Indigeneity and spatial information science

Abstract

Spatial information science has given rise to a set of concepts, tools, and techniques for understanding our geographic world. In turn, the technologies built on this body of knowledge embed certain "ways of knowing." This vision paper traces the roots and impacts of those embeddings, and explores how they can sometimes be inherently at odds with, or completely subvert, Indigenous Peoples' ways of knowing. However, advancements in spatial information science offer opportunities for innovation whilst working towards reconciliation. We highlight, as examples, four active research topics in the field, to support a call to action for greater inclusion of Indigenous perspectives in spatial information science.

A cloud‐based solution for trustless indigenous data sovereignty: Protecting Māori biodiversity management data in Aotearoa New Zealand

“…Indigenous communities can utilize the features of cloud technology and simultaneously safeguard their valuable and sensitive geospatial data from state and international surveillance. The application aims to address calls for empowering indigenous sovereign data owners to exercise their inherent right to authorize, control and govern the circulation, access, and use of geospatial data when it is shared beyond their boundaries, contributing to their self‐determination, data governance, and, ultimately, sovereignty (Briggs et al., 2020; Duckham & Ho, 2020; Reid & Sieber, 2022). Useful indigenous datasets that previously may have been kept closed off, now can be shared to support decision making.…”

“…Traditional and culturally sensitive indigenous data have historically been targeted by settler communities for land and resource exploitation, often used without prior and informed consent and distorted for advantage (Kukutai & Taylor, 2016). For marginalized peoples, location awareness and big data technologies inherently risk increased surveillance and invasion of their privacy, such as disclosing the location of culturally important sites (Duckham & Ho, 2020; Mann & Daly, 2019). Location data are increasingly viewed as a commodity that may be exchanged, often for financial benefit or national security, and legal advances to protect privacy rights have lagged behind technical progress (Zhang & McKenzie, 2022).…”

“…Finally, it entails trustfully notarizing the encrypted dataset so that recipients can verify its originality. Addressing these data-sharing challenges is key to improving support for indigenous geospatial data sovereignty-an aspect identified by researchers as vital for future research on spatial data sharing and for responsible GIS (Duckham & Ho, 2020).…”

Permutations of a lie: fortress conservation and the (re)making of subjects in the global carceral archipelago

“…Such indiscriminate applications of this model, which was created to implement and maintain colonial modes of occupation and control (Bhandar, 2018;Musembi, 2007;Home, 2006;Manji, 2006) has, through "a kind of Heisenberg principle" (Scott, 1998: 40 -44), been a major cause of significant social disruption and dislocation of customary regimes. Land administration has responded to these problems through a myriad of theoretical developments, including the "continuum of land rights" (Goodwin, 2020;Barry and Augustinus, 2016), "pro-poor" land administration (Hendriks et al, 2019), "fit for purpose approaches" (Enemark et al, 2016) and calls for greater recognition of indigenous ontologies concerning land (Duckham and Ho, 2020).…”

JOSIS' 10th anniversary special feature: part two

“…Duckham and Ho's [5] vision paper highlights how these worlds can reflect profoundly different values and ways of understanding, and that spatial information science has a duty to reflect upon data models used and their origins, considering how these might reproduce Eurocentric thought, ignoring Indigenous ways of thinking about space. This challenge is accepted in a very different context by Fotheringham [6] who suggests that the challenge in local modeling is recognising that the "unobservable processes producing the observable outcomes we want to change are not the same everywhere and need to be examined locally."…”