Spatial data access by the grassroots

Cartography and Geographic Information Science

Volumn 34, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 47-62

  Sieber, Renée E ^a  

^a MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCESS CONTROL; DATA REDUCTION; ENGINEERING RESEARCH; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS; TELECOMMUNICATION LINKS;

INTERORGANIZATIONAL LINKAGES; NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS;

GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS;

ACCESSIBILITY; ADVOCACY; DATA ACQUISITION; GIS; GRASSROOTS LEVEL; NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION; SPATIAL DATA;

CALIFORNIA; NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 34248171583     PISSN: 15230406     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1559/152304007780279087     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Aitken, S. C. 2002. Public participation, technological discourses and the scale of GIS. In: W. Craig, T. Harris, and D. Weiner (eds), Community participation and geographic information systems. London, U.K.: Taylor and Francis. pp. 357-66.
2. Archer, H., and P. Croswell. 1989. Public access to geographic information systems: An emerging legal issue. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 55(11): 1575-81.
3. Azad, B., and L. L. Wiggins. 1995. Dynamics of inter-organizational geographic data sharing: A conceptual framework for research. In: H. J. Onsrud and G. Rushton (eds), Sharing geographic information. Center for Urban Policy Research (CUPR) Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey. pp. 22-43.
4. Barndt, M. 2002. A model for evaluating public participation GIS. In: W. Craig, T. Harris, and D. Weiner (eds), Community participation and geographic information systems. London, U.K.: Taylor and Francis. pp. 346-56.
5. Barndt, M. 1998. Public participation GIS - Barriers to implementation. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems 25(2): 105-12.
6. Becker, J. L. 2002. A technological approach to environmental litigation using GIS. Presentation at the Annual SCGIS Conference, Borrega Springs, California, July 5-7.
7. California Attorney General. 2005. Opinion of the Attorney General. Attorney General's Decision re: Parcel boundary map data maintenance & provision. 10/03/2005. [http:/www.cgia.org/04-1105.pdf; accessed June 1, 2005.]
8. Calkins, H. W., and R. Weatherbe. 1995a. A case study approach to the study of institutions sharing spatial data. In: Proceedings of the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association 1: 675-87.
9. Calkins, H.W., and R. Weatherbe. 1995b. Taxonomy of data sharing. In: H. J. Onsrud and G. Rushton (eds), Sharing geographic information, Center for Urban Policy Research Press, New Brunswick, NJ. pp. 65-75.
10. CNN. 2004. Man accused of stalking with GPS. [http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/ West/09/04/gps.stalking.ap; accessed September 6, 2004.]
11. Committee on Licensing Geographic Data and Services. 2004. Licensing geographic data and services. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. [http://books.nap.edu/catalog/11079.html; accessed September 1, 2006.]
12. Conservation Commons. 2006. Conservation GeoPortal. [http:// www.conservationmaps.org; accessed September 1, 2006.]
13. Craig, W, J., and S. Elwood. 1998. How and why community groups use maps and geographic information. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems 25(2): 95-104.
14. Davis, C., and E. Martin. 1999. Conservation GIS user study. Seattle, Washington: CommEn Space.
15. Day, P. 2004. Copyright, licenses, and data access in Wisconsin. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Public Participation GIS Conference, July 18-20, Madision, Wisconsin. [CD-ROM].
16. deMan, W.H. E. 2003. Cultural and institutional conditions for using geographic information: Access and participation. Urban and Regional Information Systems Association Journal 15, APA (Access and Participatory Approaches) 1. 29-33. [http://www.urisa.org/Journal/ APANo1/Final.pdf; accessed September 1, 2006.]
17. Dowie, M. 1995. Losing ground: American environmentalism at the close of the twentieth century. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
18. Downing, J. D. 1989. Computers for political change: PeaceNet and public data access. Journal of Communication 39(3): 154-62.
19. Elwood, S., and R. Ghose. 2004. PPGIS in community development planning - Framing the organizational context. Cartographica 38(3&4): 19-33.
20. Elwood, S., and H. Leitner. 2003. GIS and spatial knowledge production for neighborhood revitalization: Negotiating state priorities and neighborhood visions. Journal of Urban Affairs 25(2): 139-57.
21. Ghose, R., and S. Elwood. 2003. Public participation GIS and local political context: Propositions and research directions. Urban and Regional Information Systems Association Journal 15, APA (Access and Participatory Approaches) II. 17-24. [http:/www.urisa.org/ Journal/APANo2/Final.pdf; accessed September 1, 2006.]
22. Ghose, R. 2001. Use of information technology for community empowerment: Transforming geographic information systems into community information systems. Transactions in GIS 5(2): 141-63.
23. Harvey, F. 2006. Status functions, collective intentionality: Matters of trust for geospatial information sharing. In: M. Raubel, H. J. Miller, A. U. Frank, and M. Goodchild (eds), GIScience 2006, Lecture notes in computer science 4197. Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag. pp. 145-52.
24. Hoffman, M. C. 2003. The ethics of public data dissemination: Finding the "public" in public data. Paper presented at the Second PPGIS Conference, Portland, Oregon. URISA. pp.273-282. [CD ROM.]
25. Joffe, B. 2005. Ten ways to support GIS without selling data. Urban and Regional Information Systems Association Journal 16 (2): 27-33.
26. Johnson, J., and H. J. Onsrud. 1995. Is cost recovery worthwhile? In: Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association, San Antonio, Texas. pp. 126-36.
27. King, J. L. 1995. Problems in public access policy for GIS databases: An economic perspective. In: H. J. Onsrud and G. Rushton (eds), Sharing geographic information. Center for Urban Policy Research (CUPR) Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey. pp. 255-276.
28. Kingston, R. 2002. Web based PPGIS in the United Kingdom. In: W. Craig, T. Harris, and D. Weiner (eds), Community participation and geographic information systems. London, U.K.: Taylor and Francis. pp. 101-12.
29. Kyem, P. A. K. 2004. Of intractable conflicts and participatory GIS applications: The search for consensus amidst competing claims and institutional demands. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 94 (1): 37-57.
30. Laituri, M. 2003. The issue of access: An assessment guide for evaluating public participation geographic information science case studies. Urban and Regional Information Systems Association Journal 15, APA (Access and Participatory Approaches) II. 25-32. [http:/www.urisa.org/Journal/APANo2/Final.pdf; accessed September 1, 2006.]
31. Leitner, H., S. Elwood, E. Sheppard, S. McMaster, and R. McMaster. 2000. Modes of GIS provision and their appropriateness for neighborhood organizations: Examples from Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota. Urban and Regional Information Systems Association Journal 12(4): 43-56.
32. Marion Brechner Citizen Access Project 2006. GIS data (Public Records). College of Journalism and Communication, University of Florida, Gainsville, Florida. [http://www.citizenaccess.org; September 1, 2006.]
33. Morrison, P. H., D. Kloepfer, D. A. Leversee, C. M. Socha, and D. L. Ferber. 1991. Ancient forests in the Pacific Northwest: Analysis and maps of twelve national forests. The Wilderness Society, Washington, D.C.
34. Nedovic-Budic, Z., J. K. Pinto, and L. Warnecke. 2004. GIS database development and exchange: interaction mechanisms and motivations. Journal of the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association 16(1): 15-29.
35. Nedovic-Budic, Z., and J. K. Pinto. 1999. Understanding inter-organizational GIS activities: A conceptual framework. Urban and Regional Information Systems Association Journal 11(1): 53-64.
36. NLRB v. Robbins Tire and Rubber Co. 1978.
37. Norheim, R. A. 2004. How institutional cultures affect results: Comparing two old-growth forest mapping projects. Cartographica 38(3&4): 35-52.
38. OMBWatch. 2005. Access to government information post September 11th. [http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/213; accessed March 1, 2007.]
39. Onsrud, H.J. 1992a. In support of cost recovery for publicly held geographic information. GIS Law 1(2):1-7.
40. Onsrud, H.J. 1992b. In support of open access for publicly held geographic information. GIS Law 1(1):3-6.
41. Onsrud and G. Rushton (eds), Sharing geographic information. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Center for Urban Policy Research (CUPR) Press.
42. Press, D. 2002. Saving open space: The politics of local preservation in California. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
43. Roberts, A. 1999. Closing the window: How public sector restructuring limits access to government information. Government Information in Canada/Information gouvernementale au Canada, Number/Numéro 17. [http://www.usask.ca/library/gic/17/roberts.html; accessed September 1, 2006.]
44. Rogers, E. 2003. Diffusion of innovations, 5th ed. New York, New York: Free Press.
45. Sawicki, D. S., and W. J. Craig. 1996. The democratization of data: Bridging the gap for community groups. Journal of the American Planning Association 62(4): 512-23.
46. Sawicki, D. S., and D. R. Peterman. 2002. Surveying the extent of PPGIS practice in the United States. In: W. Craig, T. Harris, and D. Weiner (eds), Community participation and geographic information systems. London, U.K.: Taylor and Francis. pp. 17-36.
47. Schartum, D.W. 1998. Access to government-held information: Challenges and possibilities. The Journal of Information, Law and Technology, 11p. [http://elj.warwick.ac.uk/jilt/infosoc/98_1scha/; accessed September 1, 2006.]
48. Schroeder, P. 1996. Criteria for the design of a GIS/2. Specialists' meeting for NCGIA Initiative 19: GIS and Society, Summer 1996. [http://www.spatial.maine.edu/~schroedr/ppgis/criteria.html; accessed September 1, 2006.]
49. Sieber, R. E. 2006. Public participation geographic information systems: A literature review and framework. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 96(3): 491-507.
50. Sieber, R. E. 2003. Public participation GIS across borders. The Canadian Geographer 47(1): 50-61.
51. Sieber, R. E. 2002. Geographic information systems in the environmental movement. In: W. Craig, T. Harris, and D. Weiner (eds), Community participation and geographic information systems. London, U.K.: Taylor and Francis. pp. 153-72.
52. Smith, R. S. and M. Craglia. 2003. Digital participation and access to geographic information: A case study of local government in the United Kingdom. Urban and Regional Information Systems Association Journal 15, APA (Access and Participatory Approaches) II. 49-54. [http:// www.urisa.org/Journal/APANo2/Final.pdf; accessed September 1, 2006.]
53. Sprecher, M. H. 1994. ICMA survey dissects local government IT use. Urban and Regional Information Systems Association Journal 6(2): 92-5.
54. Tombs, R. B. 2004. Policy review: Blocking public geospatial data access is not only a homeland security risk. Urban and Regional Information Systems Association Journal 16 (2): 49-51.
55. Tulloch, D. L. 2002. Environmental NGOs and community access to technology as a force for change. In: W. Craig, T. Harris, and D. Weiner (eds), Community participation and geographic information systems. London, U.K.: Taylor and Francis. pp. 192-204.
56. Tulloch, D. L. 2000. Exploratory studies of the NSGIC/FGDC framework survey: Looking at the state of the nation. Final Report to the Universities Consortium for Geographic Information Sciences and the Federal Geographic Data Committee. Grant F. Walton Center for Remote Sensing and Spatial Analysis, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
57. Tulloch, D. L., and J. Fuld. 2001. County-level production of framework data: Pieces of a national spatial data infrastructure? Urban and Regional Information Systems Association Journal 13 (2): 11-21.
58. Tulloch, D. L., and T. Shapiro. 2003. The intersection of data access and public participation: Impacting GIS users' success? Urban and Regional Information Systems Association Journal 15, APA (Access and Participatory Approaches) II. 55-60.[http://www.urisa.org/Journal/ APANo2/Final.pdf; accessed September 1, 2006.]
59. van Loenen, B., and Onsrud H.J. 2004. Geographic data for academic research: Assessing access policies. Cartography and Geographic Information Science 31(1): 3-17.
60. Waters, N. 2000. Edge nodes: How Canada gave GIS to the world and then lost almost everything. GIS World. [http:/www.geoplace.com/gw/ 2000/0100/0100edg.asp; accessed September 1, 2006.]
61. Weiss, P. 2002. Borders in cyberspace. Conflicting public sector information policies and their economic impacts. Summary Report. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. [http://weather.gov/sp/ Borders_report.pdf; accessed September 1, 2006.]
62. Wong, S., and Y. L. Chua. 2004. Data intermediation and beyond: Issues for web-based PPGIS. Cartographica 38(3&4): 63-80.