Home › resources ›

Primary reading list

Submitted by johnson on January 23, 2010 - 13:05

This is a primary reading list for the Participatory Geoweb project.

 

Anthony, D., S. Smith, and T. Williamson. 2005. Explaining quality in Internet collective goods: Zealots and good samaritans in the case of Wikipedia.

Antoniou, V., J. Morley and M. Haklay. 2010. Web 2.0 Geotagged Photos: Assessing the Spatial Dimension of the Phenomenon. Geomatica 64 (1): 99-110.

Batty, Michael, Andrew Hudson-Smith, Richard Milton, and Andrew Crooks. 2010. Map mashups, Web 2.0 and the GIS revolution. Annals of GIS 16, no. 1 (3): 1-13.

Biersdorfer, J.D. 2007. Updating Maps on the Spot and Sharing the Fixes. New York Times, 14 June.

Bishr, M. and W. Kuhn. 2007. Geospatial Information Bottom- Up: A Matter of Trust and Semantics. In The European Information Society. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 365 – 387.

Bishr, M., Mantelas L. (2008). "A trust and reputation model for filtering and classifying knowledge about urban growth." Geo Journal (72), 229-237.

Borland, J. 2007. See Who's Editing Wikipedia - Diebold, the CIA, a Campaign. Politics/Online Rights Blog, Wired.

Boulton, A. 2010. Just Maps: Google’s Democratic Map-Making Community? Cartographica 45(1): 1-4.

Brabham, Daren, C. 2008. Crowd sourcing as a Model for Problem Solving: An Introduction and Cases. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 14: 75-90.

  • Sites examples of creative design like threadless.com and stockfoto, mostly examples of art or advertising This article is quick to point out that a large body of problem solvers is more valuable then a few select "experts." Clearly identifies the differences between open source model and crowd sourcing.
  • Critiques of crowd sourcing are similar to those of other technologies on the web. The wikipedia, June 29, 2010: "the gap between people with effective access to digital and information technology, and those with very limited or no access at all. It includes the imbalance both in physical access to technology and the resources and skills needed to effectively participate as a digital citizen." For us, the digital divide includes access to a range of platforms, from Internet to mobile technologies. It includes the availability of data to make effective use of those technologies (e.g., a coarse resolution digital background on Google Maps may make it difficult to effectively use that technology).">digital divide still exists and typically middle-class white men under the age of 25 are the ones to contribute to crowd sourcing endeavours therefore crowd sourcing may not be as inherently democratic as it sometimes is heralded for being and ethically diverse ideas may not be represented for this reason. Who is missing from the crowd is an important question in terms of crowd sourcing.
  • "Crowd sourcing can be explained through a theory of crowd wisdom, an exercise of collective intelligence, but we should remain critical of the model for what it might do to people and how it may re-institute long-standing mechanisms of oppression through new discourses... It is a model capable of aggregating talent, leveraging ingenuity while reducing the costs and time formerly needed to solve problems. Finally, crowdsourcing is enabled only through the technology of the web, which is a creative mode of user interactivity, not merely a medium between messages and people." (p. 88)

Brito, J. 2008. Hack, Mash, and Peer: Crowd sourcing Government Transparency. The Columbia Science and Technology Law Review IX: 119-139.

Bruns, A. 2008a. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. New York: Peter Lang.

Bruns, A. 2008b. The future is user-led: the path towards widespread produsage. Fiber Culture Journal (11).

Budhathoki, N. R., Z. Nedovic-Budic and B. Bruce. 2010. An Interdisciplinary Frame for Understanding Volunteered Geographic Information. Geomatica 64 (1):11-26.

Budhathoki, N.R., B. Bruce, and Z. Nedovic-Budic. 2008. Reconceptualizing the role of the user of spatial data infrastructure. Geo Journal 72 (3-4): 149-160.

Butler, Declan. 2006. Virtual globes: The web-wide world. Nature 439: 776-778 (16 February 2006).

Cartwright, W. 2008. Small Voices Magnified: Using Web 2.0 for Mapping Alternative Australian Viewpoints. Association of American Geographers, Boston, MA.

Castelein, W., Grus, L., Crompvoets, J. & Bergt, A. 2010.‘A characterization of volunteered geographic information. Position Paper, 13th AGILE International Conference on Geographic Information Science 2010: 1-10.

Cohen, L. 2008a. The rumor mill that won't stop running. Article in online edition of International Herald Tribute. 14 October.

Cohen, L. 2008b. Wikipedia May Restrict Public’s Ability to Change Entries. New York Times on-line edition, 23 January.

Coleman, D.J. Geogiadou, Y. and Labonte, J. 2009. Volunteered Geographic Information: The Nature and Motivation of Producers. International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research 4: 332-358.

Coleman, D.J., B. Sabone and N.J. Nkhwanana. 2010. Volunteering Geographic Information to Authoritative Databases: Linking Contributor Motivations to Program Characteristics. Geomatica 64 (1): 27-40.

Cook, S. 2008. Why Contributors Contribute. Harvard Business Review, October 2008.

Cooper, A.K., S. Coetzee and D.G. Kourie. 2010. Perceptions of Virtual Globes, Volunteered Geographical Information and Spatial Data Infrastructures. Geomatica 64 (1): 73-88.

Corbett, J., and Keller, C.P. 2005. An Analytical Framework to Examine Empowerment Associated with Participatory Geographic Information Systems. Cartographica 40: 91-102.

  • Corbett and Keller propose two working definitions of empowerment as it relates to the process of participatory GIS (PGIS), empowerment as “an increase in power” and empowerment capacity as “a change in the internal condition that influences empowerment” (p. 93). A framework that can be used to evaluate the empowerment potential of a PGIS project is presented. The relationship between empowerment and empowerment capacity is presented in terms of individual and community spheres, while empowerment itself is assessed in terms of a project’s capacity to provide information, create a participatory process, teach skills, and establish tools within the PGIS endeavour.

Craglia, M., M. F. Goodchild, A. Annoni, G. Camera, M. Gould. W. Kuhn, D. Mark, I. Masser, D. Maguire, S. Liang, and E. Parsons. 2008. Next-Generation Digital Earth: A position paper from the Vespucci Initiative for the Advancement of Geographic Information Science.” International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research 3: 146- 167.

Craig, W., T. Harris, and D. Weiner. (Eds.). 2002. Community participation and geographic information systems. London: Taylor and Francis.

Craig, W. 2005. White Knights of Spatial Data Infrastructure: The Role and Motivation of Key Individuals. URISA Journal 16 (2): 5-13.

Crampton, J. 2009. Cartography: maps 2.0. Progress in Human Geography 33(1): 91-100.

Crutcher, M., Zook M. 2009. Placemarks and waterlines: Racialized cyberscapes in post-Katrina Google Earth. Geoforum 40: 523-534.

De Longueville, Bertrand, Gianluca Luraschi, Paul Smits, Stephen Peedell and Tom De Groeve. 2010. Citizens as Sensors for Natural Hazards: A VGI Integration Workflow. Geomatica 64 (1): 41-60.

De Longueville, Bertrand. 2010. Community-based geoportals: The next generation? Concepts and methods for the geospatial Web 2.0. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 34 (4): 299-308.

  • The article suggests how Web 1.0 geoportals and spatial data infrastructures can move into Web 2.0

Dunn, C. 2007. Participatory GIS a people's GIS? Progress in Human Geography 31: 616-637.

The Economist. 2009. Mapping a better world: Interest groups around the world are using mapping tools and internet-based information sources to campaign for change. The Economist. Jun 4th 2009

Elwood, S. 2010. Geographic information science: emerging research on the societal implications of the geospatial web. Progress in Human Geography 34(3): 349-57.

Elwood, S. 2008. Volunteered Geographic Information: future research directions motivated by critical and participatory and feminist GIS. Geo Journal 72 (3-4): 173-183.

Elwood, S. 2008. Volunteered geographic information: key questions, concepts and methods to guide emerging research and practic. Geo Journal 72 (3-4): 133-135.

Elwood, S. 2008. Grassroots groups as stakeholders in spatial data infrastructures: Challenges and opportunities for local data development and sharing. International Journal of Geographic Information Science 22: 71–90.

Elwood, Sarah. 2002. GIS use in community planning: a multidimensional analysis of empowerment. Environment and Planning 34: 905-922.

  • This article presents a “Multidimensional conceptual framework for assessing empowerment.” Elwood points out that empowerment is a “multifaceted shifting process that rarely has fixed or permanent outcomes.”(p. 911) The impacts of GIS in a participatory context are based on and shaped by a variety of social and political relationships that make up the power of different knowledge systems, decision making process, actors and institutions (p. 907).
  • Elwood also reveals the potential for dis-empowerment and patterns of exclusion as well as capacity building. Elwood uses a PGIS project in Minneapolis as examples of the different points highlighted in the article.

Ferreira, J. 2008. Comment on Drummond and French: GIS Evolution: Are We Messed Up by Mashups? Journal of the American Planning Association 74:2, 177-179.

Flanagin, A. and M. Mezger. 2008. The credibility of volunteered geographic information. Geo Journal 72 (3-4): 137-148

Foth, M., H. Klaebe, and G. Hearn. 2008. The Role of New Media and Digital Narratives in Urban Planning and Community Development. Body, Space & Technology 7 (2), n.p. (author’s manuscript of work).

Gartner, G., D. Bennett, and T. Morita, 2007. Toward ubiquitous cartography. Cartography and Geographic Information Science 34 (4): 247–257.

Ganapati, Sukumar. 2010. Using Geographic Information Systems to Increase Citizen Engagement. Washington, DC: IBM Center for The Business of Government. Also see the video.

Geo Journal, 2008. Geo Journal, Volume 72, Numbers 3-4. Special issue on "Volunteered geographic information: key questions, concepts and methods to guide emerging research and practice".

Gibson, R. and S. Erle 2006. Google Maps Hacks. O'Reilly Media, Inc.

Goodchild, M.F. 2008. Commentary: Whither VGI? Geo Journal 72 (3): 239-244.

Goodchild, M.F. 2007. Citizens as Sensors: The World of Volunteered Geography. Geo Journal 69:211-221.

  • This article reveals and defends why humans make great sensors. The term Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI) is coined. Humans have five senses, they are intelligent and free to rove the surface of the earth. Goodchild points out the strength of citizens as sensors in times of early warnings because they can use their mobile phones, pictures and other tools needed to collect, synthesize, verify and redistribute information. Citizens are able to report on locations, events and other information that normally would go unnoticed to the rest of the world. Goodchild also points out the weakness of VGI. The quality of the data and date of data collection is usually unknown.

Goodchild, M.F. 2007. Citizens as voluntary sensors: spatial data infrastructure in the world of Web 2.0. International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research 2: 24–32.

  • "Citizens as Voluntary Sensors: Spatial Data Infrastructure in the world of Web 2.0" provides a brief introduction to the concept of volunteered geographic information (VGI). Goodchild discusses the niche that has allowed for the emergence of VGI, namely a notable decline in the production of geographic information. The main constraints to traditional data collection are the requirements of appropriately trained personnel and mechanisms for communication and dissemination. These restrictions have become irrelevant in the world of web 2.0, where public participation and user generated content supply an ever more exhaustive amount of data. A pre-structured form does not limit the volunteer gazetteer or VGI. Multiple levels of reliability have emerged as the geographic web has diversified. These range from simple descriptions, to technical entries based on geographic locations and web 2.0 services allowing for the visualization of location based information. The emerging Geoweb and VGI have created a highly dynamic environment, one with the potential of creating rich qualitative data stores that can respond to evolving geospatial technologies and applications.

Goodchild, M.F. (2009). 'NeoGeography and the nature of geographic expertise', Journal of Location Based Services 3 (2): 82-96. 

Google. 2009. Countries editable in Google Map Maker (as of January 2009).

Gordon, Eric, Steve Schirra, and Justin B. Hollander. 2011. Immersive planning: A conceptual model for designing public participation with new technologies. Environment and Planning B, Planning and Design 38: 505-519.

Gorman, Sean. 2008. The Geoweb-Democratizing the Map and Changing the Web. red Orbit. Science, Space, Technology, Health News and Information. Posted on: Friday, 11 January 2008, 03:00 CST

Gorman, S. P. 2007, Is academia missing the boat for the Geo Web revolution? A response to Harvey’s commentary. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 34(6) 949-950

  • Gorman claims Harvey's article to be fear-mongering and inaccurate. The pervasive trends of digital earths is to share and access data on the web and is a model based on the concepts of open access and innovative reuse.  Gorman praises virtual earths and web 2.0 and all the UGC that comes with it.

Gouveia, C. and A. Fonseca. 2008. New approaches to environmental monitoring: the use of ICT to explore volunteered geographic information. Geo Journal 72: 185-197.

Graham, Mark. 2010. Neogeography and the Palimpsests of Place: Web 2.0 and the Construction of a Virtual Earth. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie 101, no. 4: 422-436.

Grira, Joel, Yvan Bédard and Stéphane Roche. 2010. Spatial Data Uncertainty in the VGI World: Going from Consumer to Producer. Geomatica 64 (1): 61-72.

Haklay, Muki. 2010. How good is volunteered geographical information? A comparative study of OpenStreetMap and Ordnance Survey datasets. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 37 (4): 682-703.

Haklay, Muki, Aamer Ather, Sofia Basiouka, and Naureen Zulfiqar. 2010. How Many Volunteers Does It Take To Map An Area Well? Proceedings of the GIS Research UK 18th Annual Conference, 193-196. London, UK: UCL.

Haklay, Muki, Alex Singleton and Chris Parker, 2008. Web Mapping 2.0: The Neogeography of the Geoweb.Geography Compass 2(6) 2011-2039

  • In this paper Haklay et al argue that the change between old web mapping and web based GIS has not changed because of increased functionality but rather how emerging technologies have created new approaches to geographic information distribution and usability, and ease of application development.
  • This article covers the technological and societal analysis to explain the emergences of web mapping 2.0 and why neogeography emerged providing 3 UK based case studies.
  • Recognizes the ideological dilemmas facing the Geoweb but identifies the importance of acknowledging how neogeography and collaborative ways of working have reduced development time and improved usability of GI apps. This shift has also raised general awareness of geographic information and the earth along with the relationships between people and processes to potentially millions.

Haklay, M. (2010) How good is OpenStreetMap information? A comparative study of OpenStreetMap and Ordnance Survey datasets for London and the rest of England, Environment and Planning B 37(4): 682-703.

Hall, G. B., R. Chipeniuk, et al. 2010. Community-based production of geographic information using open source software and Web 2.0. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 24(5): 761 - 781.

Hall, G., Chipeniuk, R., Feick, R., Leahy, M., & Deparday, V. (2010). Community-based production of geographic information using open source software and Web 2.0. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 24(5), 761-781.

Hannah, Mark. 2009. Issue Advocacy on the Internet, Part 1. National Public Radio. May 7, 2009

Harvey, F. 2003. Developing geographic information infrastructures for local government: the role of trust. The Canadian Geographer 47 (1): 28-36

Harvey, F. 2007. Just another private–public partnership? Possible constraints on scientific information in virtualmap browsers. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 34(5): 761–764.

  • Critiques “Google Earth, Virtual Earth, and similar specialized web browsers” because of their strong ties to corporations. Corporate control and corporate access of data often leads to alterations of data for business interests.
  • The author warns readers to not be too excited about the “wow” effects of 3-D geographic information and continue to think critically about the data being presented.
  • Harvey is fearful of “replacing scientific fact with corporate and government fictions that could potentially undermine the creditability of science” (p. 764). Indirectly suggests censorship of these geographic services.

Head Map Manifesto. 1998.

  • The Headmap explores the social and technical potential of locationally aware devices, where “real borders, boundaries, and space become plastic and malleable, statehood becomes fragmented, and global.

Helft, M. 2007. With Tools on Web, Amateurs Reshape Mapmaking." New York Times, Technology Section, 26 July.

  • Helft introduces the concept of the Geo Web in his New York Times article. This basic account of interactive Internet mapping technologies exposes common examples of the Geo Web, such as map making, mash ups, tagging / geotagging, and data inventories, and discusses their uses and benefits.

Hudson-Smith, A., Crooks, A., Gibin, M., Milton, R. and M. Batty. 2009. NeoGeography and Web 2.0: concepts, tools and applications. Journal of Location Based Services 3(2): 118–145.

IAB. 2008. User Generated Content, Social Media, and Advertising — An Overview. Interactive Advertising Bureau Platform Status Report. April.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report Working Group II. 2007. Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Cambridge University Press.

Irvin, R. A. and Stansbury J. 2004. Citizen Participation in Decision Making: Is It Worth the Effort? Public Administration Review 64: 55-65.

Jones, Michael 2007. Our Geospatial Future. Podcast of presentation at 2007 Cambridge Conference, Cambridge, UK. 17 July.

Keen, Andrew. 2007. The Cult of the Amateur: How today's internet is killing our culture. Doubleday, New York, NY, USA.

Kittur, A., Chi, E., Pendleton, A., Suh, B. & Mytkowicz, T. 2007. Power of the few vs. wisdom of the crowd: Wikipedia and the rise of the bourgeoisie. Proceedings of the 25th Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , April-May 2007.

Klinkenberg, Brian. 2010. Citizen Science and Volunteered Geographic Information: Can these help in Biodiversity Studies? Biodiversity of BC website.

Kraak, Menno-Jan. 2004. The role of the map in a Web-GIS environment. Journal of Geographical Systems 6: 83-93.

  • The role of the map in a Web-GIS environment by Menno-Jan Kraak provides a rich overview of the cartographic aspect of the participative Geo Web. WebGIS, as discussed in this article, refers to Internet applications involving map use and the tools and technologies involved in cartography. The WebGIS environment allows for interactive map use, map making and the use of maps as search engines. These somewhat differ from the Geoweb in that WebGIS is strictly tied to the visualization of data through the use of maps.
  • This informative article provides a detailed account of the emerging applications in Web GIS. It reviews multiple aspects of Internet mapping, such as the interactive and dynamic process of communicating information, the emergence of new technologies and changing user needs, the role of visualization in communication, and the dissemination of this technology throughout the web and computer science. The article concludes with a comparison of these technologies to their desktop-based counterparts, themes are supported with well-illustrated examples and the URL’s are provided as reference.

Krishnamurthy, S. 2005. Cave or community?: An empirical examination of 100 mature open source projects. First Monday 10 (2).

Kuhn, W. 2007. Volunteered Geographic Information and GIScience. Position Paper for Specialty Meeting on Volunteered Geographic Information, National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis.

Kuznetsov, S. 2006. Motivations of contributors to Wikipedia. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, 36(2)

Lake, R. and J. Farley. 2007. Infrastructure for the Geospatial Web. In The Geospatial Web: How Geobrowsers, Social Software and Web 2.0 are Shaping the Network Society. A. Scharl and K. Tochterman. London, Springer: 15-26.

Laituri, M. and K. Kodrich. 2008. On Line Disaster Response Community: People as Sensors of High Magnitude Disasters Using Internet GIS. Sensors 8: 3037-3055

Lanier, J. 2006. Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism. The Edge 183.

Lefer, T., Anderson, M., Fornari, A., Lambert, A., Fletcher, J. & M. Baquero. 2008. Using Google Earth as an Innovate Tool for Community Mapping. Public Health Reports, 123: 474-480.

Lezczynski, Agnieszka. 2012. Situating the geoweb in political economy. Progress in Human Geography 36: 72-89.

Leszczynski, A., 2009a. Poststructuralism and GIS: is there a ‘disconnect’? Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 27 (4): 581–602.

Leszczynski, A., 2009b. Quantitative limits to qualitative engagements: GIS, its critics, and the philosophical divide. The Professional Geographer 61 (3), 350–365.

Leszczynski, A., 2009c. Rematerializing GIScience. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 27(4): 609–615.

Li, Songnian and Wanglin Yan. 2010. Mashing up Geospatial Data Services: Implications of Acceptable use Policies. Geomatica 64 (1): 111-128.

Li, Songnian (2001). Design and Development of an Internet Collaboration System to Support GIS Data Production Management. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Department of Geodesy and Geomatics Engineering, University of New Brunswick, Canada. Available on-line as GGE Technical Report 219,  (Last accessed February 2010).

Liu, S., & Palen, L. (2010). The new cartographers: Crisis map mashups and the emergence of neogeographic practice. Cartography and Geographic Information Science 37(1), 69-90.

Mc Conchie, A. L. 2008. Mapping Mashups: Participation, Collaboration and Critique on the World Wide Web. Geography. Vancouver University of British Columbia. Master of Science: 75.

Mc Dougall, K. 2009. The Potential of Citizen Volunteered Spatial Information for Building SDI. Proceedings of GSDI 11, 15-19 June 2009, Rotterdam, Netherlands.

Mc Cullough, Malcolm. 2007. New media urbanism: grounding ambient information technology. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 34: 383-395.

Mc Henry, Robert. 2004. The Faith-Based Encyclopedia. Technology, Commerce and Society Daily, 15 November.

Meng, Y., & Malczewski, J. (2010). Web-PPGIS usability and public engagement: A case study in Canmore, Alberta. URISA Journal 22(1), 55-64.

Miller, C.C. 2006. A Beast in the Field. The Google Maps Mashup as GIS/2. Cartographica 41: 187-199.

  • “A Beast in the Field. The Google Maps Mashup as GIS/2” provides a judicious evaluation of GIS/2 as theorized by GIScientists. Miller critically evaluates the role and presence of concepts such as democracy, participation and empowerment in traditional GIS, GIS/1, and GIS/2. He contrasts current conceptualizations of GIS/2 with the now famous Katrina Google Maps Mashup, claiming that this application embodies the future of GIS/2. This review of the current discussion on GIS/2 insightfully questions the role of the GIScientist in the evolution of GI technology as it applies to the general populous and popular geographically inclined applications.

Morozov, Evgeny. n.d. neteffect. Foreign Policy.

Mummidi, L.N. and J. Krumm. 2008. "Discovering points of interest from users’ map annotations", Geo Journal 72 (3-4): 215-227

Newman, G., Zimmerman, D., Crall, A., Laituri, M., Graham, J., & Stapel, L. (2010). User-friendly web mapping: lessons from a citizen science website. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 24(12), 1851-1869.

Nkhwanana, J. 2009. "Assessing The Credibility of VGI Contributors and Trust in their Contributions". Unpublished M.Sc.E. Thesis, Department of Geodesy and Geomatics Engineering, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, N.B., Canada. November.

O'Reilly, T. 2005. What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. Blog by Tim O'Reilly.

Ortega, F. and G. Barahona, J. M. 2007. Quantitative Analysis of the Wikipedia Community of Users. Proceedings of the WikiSym Conference, pp. 75. ACM Press, New York, NY USA.

Perkins, C., and M. Dodge, M. 2008. The potential of user-generated cartography: a case study of the OpenStreetMap project and Mapchester mapping party. North West Geography 8 (1): 19–32.

Papacharissi, 2002. The virtual sphere: The internet as a public sphere. New Media Society 4 (1): 9–27

Poser, Kathrin and Doris Dransch. 2010. Volunteered Geographic Information for Disaster Management with Application to Rapid Flood Damage Estimation. Geomatica 64 (1): 89-98.

Priedhorsky, R., J. Chen, S.K. Lam, K. Panciera, L. Terveen, and J. Reidl. 2007. Creating, Destroying, and Restoring Value in Wikipedia. Proceedings of the 2007 International ACM Conference on Supporting Group Work pp. 259. Sanibel Island, FL., Nov 4-7.

Pultar, E., Raubal M., Cova T. J., Goodchild M. F. (2009). "Dynamic GIS Case Studies: Wildfire Evacuation and Volunteered Geographic Information." Transactions in GIS 13: 85-104.

Ramm, Frederik, Jochen Topf, and Steve Chilton. 2010. OpenStreetMap: Using and Enhancing the Free Map of the World. Cambridge, UK: UIT Cambridge Ltd.

Rana, Sanjay and Joliveau, Thierry. 2009. NeoGeography: an extension of mainstream geography for everyone made by everyone? Journal of Location Based Services 3 (2):75-81

Raymond, E. S. 1999. The Cathedral and the Bazaar. Knowledge, Technology, and Policy 12 (3): 23-49

Rinner, C. and M. Bird. 2009. Evaluating Community Engagement through Argumentation Maps - A Public Participation GIS Case Study. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 36(4): 588-601.

Rinner, C., C. Kessler and S. Andrulis. 2008. The use of Web 2.0 concepts to support deliberation in spatial decision-making. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 32: 386-395.

Rouse, L. J., S. J. Bergenon, et al. 2007. Participating in the Geospatial Web: Collaborative Mapping, Social Netowrking and Participatory GIS. In The Geospatial Web: How Geobrowsers, Social Software and Web 2.0 are Shaping the Network Society. A. Scharl and K. Tochterman. London, Springer.

Sabone, Botshelo. 2009. Assessing Alternative Technologies for Use of Volunteered Geographic Information in Authoritative Databases. M.Sc.E. thesis, Department of Geodesy and Geomatics Engineering Technical Report No. 269, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada, 117 pp.

Scharl, A. and K. Tochtermann (Eds). 2007. The Geospatial Web: How Geobrowsers, Social Software and the Web 2.0 are Shaping the Network Society. London: Springer. Information and Knowledge Processing Series.

Schuurman, Nadine. 2000. Trouble in the heartland: GIS and its critics in the 1990s. Progress in Human Geography 24(4): 569-590.

Seeger, C. 2008. The role of facilitated volunteered geographic information in the landscape planning and site design process. Geo Journal 72 (3): 199 – 213.

Shirky, Clay. 2008. Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations. New York: Penguin Press.

Shupeng, C. and J. v. Genderen. 2008. Digital Earth in support of global change research. International Journal of Digital Earth 1(1): 43-65.

Sidlar, C. and C. Rinner. 2007. Analyzing the Usability of an Argumentation Map as a Participatory Spatial Decision Support Tool. URISA Journal 19(1): 47-55.

Sieber, R.E., Spitzberg, Daniel, Hannah Moffatt, Kristen Brewer, Blanka Fuleki, and Naomi Arbit. 2006. Influencing Climate Change Policy: Environmental non-governmental organizations using virtual and physical activism. Project Report for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Montreal, Canada: McGill School of Environment. 62pp.

Sieber, R.E. 2006. Public Participation Geographic Information Systems: A Literature Review and Framework. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 96(3): 491-507.

Sieber, R. E. 2004. Rewiring for a GIS/2. Cartographica: The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization 39 (1): 25-39.

Sieber, R. E. 2003. Public Participation GIS Across Borders. The Canadian Geographer 47(1): 50-61.

Sui, D.Z. 2008. The wikification of GIS and its consequences: Or Angelina Jolie's new tattoo and the future of GIS. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 32 (1): 1-5.

Swartz, A. 2006. Who writes wikipedia?. September.

Tang, Teresa and D.J. Coleman 2005. Design of a GIS-based Online Discussion Forum for Participatory Community Planning. Proceedings of the 98th Annual Conference of the Canadian Institute of Geomatics, Ottawa, Canada. June.

Tang, Teresa and David J. Coleman. 2008. "GeoDF : Bridging the Communication Gap in Online Participatory Planning" Revue Internationale de Géomatique 18, No. 4, pp. 443-470. Available on the Web at http://geo.e-revues.com/article.jsp?articleId=12703

Tapscott, D. and A.D. Williams 2007. Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes everything. Penguin Group, New York, NY, USA.

Tulloch, D. 2008. Is volunteered geographic information participation? Geo Journal 72 (3): 161-171.

Turner, Andrew 2006. Introduction to Neogeography. O’Reilly Short Cuts series. O’Reilly Media.

Turner, Andrew. 2007. Neogeography - towards a definition. A weblog posting, posted on High Earth Orbit, 6th December 2007.Woltjer, Johan. 2000. Consensus Planning: the relevance of communicative planning theory in Dutch infrastructure development. Ashgate: Aldershot.

Weinberger, David. 2008. Everything Is Miscellaneous: The Power of the New Digital Disorder. Holt Paperbacks.

Yong, L., R. Mc Grath, J. Myers, and J. Futrelle. 2007. Towards a Rich-Context Participatory Cyberenvironment. National Center for Supercomputing Applications. Urbana, Ilinois. Accessed from the web December 1st, 2008.

Young, Nora. 2009. Online activism, lurking, mashups, and APIs. CBC Radio. Spark. May 6&9.

Zhao, J. and D.J. Coleman 2006. GeoDF: Towards a SDI-based PPGIS application for E- Governance. Proceedings of the GSDI 9 Conference, Santiago, Chile, November.

Zhang 2007. Design and development of distributed virtual geographic environment system based on web services. Information Science 177: 3968- 3980.

Zook, Matthew A., and Mark Graham. 2007a. Mapping DigiPlace: geocoded Internet data and the representation of place. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 34: 466-482.

———. 2007b. The creative reconstruction of the Internet: Google and the privatization of cyberspace and DigiPlace. Geoforum 38 (6): 1322-1343.