From: Deepsea Dawn Date: October 24, 2007 9:15:25 AM PDT To: ppgis@lists.oregonstate.edu Subject: Dawn's notes from today Greetings class - Please find below my notes and screen captures of Piotr's slides in the hope that they will provide valuable fodder for your group work and our discussions.... Thanks again, Dawn ------------------------ WUN Lecture 2 Design Strategies for Participatory GIS/SDSS Piotr Jankowski, San Diego State U. design of processes and tools successful PP happens more by design then by chance tools must meet the needs of the processes helps with objectives be they: improved understanding collective statement collective solution to a problem Assuming that PPGIS is: structured activity supports knowledge building during PP processes answering the question about the type of Participant process will help us answer the question about data attitudes about technology Limehouse, GeoVista "e-delphi" type DAWN- is there a typology of PPGIS tools out there? example of Nez Perce Indian reservation maps - adopt, revise and adopt, or reject - delineated community-based water protection zoning PPGIS tools MUST support the information flow required by the process ----------------------------- CHAT [8:08 AM] Dave: Can anyone suggest software that would support these four emthods? [8:11 AM] Jason: What about existing goverment and institutionally-mandated public participation paths ? [8:12 AM] Carlos_Rios: And also who collects the data? another question [8:12 AM] Robin (ICOSS): who participates and who should participate is another view [8:14 AM] Steve Cinderby joined. [8:14 AM] pathfinder: About the software, I have no idea if there is any existing software supporting the four methods, but I guess it would be great if the software supports remote participation. [8:14 AM] Colin McClean joined. [8:15 AM] Jason: Software - it seems if Marratech could support map markups on its whiteboard, it could serve as a means to collect and communicate data [8:16 AM] Mike joined. [8:16 AM] Dave: I was thinking along the same lines [8:17 AM] SteveC: Skypes white board technology looks like it might be able to do that as well [8:18 AM] Kimberly Pettit: How do we ensure that the steps and rules ensure a safe environment for participants sharing sensitive ideas/opinions? [8:18 AM] David: To follow on from Dave's question about software - Jankowski, Nyerges et al (2006) envision "generic ... interoperable modules [that would allow] decision-making groups [to] 'plug' domain specific data into the modules and choose from a shopping list of available functionality" (p. 353). I'm not aware of any product that fulfills this vision. I've learned a little about Limehouse, a PPGIS extension to ArcGIS, but I don't have enough experience to evaluate it in context of this vision. [8:19 AM] Deepsea Dawn: I'd be interested in hearing more about Limehouse and might ask this of Piotr later - thanks David [8:20 AM] Robin (ICOSS): in some ways the module plug-in links to my comments of SDI last week [8:20 AM] pathfinder: I think the software might need to support web-based interactive geovisualization. [8:20 AM] Dave: don't the guys at PSU do this? [8:21 AM] David: GeoVISTA has developed an "e-Delphi" application... [8:21 AM] Robin (ICOSS): what are the implications for the varying users pathfinder- what if their geography is too 'fuzzy' for the normal GIS world- how do we capture their views? [8:21 AM] David: I'm thinking about commercial rather than prototype applications... [8:21 AM] pathfinder: I think so, but I'm not sure if GeoVISTA supports negotiation, too. Does it? [8:22 AM] Robin (ICOSS): Great stuff guys- any other topics we should be looking at? [8:24 AM] RichardK: Rinner's Argumaps is worth considering foe this. http://www.ryerson.ca/~crinner/publications.html [8:24 AM] Robin (ICOSS): Is it (democractically) legitimate to 'sample' participants views? [8:24 AM] pathfinder: Robin/ Right. Since the public might not have a clear idea about the spatial data, it might be necessary to have some introductions before using the software at the negotiation, for example. [8:25 AM] Dave: didn't Mike Shiffer do some of this in his 'rentool' thing a few years ago? [8:25 AM] SteveC: I think it is OK to use a sample - so long as the outcomes get distributed for wider discussion within and between communities [8:25 AM] Jason: In a representative democracy, I would suggest that sampling is legitimate (depends on the sampling methods) [8:25 AM] UWa: Lots of people have done lots of things over the years in all of this, but few systems really do very much of everything you are seeing. [8:26 AM] Kimberly Pettit: I think sampling might also be a legitimate tool where the issues are particularly contentious and people are unlikely to share their sensitive ideas with those participants that may disagree strongly. [8:27 AM] RichardK: e-(social) Science / cyber-infrastructure may offer the tools/capacity to do this. [8:27 AM] Robin (ICOSS): I agee Rich [8:29 AM] Jeff: This Nez Perce example raises a good question for rural, develping world work. Is it better (more fair and more efficient) to give participants a blank slate to map, or to give them options from which to choose and/or edit? [8:29 AM] UWa: Sampling peoples' interests and perspectives can be and has been done in "polling systems", and there are many examples. [8:31 AM] Paris: Is anyone familiar with other PPGIS efforts regarding water resource management? [8:33 AM] RichardK: Jeff - good question. The PGIS research looks at this & many refs are here: http://ppgis.iapad.org/ [8:34 AM] Jeff: Thanks, Richard. Great resource, discussion group, and bibliography there! [8:35 AM] NSKOGHAN: In participatory process, what about external participants who introduces knowledge that can be applied in the community [8:38 AM] RichardK: Q2 - who decides what is formal and informal? [8:39 AM] SteveC: Good question - I think it depends on the context [8:39 AM] RichardK: Yes - that's why it is so difficult to design a generic framework. [8:40 AM] pathfinder: Well, I guess knowledge based on scientific reasoning (maybe from researchers?) could be formal, and knowledge from residents or policy makers could be informal. Although the accuracy for a specific location or issue could be different. [8:41 AM] UWa: Researchers have used formal and informal for some time. However, most people hae some feeling of formal and informal, doesn't everyone make an interpretation? It is a matter of shared understanding within a context. [8:43 AM] RichardK: Yes - at the start of the PP process a number of ground rules need to be established within the specific context you are working in to establish a shared understanding. [8:43 AM] Eugene: In case of the informal knowledge, its accuracy might be a problem. Is there any verification step? [8:43 AM] Robin (ICOSS): for Kimberly Pettit: How do we ensure that the steps and rules ensure a safe environment for participants sharing sensitive ideas/opinions [8:45 AM] UWa: One way is to use a process vetted by a "human subjects group"(as we are talking research here) who establish protocols for participant risk. [8:45 AM] Robin (ICOSS) for Jason: What about existing goverment and institutionally-mandated public participation paths ? [8:49 AM] Robin (ICOSS): there seems to be more in the practice areas rather than research- e.g. government guides to participation in general- maybe less on the role of GIS [8:50 AM] Dave: To what extent are there standard generic tools we could use? Blogs, SKYPE whiteboards etc? [8:52 AM] pathfinder: Google Earth might be one of them to make simple thematic maps by users during the communication. [8:53 AM] Jason: The nice thing about Google Earth is that they have made their API publicly available, so it can be incorporated into existing decision-making software and systems [8:54 AM] pathfinder: Right. If the users could access ArcGIS, the incorporation is also possible. ------------------------- QUESTION/DISCUSSION SESSION: Robin: Piotr's reflection on the research challenges he posed? Piotr: effective ways of eliciting public values and perspectives - robust ways of eliciting public values in different settings, small vs. large groups, different backgrounds, levels of knowledge, time regimes to conduct PP how to combine formal with informal - public acting as a jury - very much about both experts and public learning together ---------------- Robin: how to categorize formal from informal information who is in control? how to engender indigenous knowledge too? Piotr: public participants many already know well how to live on the land, have their own valid knowledge how to assess - past work in GIS can help us here in terms of cost/benefit analysis - PP involves the public, a number of different stakeholders, so more difficult ---------------- Kimberly Pettit: How do we ensure that the steps and rules ensure a safe environment for participants sharing sensitive ideas/opinions Piotr: depends on what type of tools and technologies are chosen for participation - safe sharing of sensitive ideas and opinions spans a whole range of settings - how to ensure that those who participate are not stymied by the process, by the higher ups - still quite a bit to do with developing these tools - no answer to specifically say how this is done - issue of earning their trust Robin: issue of *trust* needs to be investigated, researched further as well ------------- Jason: What about existing goverment and institutionally-mandated public participation paths ? Piotr: matter of how to design a participatory process that embraces or acknowledges established institutional rules, makes the process open ------------- Dawn: Is there a typology of tools? based on tasks, processes Piotr: attempts have been scattered - working toward this - don't have it at this point but a great research topic and challenge - could be a library of open source tools, well documented, standards - great step toward better enabling PPGIS in general Robin: thematic workshops in USA are tackling this and hoping to engage in that in Europe ------------- Michael Patrick, UW - 3 questions for Piotrs three research challenges (1) isn't there already a large literature on rapid knowledge acquisition? ontology extraction on testing? Piotr - majority of PPGIS situations would have need for these types of techniques perhaps - activities are staged across time so not as much need for rapid real-time acquisition - unless we are talking about the *public* needing to uptake knowledge quickly from the experts - not his main area of expertise (2) isn't formal and informal casting going to types of rationality present (rationality revisited paper) many different forms of rationality and epistemology? Piotr - was is meant by casting? - 2 levels encountered, micro/macro, informal/formal, but in argument theory there are many different ways that people construct knowledge and argue points with one another - are we doing a disservice to ourselves by oversimplifying, boiling things down to just formal/informal? - not really - from past experience working with people in rural areas, they do have a valid knowledge that is "layman" knowledge - not diluting expert knowledge but just combining the expert with the layman (3) no one mentions classic development trade-off question - fast, cheap, or high quality and pick one (e.g., in software development) Piotr - usually have to pick one rather than doing all three at once - where is a happy middle-ground - given the context, an assessment framework is needed - given that context how deeply do you want to go into software development - the context gives you the answer in terms of how fast, cheap, or high quality ----------- Dawn Wright | Professor | Department of Geosciences Oregon State University | Corvallis, OR 97331-5506 http://dusk.geo.orst.edu | 541-737-1229 phone | 541-737-1200 fax