FS8

ScienceInnovationandSustainability:InvestinginBritishColumbia’sKnowledgebasedNaturalResourceSector
2 0 0 3
F O R R E X S E R I E S 8
Natural Resources
Information
Management
Forum
Putting Knowledge to Work

Natural Resources
Information
Management
Forum
Putting Knowledge to Work
Trina Innes (editor)

ii
© 2003 FORREX–Forest Research Extension Partnership
Information may be reproduced without permission subject to the fair dealing provision and the exceptions set out in the
Canada Copyright Act, R.S., c. C-20, s. 1. The source of the work must be fully acknowledged. Information may not be redistrib-
uted or stored for the purpose of serving through any other information retrieval system without the written permission of
FORREX–Forest Research Extension Partnership. Links can be made freely. No guarantee or warranty, expressed or implied, is made
about the value or stability of the information or links made herein. However, reproduction of this work, in whole or in part, for
purposes of commercial use, resale, or redistribution requires written permission from FORREX–Forest Research Extension Partner-
ship. For this purpose, contact the Partnership at: Suite 702, 235–1st Avenue, Kamloops, BC V2C 3J4.
For more information about the FORREX–Forest Research Extension Partnership, visit: www.forrex.org
This report is published by:
FORREX–Forest Research Extension Partnership
Suite 702, 235–1st Avenue
Kamloops, BC V2C 3J4
National Library of Canada Cataloguing in Publication Data
This FORREX–Forest Research Extension Partnership publication
is partially funded by Forestry Innovation Investment.
The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this publication is for the information and
convenience of the reader. Such use does not constitute an official endorsement or approval by
the FORREX–Forest Research Extension Partnership of any product or service to the exclusion of
any others that may also be suitable.
Natural Resources Information Management Forum (2003 : Richmond, B.C.)
Natural Resources Information Management Forum [electronic resource] :
putting knowledge to work / Trina Innes, editor.
(FORREX series ; 8)
Issued also in print format.
Includes bibliographical references.
Type of computer file: PDF.
System requirements: Adobe Acrobat Reader.
ISBN 1-894822-18-8
1. Natural resources—Information resources management—Canada—
Congresses. 2. Natural resources—Canada—Computer network resources—
Congresses. 3. Knowledge management—Canada—Congresses. I. Innes, Trina
Anne, 1966- II. FORREX III. Title. IV. Series: FORREX series (Online) ; 8.
HC85.N38 2003a 333.7’068’4 C2003-901800-8

iii
ABSTRACT
FORREX–Forest Research Extension Partnership works with a variety of organizations to improve the
way natural resources information is organized and used. To achieve success in the 21st century, we
realize that the natural resource sector needs effective information and knowledge management capa-
bilities. Sound, sustainable forest and ecosystem management depends on access to information and
knowledge that is current, reliable, and credible.
The Natural Resources Information Management Forum offered a comprehensive look at natural
resources information management through presentations on the latest information management
strategies, tools, technologies, and initiatives. Local, regional, provincial, national, and international
experiences were shared. FORREX’s goal was to improve awareness and understanding of information
and knowledge management activities, share ideas on how to design and implement solutions, and help
organizations leverage the experience of others.
This Forum was intended for managers, information managers, decision makers, educators, knowl-
edge workers, and anyone with an interest in, or influence over, the management of scientific, biological,
or geospatial information. People representing industry, First Nations, government, and non-govern-
ment organizations from provincial, national, or international organizations were invited.
Citation—
Innes, T. (editor). 2003. Natural Resources Information Management Forum: Putting knowledge to
work. FORREX–Forest Research Extension Partnership, Kamloops, B.C. FORREX Series No. 8.

iv
PREFACE
On behalf of the Board of Directors and Staff of FORREX–Forest Research Extension Partnership, I’d like
to thank you for participating in the Natural Resources Information Management Forum.
Changing legislative requirements, forest certification, and criteria and indicators of sustainable forest
management are just a few of the factors driving land management decisions provincially, nationally,
and internationally. Sound decision making depends on access to information and knowledge that is
current, reliable, and credible.
This Forum will improve awareness of information and knowledge management tools, technologies,
and strategies, and will enable organizations to improve their information and knowledge management
capabilities.
I encourage you to network with conference delegates, to learn from their experiences, and to explore
partnership opportunities.
I would like to express my sincere thanks and appreciation to the Forum Planning Committee and
our various sponsors. It is through your generous contributions of time and money that the Forum will
achieve success.
As we look beyond the Forum, I feel certain that each and every one of us will find ways to apply the
tools and ideas we’ve gained. And I’m sure many of us will meet again . . .
Yours sincerely,
John Innes
Chair, FORREX–Forest Research Extension Partnership
February 5, 2003

v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
On behalf of FORREX–Forest Research Extension Partnership, I’d like to invite conference delegates to
join us in thanking the many individuals and organizations that contributed to the success of the
Natural Resources Information Management Forum.
Planning Committee
Susanne Barker British Columbia Ministry of Forests
Greg Britton British Columbia Ministry of Forests
Evert Kenk British Columbia Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management
Nancy Levesque University College of the Cariboo
Brad Mason Department of Fisheries and Oceans
John Rafuse Mercurial Communications Ltd.
Albert Simard Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service
Carla Wainwright FORREX–Forest Research Extension Partnership
Sponsors
• Blue Angel Technologies
• British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Forest Sciences Program
• British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Tree Improvement Branch
• British Columbia Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management
• FORCAST (Coalition for the Advancement of Science and Technology in the Forest Sector)
• Forestry Innovation Investment
• International Union of Forest Research Organizations
• Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre
• Royal Roads University
• Univenture
• Western Economic Diversification Canada
Presenters, Collaborators, Volunteers, and Support Team
• Forestry Continuing Studies Network
• FORREX Staff
• Listening Post Volunteers
• Speakers and Poster Presenters
It is only through collaboration that FORREX can achieve success, as evidenced by participation in this
conference (see Appendix 1 for a listing of delegates). On behalf of all volunteers, we hope the Forum helps
you improve the way natural resource knowledge is managed and your ability to exchange information
with others.
Yours sincerely,
Trina Innes
Conference Chair, FORREX–Forest Research Extension Partnership

vi
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III
PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V
What people said: Results of the pre-conference survey, listening posts,
and evaluations
TRINA INNES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Helping the resource sector move from information to knowledge and wisdom:
An introduction and welcome from FORREX
CHRIS HOLLSTEDT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Plenary Session: Organizational Learning
Information management and organizational learning
NANCY DIXON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Plenary Session: Global and Provincial Information Systems
Implementing a global information facility [Abstract]
MEREDITH LANE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Land Information British Columbia
DON HOWES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Applying Knowledge
Filling in the gaps: Amalgamating and applying Indigenous and Western science
VERNA MILLER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Aboriginal Mapping Network [Abstract]
STEVEN DEROY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Using GIS as a system for managing public participation in the planning process
TIMOTHY LAWRENCE, TIMOTHY DEWITT, AND LAWRENCE LIBBY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Participatory needs assessment: Improving extension forestry programs by making
learners partners
CHRIS SCHNEPF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Temporal assessment of recreation activities and opportunities in British Columbia:
Examining the possible effects of future timber harvesting on outdoor recreation
HOWIE HARSHAW AND STEPHEN SHEPPARD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Information Management and the Forest Industry
The communication breakdown: How can better information management “streamline”
the forest certification process? [Abstract]
GORDON HICKEY AND JOHN INNES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

vii
An integrated information and supply chain management system for the forest industry
PAUL THONY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
The British Columbia Ministry of Forests’ move to electronic service delivery [Abstract]
GLORIA WILLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
The role of information and knowledge management in the forest industry:
A maverick’s view
BILL BOURGEOIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Information Management and Decision Support
Co-ordination of information for watershed planning
DOUG RUSHTON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
A model to predict relative effects of forest management on coastal fish stream habitat
[Abstract]
FRANK HEINZELMANN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Natural Areas Atlas for the Capital Region
MATTHEW TUTSCH AND BEN KERR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Forest-related Information Systems
National Forest Information System: Experiences in development and implementation
of a multi-partner information system [Abstract]
EVELYNN WRANGLER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
The Global Forest Information System
JOHN INNES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
The Natural Resources Information Network [Abstract]
TRINA INNES AND MIKE RATCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Pacific Northwest Information Node: Sharing forestry information with the public
[Abstract]
ELLA ELMAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Plenary Session: National And International Strategies
Knowledge management in forestry: A case study of the Canadian Forest Service
ALBERT SIMARD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Developing the National Biological Information Infrastructure, or “NBII:
What’s in it for me?”
BARBARA BAULDOCK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Access to Ontario’s spatial data: A partnership initiative by Land Information Ontario
ROB PARRY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
GeoConnections: A program to develop the Canadian Geospatial Data Infrastructure
[Abstract]
CAMERON WILSON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

viii
Tools And Case Studies
Making your data more valuable
VIVIAN HUTCHISON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Transforming information into knowledge: The Georgia Basin Digital
Library Project [Abstract]
MURRAY JOURNEAY AND THE GEORGIA BASIN DIGITAL LIBRARY RESEARCH TEAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Gathering user needs: A case study on the process used to cather user needs for the
Adaptive Management Area’s Forestry Portal
BALBINDER BANGA, LOIS DELCAMBRE, ERIC LANDIS, FRED PHILLIPS, AND TIM TOLLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Fundamentals of information management systems development [Abstract]
ROBERT MASCAREÑAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Using the Zope Web application framework to build and manage a large encyclopedia of
scientific knowledge
JOHN JORDIN JR., WILLIAM HUBBARD, DEBORAH KENNARD, WILLIAM MILNOR,
MICHAEL RAUSCHER, AND BRYAN VEAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Provincial, National and International Case Studies
Sharing natural resource information across British Columbia through the Community
Mapping Network
BRAD MASON AND ROB KNIGHT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Developing the forestry commons
MICHAEL SPLINTER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Real-time climate information on the Internet: Its many uses and applications to
agriculture and others
JANINE NYVALL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Natural resource, fish, and wildlife research data management:
The Foothills Model Forest approach
CHRISTIAN WEIK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Developing water awareness in an island community [Abstract]
JULIAN DUNSTER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
Plenary Session: Looking Forward
Managing and sharing content: Challenges and strategies [Abstract]
CHRIS HYNES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Is it time to move from information to knowledge management? [Abstract]
ALICE MACGILLIVRAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Closing remarks, and thoughts on getting started
NANCY DIXON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

ix
Posters
OakMapper WebGIS for monitoring sudden oak death in California
KARIN TUXEN AND MAGGI KELLY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
Natural Areas Atlas for the Capital Region [Abstract]
MATTHEW TUTSCH AND BEN KERR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
Increasing access to local farm information and improving land use decision making
using GIS [Abstract]
JANINE NYVALL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
Relational to object-oriented models in forestry: A shifting paradigm
ROBERT MAGAI, MICHAEL MEITNER, AND STEPHEN SHEPPARD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
Skeena–Bulkley Natural Resource Information Access Project [Abstract]
PATTI BARNES AND MICHELE COOK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
The Geoscience Data Repository [Abstract]
TERRY HOULAHAN, JODIE FRANCIS, PAUL HUPPÉ, AND ROBERT KUNG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Water quality and watershed characteristics: A database of 91 water quality
monitoring projects in British Columbia [Abstract]
GARTH WEBBER ATKINS AND PERRY HYSTAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
Automated monitoring [Abstract]
BOYD BROWN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
FORINTEK’s Value-added Pathfinder [Abstract]
BARBARA HOLDER AND DEIRDRE MOORE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
Integrated Silviculture Information System: RESULTS [Abstract]
JOHN GALLIMORE AND RALPH WINTER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
Key concepts to effectively integrate information and analysis with land use
decision-making processes [Abstract]
DON MORGAN, JOHANNA PFALZ, AND WILLIAM ELLIOTT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
The Canadian Geoscience Knowledge Network: Delivering geoscience on the Internet
[Abstract]
JOHN BROOME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
Finding text information in the ocean of electronic documents
PATRICIA MEDVICK AND GUS CALAPRISTI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
Alaska’s Co-operatively Implemented Information Management System (CIIMS):
A case study
CAROL FRIES AND RUSSELL KUNIBE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
APPENDIX 1 FORUM DELEGATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

1
CITATION —
Innes, T. 2003. What people said: Results of a pre-conference survey, listening posts, and evaluations. In Natural resources information
management forum: Putting knowledge to work. T. Innes (editor). FORREX–Forest Research Extension Partnership, Kamloops, B.C.
FORREX Series No. 8. pp. 1–5.
What people said:
Results of the pre-conference survey,
listening posts, and evaluations
TRINA INNES*
Does your organization have a vision and strategy for knowledge management? How well is your organi-
zation managing knowledge? Does your organization encourage and reward knowledge sharing? Before
the launch of the Natural Resources Information Management Forum, FORREX–Forest Research Exten-
sion Partnership invited conference delegates to tell us how their organization is performing, and
identify barriers and successes in managing natural resource knowledge.
Delegates also identified how the Forum would help them in their job, and how they’d like to see
FORREX build on the success of the Forum. This paper highlights some of the findings.
PRE-CONFERENCE SURVEY
Eighty-four people, representing 46.4% of the e-mail invitations, responded to the survey. The bulk of
respondents represented government, academic institutions, and industry. Delegates from British
Columbia represented 72% of respondents, with 19% and 8% from outside Canada, or other Canadian
provinces or territories, respectively.
The survey addressed a number of key areas in information and knowledge management: leadership,
business processes, culture, people/skills, and technology.
Leadership
Respondents generally agreed (78%) that their organization had a vision and strategy for knowledge
management and that their executives actively promoted knowledge management. Coming from a
research perspective, some respondents said they were trying to convince their organization to imple-
ment knowledge management strategies. Others with strategies in place suggested that more action and
co-operation is needed to ensure the success of the strategy.
Business Processes
Respondents indicated that many organizations (82%) have formalized processes for collecting, organiz-
ing, and archiving knowledge. However, one respondent believed that formal processes,“. . . would be a
perceived infringement of academic freedom.” Getting different systems to talk to each other is another
problem.
More than one respondent agreed that their organization has formalized processes, but that problems
existed because the processes kept changing (e.g.,“formalized processes that change every 5–10 years
lose what has gone on before”; and “the process keeps getting changed and management doesn’t always
realize that good data knowledge management takes time and people aren’t trained to do it properly;
they are told about the process, but not the how”).

2
Many organizations are using dictionaries and themes to organize their knowledge (71%); however, a
smaller proportion of the respondents believed that their organization’s knowledge is already well
organized (65%). One respondent indicated that their organization’s performance “. . . is excellent in
relation to published knowledge. It is much less well organized in relation to other forms of knowledge.”
Culture
While 60% of respondents felt that their organization encourages and rewards knowledge sharing, 47%
tended to feel that their organization was not performing in this area. At opposing ends of the spectrum,
one respondent suggested that,“the role of academe is to develop and share knowledge”; while another
believed that “academic institutions are not known to share information freely because of the competi-
tive nature of such institutions.”
When asked if knowledge is accessible by everyone inside their organization, 63% of respondents
tended to agree with this statement, while 36% tended to disagree.
People/Skills
Organizations tend to have people trained in knowledge management (71%) and people working in a
primary role associated with knowledge (81%). Respondents indicated that managing knowledge is
often a role shared between a number of people and specializations. Concerns were raised about declin-
ing funds, training, staffing levels, and time.
Technology
When asked if information in their organization can be found quickly through a knowledge database,
intranet, or other information technology system, 65% tended to agree. One respondent suggested that,
“Some things are difficult to find. We have a lot of info.”
Sound, sustainable forest and ecosystem management depends on access to information and knowl-
edge that is current, reliable, and credible. Over one-half of the delegates (60%) tended to agree that
their organization was doing a great job of managing knowledge. Surprisingly, 38% tended to disagree
with the same statement.
When asked to rate the whole natural resource sector’s performance in the area of knowledge man-
agement, no one rated the performance as “excellent.” At 42%, the largest proportion of respondents
believed that the sector is doing an “average” job managing natural resource knowledge. Few believed
that the sector’s performance is “very good” (2%). A “good” performance rating was selected by 25% of
respondents, leaving a larger proportion of delegates rating the sector’s performance as “poor” (26%) or
“unacceptable” (5%).
Respondents identified many knowledge management barriers and challenges. Most of these identi-
fied barriers can be classified into concerns associated with leadership, culture, business processes,
technology, and lack of skills/knowledge in the field (Table 1).
When asked to suggest ways for improving the management of natural resource knowledge, most
suggestions pointed to education, metadata standards, co-operation and leadership, and addition of
incentives. Long-term support for management of information was also encouraged (Table 2).
CONFERENCE LISTENING POSTS AND EVALUATIONS
Conference delegates shared ideas with volunteer listening posts and through conference evaluations.
They shared their valuable learning experiences, told us what they would do differently when they go
home, and provided suggestions for activities to follow on the momentum of the Forum.
Sixty-one delegates returned conference evaluations. Over 93% of these delegates tended to agree that
the conference met their objectives and presented material that was relevant to them. Almost 97%

3
TABLE 2 Suggestions for improving the management of natural resource knowledge
• Education; explaining importance of knowl-
edge management
• Adding incentives
• More sharing of information to avoid duplicate
studies and wasting of money
• Improving inter-operability of systems
• Integration of information professionals into
research projects and decision making
• Seminars
• More communication on the types of services
and information sources available
• Encourage co-operation
• Single window access to information
• More cataloguing, indexing, and abstracting of
information
• Encourage people to publish short summaries
of their works
• Encourage scientific peer review
• Enhanced use of metadata
• Improved co-operation; be aware of national
and international co-ordinating efforts; don’t
reinvent wheels
• Recognize First Nations title and rights to land
and resources information
• Provide free access to government information
• Recognize employees
• Develop shared visions across the sector
• Institutionalize a commitment to spend x% of
a project’s funding on management of the
knowledge arising from that project
• Development and use of standards
• Legislate a requirement to manage information
TABLE 1 Knowledge management barriers and challenges
• Lack of financial incentives
• Budget cutbacks in both the government and
the private sector. Staff turnover. Constant
change.
• Lack of appreciation for the resources required
to manage information
• Lack of cost/benefit data for managing infor-
mation
• Lack of co-operation, empire building, lack of
leadership
• Incompatible data formats
• Lack of time, workload pressures (that prevent
both implementing and using systems for
managing knowledge)
• Issues relating to copyright, licensing issues,
data ownership
• Lack of knowledge about metadata standards
and tools
• Politics, protection of turf
• Poor indexing and search features in tech-
nology solutions
• Lack of knowledge about how to organize
information
• Organizational barriers, inconsistent skill sets,
lack of vision
• Lack of willingness to share information, lack
of trust
• “Scientists/managers’ attitude that one dollar
going toward knowledge management is one
dollar less going toward “real science”
• Concerns about the complexity and ease of use
of systems
• Lack of willingness to change
• Charging for information
• Concerns about information being made
available that has not been subject to scientific
peer review
• Lack of knowledge and understanding about
knowledge management terms and processes.
• Lack of knowledge management culture
• Lack of training
• Information is undervalued

4
tended to agree that the conference improved their understanding of the topic of knowledge manage-
ment and associated tools, technologies, strategies, and initiatives. Ninety percent of delegates felt that
they would apply some of the materials presented immediately (Table 3).
When asked what people plan to do differently as a result of attending the Forum, delegates indicated
they would:
• Place greater effort into linking, networking, and partnering.
• Be more confident in pushing better data management within the culture of the organization.
• Share their data.
• Promote the concept of knowledge management in their organization.
TABLE 3 Results of forum evaluations
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
Agree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree
Overall, the conference met my
objectives
The conference objectives were
clearly stated
Presented material was relevant to
me
Level of detail of information was
appropriate
Length of the conference was
appropriate
Conference content met my needs
The conference improved my
understanding of knowledge
management tools, technologies,
strategies, and initiatives
I will now be more willing to invest
time and resources in implementing
knowledge management tools,
technologies, strategies, and
initiatives
I have improved my understanding
of knowledge management
I will be more willing to share
information with others
I am more comfortable with the
topic of knowledge management
I will be able to apply some of the
material presented immediately
26.2 52.5 14.8 3.3 3.3 0.0
24.1 50.0 22.4 3.4 0.0 0.0
13.1 59.0 21.3 4.9 1.6 0.0
8.6 62.1 25.9 1.7 1.7 0.0
35.6 55.9 5.1 3.4 0.0 0.0
15.3 45.8 30.5 5.1 3.4 0.0
39.0 40.7 16.9 3.4 0.0 0.0
40.6 30.4 21.7 4.3 1.4 1.4
32.2 44.1 20.3 0.0 3.4 0.0
25.0 41.1 26.8 5.4 0.0 1.8
18.6 47.5 28.8 3.4 1.7 0.0
21.7 30.0 38.3 8.3 1.7 0.0

5
• Place more effort into learning how their information would be made available outside of their
organization.
• Develop a knowledge plan for their organization.
• Initiate a peer-assist workshop.
• Investigate presenters’ Web sites, tool kits, etc.
• Produce better metadata.
• Consider business opportunities in knowledge management.
As a follow-up to the Forum, delegates asked FORREX to:
• Summarize the results of the conference in a proceedings.
• Post presentations to the FORREX Web site.
• Produce a list of all Web sites referred to during the forum.
• Help organizations find funding to implement systems.
• Repeat conference in 2–3 years.
• Develop a report on the state of metadata initiatives within British Columbia.
• Produce a paper that clarifies knowledge management concepts.
• Offer more “how to” activities regarding metadata, geared to data producers.
• Build awareness of vendors and suppliers of tools or software that address field of knowledge
management.
• Increase the exchange of information between industry and academe.
• Share information management success stories.
On behalf of the Forum Planning Committee and everyone at FORREX, I’d like to thank everyone
who participated in the pre-conference survey, interacted with the Forum listening posts, and completed
the conference evaluations. We look forward to taking action on your suggestions and adjusting our
information management extension program to meet your needs.
AUTHOR
* Correspondence to: Trina Innes, Natural Resource Information Specialist, Forrex–Forest Research
Extension Partnership, Suite 702, 235 1st Avenue, Kamloops, BC V2V 3J4
E-mail: trina.innes@forrex.org

7
CITATION —
Hollstedt, C. 2003. Helping the resource sector move from information to knowledge and wisdom: An introduction and welcome
from FORREX. In Natural resources information management forum: Putting knowledge to work. T. Innes (editor). FORREX–Forest
Research Extension Partnership, Kamloops, B.C. FORREX Series No. 8. pp. 7–8.
Helping the resource sector move from
information to knowledge and wisdom:
An introduction and welcome from FORREX
CHRIS HOLLSTEDT*
The importance of the natural resource sector to the social, economic, and environmental well being of
British Columbia cannot be overstated—it is the cornerstone of sustainability in our province. To
remain a solid cornerstone and achieve the goal of supporting present and future generations, and to be
competitive in a global market, now more than ever we must demonstrate our ability to create, manage,
and use the best available information to make policy and management decisions.
FORREX was established in 1998 to provide a systems- and people-based structure to support im-
proved sustainable resource management decisions. (One could say we are bricks-and-mortar- poor, but
intellectually rich.) I’d like to share with you some history of our business and help you see the link
between FORREX, information management, knowledge management, our partners, and a wise and
innovative sector.
In the summer of 1997, fifteen people gathered in a small meeting room in Kamloops to explore what
we could do to support a knowledge-based resource sector. The group represented people from industry,
First Nations, provincial and federal government agencies, learning institutions, and key funding organi-
zations. Despite the diversity of representation, all agreed that while we were each doing our part to
support the generation of science and knowledge-based information, we needed a mechanism to link
those that needed information with those that could provide it. We also agreed that everyone needed
support to improve their understanding and use the new information to achieve innovations.
A research proposal (Hollstedt 1997) was submitted and subsequently funded by Forest Renewal BC.
It was designed to assess client sustainable resource information and infrastructure needs.“Clients” were
those who produce information, and those that use it to make policy and operational decisions. The
client needs survey published by the B.C. Ministry of Forests in 1999 (Gregory and Satterfield) presented
a comprehensive picture of those information and infrastructure needs. The scientific survey was con-
sistent with the wisdom of the 15 people who brainstormed in Kamloops—while 80% of the needs
related to information types and sources, 20% identified the need to improve systems and infrastructure
that supports information collection, dissemination, and management.
What did this say about the natural resource community? It suggested we know we need to use the
best available information to make sound policy and management decisions. It suggested that the
research community is interested in knowing what the information needs are of the user communities
and that the management community is interested and willing to engage in innovation. It also acknowl-
edged there were important pieces missing and barriers that limit the sector’s ability to fully engage in
the an innovation continuum (Figure 1). This limits the sector’s ability to work most effectively towards
sustainable resource management solutions. FORREX provides the link between those asking the ques-
tions, finding science-based solutions, and exchanging information to support continuous learning and
improvements. We work with our partners to define problems (Identify Information Needs), synthesize

8
and exchange information (Extension Services), manage information (Information Management Serv-
ices), and evaluate and report on progress (Evaluation Services).
As a sector, we need information, knowledge, and wisdom to manage renewable resources in this
complex paradigm of social, economic, and environmental sustainability. Management of our current
information holdings, and information we generate is one part of the solution. Creating access to infor-
mation so it is known is the next step. Creating an understanding of this information for wise use moves
this knowledge to wisdom.
To quote someone who understands sustainability better than I:
We must remember that Knowledge is only in the past tense, Learning is
only in the present tense, and Prediction is only in the future tense. To
manage sustainable forests, we need to be able to know, to learn, and to
predict. — Chris Maser, 1994
The new regulatory and planning framework will rely on scientific, professional, and expert perspec-
tives. We will engage in more monitoring and adaptive management studies to learn from our
innovations. Our challenge today is to manage and know the information we have and to use that
information to make sound predictions about our desired future conditions. Our challenge for tomor-
row is to work as an innovation team and create new information so that future resource managers will
be able to use it to improve their decisions.
On behalf of the FORREX board of directors and extension team, I welcome you to the first Natural
Resources Information Management Forum and invite you to be part of the information and knowledge
management solution.
AUTHOR
* Correspondence to: Chris Hollstedt, Executive Director, FORREX–Forest Research Extension
Partnership, Suite 702, 235–1st
Avenue, Kamloops, BC V2C 3J4.
E-mail: chris.hollstedt@forrex.org
FIGURE 1 An innovation continuum moving from questions to knowledge generation, exchange, and
application.

9
CITATION —
Dixon, N. 2003. Information management and organizational learning. In Natural resources information management forum:
Putting knowledge to work. T. Innes (editor). FORREX–Forest Research Extension Partnership, Kamloops, B.C. FORREX Series No. 8. pp. 9–12.
Information management and
organizational learning
NANCY DIXON*
A few years ago I got very interested in how knowledge moved around in organizations. So I studied a
number of organizations that were doing a good job with knowledge sharing to see how they did it and
to draw principles from it. Several oil companies were on the forefront, but so was the US Army, the big
five consulting firms, and several manufacturing companies.
The knowledge I saw being transferred could roughly be categorized into tacit and explicit knowledge,
the “tacit” knowledge being that which is in people’s heads, and the “explicit” knowledge being that
which could be written in documents and reports. The most important thing I learned was that these
two kinds of knowledge required very different processes to move them around the organization.
I can illustrate that difference best with stories about two very different knowledge-sharing processes.
I’ll start with British Petroleum’s Peer Assist Process.
Helen is a team leader for a specific British Petroleum (BP) exploration site. She has four people
reporting to her: two geophysicists, a geologist, and a petroleum engineer. The team has spent several
months collecting and analyzing a great deal of data about the viability of a deep-water site off the coast
of Norway known as “Barden.” The team is at a point where they need to make some decisions as to how
they will proceed. Should they commit to a rig? Should they make firm commitments to their partners
in the exploration license? These are important decisions because of the money involved—a rig, for
example, can cost up to $200 a minute!
Helen’s team has decided it would be useful for them to call upon the knowledge that other people
in BP have gathered about this particular type of prospect. They are going to call a Peer Assist. This
means identifying their BP colleagues in other parts of the world who have experience with the kind of
issues facing the Barden team. The team identifies about 15 possible candidates; people they have
worked with before or know about through the grapevine. Helen makes the calls. She finds some are
too busy on other projects, but she ends up with six people from her original list which she thinks can
be very helpful—three from the Norway office, one from Scotland, one from South Africa, and two
from London. They have agreed to meet on Wednesday, one month from now, in Stavanger, Norway
to spend the day.
On the meeting day, Helen starts by defining what her team wants from the Peer Assist. She lays out
their objectives for the meeting. The Peer Assist members have received a packet of material to read
through in advance. The walls of the conference room where Helen’s team and the Peer Assisters are
meeting are covered with pictures of the ocean bed, seismic lines, and charts. More are spread several
layers deep on the tables around the room. As Helen finishes her introduction, the Peer Assist group
asks some clarification questions about the objectives, and then Helen introduces her team member,
Knut, who begins to talk through the data and his interpretation of it. Before long, everyone is up
looking more closely at the wall data. There is a lively discussion about the implications among all the
participants.

10
After a coffee break, Martin, another team member, is introduced and he begins to show the data for
seismic velocity. Again within minutes the whole group is back on their feet examining the charts more
closely. The discussion flows back and forth with the Peer Assist members asking each other technical
questions about the data and often challenging each other’s responses.
After the lunch break, Helen says that they have finished presenting the data they planned. The Peer
Assist group again returns to questions about the original objectives for clarification in light of what
they have just heard. One of Peer Assisters notes that: “I’m uncomfortable with the discussion because
there are some strategic decisions to be made before we can give our opinion on whether to drill the
well.” The group decides they need to develop criteria for drilling the Barden well. Collaboratively, the
two groups develop these criteria, gaining additional insight as they talk through each point.
About three o’clock, Helen says she would like to excuse herself and her team to give the Peer Assist
team a chance to talk through the response they want to make. Once the Barden team leaves the room,
the Peer Assist group designates one member to keep track of their ideas on the flip charts and they
consider who should make the report when the team returns. As the group gets down to work on their
recommendations there is an animated exchange. For nearly every assertion that is made, someone
wants to know why that is needed or why it should be given preference over other points. The member
from Scotland suggests a new technique they have just developed west of the Shetlands that could
provide useful additional data on a prospect like Barden. He offers to send the specifications for that
process and to spend some time helping the Barden team to go through it the first time. The discussion
is technical, but it is very open and lively. It is obvious that the members are interested in this situation
and want to be of help.
About five o’clock, the Barden team returns to hear the ideas of the Peer Assist team. The spokesper-
son thanks the Barden team for giving them a chance to work on such an interesting problem and notes
they have all learned from the exchange. As the report proceeds, the Barden team asks a few clarification
questions, but mostly they listen to the thoughtful response this team is providing. When the report is
finished, Helen says that the report is very clear and notes that it has given her team a great deal to think
about as they move toward the decisions they must take. She acknowledges that the Barden team was
nervous about whether it was too early in their investigation to call for a Peer Assist, but she is now
convinced that the timing was right. The team can take the recommendations into account before they
are fully committed to a course of action. The day ends with a dinner at a local restaurant. The dinner is
relaxed and people have time to talk through how the Peer Assist process went. The dinner is a way for
the Barden team to express their gratitude to those who came to share their knowledge.
Since my initial look at BP, I have conducted hundreds of Peer Assists, within health care, government,
and, of course, the oil industry. It is a simple concept that is incredibly adaptable to many settings and
levels. Over the last few weeks, I have been talking with a number of people that are attending this
conference, many of them about the model forest project both here in British Columbia and interna-
tionally. I think it is possible that these different model forest sites, which are at various stages, could
learn a great deal from each other with a Peer Assist process.
The second story I want to tell is about Ford’s Best Practice Replication system. It was initiated in the
company’s vehicle operations division. These are 37 plants around the world where Ford vehicles are
assembled and painted. Each week, every plant receives, over the company’s intranet, between five and
eight best practices that apply only to the vehicle operations division.
Each plant manager appoints production engineers, called “focal points,” to be responsible for best
practices. In some plants, there may be as many as three focal points, each working in a different area,
such as paint, assembly, or stamping. As well as being responsible for retrieving the best practices that
are passed to the plant, they are also in charge of entering best practices from their own plant into the
system. Examples of best practices include a new, quicker method of installing the front bumper, a

11
different sequence in the paint cycle that will save time, or a piece of automated equipment that will
cut labour costs.
The on-line reports are concise and standardized. They include where the idea originated, a brief
description of the practice, the savings it achieved, and the name and telephone number of someone
from whom to obtain more information. There is usually a picture and, when necessary, video is added
because the focal points have found that, for many of the best practices, seeing the motion involved is
necessary to understand it properly.
The focal point marks an electronic scorecard attached to each practice with one of several re-
sponses: “adopted,”“under investigation,”“previously adopted,”“not applicable,” or “too costly.” The
plants are not obliged to adopt any practice that appears on the site, but they must respond to each
one.
Once an idea has been adopted, the focal point is responsible for reporting the cost involved and the
savings that were made. One best practice, for example, has been replicated in 35 of the 37 plants. The
value added is, of course, in the replication. One plant might make an improvement that saves $20 000.
Then, if nine other plants copy that practice, the saving is quickly multiplied to $200 000. In one year
alone, Ford’s Best Practice Replication saved the company $34 million.
The system started in vehicle operations, but savings of that scale have made it attractive to other
parts of the organization, including customer service and product development. Many parts of Ford
have now adopted similar systems.
There are many ways to explain how two very different processes for knowledge sharing are both
successful. My explanation is that to make knowledge sharing work you have to match the type of
knowledge with the right transfer method. For example, BP’s exploration teams are doing a task that can
never be done the same way twice—they are creating and transferring tacit knowledge. By contrast,
putting the front bumper on a car in a production line is done the same way 500 times a day. The task
can be standardized; that is, a process can be detailed and, if followed, will work in any Ford plant—it is
explicit knowledge. The rule of thumb is that the more tacit the knowledge is, the more dialogue is
needed to transfer it.
One more story to add to the mix is Nokia. As the cellular phone industry is growing, they have to do
a lot of hiring. In the Copenhagen research and development section, there are 84 mechanical engineers
that work on the design of new phones. And they have three “gardeners.” A gardener is an experienced
engineer who can help new or less experienced engineers when they have a problem. They are nomi-
nated by colleagues to this position, taking it on as a full-time role for a couple of years. Actually, because
of their level of experience, they might have found themselves in that role anyway, at least on a part-time
basis. But with this role, they do not have to keep up with an assigned project, which allows them to
concentrate on the gardening task of connecting others.
One of their tasks is to help the less-experienced engineers build their network. In a company where
knowledge is changing all the time—for example, new technology, changes in current programs, errors
in the software that someone else has corrected—an engineer’s network is vital to getting the work done.
The gardeners are also the carriers of ideas among the 84 engineers. If someone is working on a
retractable antenna, a gardener can tell her who else is working on a retractable antenna right now.
Gardeners take it upon themselves to write up the “best practices” in their area of speciality. These are
2–3 page guidelines for beginners, and which also have additional contact names of people who know a
great deal about the guidelines; again, very useful for new engineers to have before they have developed
their own contacts.
The gardeners sit in on review meetings, not Peer Assists, but review/audit meetings that are held to
determine whether a project can move to the next steps. They gather the lessons from these meetings so
that when they work with others they can share the ideas.

12
Among all three of these stories there are some important similarities that underlie knowledge
sharing.
• Reciprocity – Everyone who shares their knowledge with others is also a learner from their col-
leagues. There is no one group or unit that purports to have all the answers.
• Voluntary participation – It is up to the discretion of the user if they want to take on the knowl-
edge that others have offered. People, whether engineers or front-line staff, participate because they
see it as useful.
• Recognition – None of these systems pay people to share, or offer them bonuses for doing so. It is
the recognition of their peers that participants value.
Rob Cross demonstrated the importance of learning from peers in a study of project managers in a
major consulting firm. This firm, like many consulting firms, had an outstanding knowledge repository.
In the study, Rob and his colleagues asked 40 project managers where they got the knowledge that was
critical to getting a specific project done. What he found was that overwhelmingly they got their knowl-
edge from people, even given their very sophisticated repositories. He then asked each project manager
to name three of the people that were most significant to the project and he conducted in-depth inter-
views with them about what they learned from each one. What he found was that these project managers
received much more than just answers to their questions. They often got an unexpected, but much
appreciated, reformulation of the issue; frequently they got encouragement that helped them to keep
going; they got information about other sources of knowledge about the issue; and sometimes, through
these discussions, they even obtained political clout that allowed them to more successfully take the next
step.
Natural resources professionals work in a complex and political environment. If all natural resources
professionals needed was an answer, they could get that through the many repositories which informa-
tion professionals have built and are now making much more useful and complete. But to deal effectively
with the complex problems that natural resource professionals face, I suggest that they need much more
than an answer.
The implication for you, as natural resources information management professionals, is that you
need to be concerned with how to make available both tacit and explicit knowledge. There is a tempta-
tion to concentrate primarily on explicit knowledge because it is tangible, and you have greater control
over it. You can organize it, check it, and build taxonomies for it. And of course, there is the satisfaction
of being able to see it and finally cross it off the list as a completed task.
Tacit knowledge, on the other hand, is messy. It has to keep moving from person to person, group to
group, growing and changing as it moves. With it continually changing, you can’t ever cross it off as
“complete.” But to do the job right, information management professionals will have to continue to do
“collection” and also facilitate the “connection” that moves tacit knowledge. Short of that, you will be
addressing only a small percentage of the critical knowledge the organization needs and uses.
AUTHOR
* Correspondence to: Nancy Dixon, Common Knowledge Associates, 2475 Virginia Avenue, NW #808,
Washington DC 20037
E-mail: nancydixon@commonknowledge.org

13
CITATION —
Lane, M. 2003. Implementing a global information facility [Abstract]. In Natural resources information management forum: Putting
knowledge to work. T. Innes (editor). FORREX–Forest Research Extension Partnership, Kamloops, B.C. FORREX Series No. 8. p. 13.
Implementing a global information facility
MEREDITH LANE*
ABSTRACT
The Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) was established, in March 2001, as a megascience
activity financed by 21 countries, with 10 more countries and 14 international organizations as associate
participants (these numbers are growing all the time). Unlike most other megascience facilities, GBIF is
a distributed, virtual entity that consists of interconnected nodes spanning the globe. Its purpose is to
facilitate biodiversity data-sharing worldwide, and to enable links among species-level (natural history
specimen) data and genetic, ecological, biological, and geographical data. Such interconnections will
enable advanced decision-support systems, as well as an entirely new level of scientific inquiry. The
GBIF effort is not without systems and mechanisms on which to model its solutions, nor is it without its
own unique challenges. The hardware and software infrastructure needed is already available or is in
advanced stages of development, and some standards and software from other information domains can
be adapted to GBIF’s uses. However, biodiversity data, and the scientific and policy queries that require
those data, are more complex than in virtually any other information domain. If GBIF is to succeed, it is
of paramount importance that data and metadata standards be adopted, a comprehensive electronic
authority file for taxonomic names be compiled, and that digital natural history specimen records be
added to the Internet at a vastly accelerated rate. Yet, GBIF’s greatest challenges are not in the develop-
ment of technology, standards and data liberation—instead, they are embedded in the psychology and
sociology of human beings.
AUTHOR
* Correspondence to: Meredith Lane, Global Biodiversity Information Facility, GBIF Secretariat,
Universitetsparken 15, 2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark
E-mail: mlane@gbif.org

15
CITATION —
Howes, D. 2003. Information management and organizational learning. In Natural resources information management forum: Putting
knowledge to work. T. Innes (editor). FORREX–Forest Research Extension Partnership, Kamloops, B.C. FORREX Series No. 8. pp. 15–25.
Land Information British Columbia
DON HOWES*
INTRODUCTION
The British Columbia Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management (MSRM) was created in June 2001
to serve as the lead provincial agency responsible for the facilitation of economic development on Crown
land, the provision of corporate information services, and the formulation of land and resource policy
necessary for the sustainable development of land, water, and resources. The Ministry provides leader-
ship in finding the balance between economic development and environmental integrity. Land
Information British Columbia is the major information service initiative in support of the ministry goal
to provide “effective delivery of integrated, science-based, land, resource and geographic information”
for a wide range of decision makers and processes (Figure 1).
FIGURE 1 Goals and services of the B.C. Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management.

16
Land Information British Columbia supports a new vision for the delivery of information and services
to business, industry, academe, governments, and the public. It addresses the deficiencies of redundant,
costly, and ineffective access to land and resource information that was characteristic before the creation
of MSRM. It also addresses the future trend of increasing demand for integrated information by a diverse
group of clients and decision makers. A key element of the delivery strategy for this initiative includes
the development of partnerships, agreements, and alliances with other governments, businesses, indus-
try, and other interested third parties. Land Information British Columbia will:
• provide multiple-channel information services for a wide range of clients;
• support effective economic development, land-use planning, and decision-making processes based
on sound scientific information; and
• reduce costs through the elimination of duplicate information and systems infrastructure, and
improved collection and integration of information.
LAND INFORMATION BRITISH COLUMBIA
Vision
A strong and vibrant provincial economy, a supportive social infrastructure, and safe, healthy communi-
ties with a sustainable environment are the three cornerstones of the government’s vision of British
Columbia as a prosperous and just province, whose citizens achieve their potential and have confidence
in the future.
Land Information British Columbia is an enabling initiative that will allow the engagement of indi-
vidual citizens and the private and public sector’s participation in achieving this vision. What if all these
groups had simple, direct, and open access to integrated social, economic, and environmental informa-
tion? What if everyone could see how they fit into the larger social, economic, and environmental fabric
of British Columbia? Land Information British Columbia supports the transparency of diverse interests,
allows us to assess potential impacts of our decisions, and helps us to act together responsibly and
mindful of our common good, helping to achieve open, democratic, and accountable government.
Key Features
Land Information British Columbia initiates the development of achieving this vision. It will provide a
single window to all of the province’s land and resource information, products, and services; it is a key
component of the “e-government” strategy to provide increased access to services at lower cost by the
effective use of the Internet. The focus is to assist all clients in becoming successful by ensuring that they
have the right tools and the right information to make healthy choices for British Columbia. It is part of
the overall transformation of government from a rule-driven regulator to a client-focused provider of
services and information.
The initial focus of this initiative is to provide accessible, integrated information on natural resources,
land ownership, and legal interests to internal (provincial government) and external clients. Areas
supported by these efforts include:
• land and resource-focused economic development efforts of business, industry, and government;
• treaty negotiations and First Nations economic opportunities;
• business, industry, and citizen-related activities through e-services;
• regulatory agencies involved in protection, stewardship, and allocation of provincial resources; and
• strategic, sector, and local planning (e.g., tourism, coastal, emergency response).

17
Key components of Land Information British Columbia to achieve these initial goals include:
• A provincial atlas of natural and man-made features of the province that provides a geographic
framework for the spatial referencing of land and resource information and, in the future, social
and economic information.
• A land and resource registry of all legal interests in Crown/private land and integrated resource
information (e.g., fish, forest, wildlife, heritage, and soils) geo-referenced to the provincial atlas.
• A land and resource warehouse that provides the infrastructure to manage and gain access to this
information.
• E-services and access to the information, products, and services for business, industry, academe,
governments, and the public.
It is envisioned that the scope of Land Information British Columbia will broaden and facilitate the
future inclusion of the government’s social and economic information, helping to address the ever-
increasing demand for comprehensive, integrated information to conduct sophisticated analysis in
support of sustainability and economic development. Integration will be facilitated by the provincial
atlas spatial referencing framework—a framework for common geographical (spatial) referencing for all
types of information (Figure 2). Cross-government leveraging would assist this integration of informa-
tion through the adoption of spatial data collection and management standards and procedures, the
transfer of spatial information knowledge and expertise, and use of spatial analysis services of Land
Information British Columbia. As more of the capabilities of integrated information become apparent,
the potential for new value-added services will increase, both inside and outside government. Land
Information British Columbia is intended to nurture this vision and the investment needed to fully
realize this potential.
The proposed long-term investment strategy will pursue opportunities based on the level of complex-
ity and readiness within each of the three key sectors of government (economic, social/health, and
environmental). The initial focus will be towards sustainable economic development of lands and
resources. This will also provide the foundation for further initiatives to boost the competitiveness and
FIGURE 2 Long-term vision for the incorporation of economic and social information.

18
profitability of British Columbia businesses and our economy, and to enhance the social well-being of
the residents of this province.
Accomplishing this longer-term vision, however, requires that social and economic agencies under-
take an initiative similar to Land Information British Columbia (e.g., integrated social economic
warehouse, consolidation of systems, common standards) while ensuring overall integration with Land
Information British Columbia.
Examples of potential service applications that can be progressively provided to the citizens of British
Columbia by the initial integration of land and resource information, and subsequent economic and
social information for different communities of interest within the three key sectors of government are
illustrated in Table 1.
Land Information British Columbia represents significant potential value and opportunity for everyone
in British Columbia. The private sector, academe, citizens, and government agencies are the expected
beneficiaries of this provincial investment. Benefits to the private sector include the provision of tools to
businesses, industry, and local communities to help identify economic opportunities and development, and
the provision of current and accurate information to enhance certainty of access to lands and resources.
Some of the public benefits include enabling citizens, organizations, and businesses to participate in
developing healthy communities and enhancing trust in government by providing fair and easy access to
integrated information. Land Information British Columbia demonstrates provincial leadership by using e-
government assistance to achieve a sustainable balance between economic development and environmental
integrity, and to enhance services to businesses and citizens. This initiative also supports various levels of
government by improving decision making through leveraging the inherent potential of integrated social,
economic, and environmental data and by reducing costs through a common infrastructure.
Strategic Delivery Plan
The strategic plan for the delivery of Land Information British Columbia is incremental, commencing
with internal government consolidation and rationalization, followed by and in conjunction with
external realignment through partnerships and collaboration, leading to delivery through one or several
public–private partnerships (Figure 3).
FIGURE 3 Land Information British Columbia strategic direction.

19
TABLE 1 An example of the progression of services with increasing integration of land and resource, eco-
nomic, and social information
Internal government consolidation and rationalization commenced with the formation of MSRM. This
re-structuring brought together staff involved in a range of land and resource information activities
from eight different government agencies in June 2001. Initial activities included a review of programs to

20
identify those critical to this initiative, and implementation of key delivery strategies and projects.
Subsequent activities include:
• initiating the cultural and organizational transition (shift) to a client focus;
• aligning business processes to the core mandates;
• rationalizing and optimizing information and systems;
• identifying clients, their requirements and services;
• instituting best business practices; and
• shifting to process management from direct implementation.
The completion of this phase is expected by December 2004.
Concurrently, MSRM is also transforming its former delivery model through realignment of its exter-
nal relationship with business, industry, academe, and other third parties. The Ministry is moving
toward alternative service delivery with specific emphasis on developing partnerships, agreements, and
alliances with other interested third parties and governments, and developing increased capacity of
electronic service delivery. As such, a number of steps have been taken to move towards a public–private
partnership delivery model. For example, a partnership office has been established and has developed a
partnership strategy/management framework for ministry staff. A major feature of the strategy is the
movement away from in-house command management to a model of shared decision making with
partners. This requires a major culture shift to one of shared risks, benefits, and financial investment. To
assist this shift, the office has undertaken an internal business case analysis to identify potential partner-
ship opportunities and a range of partnership types. It is also responsible for public interest and freedom
of information assessments, and for working with other provincial government agencies as a partnership
is established. One such partnership with the non-profit Integrated Cadastral Information Society is
already under way to develop and maintain an integrated cadastral, municipal, and utility fabric for the
province. The partnership includes utility companies, municipalities, and the provincial government.
The Ministry is also working collaboratively with industry, academe, and other governments to
explore opportunities related to the collection, management, and delivery of land and resource informa-
tion that could potentially result in some form of partnership. Some of these initiatives included
working jointly with the national GeoConnections program to make geographic data available over the
Internet, the GEOIDE program to promote and support research related to spatial information, and the
University of Victoria to develop a remote sensing centre of excellence on the West Coast. As there are
similar initiatives to Land Information British Columbia in other jurisdictions, MSRM is also pursuing
and developing agreements with other governments (e.g., Ontario) to work together on common
infrastructure, data management, access and related information projects, and to jointly pursue other
funding options. The ministry is also collaborating with a small consortium of the forest industry to
investigate the opportunities to jointly deliver and manage resource information. The development of
significant partnerships and collaborations to assist in the delivery of Land Information British Columbia
requires patience and time. A successful partnership usually requires 2–3 years to become established
and operational. Developing and maintaining partnerships will be an ongoing activity for MSRM.
Guiding Principles
A number of principles have been identified that should help to guide the development and delivery of
Land Information British Columbia. These are:
• Easy to access and to use: Connecting government, industry, business, academe, and citizens to
meet their needs and preferences (client-focused).
• Collaborative: Developing solutions collectively among public, private, non-profit, and research
partners in a timely manner and on the basis of skills, experience, and expertise.

21
• Transformation: Enabling technology through individual and organizational leadership to change
the delivery of government services.
• Cost-effective: Producing significant long-term efficiencies and savings through strategic invest-
ments .
• Innovative and results-oriented: Harnessing advanced technology with a motivated performance-
oriented staff.
• Private and secure: Generating trust in government through appropriate standards for privacy and
security.
Delivery Strategies
Land Information British Columbia will be delivered through three unified streams of activity centred on
client service delivery, business transformation, and information integration. Delivery will be enabled by
strategies related to the creation of a professional, motivated, performance-oriented workforce, commu-
nication, and marketing (Figure 4). Similar to the overall strategic plan, each of these strategies is also
incremental to ensure that the Ministry balances its short-term needs and services as it migrates to the
long-term vision.
Client Service Delivery: Ensure effective delivery through multiple channels of an array of information
services including those related to information content, decision support (analysis and modelling),
access (electronic, over-the-counter), and information management.
Key Activities:
• Developing a range of access applications (e.g., self-service, business-specific, and community of
interests).
• Implementing best business practices to ensure effective client support.
• Developing science-based models to support decision makers.
FIGURE 4 Land Information British Columbia strategies.

22
Business Transformation: Transform current service delivery practices to alternative approaches with a
specific emphasis on public–private partnerships and electronic service delivery.
Key Activities:
• Ongoing exploration and maintenance of public–private partnership opportunities and alliances
with the forest industry, academe, and other governments.
• Developing the corporate infrastructure and e-business delivery solutions.
• Realigning organization.
• Collaborating with the Chief Information Office and other related government ministries for
improved government service.
Information Integration: Manage the integration of land, resource, and geographic information and
maintain this information in an integrated land and resource warehouse.
Key Activities:
• Rationalizing and consolidating land and resource information and related systems.
• Developing provincial legislation, policy, and standards for spatial information collection, manage-
ment, and access.
• Developing and maintaining the provincial base map and geodetic reference framework.
People and Culture: Ensure quality client service delivered by a professional, motivated performance-
oriented staff.
Key Activities:
• Developing creative, committed leaders throughout the organization.
• Creating an environment of teamwork across the organization.
• Developing a learning organization and associated training plans.
Communication and Marketing: Ensure a positive public profile such that Land Information British
Columbia’s vision, activities, and services are easily and clearly understood by all clients and decision
makers.
Key Activities:
• Developing internal and external communication plans.
• Developing a marketing strategy to ensure clients are aware of guiding/operating principles,
information services, and products.
Implementation of these five strategies and their associated projects will result in the delivery of a
range of information services. A functional delivery model (regardless of any partnership relationship)
for the delivery of these services is presented in Figure 5. Services include:
• decision support to ensure that the best possible information is brought to bear on decisions and
to act as a clearing house for information resulting from those decision-making processes;
• registry services for all regulatory agencies that assign rights and titles over our forests, water,
archaeological, and other resources;
• acquisition and management of information about the province’s natural and mineral resources in
support of the needs of resource stewards and land use planners; and
• access services (portal) for land-related electronic services and information, and packaging this
information to serve the specific needs of key client groups.
Land Information British Columbia is one of several components of the government’s overall e-BC
strategy and will be delivered through the government portal.

23
CHALLENGES
Land Information British Columbia must address several challenges to be successful. These challenges are
both internal and external to MSRM and government. They include: developing an agreed common
vision; defining client requirements and meeting their expectations; transforming a government agency
to a client-focused organization with a motivated, professional staff in an environment of reduced
resources; developing long-term partnerships; and maintaining content. Other challenges involve the
digital divide with rural communities in British Columbia, integration of government land information
policies and procedures, increased portal competition, and the rate of technological change.
Developing a common vision within and between government, industry, and business is a key factor
for success. Opportunities for successful delivery and long-term partnerships will only occur if there is a
commonly shared vision for accessible land and resource information. Land Information British Colum-
bia represents a major shift from internal control and management to a client-focused, shared-delivery
process management model. This challenge should be addressed through a progressive plan that inte-
grates restructuring to a service-orientated organization, and cultural and human resource strategies. As
this initiative requires a major cultural transformation within government not only does it require an
integrated strategy, but also the time for these strategies to become effective. Working in an environment
of reduced resources adds another degree of difficulty to achieving the long-term vision and goals, as
well as meeting current and future client requirements, and is contrary to similar related information
initiatives in other jurisdictions. The development of significant partnerships and collaborations to assist
in the delivery of Land Information British Columbia requires patience and time (2–3 years). The inte-
gration of government policies is another issue that has the potential to effect the success of this
initiative. Government must develop consistent and integrated policies and procedures related to infor-
mation management and access. For example, partnership development is a key component of Land
Information British Columbia’s delivery strategy; however, partnership arrangements can be affected by
data pricing and freedom of information policies.
FIGURE 5 Functional information delivery model.

24
Some long-term challenges to the delivery of land and resource information to the businesses and
citizens of British Columbia include maintaining current, accurate content within the land and resource
warehouse, electronic access to rural communities, and technological change. For example, most of the
resource information is currently collected and maintained by a diverse range of organizations (industry,
business, academe, non-government, and government). To ensure that this information “flows” into a
warehouse infrastructure requires developing and maintaining a collaborative resource information
management and governance model amongst these partners.
The Premier’s Technology Council noted in April 2002 that over 200 communities lack access to the
broadband network thus limiting the delivery of land and resource information and other information
that could be used to facilitate local economic and social development. Part of Land Information British
Columbia’s success (for these communities) depends on how well government and industry address this
issue. Finally, there is the challenge of building and designing a new infrastructure for the delivery of
information in an environment of continual technological change (while maintaining delivery of cur-
rent services) and the rapid proliferation of duplicate information portal Web sites. The latter is an
example of where better co-ordination and collaboration between information providers could result in
better services and reduced costs.
CURRENT STATUS OF KEY ACTIVITIES
The following provides information on the status of some of the key activities of Land Information
British Columbia.
• E-services projects under way include the electronic submission of land titles and land surveys;
archaeological assessments; access to land-use plans, fishery resources, and tourism opportunity
studies; the initial Web access application to the land and resource information warehouse.
• The land and resource registry has recently completed a comprehensive business strategy and
implementation plan with input from Crown corporations, industry, and various levels of govern-
ment. This multi-year project will fundamentally change how legal interests are registered in
British Columbia.
• The Provincial Baseline Atlas is being enhanced to provide capacity for digital image management
and access, enhanced TRIM, and a networked stream atlas. In addition, the Atlas is delivering a
provincial digital road network for linkage with satellite Geographic Positioning Systems to service
911 response, vehicle navigation, and routing through a partnership with industry.
• An implementation plan has recently been completed to re-engineer the land and resource ware-
house to meet the future needs of industry, business, academe, other governments, and the public.
Work has also commenced to develop the corporate spatial access infrastructure, standards and
policies for governance and management of spatial information, and the consolidation of the
existing warehouse infrastructure.
• MSRM is working with the Integrated Cadastral Information Society board to create the first
province-wide private parcel fabric, which will be integrated with and update the Crown cadastre.
The new fabric will provide a common base for cross-government and government–industry
business transactions.
• A strategy for a resource information program has recently been completed and provides the vision
and direction for collection and capture of resource information, defines MSRM’s role, and outlines
the next steps for achieving this strategy.

25
AUTHOR
* Correspondence to: Don Howes, Assistant Deputy Minister, Business and Information Services
Division, B.C. Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, PO Box 9352 Stn.
Prov. Govt., Victoria, BC V8W 9M1
E-mail: Don.Howes@gems7.gov.bc.ca

27
CITATION —
Miller, V. 2003. Filling in the gaps: Amalgamating and applying Indigenous and Western science. In Natural resources information
management forum: Putting knowledge to work. T. Innes (editor). FORREX–Forest Research Extension Partnership, Kamloops, B.C.
FORREX Series No. 8. pp. 27–29.
Filling in the gaps: Amalgamating and
applying Indigenous and Western science
VERNA MILLER*
INTRODUCTION
This presentation is about research from a whole new perspective—finding a way to amalgamate and
integrate Indigenous (Nlaka’pmx) science perspectives with Western science perspectives. Many chal-
lenges are associated with trying to get the two sciences into a position that is complimentary. Tmixw
Research is striving to help Western scientists understand that the centuries of knowledge and the
adaptations made over time are paramount to ensuring that First Nations have a major contributing role
in the sustainability our natural resources
WHO WE ARE AND WHAT WE DO
Tmixw
Research is an all First Nations research group working for the five Nlaka’pmx Bands of the
Nicola Tribal Association, centrally located at Merritt, B.C. Tmixw
Research is involved in initiating
changes to the way forestry is being managed in the Merritt Timber Supply Area (TSA). Six major
licensees holding Innovative Forestry Practices Agreements (IFPA) have joined together in a spirit of
co-operation to manage this TSA. This group is called the Nicola Similkameen Innovative Forestry
Society (the “Society”).
One of the Nicola Tribal Association’s chiefs is a registered professional forester and is on the Board
of Directors for the Society. As a result, Nicola Tribal Association communities participate as equal
partners with industry and government in the management of the Merritt TSA. The Society’s objectives
are to:
• Create an innovative forest management environment
• Support communities
• Support First Nations communities
• Increase the sustainable harvest
• Enhance environmental values
• Strengthen sustainable forest management technology
• Develop community involvement
• Increase administrative efficiencies
As a First Nations group who participates in the Society at every level we are helping to achieve a
number of these strategic goals—not necessarily limited to First Nations issues.

28
A BIT OF HISTORY
Briefly, Tmixw
Research originated in 1997 with a Forest Renewal BC Traditional Use study. In 1999,
Tmixw
Research was mandated by the Nicola Tribal Association to work with the Society and find a way
of amalgamating and integrating the Nlaka’pmx information (collected during the Traditional Use
study) into stewardship development plans. Currently, Tmixw
Research has three departments:
Traditional Research, Archaeology, and Research Development. Some of the projects we have been
involved in include:
• Oral collection in Nlakapmxcin and English
• Seasonal rounds, including parenting, genealogy, family, rights of passage, etc.
• Archival and literature collection
• Archaeology referrals
• Global positioning (GPS) of Nlaka’pmx trails
• Cultural inventories in digital formats (GIS, Microsoft AccessTM
)
• Development of heritage conservation policy
• Fire management and archaeology of fire
APPLYING KNOWLEDGE: THE PROCESS
The Society has developed a Predictive Ecosystem Model (PEM) mapping system approach for the cost-
effective integration of a full range of local forest values into resource management planning. This
approach incorporates provincial schemes and standards, while the data gathered at Tmixw
introduces
the Nlaka’pmx science and stewardship methods in using and caring for the land. The premise of this is:
“How do we approach getting the two together without comprising the integrity of Nlaka’pmx knowl-
edge?” The PEM combines GIS map layers with expert ecological knowledge, and Nlaka’pmx information
is used to validate and expand this process by overlaying other themes, such as hunting and gathering
areas, to develop Nlaka’pmx landscape units for utilization with timber supply review, high-level strate-
gic planning, and stand development.
Spatial models are being developed that will allow information updates, as required, and predictions
of values into the future. By using both Nlaka’pmx knowledge (including Traditional Use studies) and
PEM information, we are able to ensure that First Nations values are incorporated into land-base man-
agement. Nlaka’pmx information provides us with historical information; PEM can help us understand
what’s on the land today by predicting the potential for patterns of use in the future.
Into this system, Tmixw
Research is currently integrating 25 species from our non-spatial and spatial
inventory databases. This process of linking PEM and Nlaka’pmx data sets presents new challenges to
both Occidental and Nlaka’pmx science because Nlaka’pmx science is complex within its own context.
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
This document is being developed to protect the Indigenous Intellectual Knowledge and Proprietary
Rights of the Nicola Tribal Association. Tmixw
Research will continue to protect and interpret the
information housed in our database, GIS, and archival holdings. It’s important that Tmixw
Research
control and interpret the information done within the context of the Nlaka’pmx culture and language,
which in other hands could very easily be misinterpreted or abused.

29
In order for Tmixw
Research and the Society to work together in a respectful and open manner, a
memorandum of agreement is necessary. This document provides the opportunity for communities and
industries to:
• establish mutually beneficial relationships of trust and respect;
• implement a process to address each other’s concerns and resolve disputes;
• establish a process to undertake meaningful land management initiatives and to share information;
and
• promote efficient, effective forest management by incorporating Nlaka’pmx scientific and steward-
ship information with Western science.
CONCLUSION
From the perspective of Tmixw
Research, once we have amalgamated and integrated the information
from the two differing sciences, the resulting Nlaka’pmx landscape units will form a starting point to
develop land stewardship strategies in the Merritt TSA. The objective is to see whether our information
can be combined with the PEM system, to show the existence and understanding of other priorities
outside Western science, and to educate, communicate, and change current land management processes
within our traditional territory.
Trying to integrate two opposing methodologies brings up many moral, social, and protocol issues.
For example, who will control all of the information? This is a critical issue because the Elders and
Advisors would only allow certain pieces of information to be made public. Confidential issues must be
dealt with showing utmost respect for Nlaka’pmx culture and context.
AUTHOR
* Correspondence to: Verna L. Miller, Director, Tmixw
Research, Nicola Tribal Association,
2090 Coutlee Avenue, PO Box 188, Merritt, BC V1K 1B8
E-mail: vmiller@tmixw.nicolatribal.org

31
CITATION —
DeRoy, S. 2003. Aboriginal Mapping Network [Abstract]. In Natural resources information management forum: Putting knowledge to
work. T. Innes (editor). FORREX–Forest Research Extension Partnership, Kamloops, B.C. FORREX Series No. 8. p. 31.
Aboriginal Mapping Network
STEVEN DEROY*
ABSTRACT
The Aboriginal Mapping Network (AMN) is a collection of resource pages for First Nation mappers who
are looking for answers to common questions regarding mapping, information management, and GIS. It
is a network through which First Nation mappers can learn about what other native mappers are doing,
and share their own experiences throughout the Aboriginal community. The AMN has a British Colum-
bia focus, but is not limited to this geographic region. It is intended to be used by any group who is
active in aboriginal mapping, from the introductory level to the advanced. It is a source for both techni-
cal information on GIS mapping, and general information relevant to decision makers.
For more information on the AMN, please visit the Web site at www.nativemaps.org. Explore the Web
site for data, publications, software and hardware, on-line maps by First Nations, funding sources,
upcoming conferences, and recent job postings.
AUTHOR
* Correspondence to: Steven deRoy, Ecotrust Canada, 200–1238 Homer Street,Vancouver, BC V6B 2Y5
E-mail: steven@ecotrustcan.org

33
CITATION —
Lawrence, T., T. DeWitt, and L. Libby. 2003. Using GIS as a system for managing public participation in the planning process. In Natural
resources information management forum: Putting knowledge to work. T. Innes (editor). FORREX–Forest Research Extension
Partnership, Kamloops, B.C. FORREX Series No. 8. pp. 33–38.
Using GIS as a system for managing public
participation in the planning process
TIMOTHY LAWRENCE*, TIMOTHY DEWITT†
, AND LAWRENCE LIBBY‡
INTRODUCTION
Watershed groups are often interested in active participation in developing comprehensive land use
plans that provide some means of protecting natural resources, such as water quality, aquatic and
terrestrial biodiversity, open space, farmland, riparian corridors, and other important natural resources.
Natural-resource-based planning has been promoted by both governmental and non-governmental
entities for some time (Arnold and Gibbons 1996). This basic principle is the cornerstone of the na-
tional Nonpoint source [pollution] Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO) Network now operating
in some twenty-three states. The concept of natural-resource-based planning has been used to increase
general awareness of the relationship between land-use development and the effects on water quality.
What has been lacking is the means to easily provide watershed groups and local decision makers with a
quantifiable means to identify a given parcel’s environmental or developmental value. Building on
various land evaluation components, Ohio NEMO, the environmental consulting firm Bennett and
Williams, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, and Ohio State University are seeking to provide the
type of information that local watershed groups and decision makers will need to make effective deci-
sions.
The basic concept of identifying important natural resources and steering development away from
those areas has become a priority for many communities currently involved in the Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL) watershed planning process, and will undoubtedly continue to play an important role in
this regard. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), and Ohio State University Extension are supportive of the watershed concept for water quality
enhancement and protection (Bonnell 2002). The U.S. EPA has recently reaffirmed their support for
watershed groups to maintain and restore the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s
water environment (Mehan 2002). It is likely that this concept will also be embraced by local communi-
ties as they seek methods to not only meet the goals of the TMDL plan, but other provisions of the Clean
Water Act, including National Pollution Discharge Elimination System and anti-degradation require-
ments.
Without a meaningful method of identifying important natural resources and prioritizing which of
these resources to protect, it is unlikely that these groups will succeed in the development or implemen-
tation of effective plans or meeting key provisions of the Clean Water Act. In Ohio, watershed plans
developed by watershed groups will be submitted to the Ohio EPA as the TMDL plans for watersheds.
This increases the importance of these plans and emphasizes their need to be consistent with protection
of natural resources. Maintaining continuity across jurisdictional lines, while preserving the economic,
social, political, and environmental protection, requires clear lines of communication. It also requires

FS8

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to FS8

Similar to FS8 (20)

FS8