation mechanisms assume unskilled workers such as classifying each object three times (in Citizen Cyberscience)<br />But volunteer effort can improve the data<br />
    48. 48. ‘Extreme’ Citizen Science <br />Citizens can participate in defining the problems, envisioning possible projects and participate in the analysis <br />Can (and should) participate in the discussion of the results of what they’ve collected<br />Often, they are best placed to analyse the data <br />Source: Malcolm Eames, Jonas Mortensen, Maria Adebowale, IaraLudicissa 2009<br />
    49. 49. ‘Extreme’ Citizen Science<br />
    50. 50. Levels of Citizen Science <br />
    51. 51. Noise Mapping<br />
    52. 52.
    53. 53.
    54. 54.
    55. 55.
    56. 56. Citizen Science / Participatory GIS <br />Noise Mapping forms are transferred to a computer map by digitising them in a GIS.<br />
    57. 57. Eyjafjallajökull<br />Source: Wikimedia<br />
    58. 58. Nursary<br />Community Centre<br />School<br />Scrap yard<br />
    59. 59.
    60. 60.
    61. 61.
    62. 62. PPGIS, VGI and Extreme Citizen Science <br />Scale of coverage and aim of the activity<br />Importance of local knowledge and understanding <br />The end use of the data, ownership and credit<br />Empowerment, inclusion/exclusion, marginalisation, participation<br />The role of Technology in shaping the activity <br />
    63. 63. Credits and further details<br />Support for the research kindly provided by: <br />UCL Graduate School Research Fund, <br />ESRC grant R000238127 ‘Conserving Biodiversity That Matters: The Value of Brownfield Sites’<br />Wandsworth council (pathfinder for e-government scheme)<br />RGS/IBG Small Research Grant<br />UrbanBuzz: Building Sustainable Communities (HEFCE)<br />London Sustainability Exchange (LSx)<br />London 21 Sustainability Network<br />EPSPRC Challenging Engineering Award ‘Extreme Citizen Science’<br />Special thanks to the Wandsworth, Royal Docks and Pepys Estate communities <br />E-mail:<br />Twitter: mhaklay<br /><br /><br />
    64. 64. Wandle Valley Brownfield Project<br />
    65. 65. Wandle Valley Brownfield Project<br />
    66. 66. Examples of Internet-based PPGIS<br />Woodberry Down regeneration plan, initiated by LB Hackney. <br />Andy Hudson-Smith from CASA, UCL developed this 2-3 years ago.<br />Allows local residents to explore different issues regarding the redevelopment plans and to engage in an online discussions about their preferences.<br />Source: Andy-Hudson Smith, Mike Batty <br />
    67. 67. Wilderness Britain?<br />Source Carver & Evans, 2004<br />
    68. 68. Towards a User Centred Design cycle<br />User Centred Design suits PPGIS projects!<br />Especially important in web-based projects<br />Part of iterative process<br />Slide 64/20<br />
    69. 69. Engaging the Public in wind-farms siting<br />Wind-farm siting and public participation: combining participatory GIS, Multi-Criteria Analysis and an Argumentative Framework.<br />Evaluating how the use of participatory techniques influences the perceptions of the issues and the ways of addressing them.<br />©Ian Britton<br />
    70. 70. MC-SDSS + AS<br />Individual<br />dimension<br />Social<br />interaction<br />MC-SDSS<br />AF<br />Public participation over the web<br />
    71. 71. Classification of <br /> feasible sites<br /><ul><li> Preferable
    72. 72. Acceptable
    73. 73. unacceptable</li></ul>Aggregated preferences<br /> Controversy map<br /><br />consensus<br />conflict<br />Prototype development<br />Individual preference<br /><br /><br />
    74. 74. map<br />entities<br />Debate around sites suitability/adequacy<br />Aggregated preferences<br />Controversy map<br />consensus<br />conflict<br /><ul><li> make reasoning publicly available, triggering critical analysis
    75. 75. consensus building and conflict resolution potential</li></li></ul><li>
    76. 76. Steve Evans, Rebekah Boott–London Environment Onlne (joint project Jackson Environment Institute, CASA, 1999-2000) <br />