Connecting local to global: Geographic information systems and ecological footprints as tools for sustainability

Professional Geographer

Volumn 62, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 84-102

  Klinsky, Sonja ^a   Sieber, Renée ^b   Meredith, Thom ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^b MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Ecological footprint; Geographic information systems; Public participation; Suburban; Sustainability

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT; GIS; LOCAL PARTICIPATION; REMOTE SENSING; SUBURBAN AREA; SUSTAINABILITY;

CANADA; MONTREAL; QUEBEC [CANADA];

EID: 74349109096     PISSN: 00330124     EISSN: 14679272     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00330120903404892     Document Type: Article

References (105)

1. Anielski Management, Inc. 2005. Ecological footprints of Canadian municipalities and regions. Edmonton, Canada: Federation of Canadian Municipalities.
2. ArcMap, Version 8.3. Redlands, CA: ESRI.
3. Ascough, J. C. II, H. D. Rector, D. L. Hoag, G. S. McMaster, B. C. Vandenberg, M. J. Shaffer, M. A. Weltz, and L. R. Ahjua. 2002. Multicriteria spatial decision support systems: Overview, applications, and future research directions. Proceedings of the 1st Biennial Meeting of the IEMSs, International Environmental Modeling and Software Society, Lugano, Switzerland.
4. Ball, J. 2002. Towards a methodology for mapping regions for sustainability using PPGIS. Progress in Planning 58 (2): 81-140.
5. Barrett, J., N. Cherrett, R. Birch, and C. Simmons. 2004. An analysis of the policy and educational application of the ecological footprint. Scotland: World Wildlife Fund.
6. Barton, H. 2000. Sustainable communities: The potential for eco-neighbourhoods. London: Earthscan.
7. Basiago, A. 1995. Methods of defining sustainability. Sustainable Development 3:109-19.
8. Berke, P., and M. Conroy. 2000. Are we planning for sustainable development? Journal of the American Planning Association 66 (1): 21-33.
9. Best Foot Forward. 1999. Oxfordshire's ecological footprint: A report to Oxfordshire County Council. www.bestfootforward.org (last accessed 14 March 2003).
10. Bickerstaff, K., P. Simmons, and N. Pidgeon. 2008. Constructing responsibilities for risk: Negotiating citizen-state relationships. Environment and Planning A 40:1312-30.
11. Burgess, J. 1996. Focusing on fear: The use of focus groups in a project for the community forest unit, Countryside Commission. Area 28 (2): 130-35.
12. Burgess, J., M. Limb, and C. M. Harrison. 1988. Exploring environmental values through the medium of small groups: 1. Theory and practice. Environment and Planning A 20:309-26.
13. Buston, K. 1997. NUD*IST in action: Its use and its usefulness in a study of chronic illness in young people. Sociological Research Online 2 (3): U77-U89.
14. Carver, S. 2003. The future of participatory approaches using geographic information: Developing a research agenda for the 21st century. Urban and Regional Information Systems Association Journal 15:61-72. http://www.urisa.org/Journal/APAN01/carver.pdf (last accessed 29 January 2006).
15. Carver, S., A. Evans, R. Kingston, and I. Turton. 2001. Public participation, GIS and cyberdemocracy: Evaluating on-line spatial decision support systems. Environment and Planning B 28:907-21.
16. Chambers, N., C. Simmons, and M. Wackernagel. 2000. Sharing nature's interest: Ecological footprints as an indicator of sustainability. London: Earthscan.
17. Coffey, A., B. Holbrook, and P. Atkminson. 1996. Qualitative data analysis: Technologies and representations. Sociological Research Online 1 (1). http://www.socresonline.org.uk/1/1/4.html#top (last accessed 18 November 2009).
18. Costanza, R. 2000. The dynamics of the ecological footprint concept. Ecological Economics 32:341-45.
19. 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.
20. Craig, W., T. Harris, and D. Weiner. (Ed.) 2002. Community participation and geographic information systems. London and New York: Taylor & Francis.
21. CREEDAC. 2000. Household end-use energy consumption. CREEDAC, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.
22. Darier, E., and R. Schüle. 1999. Think globally, act locally? Climate change and public participation in Manchester and Frankfurt. Local Environment 4 (3): 317-29.
23. Densham, P. J. 1991. Spatial decision support systems. In Geographical information systems: Principles and applications, ed. D.J. Maguire, M.S. Goodchild, and D. W. Rhind, 403-12. London: Longman.
24. Deutsch, L., A. Jansson, M. Troell, P. Rönnbäck, C. Folke, and N. Kautsky. 2000. The ecological footprint: Communicating human dependence on nature's work. Ecological Economics 32:351-55.
25. DMTI Spatial. 2001. Forested areas and commuter train routes for the Montreal region GIS files. Markham, Canada: DMTI.
26. Dunlap, R. E., K. D. Van Liere, A. Mertig, and R. E. Jones. 2000. Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues 56:425-42.
27. Elwood, S. 2006. Negotiating knowledge production: The everyday inclusions, exclusions, and contradictions of participatory GIS research. The Professional Geographer 58 (2): 197-208.
28. Elwood, S., and R. Ghose. 2004. PPGIS in community development planning: Framing the organizational context. Cartographica 38 (3-4): 19-34.
29. 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.
30. Feick, R. D., and G. B. Hall. 1999. Consensusbuilding in a multi-participant spatial decision support system. URISA Journal 11 (2): 17-23.
31. Forest Products Association of Canada. 2002. Annual report 2002. Ottawa: Forest Products Association.
32. Frankland, J., and M. Bloor. 1999. Some issues arising in the systematic analysis of focus group materials. In Developing focus group research: Politics, theory and practice, ed. R. Barbour and J. Kitzinger, 144-55. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33. Ghose, R. 2007. Politics of scale and networks of association in PPGIS. Environment and Planning A 39 (8): 1961-80.
34. Gibson, R. 2006. Beyond the pillars: Sustainability assessment as a framework for effective integration of social, economic and ecological considerations in significant decision-making. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 8 (3): 259-80.
35. Gibson, R. B., and S. Hassan. 2005. Sustainability assessment: Criteria and processes. London: Earthscan.
36. Glasner, B., and A. Strauss. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
37. Grazi, J. C., J. M. van den Bergh, and P. Reitveld. 2007. Spatial welfare economics versus ecological footprint: Modeling agglomeration, externalities and trade. Environmental and Resource Economics 38 (1): 135-53.
38. Haider, M. 2003. Montreal integrated land use transportation econometric model (MILUTE). Montreal, Quebec: Transcad Model Network 5 (version 6).
39. Haklay, M. E., and C. Tobón. 2003. Usability evaluation and PPGIS: Towards a user-centered design approach. International Journal of GIS 17 (6): 577-92.
40. Hansson, C. B., and M. Wackernagel. 1999. Rediscovering place and accounting space: How to reembed the human economy. Ecological Economics 29 (2): 203-13.
41. Harris, T., and D. Weiner. 1998. Empowerment, marginalization and community-integrated GIS. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems 25 (2): 67-76.
42. Harrison, C., and M. Haklay. 2002. The potential of public participation GIS in UK environmental planning: Appraisals by active publics. International Journal of Environmental Planning & Management 45 (6): 841-63.
43. Haughton, G., and C. Hunter. 2003. Sustainable cities. London and New York: Routledge.
44. Hinchcliffe, S. 1996. Helping the Earth begins at home. Global Environmental Change 6 (1): 53-62.
45. Hoggart, K., L. Lees, and A. Davies. 2002. Close encounters: Interviews and focus groups. In Researching human geography, ed. K. Hoggart, L. Lees, and A. Davies, 201-48. New York: Oxford University Press.
46. Holbrook, B., and P. Jackson. 1996. Shopping around: Focus group research in North London. Area 28 (2): 132-42.
47. Hunter, C., K. Carmichael, and K. Pangbourne. 2006. Household ecological footprinting using a new diary-based data-gathering approach. Local Environment 11 (3): 307-27.
48. International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. 2002. Second local agenda 21 survey background paper 15. Toronto: World Summit on Sustainable Development, UNCSD.
49. Jankowski, P., and T. L. Nyerges. 2001a. Geographic information systems for group decision making: Towards a participatory, geographic information science. London and New York: Taylor & Francis.
50. Jankowski, P., and T. Nyerges. 2001b. GIS-supported collaborative decision-making: Results of an experiment. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 91 (1): 48-70.
51. Kasemir, B., U. Dahinden, A. Gerger-Swartling, R. Schüle, D. Tabara, and C. Jaeger. 2000. Citizen's perspectives on climate change and energy use. Global Environmental Change 10:169-84.
52. Kellogg, W. 1999. Community-based organizations and neighbourhood environmental problem solving: A framework for adoptionofinformation technologies. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 42 (4): 445-69.
53. Kitzinger, J., and C. Farquar. 1999. The analytic potential of sensitive moments in focus group discussions. In Developing focus group research: Politics, theory and practice, ed. R. Barbour and J. Kitzinger. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
54. Klinsky, S. 2004. Making and using environmental information: An analysis of the development and use of two GIS tools for public environmental engagement. Master's thesis, Department of Geography, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
55. Klinsky, S., R. Sieber, and T. Meredith. 2009. Creating local ecological footprints in a North American context. Local Environment 14(6): 495-513.
56. Kotchen, M. J., and S. D. Reiling. 2000. Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: A case study involving endangered species. Ecological Economics 32 (1): 93-107.
57. Kreuger, R., and M. Casey.2000. Focus groups. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
58. Krygier, J. 2002. A praxis of public participation and GIS. In Community participation and geographic information systems, ed. W. Craig, T. Harris, D. Weiner, 330-46. London and New York: Taylor & Francis.
59. L'Agence Metropolitaine de Transport [Metropolitan Transportation Agency]. 1998. L'Enquete Origine-Destination 1998 [Origin-destination survey]. Montréal, Québec: L'Agence Metropolitaine de Transport.
60. Leitner, H., and B. Miller. 2007. Scale and the limitations of ontological debate: A commentary on Marston, Jones and Woodward. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 32 (1): 116-25.
61. Macnaghten P, and M. Jacobs. 1997. Public identification with sustainable development: Investigating cultural barriers to participation. Global Environmental Change 7:1-20.
62. Marston, S. 2000. The social construction of scale. Progress in Human Geography 24:219-42.
63. Marston, S. A., J. P. Jones III, and K. Woodward. 2005. Human geography without scale. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 30 (4): 416-32.
64. Merton, R. 1987. The focused interview and focus groups: Continuities and discontinuities. Public Opinion Quarterly 51 (4): 550-66.
65. Michael, Y., M. Green, and S. A. Farquhar. 2006. Neighbourhood design and active aging. Health & Place 12:734-40.
66. Municipalités de la Communauté Urbaine de Montréal [MUC; Montreal Urban Community]. 1996. Superficie de l'Occupation du Sol Limites Arrondissements [Land use], GIS files. Montréal: MUC.
67. Municipalités de la Communauté Urbaine de Montréal [MUC; Montreal Urban Community]. 2000. Superficie de L'Occupation du Sol [Land use], GIS files. Montréal: MUC.
68. Myers, G., and P. Macnaghten. 1998. Rhetorics of environmental sustainability: Commonplaces and places. Environment and Planning A 30:333-53.
69. Myers, G., and P. Macnaghten. 1999. Can focus groups be analysed as talk? In Developing focus group research: Politics, theory and practice, ed. R. Barbour and J. Kitzinger, 173-86. London: Sage.
70. Onisto, L., E. Krause, and M. Wackernagel. 1998. How big is Toronto's ecological footprint? Toronto: City of Toronto and Center for Sustainability Studies.
71. O'Riordan, T., and H. Voisey. 1998. The political economy of the sustainability transition. In The transition to sustainability: The politics of Local Agenda 21 in Europe, ed. T. O'Riordan and H. Voisey, 3-30. London: Earthscan.
72. Pezzoli, K. 1997. Sustainable development: A transdiciplinary overview of the literature. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 40 (5): 549-74.
73. Pope, J. 2006. What's so special about sustainability assessment? Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 8 (3): v-x.
74. QSR N6, Version 6.0. Melbourne, Australia: QSR International.
75. Rideout, B., K. Hushen, D. McGinty, S. Perkins, and J. Tate. 2005. Endorsement of the new ecological paradigm in systematic and e-mail samples of college students. Journal of Environmental Education 36 (2): 15-23.
76. RIGDIM. 2000. Rapport sur L'Avancement de la Collecte Sélective Porte-à-Porte [A report on the progress of curbside recycling]. Montreal: RIGDIM.
77. Rinner, C. 2003. Web-based spatial decision support: Status and research directions. Journal of Geographic Information and Decision Analysis 7 (1): 14-31.
78. Robinson, J. 2004. Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable development. Ecological Economics 48 (4): 369-84.
79. Roseland, M. 2005. Toward sustainable communities: Resources for citizens and their governments. Gabriola Island, BC, Canada: New Society Publishers.
80. Roy, R., and S. Caird. 2001. Environmental actions to reduce household ecological footprints. International Journal of Environmental Education and Information 20 (4): 315-32.
81. Satterthwaite, D., and Earthscan. 1999. The Earthscan reader in sustainable cities. London: Earthscan.
82. Schultz, P. W., and L. Zelezny. 1999. Values as predictors of environmental attitudes: Evidence for consistency across 14 countries. Journal of Environmental Psychology 19 (3): 255-65.
83. Shi, R. 1997. Land-use zoning and urbanization in greater Montreal: A spatial analysis. Unpublished master's thesis and GIS database, McGill University, Montreal.
84. Sieber, R. 2002. Geographic information systems in the environmental movement. In Community empowerment, public participation and geographic information science, ed. W. Craig, T. Harris, and D. Weiner, 153-72. London and New York: Taylor and Francis.
85. Sieber, R. 2006. Public participation GIS: A literature review and framework. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 96 (3): 491-507.
86. Simmons, C., N. Chambers, and J. Barrett. 2000. Two feet-two approaches: A components based model of ecological footprinting. Ecological Economics 32:373-80.
87. Smith, N. 1993. Homeless/global: Scaling places. In Mapping the futures: Local cultures, global change, ed. J. Bird, B. Curtis, T. Putnam, G. Robertson, and L. Tickner, 87-119. London and New York: Routledge.
88. Statistics Canada. 1996. Street and highway network GIS files. Montreal: Statistics Canada, Montreal Region.
89. Statistics Canada. 2000. Rail in Canada. Ottawa: Statistics Canada Transportation Division.
90. Statistics Canada. 2002a. Food consumption in Canada. Cat. No. 32-229. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.
91. Statistics Canada. 2002b. Monthly operational and financial statistics on major Canadian airlines. CANSIM D462210. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.
92. Stoll-Kleeman, S., T. O'Riordan, and C. Jaeger. 2001. The psychology of denial concerning climate mitigation measures: Evidence from Swiss focus groups. Global Environmental Change 11:107-17.
93. Swyngedouw, E. 1997. Neither global nor local: Glocalization and the politics of scale. In Spaces of globalization: Reasserting the power of the local, ed. K. Cox, 137-66. New York: Guilford.
94. Swyngedouw, E. 2004. Scaled geographies: Nature, place and the politics of scale. In Scale and geographic inquiry: Nature, society and method, ed. E. Sheppard and R. McMaster, 129-53. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
95. Talen, E. 2000. Bottom-up GIS: A new tool for individual and group expression in participatory planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 66 (3): 279-93.
96. Troell, M., L. Deutsch, P. Ronnback, C. Folke, and N. Kautsky. 2001. Misplaced critique: Assumptions and applications of the ecological footprint. Beijer Discussion Paper No. 150, Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics, Stockholm, Sweden.
97. United Nations. 2001. Declaration on cities and other human settlements in the new millennium, S-25/2. New York: UN General Assembly.
98. United Nations Committee on Environment and Development. 1992. Agenda 21. New York: United Nations Committee on Environment and Development.
99. van den Bergh, J., and H. Verbruggen. 1999. Spatial sustainability, trade and indicators: An evaluation of the ecological footprint. Ecological Economics 29: 61-72.
100. van Kooten, C., and E. Bulte. 2000. The ecological footprint: Useful science or politics? Ecological Economics 32:385-89.
101. Ville de Montréal [City of Montreal]. 2002. É tude comportant la collecte d'information et la portrait technique des infrastructures de la gestion publique de l'eau: Rapport Final [Final report: Technical review of public water management infrastructure]. Montreal: Consortium SNC-Lavalin/Dessau-Soprin.
102. Ville de Montréal [City of Montreal]. 2003. Limites Arrondissements [Borough boundaries], GIS files. Montréal: Ville de Montréal.
103. Ville de Montréal [City of Montreal]. 2004. Profil socio-économique de l'arrondissement [Socioeconomic profile of the borough]. (Beaconsfield- Baie-d'Urfé; Dollard- des-Ormeaux-Roxboro; Dorval; Î le-Bizard-Sainte-Genevieve-Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue; Kirkland; Pierrefonds-Senneville; Pointe Claire). Montréal: Ville de Montréal.
104. Wackernagel, M., and W. Rees. 1996. Our ecological footprint: Reducing human impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers.
105. Wheeler, S. M. 2000. Planning for metropolitan sustainability. Journal of Planning Education and Research 20 (2): 133-45.