Indigenous knowledge of place is not well-served by today's digital geospatial technologies, such as spatial data, maps, spatial databases, and GIS. This paper aims to identify and explore new connections between Indigenous knowledge of place and digital geospatial technologies. Our analysis is structured around three key gaps in past work: (a) the overrepresentation of digital data about space, rather than knowledge of place; (b) a lack of facility to differentiate access to knowledge and enable Indigenous data sovereignty; (c) a lack of facility to support and sustain relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples. The paper further identifies and explores recent research topics in the field of geographic information science (GI science) with relevance to addressing these gaps. This includes identifying new serendipitous synergies with previously unconnected research areas, such as research into location privacy, uncertainty, qualitative spatial reasoning, or distributed spatial computing. The conclusions acknowledge that our retrospective approach is unlikely to lead to radical reformulation of geospatial technologies. Nevertheless, we argue that identifying technological opportunities could offer a pragmatic pathway to more rapidly bootstrap new approaches, beyond simply technological "fixes." All Authors contributed equally to the manuscript and share first authorship status.

No abstract

We compare different implementations of the Stochastic Becker-DeGroot-Marschak (SBDM) belief elicitation mechanism, which is theoretically elegant but challenging to implement. In a first experiment we compare three common formats of the mechanism in terms of speed and data quality. We find that all formats yield reports with similar levels of accuracy and precision, but that the instructions and reporting format adapted from Hao and Houser (2012) is significantly faster to implement. We use this format in a second experiment in which we vary the delivery method and quiz procedure. Dropping the pre-experiment quiz significantly compromises the accuracy of subjects' reports and leads to a dramatic spike in boundary reports. However, switching between electronic and paper-based instructions and quizzes does not affect the accuracy or precision of subjects' reports.

No abstract