Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Privileged Knowledge and Social Change: Effects on Different Participants of Using Geographic Information Systems Technology in Natural Resource Management

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The use of geographic information systems (GIS) technology in natural resource management has expanded rapidly: It is the preferred tool of spatial data analysis addressing large landscapes and is typically the presentation medium for conveying landscape-scale scientific findings to all kinds of audiences. In a case study using the Coastal Landscape Analysis and Modeling Study in western Oregon, it was found that the use of GIS to analyze and display natural resource data in that project produced a variety of responses among different participants and participant groups. The findings offer insights into the workings of groups attempting public involvement in natural resource management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature Cited

  • Aberley D. 1993. Boundaries of home: mapping for local empowerment. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada

    Google Scholar 

  • Aberley, D., and R. E. Sieber. 2002. Public participation GIS (PPGIS) guiding principles. Paper read at First International PPGIS Conference, New Brunswick, NJ, July 20–22

  • Anderson R. C., R., J. Spiro, M. C. Anderson. 1978. Schemata as scaffolding for the representation of information in connected discourse. American Educational Research Journal 15:433–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beard J. W. 2002. Management of technology: a three-dimensional framework with propositions for future research. Knowledge, Technology, and Policy 15:45–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Blockstein D. E. 2002. How to lose your political virginity while keeping your scientific credibility. BioScience 52:91–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouwen R., T. Taillieu. 2004. multi-party collaboration as social learning for interdependence: developing relational knowing for sustainable natural resource management. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology 14:137–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunn S. D., C. T. Dahlman, J. S. Taylor. 1998. GIS uses and constraints on diffusion in Eastern Europe and the former USSR. Post-Soviet Geography and Economics 39:566–587

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Carver S., A. Evans, R. Kingston, I. Turton. 2000. Accessing geographical information systems over the World Wide Web: improving participation in environmental decision-making. Information Infrastructure and Policy 6:157–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark J. S., S. R. Carpenter, M. Barber, S. Collins, A. Dobson, J. A. Foley, and others. 2001. Ecological forecasts: an emerging imperative. Science 293:657–661

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Couclelis H. 2004. The third domain: The spread and use of GIS within social science. Cartographica 39:17–24

    Google Scholar 

  • de V. Borges, K. A., and S. Sahay. 2000. GIS for the public sector: experiences from the city of Belo Horizonte, Brazil. Information Infrastructure and Policy 6:139–156

  • Duncan, S. L. 2006a. Mapping whose reality? GIS and wild science. Public Understanding of Science (in press)

  • Duncan, S. L. 2006b. GIS technology in natural resource management: process as a tool of change. Cartographica (in press)

  • Dunn C. E., P. J. Atkins, M. J. Blakemore, J. G. Townsend. 1999. Teaching geographical information handling skills for lower-income countries. Transactions in GIS 3:319–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DuPraw, M. E., and M. Axner. 2003. Working on common cross-cultural communication challenges (Study Circles Resource Center). Arcadia Pictures, PBS Online 1997 [cited 4/23/03 2003]. Available from: http://www.wwcd.org/action/ampu/crosscult.html. Accessed: 3/13/06

  • Elwood S., R. Ghose. 2004. PPGIS in community development planning: framing the organizational context. Cartographica 38:19–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Fall A., D. G. Morgan, D. Daust. 2001. A framework and software tool to support collaborative landscape analysis: fitting square pegs into square holes. Transactions in GIS 5:67–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer F. 2000. Citizens, experts, and the environment: the politics of local knowledge. Duke University Press, Durham, NC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer G., and J. Ostwald. 2001. Knowledge management: problems, promises, realities, and challenges. IEEE Intelligent Systems January/February:60–72

  • Fiske S. T., P. W. Linville. 1980. What does the schema concept buy us? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 6:543–557

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault M. 1980. Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings. Pantheon, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freire P. 1998. Pedagogy of the heart. [Translated by A. O. D. Macedo]. Continuum, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Gethman C. F. 2001. Participatory technology assessment: some critical questions. In Dekker M. (ed.), Interdisciplinarity in technology assessment: implementation and its chances and limits. Springer, Berlin, Germany. Pages 3–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghose R. 2003. Community participation, spatial knowledge production, and GIS use in inner-city revitalization. Journal of Urban Technology 10:39–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghose R. 2005. The complexities of citizen participation through collaborative governance. Space and Polity 9:61–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunderson L. H. 1999. Stepping back: assessing for understanding in complex regional systems. In Johnson K. N., F. J. Swanson, M. Herring, S. Greene (eds.), Bioregional assessments: science at the crossroads of management and policy. Island Press, Washington, DC. Pages 27–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartman A. 1992. In search of subjugated knowledge. Social Work 37:483–484

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey F. 2000. The social construction of geographical information systems. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 14:711–713

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendriks P. H. 2000. An organizational learning perspective on GIS. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 14:373–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holling C. S. 1998. Two cultures of ecology. Conservation Ecology 2:4

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson K. N., F. J. Swanson, M. Herring, S. Greene (eds.) 1999. Bioregional assessments: science at the crossroads of management and policy. Island Press, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasemir B., D. Schibli, S. Stoll, C. C. Jaeger. 2000. Involving the public in climate and energy decisions. Environment 42:32–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn T. S. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyem P., A. Kwaku. 2004. Power, participation, and inflexible institutions: an examination of the challenges to community empowerment in participatory GIS applications. Cartographica 38:5–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazega E. 1992. The micropolitics of knowledge: communication and indirect control in workgroups. Aldine de Gruyter, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Lubchenco J. 1998. Entering the century of the environment: a new social contract for science. Science 279:491–498

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lyotard J.-F. 1979. The postmodern condition: a report on knowledge. [Translated by G. Bennington and B. Massumi]. Manchester University Press, Manchester, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mark D. M. 2000. Geographic information science: critical issues in an emerging cross-disciplinary research domain. URISA Journal 12:45–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Masser I. 1996. GIS diffusion. The adoption and use of geographical information systems in local government in Europe. Taylor and Francis, Bristol, PA

    Google Scholar 

  • McLuhan M. 1964. Understanding media. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills T. J., R. N. Clark. 2001. Roles of research scientists in natural resource decision making. Forest Ecology and Management 153:189–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narayanan V. K. 2001. Managing technology and innovation for competitive advantage. Upper Prentice-Hall, Saddle River, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norheim R. 2004. How institutional cultures affect results: comparing two old-growth forest mapping projects. Cartographica 38:35–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Northcutt N., and D. McCoy. 2004. Interactive qualitative analysis: a systems method for qualitative research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton B. G. 1998. Improving ecological communication: the role of ecologists in environmental policy formulation. Ecological Applications 8:350–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nyerges T., P. Jankowski, C. Drew. 2002. Data-gathering strategies for social–behavioral research about participatory geographical information system use. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 16:1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pahl-Wostl C. 2002. Towards sustainability in the water sector—the importance of human actors and processes of social learning. Aquatic Sciences 64:394–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker I. 1989. Discourse and power. In J. Shotter, K. J. Gergen (eds.), Texts of identity. Sage, London, UK. Pages 56–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters R. H. 1991. A critique for ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickles J. 1995. Representations in an electronic age: geography, GIS, and democracy. In J. Pickles (ed.), Ground truth: the social implications of geographic information systems. Guilford, New York, NY. Pages 1–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickles, John. 2004. A history of spaces: cartographic reason, mapping and the geo-coded world. Routledge, London, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Pielke Jr. R., D. Sarewitz, R. Byerly Jr. 2000. Decision making and the future of nature: understanding and using predictions. In D. Sarewitz, R. Pielke Jr., J. B. Radford (eds.), Prediction: science, decision making, and the future of nature. Island, Washington, DC. Pages 361–387

    Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi J. 2000. Science, scientists, and society. Queen’s Quarterly 107:31–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Postman N. 1992. Technopoly: the surrender of culture to technology. New York, NY, Vintage

    Google Scholar 

  • Pouyat R. V. 1999. Science and environmental policy—making them compatible. BioScience 49:281–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Priest S. H. 1995. Information equity, public understanding of science, and the biotechnology debate. Journal of Communication 45:39–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rappert B. 2001. The distribution and resolution of the ambiguities of technology, or why Bobby can’t spray. Social Studies of Science 31:557–591

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson A. H., B. B. Petchenik. 1976. The nature of maps. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers E. M. 2003. Diffusion of innovations, 5th ed. Free Press, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohracher H. 2003. The role of users in the social shaping of environmental technologies. Innovation 16:177–192

    Google Scholar 

  • Rotmans J., R. Kemp, M. van Asselt. 2001. Transition management: a promising policy perspective. In M. Decker (ed.), Interdisciplinarity in technology assessment: Implementation and its chances and limits. Springer, Berlin, Germany. Pages 165–197

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuurman N. 1999. Critical GIS: theorizing an emerging science. Cartographica 36:1–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Shindler B. 2000. Landscape-level management: it’s all about context. Journal of Forestry 98:10–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrader-Frechette K. S., E. D. McCoy. 1993. Method in ecology: strategies for conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Sieber R. E. 2000a. Conforming (to) the opposition: the social construction of geographical information systems in social movements. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 14:775–793

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sieber R. E. 2000b. GIS implementation in the grassroots. URISA Journal 12:15–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Snellen I. Th. M. 2000. Territorialising governance and the state: Policy dimensions of geographic information systems. Information Infrastructure and Policy 6:131–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Spies, T., K. N. Johnson, P. Bettinger, J. Kline, B. McComb, D. Miller, and others. 2006. A bioregional forest assessment of the coastal province of Oregon. Ecological Applications (in press)

  • Swidler A, J. Arditi. 1994. The new sociology of knowledge. Annual Review of Sociology 20:305–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor P. J., R. J. Johnston. 1995. Geographic information systems and geography. In J. Pickles (ed.), Ground truth: the social implications of geographic information systems. Guilford, New York, NY. Pages 51–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Tibbets J. 2000. Making amends: ecological restoration in the United States. Environmental Health Perspectives 108:356–362

    Google Scholar 

  • Tufte E. R. 1983. The visual display of quantitative information. Graphics Press, Cheshire, CT.

    Google Scholar 

  • van de Donk W. B. J. H., J. Taylor. 2000. Geographic information systems (GIS) in public administration: an introduction to a series of articles. Information Infrastructure and Policy 6:127–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • van de Kerkhof M. 2004. Argumentation in natural resource issues. Georgia Basin Futures Conference, Vancouver, BC

  • van der Vink G. E. 1997. Scientifically illiterate vs politically clueless. Science 276:2

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber J. R., C. S. Word. 2001. The Communication process as evaluative context: what do non-scientists hear when scientists speak? BioScience 51:487–496

    Google Scholar 

  • Wejnert B. 2002. Integrating models of diffusion of innovations: a conceptual framework. Annual Review of Sociology 28:297–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, Oregon State University, Fairbanks Hall, Corvallis, Oregon, 97331, USA

    Ally L. Duncan & Denise H. Lach

Authors
  1. Ally L. Duncan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Denise H. Lach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ally L. Duncan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Duncan, A.L., Lach, D.H. Privileged Knowledge and Social Change: Effects on Different Participants of Using Geographic Information Systems Technology in Natural Resource Management. Environmental Management 38, 267–285 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-005-0162-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-005-0162-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation