GIS and Society: Towards a Research Agenda

Sheppard, Eric

doi:10.1559/152304095782540555

Cited by 213 publications

(120 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

108

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…ultimately at issue is whether the integrative capacity of GIS technology proves robust enough to encompass not simply more data but fundamentally different categories that extend considerably beyond the ethical, political, and epistemological limitations of positivism." In a special issue of Cartography and Geographic Information Systems, Sheppard (1995) and others echo the same concern, since use of GIS based on efficiency and effectiveness might result in opposite outcomes from an equity perspective. Others who are researching public participation GIS, as reported in a more recent special issue of Cartography and Geographic Information Systems, recognize a number of those shortcomings but are suggesting GIS-based solutions that can broaden the voice of societal participants (Obermeyer 1998).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

GIS-Supported Collaborative Decision Making: Results of an Experiment

Jankowski

Nyerges

2001

Annals of the Association of American Geographers

161

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article addresses research questions about the sociobehavioral dynamics of geographic information system (GIS) use during collaborative decision making in small interorganizational groups. Using an experimental design of a conference room setting, a study of human-computer-human interaction was conducted with 109 volunteer participants formed into 22 groups, each group representing multiple organizational stakeholder perspectives. The experiment involved the use of GIS integrated with multiple criteria decision models to support group-based decision making concerned with the selection of habitat restoration sites in the Duwamish Waterway of Seattle, Washington. Findings representative of four categories of investigation are presented. In the first category, the experiment demonstrated that groups used maps predominantly to visualize the evaluation results and much less to structure/design the decision problem. Maps played only a limited support role in various decision stages of the experiment. In the second category, while the use of multiple criteria decision models by groups remained steady throughout different phases of the decision process, the use of maps was much lower during the initial exploratory-structuring phase than during the later analytic-integrating phase. In category three, the amount of prior and acquired group member experience with computer tools had no influence on the appropriation of decision aids. In category four, different phases of the decision process had two different levels of conflict: the exploratory-structuring phase was characterized by a lower level of conflict, and the analytic-integrating phase was characterized by high conflict level. The higher level of conflict during the analytic-integrating phase tells us that analytical decision aids aimed at conflict management are likely to help work through conflict, such conflict now being recognized as a necessary part of making progress in public decision problems.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

GIS-Supported Collaborative Decision Making: Results of an Experiment

Jankowski

Nyerges

2001

Annals of the Association of American Geographers

161

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In particular, this analysis demonstrates that the production of wealth or affluence in some parts of the city is accomplished precisely through the production of poverty in other areas, and vice versa. In adopting a critical GIS approach, this paper attempts to use official sources of quantitative data and analytical constructs to document the 'facts' of urban inequality (Wyly 2009), while also producing spatial visualizations that challenge the underlying spatial ontologies that have long dominated GIS (Sheppard 1995;O'Sullivan et al 2018;Bergmann and O'Sullivan, Forthcoming).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rethinking the RECAP: mapping the relational geographies of concentrated poverty and affluence in Lexington, Kentucky

Shelton

2018

Urban Geography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT:The idea of concentrated poverty has long held a prominent place in understandings of racial and class inequality in American cities. While the spatial concentration of the poor is undoubtedly an important aspect of the story around urban inequality, concentrated poverty research suffers from a number of conceptual and methodological shortcomings. Through a case study of concentrated poverty and affluence in Lexington, Kentucky, this paper draws on relational socio-spatial theory and critical GIS in order to offer a constructive critique of conventional concentrated poverty research. The paper demonstrates that while concentrated poverty and affluence are both on the rise in recent years, concentrated affluence actually represents a more widespread problem within the city. At the same time, the paper visualizes how these processes are fundamentally interconnected and co-produced through property ownership relations, where the extraction of rents from areas of concentrated poverty works to simultaneously produce areas of concentrated affluence elsewhere in the city.

show abstract

“…At the same time, as a result of being visually displayed, uncertain or ambiguous data may appear more certain than they actually are (MacEachren 2004). Similarly, the underlying design of geographic information systems (GIS) often is seen as having a bias toward displaying quantitative information (Sheppard 1995). As a result, more experientially based data, which are often qualitative in nature, may not be represented or may be perceived as more anecdotal.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Negotiating credibility and legitimacy in the shadow of an authoritative data source

Cravens¹,

Ardoin²

2016

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Environmental agencies designate certain datasets as "authoritative," or official datasets for use in decision making. Although this is a common administrative term, the notion of certain sources being authoritative has received minimal attention in the social science literature. Science translates into environmental decisions when it is perceived as being salient, credible, and legitimate. But the actual process by which data come to be viewed as credible and legitimate has received little attention. Drawing on 58 semistructured interviews, we examine the mutual negotiation and social learning that occurred during the course of a planning process focused on the development of new marine protected areas in California, under the auspices of the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative. A geospatial decision support tool, MarineMap, was viewed by scientists and state agency staff as an authoritative data source. Stakeholder acceptance of certain data, however, required extended dialogue and trust building over time. Acceptance of the data and tool influenced participant views of the planning process as a whole. This case reveals that the ways in which conversations about ambiguous or missing data are conducted influence stakeholders' trust in scientific analysis, as well as their belief in the legitimacy of decision making.

show abstract

GIS and Society: Towards a Research Agenda

Cited by 213 publications

References 26 publications

GIS-Supported Collaborative Decision Making: Results of an Experiment

GIS-Supported Collaborative Decision Making: Results of an Experiment

Rethinking the RECAP: mapping the relational geographies of concentrated poverty and affluence in Lexington, Kentucky

Negotiating credibility and legitimacy in the shadow of an authoritative data source

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About