This document discusses participatory GIS (PPGIS), volunteered geographic information (VGI), and citizen science. It provides background on the emergence of PPGIS in the 1990s and describes how it has developed methodologies for public participation with GIS. It also discusses the rise of user-generated geographic content through VGI platforms. Finally, it introduces the concept of "extreme citizen science" where citizens participate in all aspects of the scientific process from defining problems to analyzing results.

1. Participatory GIS, Volunteered Geographic Information and Citizen Science Muki Haklay ‘Extreme Citizen Science’ group (ExCiteS) Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering UCL GISRUK 2011, Portsmouth

2. Content Participatory GIS (PPGIS, GIS-P…) The rise of user-generated geographic content and Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI) Citizen Science, Citizen Cyberscience and VGI Extreme Citizen Science Concepts, methodologies and techinques

3. Public Participation GIS Emerged as a research area in the mid-1990s. Started as an academic interest to open-up GIS to new range of users, based on social-theory based critique of GIS. Has developed into a range of frameworks, procedures and techniques to allow public engagement with GIS. North: urban/regional planning, environmental justice. South: Participatory Rural Appraisal, P3DM, Self enumeration.

4. The participation Ladder PP in the final decision PP in assessing Risks and Recommending Solutions Public Participation (PP) in defining interests, actors and agenda Restricted Participation Public Right to Object Informing the Public Public Right to Know (After Arnstein, 1969; Wiedemann and Femers, 1993)

5. GIS 2 / GIS, Too GIS/2: A set of methods and instruments which emphasize process, and which are oriented toward communication about representations as much as toward the representations themselves. A GIS/2 would increase emphasis on the role of participants in creation and evaluation of data. GIS/2 would accommodate an equitable representation of diverse views, preserving contradiction, inconsistencies and disputes. Outputs would reflect the standards and goals of the participants, rather than closeness of fit to standards of measurable accuracy. A GIS/2 would be capable of managing and integrating all data components and participant contributions from one interface. The GIS/2 would preserve and represent the history of its own development, and be more capable of handling time components than existing GIS. Source: Schroeder, P. (1996) Criteria for the design of a GIS/2.

6. Wandle Valley Brownfield Project 1999 - Environment Agency funded project to evaluate the usefulness of GIS for brownfield regeneration Rebekah Boott, Kate Heppell, Mordechai Haklay, Jeremy Morley -The use of GIS in brownfield redevelopment, GISRUK 2000

7. Participatory GIS – chauffeurs, facilitators and technology Aurigi, A., Batty, S., Bloomfield, D., Boott, R., Clark, J., Haklay, M., Harrison, C., Heppell, K., Moreley, J. and Thornton, C. (1999), UCL Brownfield Research Network, University College London, London, UK, 42 pp

8. UCL BrownfiledResearch Network Workshop Local knowledge, experience, memories: Group 1 - 8 min. Anna operates the zoom-in option while drawing a very small box. As result, the software zooms into a very small area (large scale map). Deborah: “It is almost impossible to read it” {“Yeah” of agreement from other participants}. Rose: “cause that mean absolutely zero”. Deborah: “Unless you know exactly where you are…Is it actually possible to put street names on?”.

9. UBRN Workshop Information integration: Group 2 - 52 min. Kevin “the other thing that is probably important, is {the ability of GIS} to combine dissimilar things, things that you think are previously unrelated, and it seems to be the real power of the thing”. Malcolm notes that using too many data sets will “overwhelm the screen”.

10. Internet-based PPGIS Virtual Slaithwaite – developed by the University of Leeds in 1998-1999. Based on “Planning for Real”. Carver, S., Evans, A., Kingston, R. and Turton, I. (2001) Public participation, GIS and cyberdemocracy: evaluating on-line spatial decision support systems. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design.

11. Locating sites for Nuclear Waste PGIS in larger scale analysis Started in the early 1990s, a GIS-Based Multi-Criteria Analysis for the location of nuclear waste disposal Allowed users to create their own weighted map Evans, A., Kingston, R. and Carver, S. (2004) Democratic input into the nuclear waste disposal problem: the influence of geographical data on decision making examined through a web-based GIS. Journal of Geographical Systems

12. Source: Andy-Hudson Smith, Mike Batty Hudson-Smith, A and Evans, S and Batty, M and Batty, S (2002) Online participation: the Woodberry Down experiment. Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis (UCL), London, UK

14. PPGIS in E-government (Wandsworth 2001) Haklay, M., and Tobón, C., 2003, Usability Evaluation and PPGIS: Towards a User-Centred Approach, IJGIS)17(6), 577-592

16. Participation exercise involving over 5,000 people, discussing general design ideas for the area.

17. Wide use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) during the consultation exercise. Source: LMDC

20. Participatory GIS – first decade From desktop to the Web Experimentation with visualisation, representation and delivery From research to practice in Local authorities and non-governmental organisation Challenges with data access and technology

21. WEB MAPPING 2.0

22. Structural changes 1st May 2000 – President Clinton removes selective availability of GPS signal Dot-com crash and the increase of broadband use Data storage: from $10 (2000) to $0.5 (2005) per gigabyte The acronym soup of AJAX: SOAP, XML, Javascript – and support in browsers (2004 – GPX) Web services and simplified APIs Usable, desktop like web applications Haklay, M., Singleton, A., and Parker, C., 2008, Web mapping 2.0: the Neogeography of the Geoweb, Geography Compass

23. Mashups and new forms of geographic information ChicagoCrime.org – one of the first Google Maps Mashups. Form of civic intervention in the use of geographic information held by the authorities

24. Paolo Isoardi, 2006, Creation of London 21 Green Map using Google Maps API

26. Bottom Up Participatory GIS Google My Maps ability is used to create a Green Map for the Transition Town Brixton project

27. Ellul, C., Haklay, M. Francis, L. And Rahemtulla, H., 2009, A Mechanism to Create Community Maps for Non-Technical users, The International Conference on Advanced Geographic Information Systems & Web Services – GEOWS 2009

28. Non-spatial User Generated Content

29. Spatially Implicit User Generated Content

30. Flickr– Locals (blue) vs. Tourists (red) Source: Eric Fischer

31. Spatial User Generated Content

32. Google Map Maker

34. Wiki style

35. Open access to data and software ‘OpenStreetMap is a project aimed squarely at creating and providing free geographic data such as street maps to anyone who wants them’ (Image source: OpenStreetMap)

36. VGI – from games to civic engagement

37. Geograph Flickr Picasa Web Panoramio Source: Vyron Antoniou, UCL

38. Geograph Flickr Picasa Web Panoramio Source: Vyron Antoniou, UCL

39. Population and completeness

40. Prosperity and completeness

41. VGI – characteristics Participation: Voluntary/involuntary Passive/active engagement (citizens as platform for sensors to use of collective intelligence) Information – from facts to perceptions Geographical distribution – highly populated, central places and tourist attractions Bias towards affluent areas (and participants) Demographical analysis: high levels of educations, male dominance, technically savvy

42. Citizen Science Volunteer rainfall observer Rick Grocke checks the rain gauge at Tanami Downs cattle station in the Northern Territory of Australia Source: Audubon Cal. Source: WMO–No. 919

44. Non-spatial citizen (cyber)science

45. GeographicCitizen Science Source: BioScience 58(3) p. 195 Source: BioScience 58(3) p. 192

46. Aspects of Citizen Science/Cyberscience Role of participants: Active vs. Passive Aim of the system: Implicit vs. explicit Level of engagement: platform vs. sensor vs. participant Level of geographical/temporal engagement: everyday vs. targeted

47. Cultural problems Citizen Scientists are perceived as untrustworthy No ‘quality control’ Not professional Evaluation mechanisms assume unskilled workers such as classifying each object three times (in Citizen Cyberscience) But volunteer effort can improve the data

48. ‘Extreme’ Citizen Science Citizens can participate in defining the problems, envisioning possible projects and participate in the analysis Can (and should) participate in the discussion of the results of what they’ve collected Often, they are best placed to analyse the data Source: Malcolm Eames, Jonas Mortensen, Maria Adebowale, IaraLudicissa 2009

49. ‘Extreme’ Citizen Science

50. Levels of Citizen Science

51. Noise Mapping

56. Citizen Science / Participatory GIS Noise Mapping forms are transferred to a computer map by digitising them in a GIS.

57. Eyjafjallajökull Source: Wikimedia

58. Nursary Community Centre School Scrap yard

62. PPGIS, VGI and Extreme Citizen Science Scale of coverage and aim of the activity Importance of local knowledge and understanding The end use of the data, ownership and credit Empowerment, inclusion/exclusion, marginalisation, participation The role of Technology in shaping the activity

63. Credits and further details Support for the research kindly provided by: UCL Graduate School Research Fund, ESRC grant R000238127 ‘Conserving Biodiversity That Matters: The Value of Brownfield Sites’ Wandsworth council (pathfinder for e-government scheme) RGS/IBG Small Research Grant UrbanBuzz: Building Sustainable Communities (HEFCE) London Sustainability Exchange (LSx) London 21 Sustainability Network EPSPRC Challenging Engineering Award ‘Extreme Citizen Science’ Special thanks to the Wandsworth, Royal Docks and Pepys Estate communities E-mail: m.haklay@ucl.ac.uk Twitter: mhaklay Povesham.wordpress.com MappingForChange.org.uk

64. Wandle Valley Brownfield Project

65. Wandle Valley Brownfield Project

66. Examples of Internet-based PPGIS Woodberry Down regeneration plan, initiated by LB Hackney. Andy Hudson-Smith from CASA, UCL developed this 2-3 years ago. Allows local residents to explore different issues regarding the redevelopment plans and to engage in an online discussions about their preferences. Source: Andy-Hudson Smith, Mike Batty

67. Wilderness Britain? Source Carver & Evans, 2004

68. Towards a User Centred Design cycle User Centred Design suits PPGIS projects! Especially important in web-based projects Part of iterative process Slide 64/20

69. Engaging the Public in wind-farms siting Wind-farm siting and public participation: combining participatory GIS, Multi-Criteria Analysis and an Argumentative Framework. Evaluating how the use of participatory techniques influences the perceptions of the issues and the ways of addressing them. ©Ian Britton

70. MC-SDSS + AS Individual dimension Social interaction MC-SDSS AF Public participation over the web

72. Acceptable

73. unacceptableAggregated preferences Controversy map  consensus conflict Prototype development Individual preference  

76. Steve Evans, Rebekah Boott–London Environment Onlne (joint project Jackson Environment Institute, CASA, 1999-2000)