Advertisement

Situating the Adoption of VGI by Government

  • Peter A. JohnsonEmail author
  • Renee E. Sieber

Abstract

Governments have long been active online, providing services and information to citizens. With the development of Web 2.0 technology, many governments are considering how they can better engage with and accept citizen input online, particularly through the gathering and use of volunteered geographic information (VGI). Though there are several benefits to governments accepting VGI, the process of adopting VGI as a support to decision-making is not without challenge. We identify three areas of challenge to the adoption of VGI by government; these are the costs of VGI, the challenges for governments to accept non-expert data of questionable accuracy and formality, and the jurisdictional issues in VGI. We then identify three ways that governments can situate themselves to accept VGI—by formalizing the VGI collection process, through encouraging collaboration between levels of government, and by investigating the participatory potential of VGI.

Keywords

Geographic Information System Vernal Pool Citizen Participation Volunteer Geographic Information Spatial Decision Support System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research has been funded by the Quebec Ministère des services gouvernementaux program “Appui au passage à la société de l’information” and the Canadian GEOIDE Network of Centres of Excellence in Geomatics.

References

  1. Al-Kodmany, K. (2000). Using Web-Based technologies and geographic information systems in community planning. Journal of Urban Technology, 7(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amin, A., Cameron, A., & Hudson, R. (2002). Placing the social economy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Brewer, G. A. (2006). Designing and implementing E-Government systems: Critical implications for public administration and democracy. Administration & Society, 38(4), 472–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Budhathoki, N., Bruce, B., & Nedovic-Budic, Z. (2008). Reconceptualizing the role of the user of spatial data infrastructure. GeoJournal, 72(3), 149–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Budhathoki, N., Nedovic-Budic, Z., & Bruce, B. (2010). An interdisciplinary frame for understanding volunteered geographic information. Geomatica, 64(1), 11–26.Google Scholar
  6. Budic, Z. D. (1994). Effectiveness of geographic information systems in local planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 60(2), 244–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carpi, T. (1997). The prospects for the social economy in a changing world. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 68(2), 247–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carver, S., Evans, A., Kingston, R., & Turton, I. (2001). Public participation, GIS, and cyberdemocracy: Evaluating on-line spatial decision support systems. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 28(6), 907–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chadwick, A. (2009). Web 2.0: New challenges for the study of E-democracy in era of informational exuberance. I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, 5(1), 9–41.Google Scholar
  10. Cox, K. R. (1998). Spaces of dependence, spaces of engagement and the politics of scale, or: Looking for local politics. Political Geography, 17(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crampton, J. (2009). Cartography: Maps 2.0. Progress in Human Geography, 33(1), 91–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Longueville, B., Annoni, A., Schade, S., Ostlaender, N., & Whitmore, C. (2010). Digital earth’s nervous system for crisis events: Real-time sensor web enablement of volunteered geographic information. International Journal of Digital Earth, 3(3), 242–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dovey, T., & Eggers, W. (2008). National issues dialogues Web 2.0: The future of collaborative government. Washington, DC: Deloitte Research.Google Scholar
  14. Drummond, W., & French, S. (2008). The future of GIS in planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 74(2), 161–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Elwood, S. (2008). Volunteered geographic information: Future research directions motivated by critical, participatory, and feminist GIS. GeoJournal, 72(3), 173–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Elwood, S. (2009). Geographic Information Science: New geovisualization technologies-emerging questions and linkages with GIScience research. Progress in Human Geography, 53, 256–263.Google Scholar
  17. Elwood, S., & Ghose, R. (2004). PPGIS in community development planning: Framing the organizational context. Cartographica, 38(3/4), 19–33.Google Scholar
  18. Elwood, S., & Leszczynski, A. (2011). Privacy, reconsidered: New representations, data practices, and the geoweb. Geoforum, 42(1), 6–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Flanagin, A., & Metzger, M. (2008). The credibility of volunteered geographic information. GeoJournal, 72(3), 137–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ganapati, S. (2010). Using geographic information systems to increase citizen engagement (pp. 1–46). Washington, DC: IBM Center for The Business of Government.Google Scholar
  21. Ganapati, S. (2011). Uses of public participation geographic information systems applications in E-government. Public Administration Review, 71(3), 425–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Geertman, S. (2006). Potentials for planning support: A planning-conceptual approach. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 33, 863–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Girres, J. F., & Touya, G. (2010). Quality assessment of the French OpenStreetMap dataset. Transactions in GIS, 14(4), 435–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goelman, A. (2005). Technology in context: Mediating factors in the utilization of planning technologies. Environment and Planning A, 37, 895–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goodchild, M. (2007). Citizens as sensors: The world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal, 69, 211–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Goodchild, M., & Glennon, J. (2010). Crowdsourcing geographic information for disaster response: A research frontier. International Journal of Digital Earth, 3(3), 231–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Haklay, M. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Haklay, M., Singleton, A., & Parker, C. (2008). Web mapping 2.0: The Neogeography of the Geoweb. Geography Compass, 2(6), 2011–2039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Harvey, F. (2003). Developing geographic information infrastructures for local government: The role of trust. Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe canadien, 47(1), 28–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Harvey, F. (2007). Just another private–public partnership? Possible constraints on scientific information in virtual map browsers. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 34, 761–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hudson-Smith, A., Crooks, A., Gibin, M., Milton, R., & Batty, M. (2009). NeoGeography and Web 2.0: Concepts, tools and applications. Journal of Location Based Services, 3(2), 118–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Johnson, P. A., & Sieber, R. E. (2011a). Motivations driving government adoption of the Geoweb. GeoJournal, 1–14. doi:10.1007/s10708-011-9416-8Google Scholar
  34. Johnson, P. A., & Sieber, R. E. (2011b). Negotiating constraints to the adoption of agent-based modeling in tourism planning. Environment and Planning B – Planning and Design, 38(2), 307–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Johnson, P. A., Sieber, R. E., Magnien, N., & Ariwi, J. (2012). Automated web harvesting to collect and analyse user-generated content for tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 15(3), 293–299.Google Scholar
  36. Miller, C. (2007). A beast in the field: The Google maps mashup as GIS/2. Cartographica, 2(3), 187–199.Google Scholar
  37. Nedovic-Budic, Z. (1998). The impact of GIS technology. Environment and Planning B – Planning and Design, 25(5), 681–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Onsrud, H., & Pinto, J. (1991). Diffusion of geographic information innovations. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 5(4), 447–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Parsons, J., Lukyanenko, R., & Weirsma, Y. (2011). Easier citizen science is better. Nature, 471(7336), 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pickles, J. (Ed.). (1995). Ground truth: The social implications of geographic information systems. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  42. Rouse, J. L., Bergeron, S. J., & Harris, T. M. (2007). Participating in the Geospatial Web: Collaborative mapping, social networks and participatory GIS. In A. Scharl & K. Tochterman (Eds.), The geospatial web: How geobrowsers, social software and the Web 2.0 are shaping the network society (pp. 153–158). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  43. Saebo, O., Rose, J., & Flak, L. S. (2008). The shape of eParticipation: Characterizing an emerging research area. Government Information Quarterly, 25, 400–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schuurman, N. (2000). Trouble in the heartland: GIS and its critics in the 1990s. Progress in Human Geography, 24(4), 569–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Seeger, C. (2008). The role of facilitated volunteered geographic information in the landscape planning and site design process. GeoJournal, 72, 199–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sieber, R. (2004). Rewiring for a GIS/2. Cartographica, 39(1), 25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sieber, R. (2006). Public participation geographic information systems: A literature review and framework. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 96(3), 491–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Smith, N. (1993). Homeless/global: Scaling places. In J. Bird, B. Curtis, T. Putnam, G. Robertson, & L. Tickner (Eds.), Mapping the futures (pp. 87–119). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Swyngedouw, E. (2004). Globalisation or ‘glocalisation’? Networks, territories and rescaling. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 17(1), 25–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. te Brömmelstroet, M., & Bertolini, L. (2008). Developing land use and transport PSS: Meaningful information through a dialogue between modelers and planners. Transport Policy, 15, 251–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. te Brömmelstroet, M., & Schrijnen, P. (2010). From planning support systems to mediated planning support: A structured dialogue to overcome the implementation gap. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 37(1), 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tulloch, D. (2008). Is VGI participation? From vernal pools to video games. GeoJournal, 72(3), 161–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Turner, A. (2006). Introduction to neogeography. Sebastopol: O’Reilly.Google Scholar
  54. Vonk, G., Geertman, S., & Schot, P. (2005). Bottlenecks blocking widespread usage of planning support systems. Environment and Planning A, 37, 909–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vonk, G., Geertman, S., & Schot, P. (2007). A SWOT analysis of planning support systems. Environment and Planning A, 39, 1699–1714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wittig, M. A., & Schmitz, J. (1996). Electronic grassroots organizing. Journal of Social Issues, 52(1), 53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zook, M., & Graham, M. (2007). The creative reconstruction of the Internet: Google and the privatization of cyberspace and DigiPlace. Geoforum, 38(6), 1322–1343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zook, M., Graham, M., Shelton, T., & Gorman, S. (2010). Volunteered geographic information and crowdsourcing disaster relief: A case study of the Haitian earthquake. World Medical and Health Policy, 2(2), 7–33.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geography and Environmental ManagementUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  2. 2.Department of GeographyMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations