Public participation geographic information systems (PPGIS ...

Public participation geographic informationsystems (PPGIS): challenges of implementationin Churchill, Manitoba

EMMA J. STEWARTDepartment of Geography, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, T2N 1N4 (e-mail: [email protected])

DAN JACOBSONDepartment of Geography, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, T2N 1N4 (e-mail: [email protected])

DIANNE DRAPERDepartment of Geography, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, T2N 1N4 (e-mail: [email protected])

Public participation geographic information systems(PPGIS) increasingly are utilized in geographicresearch, yet researchers rarely are provided withguidance on how to implement PPGIS in anappropriate and effective manner. This article reportson the process of research that explores responses tocurrent and future local tourism development offeredby a sample of residents using a modified PPGISapproach called ‘community action geographicinformation system’ (CAGIS). The conceptualdevelopment of CAGIS is reported and the challengesencountered during its implementation in Churchill,Manitoba during 2005–2007 are reviewed. It issuggested that researchers wishing to conductsimilar research should undertake thoroughpreliminary fieldwork to assess the likelihood offinding agreement on a common problem; acquiringadequate resources; establishing collectiveresponsibility for the project’s outcome; attainingstakeholder support; developing trust and meaningfulrelationships; and incorporating indigenousknowledge appropriately. Feedback of results to

Les systemes d’information geographiqueparticipatifs (SIGP): les defis de la mise en œuvre aChurchill, Manitoba

Les systemes d’information geographiqueparticipatifs (SIGP) sont de plus en plus utilises dansla recherche en geographie. Pourtant, rares sont leschercheurs qui ont profite d’informations et deconseils concernant l’utilisation appropriee et efficaced’un SIGP. Une approche modifiee des SIGP appelee�systemes d’information geographique d’actioncommunautaire� (SIGAC) est utilisee pour presenterun compte-rendu d’une demarche de recherche visanta explorer les reactions d’un echantillon de residentsau developpement actuel et futur du tourisme local.Cet article fait etat de l’evolution conceptuelle del’approche SIGAC et passe en revue les defis qui sesont presentes lors de sa mise en œuvre a Churchill,Manitoba entre 2005 et 2007. Il est permis de penserque les chercheurs qui souhaitent mener de tellesrecherches devraient proceder d’emblee a uneanalyse approfondie du terrain en vue d’evaluer la

The Canadian Geographer / Le Geographe canadien 52, no 3 (2008) 351–366C© / Canadian Association of Geographers / L’Association canadienne des geographes

352 Emma J. Stewart, Dan Jacobson and Dianne Draper

community members also should be an integral partof the research process. A number of feedback mech-anisms are reported, including an interactive weblog,which helped facilitate communication between het-erogeneous groups in Churchill. Although ambitionsfor a truly participatory GIS approach to this projecthave been set aside, it is held that PPGIS can yield pos-itive outcomes for communities and academia. Shar-ing this research experience will be useful to otherswho venture into PPGIS research, especially in north-ern communities.

Key words: Arctic tourism, community percep-tions, participatory action research (PAR), publicparticipation geographic information systems ap-proach (PPGIS)

probabilite de degager un consensus sur un problemecommun; d’obtenir des ressources suffisantes;d’etablir une responsabilite collective face auxresultats du projet; de beneficier d’un appui desparties prenantes; de developper la confiance et desrelations significatives; et d’integrer judicieusementles connaissances indigenes. Il est essentield’accorder une place dans la demarche de recherchea la communication des resultats aux membres de lacollectivite. Divers mecanismes de retroaction sontpresentes, dont un carnet interactif en ligne, ayantservi de support a la communication entre desgroupes heterogenes de Churchill. Si, dans le cadrede ce projet, l’intention d’utiliser une approchereellement participative des SIG a avorte, il est estimeneanmoins que les SIGP donnent de bons resultatspour les collectivites et le monde universitaire. Gracea l’experience acquise, cette recherche pourraprofiter a tous ceux qui s’engagent dans des travauxde recherche sur les SIGP, particulierement au seindes collectivites nordiques.

Mots cles: tourisme arctique, perceptions dela collectivite, Recherche-Action Participative(RAP), approche des systemes d’informationgeographique participatifs (SIGP)

Introduction

Mistrust and suspicion of researchers still lingersin some indigenous communities (Smith 1999),a situation created by decades of ‘helicopter re-search’ whereby investigators arrive in a commu-nity, collect their data and leave (Freeman 1993,193). In northern Canada, communities have be-come the subjects of an increasing number ofresearch projects, yet in many instances havefailed to benefit from their involvement, lead-ing some to claim that communities are sufferingfrom ‘research fatigue’ (Parlee 2006, 33). How-ever, since the late 1970s, considerable progresshas been made to ensure that researchers work-ing in northern Canadian communities adhereto principles for the conduct of ethical re-search, which emphasize ‘the need to createmeaningful relationships with the people andcommunities affected by research’ (Associationof Canadian Universities for Northern Studies1998, 3).

The antithesis of helicopter investigation, par-ticipatory research, is an overarching term forenquiry that aims to empower community mem-bers through active engagement in research pro-cesses (Taylor et al. 2004). Development oftrust between researcher and community (Harvey2003), and active participation of communitymembers in planning, implementation and/orevaluation of research, are some of the founda-tional elements of participatory research (Israelet al. 1998; Taylor et al. 2004; DeLemos 2006).A wide range of research approaches is ev-ident in the literature, labelled variously asparticipatory action research (PAR), community-based, community-wide, community-centred andcommunity-involved research depending on theextent to which community members are active,or share power, in participatory research pro-cesses (Israel et al. 1998; Bloodworth et al. 2004).However, PAR is distinguished from the otherapproaches previously listed as it specificallyfacilitates social action and change by and for

The Canadian Geographer / Le Geographe canadien 52, no 3 (2008)

Public participation geographic information systems (PPGIS) 353

communities (Legat 1994; Stevenson 1996; Smithet al. 1997).

Public participation geographic informationsystems (PPGIS) is one research tool that fos-ters the ideals of PAR. Considerable progresshas been made since 1998 in the partnering ofgeographic information systems (GIS) and par-ticipatory research methodologies (Aberley andSieber 2002; Sheppard 2005). The term PPGISdescribes the many and varied forms of thispartnership and first came into widespread useafter the 1998 International Conference on ‘Em-powerment, Marginalization and Public Participa-tion Geographic Information Systems’ (Aberleyand Sieber 2002; Craig et al. 2002). PPGIS initiallywas designed for a specific purpose, namely toexamine how GIS technology could support pub-lic participation for variety of possible appli-cations (Aberley and Sieber 2002). Since then,there have been many variations in application ofPPGIS, but all uses share the need to capture di-versity of local knowledge and to empower peo-ple to participate in spatial decision making ex-ercises (Craig et al. 2002; Hasse 2003).

Although PPGISs are becoming more common-place in geographic research, the challenges ofimplementation rarely are reported (Sieber 2003).As a result, PPGIS researchers possess few re-sources to help resolve tensions and answerpractical questions arising from their research,particularly in the early stages of implementa-tion. As in the wider field of participatory re-search, there is a need for open and honestreflection on the ‘unique challenges and obsta-cles that community members and researchersconfront. . ..and the lessons learned from such in-teractions’ (Taylor et al. 2004, 6). This reflectiveexercise requires a self-critical outlook so thatthe significance of conducting PPGIS researchwith and for communities, instead of ‘on’ com-munities, can be realized. The purpose of thispaper is to reflect critically on the challengesand obstacles of implementing a PPGIS variantcalled ‘community action geographic informationsystems’ (CAGIS) in a research project examin-ing resident attitudes to tourism development inChurchill, Manitoba.

A brief overview of GIS and PPGIS is fol-lowed by a review of their applications in atourism context. The tourism research project ispresented as background context to the devel-

opment of CAGIS. The challenges of implement-ing CAGIS in the case study site are discussedbut, ultimately, the seriousness of these imple-mentation challenges required a modification ofCAGIS. The paper continues with a brief discus-sion of how the project has evolved and a reviewof the lessons learned from this research experi-ence. Although our specific research setting wasnorthern Canada, the problems experienced andinsights gained are of broad utility to other re-searchers working with PPGIS.

PPGIS

Geographic information systems are a collectionof tools and approaches that have been usedwidely to deal with complex planning environ-ments through the system’s capability to store,analyze and display large quantities of spatiallyreferenced data (Hasse 2001, 2003; Hasse andMilne 2005). Since the late 1980s concerns wereraised in the academic arena about the account-ability of GIS from political, economic, societaland ethical perspectives. Specifically, the disquietfocused on the social implications of how peo-ple, space and the environment were representedin GIS. Captured in what has become knownas the ‘society and GIS’ debate, these concernscentred attention on whether GIS could be ei-ther a democratizing or disenfranchising force(Rundstrom 1995; Obermeyer 1998). Some au-thors argue GIS is a contradictory technologythat simultaneously marginalizes and empow-ers peoples and communities (Craig and Elwood1998; Elwood and Leitner 1998).

The current PPGIS movement, sometimes calledGIS-2, or GIS-two, emerged from the ‘society andGIS’ debate and seeks to develop GIS technologyand applications that are more adaptable to dif-ferent types of data. PPGIS represents the visionof those interested in the sociopolitical contri-bution of GIS to communities, and this visionincludes tools that are easily used and under-stood by community members, relevant to pub-lic policy issues and available to all sides ofpublic policy debates (Barndt 1998). The defin-ing characteristics of PPGIS are summarized inTable 1.

A growing number of projects have been im-plemented under the PPGIS banner as ‘public



Table 1Summary of the defining characteristics of PPGIS (after Aberley and Sieber 2002)

Public participation geographic information systems (PPGIS) often are:• interdisciplinary research, community development and environmental stewardship tools grounded in value and ethical frameworks

that promote social justice, ecological sustainability, improvement of quality of life, redistributive justice, nurturing of civil society• practiced in streams relating to place (urban, rural), organizational context (community-based organization, grassroots group,

nongovernmental organization, local government, regional government, state/provincial government) or sector (transportation,watershed restoration, food security, housing, public health, etc.)

• endeavouring to involve youth, elders, women, First Nations and other segments of society that traditionally are marginalized fromdecision making processes

• functionally and holistically based; that is, can be applied to help solve problems in specific sectors of society, and/or to providebroader integrated assessments of place-based or bioregional identity

• best applied via partnerships developed among individuals, communities, nongovernmental organizations, academic institutions,religious or faith-based institutions, governments and the private sector

• endeavouring to always include a strong capacity building dimension in their application• linked to social theories and methods originating in planning, anthropology, geography, social work and other social sciences• linked to applied qualitative research tools including participatory action research, grounded research, participatory rural appraisal, etc.• a tool that is best applied in a wide variety of manual, digital, two-and three-dimensional formats and data types (digital, oral, image)• enabling public access to cultural, economic and biophysical data generated by governments, private sector organizations and

academic institutions• supporting a range of interactive approaches from face-to-face contact to web-based applications• promoting development of software that is accessible to broad acquisition and ease of use, and• supporting lifelong learning of its practitioners in a manner that helps to bridge the divides that exist among cultures, academic

disciplines, gender and class; is about sharing the challenges and opportunities of place and situation in a transparent and celebratorymanner

participation’ (Harris and Weiner 1998), ‘commu-nity integrated’ (Hasse 2003; Hasse and Milne2005), ‘mobile interactive’ (McKinnon et al. 2001)and ‘participatory’ GIS (Obermeyer 1998). Theprojects span diverse settings from urban re-vitalization in Minneapolis (Elwood and Leitner1998), to local information gathering in Trinidadand Tobago (Engle 2003) and to rural appraisalin the Yunnan Province, China (McKinnon et al.2001). The relationships between GIS, PPGIS andthe variants of PPGIS, which have emerged since1998 are illustrated in Figure 1.

GIS and PPGIS tourism research

Although much data analysis has taken placein tourism research without the use of GIS,McAdam (1999, 79) argues that ‘since mosttourism planning problems have spatial or geo-graphical characteristics, and tend to be multidi-mensional and complex, it is likely that projectscould be more accurately managed using thetechniques and tools found in a GIS environ-ment’. Despite the 1975 development of a GIS,known as the ‘Tourism and Recreation Informa-tion Package’ (TRIP) for various Scottish agen-cies, to date the application of GIS in the

tourism field is limited and patchy (Boyd andButler 1996; Forer and Simmons 1998; McAdam1999; Nicholls 2001; Tremblay 2005). A dearth oftourism GIS applications existed from 1975 untilthe mid-to-late 1990s when a variety of GIS ap-plications began to be made in the tourism con-text (Bertazzon et al. 1997). These included GISas a means to integrate international and domes-tic tourist supply and demand data to assist re-gional and local planning in New Zealand (Forerand Simmons 1998; Van der Knapp 1999); GISto help in the analysis of tourism spatial pat-terns (Van der Knapp 1999); GIS as a marketingtool for the tourism industry (Bertazzon et al.1997); GIS techniques applied to wildlife tourism(Tremblay 2005); and GIS as a mechanism for in-ventorying, monitoring, analyzing and planningfor the management of protected natural areas(Boyd and Butler 1996; Briggs and Tantrum 1997;Landres et al. 2001).

In the late 1990s, tourism researchers becameinterested in public participation GIS (PPGIS) as atool to enhance citizen participation in tourismplanning and development (Bahaire and Elliot-White 1999; McAdam 1999; Hall and Page 2002).Research by Hasse (2003) and Hasse and Milne(2005) pioneered the application of PPGIS in



Development of PPGIS

Examples of PPGIS variants developed since 1998

Public Participation

Community Integrated

Mobile Interactive

Participatory

Community Action

GIS environment

Figure 1Relationship between GIS, PPGIS and variants of PPGIS

tourism research and is aligned closely to theresearch reported in this paper. Hasse (2003)usefully integrated stakeholder and PPGIS ap-proaches to address the question of how toimprove community participation and enhancecommunication between heterogeneous groups ofstakeholders in Marahau, New Zealand. Her re-search engaged community members, some forthe first time, in the policy planning process.Hasse (2003) concluded that PPGIS has the poten-tial to enhance tourism planning by stimulatingdebate and increasing the number of people in-volved in tourism planning. She warned, however,that there are many constraints to be overcomein using a tourism PPGIS, such as the concernthat tourism PPGIS might lead to the empower-ment or marginalization of certain individuals orstakeholders. Hasse (2003) suggested that morecase studies are needed to identify the potentialsand pitfalls of PPGIS in the tourism setting. Asa direct response to Hasse’s (2003) request, thecase study described in the following section, ex-amines community responses to tourism devel-opment in Churchill, Manitoba using a modifiedPPGIS approach called ‘community action geo-graphic information system’.

CAGISGiven that there are few clear indications of howto integrate the views of host populations withina sustainable tourism planning framework (Din1999), new tools and approaches need to be de-veloped to facilitate consensus and communica-tion among heterogeneous groups within hostcommunities (Simmons 1994; Jamal and Getz1995; Hasse 2003; Hasse and Milne 2005). Pro-ponents claim PPGIS helps lead to sustainabletourism development because it has ‘the poten-tial to facilitate a better understanding of stake-holder perceptions towards tourism and improvecommunity participation in tourism planning’(Hasse 2003, 1). The link between sustainabletourism and PPGIS is important, because if thetourism industry in northern Canada aspires tobe sustainable, then decision makers need to un-derstand and integrate local knowledge intothe planning process. A critical research focus,then, is to determine how to achieve sustain-able tourism in Churchill that is acceptable tolocal residents. Developing from this aim, the re-search reported in this paper has a number ofinterrelated objectives that are summarized inTable 2.



Table 2Interrelated research objectives

Theory� Draw together the fields of participatory development and

tourism planning to further understand the pivotal role ofcommunity members, and the importance of their perceptions, inthe tourism system

� Understand more fully how communities give meaning to placeand how this meaning is articulated in spatial decision makingprocesses

Method� Develop, in partnership with a local community, an appropriate

participatory action methodological framework to integrate and‘blend’ different responses made by community members toissues of tourism development

� Further refine public participation geographic informationsystems (PPGIS) approaches and methodologies in addressingcommunity concerns and preferences surrounding the sustainablemanagement of natural resources

Practice� Work in partnership with a community to help identify and

investigate the perceptions of community members towardstourism and its future development

� Provide and develop a tool with, and for, the community (and theskills to use and update it) that has the potential to help facilitatemeaningful dialogue in tourism planning debates

The intention of CAGIS is to ensure communitymembers are given the opportunity to take own-ership of the research, its questions and design,in a way that will leave the community with a dy-namic tool and the skills to aid decision makingnow and in the future. This approach to researchhas the potential to generate action that may,in turn lead to refinement of the GIS technologyand, more importantly, to empowerment of thecommunity. The underlying principle for such acollaborative approach was to involve communitymembers, at a minimum providing them with theopportunity to be involved in the evolution ofthe research. Furthermore, the results were to beshared and discussed with community memberswhenever possible. By approaching the fieldworkin this manner, it was hoped that the process,as well as the outcome of the research, wouldbe of relevance to the community being stud-ied and that community cooperation might bemore forthcoming if the research were discussedopenly (Lewis 2003; Hardy 2005).

Fundamental elements of the CAGIS are illus-trated in Figure 2. The principal idea of CAGISis ‘to utilise GIS technology in the context ofthe needs and capabilities of communities that

will be involved with, and affected by, develop-ment projects and programs’ (Abbot et al. 1998in Hasse 2003, 56). The essence of GIS remainscentral (as a tool to store, manage, analyze anddisplay spatial information), but the intentionis that CAGIS is developed in partnership witha community, so that local knowledge is usedsensitively and managed appropriately in thattechnology. Hasse (2001, 2003) collected localknowledge about tourism activities and develop-ment using a community mapping exercise. Sheasked a cross section of local residents to marklocations on a topographical map where tourismactivities were deemed either acceptable or unac-ceptable. These locations were then plotted ontoa map in ArcGIS, which formed the basis of herPPGIS model. A similar strategy was envisionedfor CAGIS through its application in Churchill,Northern Manitoba. The following section of thepaper outlines the nature of tourism in Churchilland, suggests why CAGIS was thought to bea useful tool to capture resident attitudes oftourism in this community.

Case Study: Resident Attitudestowards Tourism in Churchill,Manitoba

Located on the western shore of Hudson Bay innorthern Manitoba, the community of Churchillhas a tourism industry that can be dated to the1960s when visitors first arrived by train. (Fig-ure 3). With the foresight of local entrepreneursand exposure from media, Churchill’s polar bearsquickly became a reason to visit the commu-nity. By the early to mid-1980s, substantial num-bers of tourists visited Churchill to observe po-lar bears from the safety of specially designedtundra vehicles, leading Churchill to gain inter-national status as the ‘polar bear viewing cap-ital of the World’ (Churchill Tourism PlanningGroup 2006). It is estimated that up to 3,000tourists visit in the fall season to view polarbears (Lemelin 2005) and, in 2003, the polarbear viewing industry alone was calculated tohave added C$2 million to the Churchill economy(Lemelin 2004). In addition to polar bear view-ing activities, much smaller numbers of touristsare attracted to Churchill for opportunities towatch birds, beluga whales in the Churchill River



conom, E ial cr au nlt du Pc ho yi sc io caS l,l Ca oci nti tl exo tP

Community Action Geographic

Information SystemParticipatory Action Research (PAR)

Geographic Information System (GIS)

ofRefinement

Technology

Empowermentof

Community Action

“SustainableDevelopment”

CommunityContext

TechnologicalContext

Figure 2Key elements of the community action geographic information system (CAGIS)

and Hudson Bay, and engage in other nature-based activities such as viewing the aurora bore-alis (northern lights) (Stewart and Draper 2007).

Given Churchill is likely one of the most-visitedsmall communities in northern Canada, it is sur-prising that there are no records of resident per-ceptions towards tourism in Churchill. Lack ofresearch on resident perceptions may mean, asobservations from elsewhere indicate, that resi-dents rarely have opportunities to comment on,and influence, the type of tourism activities andservices being developed within their community(Wolfe-Keddie 1993). An assessment of residentattitudes towards tourism was both timely andcritical, owing to the anticipated affects of cli-mate change on the Western Hudson Bay polarbear population. A decline or loss of this polarbear population either through movement northor extinction likely will have far reaching impli-cations for Churchill’s multimillion tourism econ-omy (Stewart and Draper 2007).

CAGIS was thought by the researchers to bea useful tool to help capture resident attitudes

towards current tourism activities and, in lightof climate change, resident concerns about thelongevity of tourism in Churchill. Since CAGIS isa relatively new approach to studying residentperceptions of tourism, this paper now critiquesthe research process adopted in Churchill. Thecritique begins with a description of the method-ological approach underpinning CAGIS.

Methodology

The participatory nature of CAGIS demanded aniterative, multistage, multimethod approach beadopted in Churchill. Such an approach to re-search involves collecting data in stages witheach stage informing subsequent periods ofdata collection (Hardy 2005). During four vis-its to Churchill between June 2005 and Novem-ber 2006, the first author collected data overthree main stages of research. The first stageof the research involved collecting preliminarybackground information from interested tourismstakeholders in Churchill. Resident attitudes



YUKON

TERR.

U.S

.A.

NFLD.

LABRADOR

GREENLAND

H u d s o n

B a yChurchill

CambridgeBay

Kuujjuaq

Clyde River

BakerLake Yellowknife

BRITISH

SASK.

ONTARIO

QUEBEC

NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

ALA

SK

A

COLUMBIA

ALBERTA

MANITOBA

Ba f f i n I s land

NUNAVUT

Pond Inlet

Northwest Passage

(primary modern route)

WrangelIsland

North Pole

A R C T I C

O C E A N

GR

EEN

LA

ND

A R C T I CO C E A N

Franz Joseph Land

Alaska

C A NA

D

A

S i be

ri

a

WrangelIslandA

rctic

Circ

le

Ketichiken

Juneau

North Pole

Figure 3North Pole projected map of northern Canada locating Churchill, Manitoba

towards tourism were surveyed during stage twoof the research, and feedback of results to thecommunity comprised stage three of the re-search. Time between each stage of the researchproject allowed for synthesis and reflection.The research gained university ethics approvaland no additional ethics approval was requiredfor working with human subjects in northernManitoba1. The following section discusses find-ings from stage one, which sought to involvetourism stakeholders in the design and devel-opment of CAGIS, and to canvass their opin-ion of using CAGIS to capture resident percep-

1 In Nunavut research projects are assessed by the NunavutResearch Institute.

tions of tourism (planned for stage two of theresearch).

A semistructured interview was designed withthe dual aim of soliciting background informa-tion on tourism development and scoping outsupport for CAGIS. The fieldwork consisted of25 stakeholder interviews with local tour opera-tors, hotel owners, educators and representativesfrom the Town, the Chamber of Commerce, ParksCanada and Travel Manitoba. All of the ques-tions were open ended so responses were latercoded and analyzed using manual and computer-based searches for repeated themes and topics(Lofland and Lofland 1984). In the following sec-tion, a code containing letters (to denote thecommunity, i.e., ‘CH’ for Churchill) followed by



a number (the order of the interviews) has beenassigned to each interview transcript to protecteach respondent’s anonymity.

Results from stage one

This section reports on the key themes toemerge from the preliminary fieldwork andspecifically examines the challenges, tensions andobstacles expressed by respondents about CAGISduring the interviews. Following Israel et al.(1998) the results are organized into three broad,but interrelated, categories: (1) issues related todeveloping community research partnerships; (2)methodological and technical issues involved inCAGIS; and (3) broader sociocultural, economic,political and institutional challenges.

(1) Developing community research partnerships

Overall, the preliminary fieldwork revealed a cau-tious level of support for the overarching aimand objectives of the research, acknowledgingthat. . ..‘we can’t have one person saying thattourism should be like this, or that. . .someone hasto come in and stand up and move forward,change is good. We need to tackle fears as we area small place and everyone knows that too manypeople are stretched too thin’ [CH: 07]. There alsowas agreement that there was a genuine lack ofresearch on tourism issues. ‘There is an abysmallack of research on Churchill. . .Gauging it is verydifficult’ [CH: 11]. Despite cautious approval ofthe research project, a number of issues relatedto developing community research partnershipsemerged:

� Lack of trust

A foundational component of participatory re-search is the development of trust (Harvey 2003).This was articulated clearly in many of the inter-views, with some respondents doubting that suchtrust could be attained, thereby critically weaken-ing CAGIS. ‘Respect and trust would make a bigdifference: but I don’t think you’ll find it here. Inbusiness, it’s dog eats dog. . .likely the dollars gen-erated in a short time is something to do withit’ [CH: 09]. A number of respondents suggestedthat absolute researcher independence had to beensured if trust was to be developed. ‘Ensurethat you are not associated with any organizationso that you can build that trust, because someone

will have a negative feeling for at least one of theagencies’ [CH: 10].

� Scepticism

Some scepticism among the participants was evi-dent about whether it was worthwhile investingtime and energy into CAGIS when participants‘already know the answers you are going to get’[field journal, June 2005]. ‘In terms of community[attitudes to tourism], there are different opinions:some see tourism as good for jobs but some getvery annoyed’ [CH: 08]. For some respondentsthe issue of tourism development in Churchillwas less than pressing, and this was of concernbecause one of the aims of PAR is to addressquestions of critical concern, as identified by thecommunity (Van der Eb et al. 2004).

� Prior community experience with researchers

In the past, Churchill has had negative public-ity resulting from research projects, ‘and thatreflects poorly on Churchill’ [CH: 10]. The back-lash from these negative research relationshipsin Churchill was clearly unhelpful in developinga research project in partnership with the localcommunity. Why should this research team beany different to the last! The advice from a num-ber of respondents was to ensure that the re-search process was transparent and, that resultsshould be fed back to the community first, be-fore being published elsewhere.

(2) Methodological and technical issues involvedin CAGIS

There was general agreement that GIS technologi-cal support and facilities existed in Churchill andthat these resources were sufficient to facilitatean ongoing CAGIS process. This is importantfor CAGIS because without technological sup-port and facilities in situ, the ongoing devel-opment of CAGIS would be severely limited.Also, Churchill residents previously had been ex-posed to mapping exercises; this is important forCAGIS because it was anticipated that these ex-ercises would form the basis of stage two ofthe research. However, despite readily availablesupport and facilities for CAGIS, a number ofmethodological and technical issues were high-lighted:



� Setting research questions

When stakeholders were asked to identify keyresearch questions, often industry specific ques-tions were posed, such as ‘I’d like to know whywe aren’t seeing more Japanese visitors here’or ‘how can we attract more whale-watchers toChurchill’ [field journal, June 2005]. There didnot appear to be consensus on a common prob-lem, or on research questions to be tackled. Thiswas of critical concern, because CAGIS, deeplyembedded in PAR, requires community membersto take ownership of the research, its questionsand design. Without some level of consensusamong community members, ownership of CAGISwas unlikely to be achieved.

� Researcher appeasement

There were other warnings about conducting re-search in Churchill, ‘What we speak and what wepractice are quite different things’ [CH: 10] and‘[we are a] good community with good people butpeople tell researchers what they want to hear ’[CH: 10].

� Research fatigue

Concerns that apathy levels in the communitywere sufficiently high lead some respondents tonote that ‘people are afraid to think outside ofthe box, there is a lot of suspicion of anythingnew. The local people want everything but theyare not willing to assist’ [CH: 06]. Given theassumption that only particular ‘types’ of peo-ple will be able to participate in these kindsof projects, community members who frequentlyparticipate ‘get tired as they are so heavily reliedon’ [CH: 10].

(3) Sociocultural, economic, political and institu-tional challenges

As Israel et al. (1998) point out, the challengesof participatory approaches to research relate of-ten to the broader sociocultural, economic, politi-cal and institutional dynamics of the community.These dynamics evident in Churchill are exam-ined below:

� Existing stakeholder conflicts and tensions

While some community members were encourag-ing, others were more sceptical that a participa-

tory project could be managed in Churchill be-cause of the difficulties of working with the mainstakeholders, due to preexisting conflicts. This isreflected in field notes: ‘Interviews have been re-peatedly focused on bully-boy tactics within theChurchill tourism industry, with hoteliers, opera-tors, the “Town” and the “Chamber” pulling indifferent directions. The best word to articulate itis “fragmented”, to the extent that some believethat there is no future for tourism in Churchillat all. I suspect there is a great deal of his-tory and “baggage” associated with this situation.Churchill is a community (not dissimilar to othersmall communities I suppose) where people wearmany hats’ [field journal, June 2005].

� Problems with seasonality

The short polar bear viewing season (generallysix weeks in October and November) is the mainincome-generating period for tourism operatorsin Churchill. During this time, use of visitor fa-cilities and services are maximized, but outsideof the main tourist season, the community isleft with an underutilized tourism infrastructure.There was identification that something ‘had tobe done’ about the economic problems arisingfrom seasonality but realization that this wouldnot come from within the community: ‘Randomenergy needs to be harnessed, but it is hard dueto the economies involved, we need to find a per-son we could trust who could keep it equal, butwe don’t have the funds. We need more workingtogether and trust’ [CH: 09].

� Competing institutional demands on timeand resources

Realizing a collaborative style is a challenge for anew researcher (or any researcher, however, wellexperienced), who, for example, may be inhibitedfrom investing the necessary time often requiredin building a relationship with a community(Taylor et al. 2004). The first author is lim-ited by the timeframe of a doctoral degree,and this situation does not lend itself well toconducting participatory research, and particu-larly in locations that are expensive to access.Equally, from the community perspective, com-peting demands on time and resources maymake it difficult for individuals to devote the



necessary time and energy to a participatory re-search project.

The importance of such comments to CAGISis that without widespread community commit-ment to the research topic, the participatory pro-cess of CAGIS would be seriously undermined.When compounded by scepticism, mistrust, lackof time, existing community conflicts the use ofCAGIS would appear impossible.

Discussion: Challenges of CAGISApplication in the Field

The challenges, tensions and obstacles encoun-tered during stage one of CAGIS in Churchillillustrates the truism that participatory re-search rarely follows a smooth path in practice(Cornwall and Jewkes 1995; Turnbull et al. 1998;Schlossberg and Mattia 2003; Sieber 2003). Thejump from theory to practice often is one ofthe biggest challenges facing researchers who as-pire to follow participatory approaches to re-search. In order to make this move successful,some authors view participatory research as aseries of interconnected phases. This is particu-larly useful in the context of this paper, becauseat each phase problems and/or challenges areidentified. One of the most useful models (seeStrauss 1999 in Schlossberg and Mattia 2003)identifies four phases to capture the chronolog-ical order of most participatory processes (seeTable 3).

The first two phases, start-up and process-design, are of particular interest in this pa-per. The major challenges in implementing thesephases include the need to agree on a common

Table 3Phases of participatory processes

Phase 1: Start-up: people at the community level acknowledge thata problem exists beyond the power of a single person to solve

Phase 2: Process-design: determines if a consensus approach isappropriate, who should be involved and how the process initiallyshould be structured

Phase 3: Consensus-building: is an iterative interaction whereparticipants in the process agree on ground rules, engage in jointfact finding, come to a common definition of the problem, andpossibly reach consensus about a course of action

Phase 4: Implementation: where the agreements reached in theconsensus phase are put into action

problem, the need for adequate resources andtrained facilitators, and the need to establish col-lective responsibility for the outcome (Schloss-berg and Mattia 2003). In the context of northernresearch, the authors would add other challengessuch as the importance of stakeholder support,the need to develop trust and meaningful rela-tionships and the appropriate incorporation ofindigenous knowledge. Each of these challengesis discussed briefly.

� Need to agree on a common problem

While there was support for the broad overarch-ing aims of the research in Churchill, there didnot appear to be consensus on a common prob-lem, on research goals or on research questionsto be addressed. This lack of consensus echoes awarning made by Schlossberg and Mattia (2003,2) that failure to agree on a common problemled their research into a ‘somewhat bitter, antag-onistic state’. A connected problem is that GISprojects can flounder on poorly defined goals,or be exacerbated by using GIS (Robinson 1992;Landres et al. 2001). These problems might sig-nal a faltering in the start-up and design-processphase of the research, but PPGIS projects mightwish to treat research problems, goals and ques-tions as somewhat fluid. However, there comes atime when consensus is required to progress theproject.

� Need for adequate resources

While the provision of adequate resources wasnot at issue in the research reported in thispaper, some authors suggest that access to re-sources has been one of the major barriersto the implementation of PPGIS projects (Dunnet al. 1997; Barndt 1998; Sieber 2003). Theseresources include sufficient funding for comput-ing, training, upper-management commitment, aGIS champion capable of guiding the system tocompletion and access to data (Sieber 2003). Al-though many countries possess relatively easyaccess to these resources, there are stark dif-ferences in resource availability in marginal-ized communities such as indigenous reserves(Barndt 1998; Sieber 2003). These differencesalso may be the case in some remote northerncommunities.



� Need to establish collective responsibilityfor the outcome

Without consensus on the goals of CAGIS, itis hard to imagine how joint ownership of theproject can be attained and maintained. Theneed to establish collective responsibility impliesthat participants want the project to be success-ful, and for some researchers this is the mostimportant characteristic in a participatory pro-cess (Schlossberg and Mattia 2003). Inextricablylinked to attaining collective responsibility forthe project’s outcome is the critical dimension ofgaining stakeholder support.

� Importance of stakeholder support

The effort required to ensure wide stakeholderparticipation should not be underestimated.Communities rarely are uniform, but sometimesare deeply divided by ‘differences in wealth,gender, age, religion, ethnicity, and by impli-cation, power. . . .’, so researchers need to becautious of ‘coherent expressions of communityneeds or priorities’ (Cornwall and Jewkes 1995,1673). Similarly, research questions devised (ei-ther wholly or in part) by a local communitytend to carry their own biases, perpetuatingthe observation that PPGIS can simultaneouslyempower and marginalize (Elwood and Leitner1998).

� Need to develop trust and meaningful relation-ships

The requirement to develop trust between re-searcher and community is a key challenge inthe early phases of PPGIS projects, but attain-ing trust is not straightforward. Working withlocal residents is rarely straightforward, partic-ularly when there is a perceived imbalance be-tween time and energy input and direct personalbenefit. The researcher’s enthusiasm for a re-search project is unlikely to be shared (to thesame degree) by the community, however well in-tentioned the aims of the research may be. Therealso may be a sense of research fatigue or over-load where a community may be tired of an-swering questions to which they feel they alreadyknow the answers. Clearly, this is not the contextwithin which to build meaningful relationships,or an effective CAGIS.

� Appropriate incorporation of indigenous knowl-edge

Although the research reported here did notadvance to this stage, a key challenge in thedevelopment of PPGIS in largely indigenous com-munities is the legitimate and appropriate use ofindigenous knowledge. Debates surrounding thisissue sometimes are bitter; on the one hand,some researchers claim that GIS tools comple-ment indigenous knowledge systems where therelationships between individuals, places, culturalactivities, experiences and indigenous knowledgecan be explored (Tabor and Hutchinson 1994;Harmsworth 1998). On the other hand, someresearchers caution that the use of indigenousknowledge in GIS projects is problematic becauseknowledge is taken out of its cultural and spiri-tual context, meaning is lost and knowledge be-comes static and fixed. (Rundstrom 1995). Thisdebate has many ethical and cultural implica-tions and should be addressed openly in evolvingindigenous-based PPGIS projects.

Stage one (preliminary fieldwork) of the re-search reported here revealed that the maincomponents necessary for successful start-upand design-process phases were problematic and,given the limited research timeframe, it seemeduntenable to persevere with a participatory pro-cess. As Dunn et al. (1997, 7) reminds us ‘a GISshould never be a quick fix strategy; rather itsintroduction should be slow, with long-term ormedium-term training programmes, directed atreal needs, and the design should be relevantto local conditions’. If full power sharing (as de-scribed by Arnstein 1969) is the aim of CAGISthen community fragmentation, clearly evident inChurchill would make a truly participatory ap-proach to CAGIS difficult.

Research postscript

The results from stage one of the research re-quired that the CAGIS framework be modifiedby the research team. The modification of CAGISshifted the research approach from a PAR ap-proach to a collaborative community-involved ap-proach, utilizing a mix of methods, such asresident interviews and mapping exercises. AGIS component will be retained in the analy-sis, but CAGIS will not form the guiding frame-work for the research. However, it is hoped once



researcher trust has been established, futurespin-off projects might emerge from the commu-nity itself, furnishing the elusive but fundamen-tal requirement that research questions shouldcome from within the community. Through dis-cussion of stage two and three of the research,the following section briefly describes how theresearch has evolved to date.

� Stage two: Engagement with residents

A total of 75 interviews were completed withlocal residents, representing approximately 11.6percent of the 640 individuals over the age of20 in Churchill (Statistics Canada 2007). Ques-tions in the resident semistructured interviewfocused on how tourism has developed in thecommunity, identification of positive and nega-tive effects of tourism, their understanding ofwider community perceptions of tourism, and fu-ture outlook in terms of tourism development.All questions were open ended, so that viewsemerged solely from the participants, rather thanthrough prompting by predetermined answers.Statements were coded and grouped to form thebasis of subsequent analysis.

The mapping exercise used a colour satelliteimage of the area, which was placed into a cleanplastic sleeve. Respondents were asked to iden-tify by writing with permanent markers loca-tions that concerned them most about currenttourism development, and places where they felttourism development currently was acceptable.They also were asked to identify acceptable andunacceptable locations for future tourism devel-opment. A new plastic sleeve was provided foreach respondent and retained for later data anal-ysis. All the locations identified by the residentswere later plotted onto the satellite image usingArcGIS-ArcMap software. The mapping exercisewas useful for prompting discussion regardingthe environmental effects of tourism; such ef-fects were rarely mentioned in the semistruc-tured interviews with residents.

� Stage three: Research feedback

An integral part of the research process was togive residents the opportunity to view and com-ment on the raw data. This is an important prin-ciple for the conduct of research in general, and

has been stated specifically in a document outlin-ing ethical principles for research conducted inthe north: ‘On-going explanations of research ob-jectives, methods, findings and their interpreta-tion should be made available to the community’and ‘research summaries and reports should bemade available to the communities involved’ (As-sociation of Canadian Universities for NorthernStudies 1998: 6). Feedback of results (includinga series of recommendations) to the communitytook four forms: reporting back initial data (viaa short written report) to as many stakeholdersas possible (16 out of the original 25) who wereinterviewed at the start of the project; lodgingreports of the initial data in public settings (li-brary, town complex, school and study centre);setting up a poster in the community detail-ing the initial findings of the resident surveys;and developing a weblog to widen commu-nity access to the results (see http://tourism-in-churchill.blogspot.com/).

The adoption of a community-involved re-search strategy was useful to help engage lo-cal people in dialogue and identify issues thatresonated locally. Despite warnings from indi-viduals at the outset of the project, communitycooperation was forthcoming and there was agenuine sense that this research was both timelyand relevant. An iterative multistaged fieldworkstrategy was critical to the success of this col-laborative project. It was hoped that the repeatvisits (four in total), in different seasons, woulddispel community concerns that the researcherwas not just another outsider ‘helicoptering’ in.The different iterations of the study allowedfor feedback of research developments, the re-sults of which also were integrated into laterstages of the fieldwork. The process of reportingback findings to the community through variousmechanisms was met with genuine surprise andinterest (i.e., that someone had taken the timeto come back). The weblog proved and contin-ues to be a useful research tool to help facilitatecommunication between heterogeneous groups inChurchill. One of the outcomes arising from theresearch was the suggestion to integrate the find-ings into Churchill’s first community tourismplan. Community dialogue regarding tourism andidentification of action from the research find-ings were initial objectives of CAGIS, so it isinteresting that this outcome has been attained



without realizing the true participatory ambitionsof CAGIS.

Conclusion

The initial faltering of CAGIS described in thispaper is, we believe, representative of generalbroad-ranging issues facing PPGIS implementa-tions. Some of the challenges were exaggeratedby the unique nature of northern research, suchas logistics, research culture and environment.But also, as is illustrated in this paper, partic-ipatory research presents a variety of practical,cultural and ethical challenges for researchers es-pecially because ‘the visibility of the researcherand the transparency of their intentions are sig-nificantly greater than in conventional research’(Cornwall and Jewkes 1995, 1672). This situa-tion is magnified when researchers are workingin small communities, such as those in northernCanada.

A key component of working with and withinnorthern communities is the development ofmeaningful relationships, yet researchers rarelyare provided with practical guidance on how toachieve this in an appropriate and effective man-ner (Laidler et al. 2004). This is problematic;with hindsight, the authors would stress to oth-ers who might be considering a similar courseof research the importance of thorough prelim-inary investigation, where the researcher(s) visitthe proposed case study site(s) to consider care-fully and assess clearly the conditions neces-sary for successful PPGIS. And as noted above,there is a need: to agree on a common prob-lem; for adequate resources; to establish collec-tive responsibility for the outcome; to considerstakeholder support; to develop trust and mean-ingful relationships; and to consider appropri-ate incorporation of indigenous knowledge (afterSchlossberg and Mattia 2003). Feedback of re-search results is an equally important aspect ofcollaborative research, and this project illus-trated the usefulness of incorporating feedbackthroughout the research process.

These recommendations are made primarily forthose researchers who are ‘cold-calling’ potentialcommunities rather than for those researcherswho have been invited to address a specific con-cern or research problem. Although the latter

research condition will present its own chal-lenges, it is the preferable scenario because thecommunity has identified a concern or problemin the first instance. While a PAR approach tothis research project has been modified to acommunity-involved approach, we believe PPGIScan yield positive outcomes for communitiesand academia that will enhance our understand-ing of human-environment interactions and pro-vide a more integrated approach to planning(Harmsworth 1998). Because research strategiesthat emphasize participation are used increas-ingly in geographic research, we hope that bysharing some of our initial findings that thesemight be useful to others who are new to PPGISresearch or for those new to working in northernCanada.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge The Pierre Elliot Trudeau Founda-tion for funding Emma in her PhD research, as well as thestaff at the Churchill Northern Research Centre for their sup-port and funding. Thanks go to various agencies and individ-uals in Churchill who have so willingly given of their timeto this project. Thanks also go to Heather Castleden, RogerHayter and three anonymous reviewers for their useful com-ments on this paper. Finally, the authors thank Robin Poitras,cartographer in the University of Calgary, for map work andTyphenn Brichieri-Colombi, for translating the abstract.

References

ABERLEY, D., and SIEBER, R. E. 2002 ‘Public participation geographicinformation systems (PPGIS)’ Paper presented at the FirstInternational PPGIS Conference, July 20–22, Rutgers Univer-sity, New Jersey

ARNSTEIN, S. 1969 ‘A ladder of citizen participation’ American In-stitute of Planners 35, 216–224

ASSOCIATION OF CANADIAN UNIVERSITIES FOR NORTHERN STUDIES. 1998 Ethi-cal Principles for the Conduct of Research in the North.(Ottawa: Association of Canadian Universities for NorthernStudies)

BAHAIRE, T., and ELLIOT-WHITE, M. P. 1999 ‘The application of geograph-ical information systems (GIS) in sustainable tourism plan-ning: a review’ Journal of Sustainable Tourism 7(2), 159–174

BARNDT, M. 1998 ‘Public participation GIS—Barriers to implemen-tation’. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems25(2), 105–112

BERTAZZON, S., CROUCH, G., DRAPER, D., and WATERS, N. 1997 ‘GIS applicationsin tourism marketing: current uses, an experimental appli-cation and future prospects’ Journal of Travel and TourismMarketing 6(3/4), 35–59



BLOODWORTH, M., KAPUNGU, C., MAJER, J., MCDONALD, K., SHARMA, A., VIOLA, J., andWILSON, B. 2004 ‘Student reflections on community researchpractices and their implications’ in Participatory Commu-nity Research: Theories and Methods in Action, eds. L. A.Jason, C. B. Keys, Y. Suarez-Balcazar, R. R. Taylor, and M.I. Davis (Washington, DC: American Psychological Associa-tion), 227–232

BOYD, S., and BUTLER, R. 1996 ‘Seeing the forest through the trees:using geographical information systems to identify poten-tial ecotourism sites in Northern Ontario, Canada’ in Prac-tising Responsible Tourism: International Case Studies inTourism Planning, Policy and Development, eds. L. C. Har-rison, and W. Husbands (London: Wiley), 380–403

BRIGGS, D. J., and TANTRUM, D. A. S. 1997 Using GIS for CountrysideManagement: The Experience of the National Parks. (Chel-tenham: Countryside Commission)

CHURCHILL TOURISM PLANNING GROUP. 2006 Tourism Development Strat-egy for Churchill, Manitoba 2006–2009. (Winnipeg: WesternManagement Consultants)

CORNWALL, A., and JEWKES, R. 1995 ‘What is participatory research?’Social Science and Medicine 41(12), 1667–1676

CRAIG, W. J., and ELWOOD, S. 1998 ‘How and why communities usemaps and geographic information’ Cartography and Geo-graphic Information Systems 25(2), 95–104

CRAIG, W. J., HARRIS, T. M., and WEINER, D. eds. 2002 Community Partici-pation and Geographic Information Systems. (London: Tay-lor and Francis)

DELEMOS, J. L. 2006 ‘Community-based participatory research:changing scientific practice from research on communitiesto research with and for communities’ Local Environment11(3), 329–338

DIN, K. H. 1999 ‘Tourism development: still in search of a moreequitable model of local involvement’ Progress in Tourismand Hospitality Research 2(3–4), 273–281

DUNN, C. E., ATKINS, P. J., and TOWNSEND, J. G. 1997 ‘GIS for development:a contradiction in terms?’ Area 29(2), 151–159

ELWOOD, S., and LEITNER, H. 1998 ‘GIS and community-based plan-ning: exploring the diversity of neighbourhood perspec-tives and needs’ Cartography and Geographic InformationSystems 25(2), 77–88

ENGLE, S. 2003 ‘Participatory GIS in Trinadad and Tobago’ Com-pass 14, 58–59

FORER, P., and SIMMONS, D. G. 1998 ‘Tourism planning: prospectsand challenges of using GIS as an interactive and fa-cilitative tool’ Paper presented at the New ZealandTourism and Hospitality Research Conference: 3rd Bien-nial Conference: Advances in Research, 1–4 December,Akaroa

FREEMAN, W. L. 1993 ‘Research in rural native communities’ inConducting Research in the Practice Setting, eds. M. J. Bass,E. V. Dunn, P. G. Norton, M. Stewart, and F. Tudiver (Lon-don: Sage Publications) 179–196

HALL, C. M., and PAGE, S. J. 2002 The Geography of Tourism andRecreation: Environment, Place and Space (2nd. ed.). (Lon-don: Routledge)

HARDY, A. 2005 ‘Using grounded theory to explore stakeholderperceptions of tourism’ Journal of Tourism and CulturalChange 3(2), 108–126

HARMSWORTH, G. 1998 ‘Indigenous values and GIS: a method anda framework’ Indigenous Knowledge and Development Mon-itor 6(3), 1–7

HARRIS, T. M., and WEINER, D. 1998 ‘Empowerment, marginalization,and “community-integrated’ GIS’ Cartography and Geo-graphic Information Systems 25(2), 67

HARVEY, F. 2003 ‘Developing geographic information infrastruc-tures for local government: the role of trust’ The CanadianGeographer/Le Geographe canadien 47(1), 28–36

HASSE, J. 2001 Stakeholder Perceptions of Tourism Development:a Role for Participatory Approaches and GIS. UnpublishedPhD, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington

—. 2003 ‘Tourism and participatory geographical informationsystems (PAGIS)’ Bristol Business School Teaching and Re-search Review (6), 1–4

HASSE, J. C., and MILNE, S. 2005 ‘Participatory approaches and geo-graphical information systems (PAGIS) in tourism planning’Tourism Geographies 7(3), 272–289

ISRAEL, B. A., SCHULZ, A. J., PARKER, E. A., and BECKER, A. B. 1998 ‘Reviewof community-based research: assessing partnership ap-proaches to improve public health’ Annual Review of PublicHealth 19, 173–202

JAMAL, T., and GETZ, D. 1995 ‘Collaboration theory and communitytourism planning’ Annals of Tourism Research 22(1), 186–204

LAIDLER, G., SHIRLEY, J., and NICKELS, S. 2004 ‘Negotiating research rela-tionships: a (draft) guide for researchers’ Paper presentedat the 14th Annual Inuit Studies Conference, August 12th,University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta

LANDRES, P., SPILDIE, D. R., and QUEEN, L. P. 2001 GIS Applications toWilderness Management: potential Uses and Limitations(Fort Collins: Rocky Mountain Research Station)

LEGAT, A. 1994 ‘Participatory action research in Rae Lakes,NWT.: the traditional government project’ InformationNorth 20(2), 1–4

LEMELIN, H. 2004 ‘The integration of human dimensions with theenvironmental context: a study of polar bear observers inthe Churchill Wildlife Management Area, Churchill, Mani-toba’ Unpublished PhD in Recreation and Leisure Studies,University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

—. 2005 ‘Wildlife tourism at the edge of chaos: complex in-teractions between people and polar bears in Churchill,Manitoba’ in Breaking Ice: Renewable Resources and OceanManagement in the Canadian Arctic, eds. F. Berkes, R.Huebert, H. Fast, M. Manseau, and A. Diduck (Calgary: Uni-versity of Calgary Press), 183–202

LEWIS, J. 2003 ‘Design issues’ in Qualitative Research: a Guidefor Social Science Students and Researchers, eds. J. Ritchie,and J. Lewis (London: Sage), 47–76

LOFLAND, J., and LOFLAND, L. H. 1984 Analyzing Social Settings: AGuide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis. (Belmont:Wadsworth Publishing Company)

MCADAM, D. 1999 ‘The value and scope of geographical informa-tion systems in tourism management’ Journal of Sustain-able Tourism 7(1), 77–92

MCKINNON, J., KUI, C., MCCONCHIE, J., and HUAN-CHENG, M. 2001 ‘MIGIS—Mobile interactive GIS’ (Available at www.geo.vuw.ac.nz/geography/projects/migis./, accessed 26 October 2007)

NICHOLLS, S. 2001 ‘Measuring the accessibility and equity of pub-lic parks: a case study using GIS’ Managing Leisure 6, 201–219

OBERMEYER, N. 1998 ‘The evolution of public participation GIS’Cartography and Geographic Information Systems 25(2),65–66



PARLEE, B. L. 2006 ‘Dealing with ecological variability and change:perspectives from the Denesoline and Gwich’in of NorthernCanada’. Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy thesis, Univer-sity of Manitoba, Winnipeg

ROBINSON, G. M. 1992 ‘Geographical information systems (GIS)and planning in Scotland: the RLUIS project and ad-vances in GIS’ Scottish Geographical Magazine 108(1), 22–28

RUNDSTROM, R. A. 1995 ‘GIS, indigenous peoples and epistemologi-cal diversity’ Cartography and Geographic Information Sys-tems 22(1), 45–57

SCHLOSSBERG, M., and MATTIA, M. 2003 ‘When GIS was rejected: im-plications for collaborative planning and public participa-tion GIS’ (PPGIS) (pp. Reflection Paper): University of Ore-gon Scholars Bank

SHEPPARD, E. 2005 ‘Knowledge production through critical GIS:genealogy and prospects’ Cartographica 40(4), 5– 21

SIEBER, R. E. 2003 ‘Public participation geographic informationsystems across borders’ The Canadian Geographer/LeGeographe canadien 47(1), 50–67

SIMMONS, D. G. 1994 ‘Community participation in tourism plan-ning’ Tourism Management 15(2), 98–108

SMITH, L. T. 1999 Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and In-digenous Peoples (London: Zed Books)

SMITH, S. E., WILLMS, D. G., and JOHNSON, N. A. eds. 1997 Nurtured byKnowledge: Learning to Do Participatory Action-Research.(New York: The Apex Press)

STATISTICS CANADA. 2007 ‘Community highlights forChurchill’ (Available at http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/Details/Page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CSD&Code1=4623056&Geo2=PR&Code2=46&Data=Count&SearchText=churchill&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&Custom=, accessed 23 April 2007)

STEVENSON, M. G. 1996 ‘Indigenous knowledge in environmental as-sessment’ Arctic 49(3), 278–291

STEWART, E. J., and DRAPER, D. 2007 ‘A collaborative approach tounderstanding local stakeholder perceptions of tourismin Churchill, Manitoba (Canada)’ Polar Geography 30(1–2),7–35

TABOR, J. A., and HUTCHINSON, C. F. 1994 ‘Using indigenous knowledge,remote sensing and GIS for sustainable development’ In-digenous Knowledge and Development Monitor 2(1), 2–6

TAYLOR, R. R., JASON, L. A., KEYS, C. B., SUAREZ-BALCAZAR, Y., DAVIS, M. I., DURLAK, J. A.,

and HOLTZ ISENBERG, D. 2004 ‘Capturing theory and methodol-ogy in participatory research’ in Participatory CommunityResearch: Theories and Methods In Action, eds. L. A. Jason,C. B. Keys, Y. Suarez-Balcazar, R. R. Taylor, and M. I. Davis(Washington, DC: American Psychological Association), 3–14

TREMBLAY, P. 2005 ‘GIS techniques in tourism and recreationplanning: application to wildlife tourism’ in Tourism Re-search Methods: Integrating Theory with Practice, eds. B.W. Ritchie, P. B. C. P. (Wallingford: CABI).

TURNBULL, A. P., FRIESEN, B. J., and RAMIREZ, C. 1998 ‘Participatory actionresearch as a model for conducting family research’ Re-search and Practice for Persons with Disabilities 23(3), 178–188

VAN DER EB, C. W., PEDDLE, N., BUNTIN, M., HOLTZ ISENBURG, D., DUNCAN, L., EVERETT,

S., GLASS, A., KECK, L., MILLETT, R., MOCK, L., and MOLLOY, P. 2004 Commu-nity concerns about participatory research. in ParticipatoryCommunity Research: Theories and Methods in Action, eds.L. A. Jason, C. B. Keys, Y. Suarez-Balcazar, R. R. Taylor,and M. I. Davis (Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation) 221–226

Van Der KNAPP, W. 1999 ‘GIS-orientated analysis of tourist-spacepatterns to support sustainable development’ Tourism Ge-ographies 1(1), 59–69

WOLFE-KEDDIE, J. 1993 ‘Tourism in the Eastern Arctic: coping with“dangerous children”’ Journal of Applied Recreation Re-search 18(2), 143–162


Public participation geographic information systems (PPGIS ...

Documents

Transcript of Public participation geographic information systems (PPGIS ...