The Participatory Geoweb - participants

SieberRahemtulla

admin — Tue, 05 May 2009 06:11:11 +0000

Participation on the Geoweb
“Definitions are turtles all the way down”

Sieber and Rahemtulla

(1) How do you define participation?

According to Wordnet, which has become the standard lexicon of the Internet, participation is “engagement: the act of sharing in the activities of a group”; involvement (the condition of sharing in common with others (as fellows or partners etc.)) (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=participation). The definition forces us to then define engagement. And involvement. And group. And sharing. And then we’d have to define each of the definitions. So participation is sufficiently vague that “it’s turtles all the way down” (Stephen Hawking 1988: A Brief History of Time). Even if we did create a single definition, it’s contextual. Participation is “not a unique and shared construct. It is a complicated process with multiple meanings that lead to numerous expectations” (Smith and Graglia 2001, p.5).

You may know of the classic ladder of Sherry Arnstein (Figure 1). This ladder shows participation in the context of policy making. You can see that it focuses on political power and communication. As one ascends the ladder, the communication changes from one-way communication and top-down diffusion of information to two-way communication and a bottom up contribution of information. Power shifts from government-controlled to citizen-controlled.

These days, there are multiple participation ladders and models (Kingston 2002, 2003) that offer fundamentally different approaches/orientations to the basic idea of participation. In addition to Arnstein, (political power orientation), there’s Wiedemann and Femar (with an administrative orientation), Conner (conflict resolution) and Dorcey et al. (which also focuses on the planning process). Like Arnstein these models are sequential, progressional and hierarchal (see Kingston 2002).

Traditional participation techniques/approaches follow these types of models. Where do we position the Geospatial web (Geoweb) in terms of participation? For instance, is the Geoweb about enhancing citizen power and control over decision-making (Arnstein) and/or about the continuous involvement in the planning process (Dorcey et al.) and/or conflict resolution (Conner)? Is participation on the Geoweb unidirectional (one-way, top-down), progressional and hierarchical in line with current participation ladders/models? Perhaps it’s simply about uploading content; not uni-directional but many to many interactions.

Furthermore, simply implying that one wants participation in his or her Geoweb effort can imply radically different interpretation of the supposed outcome of participation. As Smith and Graglia (2001) state, without clearly identifying and defining orientation and objective of participation (e.g.. context, interest and motivation) there is ample room for confusion between the multiple actors who are governing, administrating or participating in the process (see Q2).

Finally, is participation on the Geoweb an end in itself? As Smith (2001, 6) states, the nature of participation “can change overtime even within a single decision-making process; that certain public participation approaches (e.g., traditional GIS such as paper-mapping) maybe necessary at the beginning of the process, while other participation methods maybe more appropriate towards the final stages (e.g., public participation GIS). Conner (1988), Jackson (2001), Schlossberg (2001) and Kingston (2001) echo this dynamic nature of participation as well.

(2) Who participates? Who are the actors?

Assuming one can define participation on the Geoweb …

In Smith and Graglia (2001) and Ellul, Rahemtulla and Haklay (2009), there is no single public (or actors), but different levels of public (or actors) based on context and differing levels of interest, motivation, ability (spatial and computer literacy) and engagement with information and communications technology (ICT). This matches Bosworth and Donovan (2002, also see http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/varenius/ppgis/papers/bosworth.html) as well.

Actors on the Geoweb likely include the following categories of people: general and interested publics, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), public and private sector (see Sieber and Rahemtulla, in process a, b). Note that in the Geoweb, as opposed to traditional forms of participation, government (public sector) is as much an actor as the others. On reflection, one could explore the characteristics of those “general and interested publics” participating on the Geoweb through geodemographic profiling (see Longley et al. 2000), level of new ICT engagement (see Longley et al., 2002), position in the innovation adaptation cycle (e.g., early adopters, see Rogers, 1965) and formal learning curve, as well as integrating/ assessing the factors outlined above.

Figure 2. Types of participants on Web 2.0 (Forrester Research)

(3) How do people participate?

This can be addressed with reference to Forrester’s Research Web 2.0. model (Figure 2) based on an analysis of online participation and consumption practices, the authors identify six segments of users, ordered by way in which people participate:

On the Geoweb, participation activities include: consuming information; contributing digital multimedia, information and applications (e.g. mash-ups); webinars, crowdsouring, building on existing value-added information and immersive experiences.

(4) What tools are used?

The Geoweb can be said to exist within the [Internet] cloud as “an integrated, discoverable collection of geographically related web services and data that supports the use of geographic data in a range of domain applications” (Lake and Farley, 2007, 15). Geoweb tools and services are platform independent and include numerous tools: digital earths, social networking tools and applications, crowd-sourcing applications (e.g., Open Street Map) and even the immersive massively multiplayer online role playing game Second Life.

(5a) To what end (purpose of tool)?

When we consider the purpose of the tool from which perspective are we looking? From the commercial (e.g., Google), developers (e.g., application developer) or users’ perspective? The purpose of the tool will depend on the context (e.g., informal, play, social, and formal), interest, motivation (e.g., individual, group or community project/initiative, planners) and ability of the individual (see Q2). Purpose could range from contributing and sharing information, social inclusion or reducing marginalisation, altruism, building social capital, collective intelligence, empowerment, self-promotion and/or generating revenue, to mention just a few.

(6) What results from this participation? What characteristics define effective participation?

How does one define ‘results’ and ‘effective’ on the Geoweb? We probably have to refer back to purpose (see above)? For any one project (if we can call Geoweb activity a project), commercial companies, developers and users likely do not have the same purpose or goal. By extension, there are multiple measures of effectiveness. For instance, effective participation for a commercial company maybe about the click-throughs per hour while for a community site it maybe about information exchange, contribution and sharing.

(7) Tell us about your theories of participation? Is there friction?

Theories include: (a) Participation ladders (e.g. Arnstein, Wiedemann and Femar, Conner and Dorcey et al); (b) Social construction and power (e.g. Foucault); (c) Social networks (e.g. Castells); (d) traditional participatory methods like participatory rural appraisal, and (e) studies of the Internet (see Rheingold; Turkle; Pew Research). We also draw on the Public Participation GIS and Participatory GIS (Renee, Jon), Geoweb (Scharl), Neogeography (Turner) and Volunteered Geographic Information (Goodchild, Elwood).

We see some friction in applying the Geoweb to participation. These include the way the Geoweb challenges: (1) the sequential and unidirectional nature of the participation ladders; (2) the motivation of people to participate underpinning the current set of participation ladders/models; (3) a change from the top-down nature of participation as outlined in these models which have wider implications on the role of new ICTs. We will expand on these during the conference call.

See the attachment below for identical text and figures

NewfoundlandEriodermaProject

sieber — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 02:51:53 +0000

HOT OFF THE PRESS (May 7, 2009): Here's a draft of our poster for the GEOIDE meeting. We'd love your feedback!

Feel free to add your comments, links here. TesTlink

This project led by Dr. Wiersma works towards the development of a Web 2.0 based interface to facilitate public engagement with the province of Newfoundland and Labrador’s Wildlife Division. More specifically, the goal is to develop a strategy for facilitating public engagement, reporting and monitoring of a rare lichen (Erioderma pedicellatum) on the island of Newfoundland.

January, 9, 2009: Erioderma Project Commencement (Randy Skinner, MSc Student)

I have been devoting my time and resources over the last 3 weeks developing a near-complete list of target and focus groups besides the Cottagers and natural history buffs as outlined in the initial project description. A more comprehensive listing or target audiences was completed. Details about what to put on such a website (content) is ongoing, with emphasis on how to identify Erioderma by a novice observer. This may be the most crucial part of the non-mashup/widget section of the website, as identifying E.p can be difficult. Care will be taken to give a step-by-step guide that can be easily printed to help would-be lichenologists a better chance at detecting and identifying E.p. Both work and study are ongoing on the types of mashups and widgets that would be appropriate for the project, as well as brushing up on my HTML coding and development skills.

January 1, 2009: Preliminary Website Design for Future Erioderma Web 2.0 Site.

Now that the New Year is upon us, it is time to herald in the new and exciting work that is being done over the last few months. I have started a website design for the Erioderma (Ep) web 2.0 site. Currently, I am developing the 1.0 content: the pages that will house the web 2.0 applications. This is essential because Ep is a rare and hard-to-find species, and a requirement on our part to describe visually and textually where and how to find Ep is essential. The website (Lichen Tracker is the current title, but it could change in the near future) will include a page for the web 2.0 material (mapping features and a hopefully interactive database management section, as well as a forum and/or photo gallery), but care has to be made on including pages on what Ep is, it's importance, and how anyone with a minimal amount of guideance (found on the website) can find Ep in the field.

That last part is probably the trickiest section of the site (excluding the web 2.0 content), as care must be given on how to best present such information to the public that will be succinct, concise and powerful enough so that people will be able to find Ep relatively easily.

Sample website page: Sample page for Lichen Tracker. Please note that it is a work in progress, and they blocky feel will evolve into something much more smoother.

December 7, 2008: Project Update (Pilot Phase)

Prior to this research there had been little application of the Geoweb by the Wildlife Division. In nearly all cases, staff members of the provincial Wildlife Division were not aware of what the participatory Geoweb entailed, nor were they familiar with concepts around Web 2.0. To address this Dr. Wiersma initiated a conference call with project partners and Dr. Renee Sieber, facilitating a Q&A session to raise the awareness of the potential for the Geoweb to assist with management goals within the Wildlife Division.

After conducting the session, Dr. Wiersma and project partners focused their attention on identifying who the ‘publics’ are with whom the Wildlife Division wants to engage, and in identifying strategies for facilitating engagement. Related to this, the project team had to develop a strategy for making the public aware of the Geoweb and develop a prototype for the website for review by members of the Wildlife Division for content, and beta-testing with select members of the provincial Wildlife Division and the Natural History Society. To achieve these objectives, Dr. Wiersma (1) facilitated a series of teleconferences between project members and staff at the provincial Wildlife Division and (2) used initial funds made available through GEOIDE to recruit a Masters in Environmental Science student to develop the pilot website, a predictive habitat model for Erioderma and model for PPGIS on the issue of rare lichens in Newfoundland.

During the Pilot Phase of this project, Dr. Wiersma and project partners have achieved the milestones as defined prior to the commencement of the research: (1) Identified who the key ‘publics’ are who should be targeted for a pilot phase of a ‘Lichen Geoweb’; (2) Identified strategies for engaging with these publics and advertising the opportunity for participation and (3) Developed a pilot website for the Geoweb – this is currently under review by members as outlined above and beta-testing is planned for early 2009.

July 18, 2008: Notes from Project Meeting

Notes from Meeting with Randy Skinner (MSc Env Student), Kirsten Miller (Wildlife Division GIS Tech), Yolanda Wiersma (Assistant Professor and Randy's supervisor).

We met via conference call to brainstorm the following question. We will follow this by investigating which websites actually exist, how much traffic they get, and whether our target publics are really using them. This will allow us to prioritize (high/medium/low) the sites in terms of targets for interfacing on the Erioderma project. After we identify and prioritize the targets, we’ll examine what tool(s) we’ll use (Geoweb, widget, etc.) for each audience.

Who is the public and where do they go (virtually)?

Captive audience

Individuals who have applied for a cottage lot along Salmonier line

Computer literacy/social issues: Some may not be that computer savvy, and may only use computers for email and the internet (need to find out). May not use the web at all, although most Web 2.0 interfaces are pretty easy- Will have restrictions on what they can do on their cottage lot because of presence of Erioderma. Thus, likely to be value for the lichen.

Where they go: Cottage Association website? Facebook group for cottage groups in similar location, natural history websites, town site/municipality website, Newfoundland Sportsmen website, Cottage lifestyle websites (e.g. fishing, ATV, snowmobile), Tourism websites

Passive audiences

People who live near known Erioderma locations (Bay d’Espoir, and Avalon) and have more awareness about the lichen

Computer literacy/social issues: Literacy will vary as above, as will value for lichen.

Where they go: Regional Facebook group, town site/municipality websites, Economic Development Board websites, Tourism websites, Harris Centre (regional development office at MUN)

People in the rest of the province who are completely unaware of Erioderma

Computer literacy/social issues: Literacy will vary as above, as will value for lichen.

Where they go: Everywhere and nowhere specific

Natural History Societies (Avalon and Western)

Computer literacy/social issues: large and active groups, outdoors active, knowledgeable

Where they go: their own websites, other Natural History Society websites, MUN Botanical Gardens, NL Lichen Research Group, Facebook groups, Nature Conservancy Canada website, Salmonier Nature Park Website, Pippy Park Website (Avalon), MUN Biology website, Sir Wilfred Grenfell College website, Geocacheing websites, MEC, the Outfitters, Protected Areas Association, CPAWS-NL, Western Newfoundland Environment Centre, the Rooms (provincial museum), Flickr

Geocachers

Computer literacy/social issues: they love to look for and find things. Geoweb savvy. Possible issue because they also like to broadcast widely where they find things, which might be problematic for a sensitive species like Erioderma.

Where they go: Geocacheing websites, Facebook groups, MEC, the Outfitters, MUN Geography Website, Grenfell Website, East Coast Trail Association, NL Maps website, Flickr

Schools, especially high schools with biology, environment programs (especially schools in the area).

Computer literacy/social issues: Teachers and high school students pretty web savvy.

Where teachers go: School boards, websites for individual schools (are not updated frequently), CPAWS-NL, PAA, Salmonier Nature Park, The Rooms (provincial museum)

Conne River Mi’kmaw Band and schools.

Computer literacy/social issues: Computer literacy good among younger generation. Lots of folks in Conne River have a high degree of awareness about Erioderma.

Where they go: Band’s own website, townsite/municipal website, Jepujikuei Kuespem Provincial Park (Natural Areas Division website), Federation of NL Indians website, MANKA ?, outfitting camp websites (Bay du Nord Wilderness area), Facebook groups for specific camp/cottage locations

Tourists – especially international natural history groups/lichenology groups

Computer literacy/social issues: Good level of literacy. Unless coming with a motivation to see a rare species, Erioderma is unlikely to be a draw for the average tourist.

Where they go: Gov’t tourism website, Salmonier Nature Park, NL Lichen Research Group website, the Rooms (provincial museum), Natural History Society Websites, MUN Botanical Gardens website, local tourism boards, Flikr

Resource extractors – trappers/hunters/outftters/ATV and snowmobile user groups,

Computer literacy/social issues: people out in the woods a fair bit. Some will not want to find Erioderma on their area, others might be willing to look and will be happy to find it (e.g., owners of outfitting camps who want to keep logging roads out of their area). Mostly good computer literacy.

Where they go: NL Outfitters Association, individual outfitting camps websites, NL Trapping Association website, NL Outdoorsmen, Rod and Gun Club?, ATV and snowmobile groups websites/Facebook groups, Harris Centre, flickr