Objective

Geographic information systems (GISs) are becoming routine analysis and display tools for spatial data and are used extensively in applications such as land-use mapping (for urban planning purposes), transportation mapping and analysis (for determining efficient transportation routes for deliveries and emergency response), geodemographic analysis (for facilities location), utilities infrastructure mapping (for precise gas, water, and electric line mapping), and multiple applications in natural resource assessment (including water quality assessment and wildlife habitat studies). GISs allow efficient and flexible storage, display, and exchange of spatial data, as well as interface opportunities for models of all kinds. Users include county and city governments, state and federal agencies, nongovernmental organizations such as conversation groups, universities, and research institutes.

The overarching concern in the societal use of GISs is how this technology will influence the political, economic, legal, and institutional structures of society and how those may influence GIS development. Access to information technology is seen by many as a potential for enormous improvement in the lifestyle choices of most Americans (Gingrich 1995, p. 60). Research on the interplay between GIS's and society addresses the relationships that exist between GIS practice and the understanding of the social and physical process of alteration, use, and perception of land and water; the resultant cultural and natural spaces created by such processes; and the means to represent human understanding of such spaces.

Background

The theories and methods of observation for studying issues in GIS and society are not well developed and thus present a research challenge. However, there are several theories and methods that can or may provide a basis for meeting this challenge. Two of these are discussed here: critical social theory approaches (e.g., Pickles et al. 1995) and economic, political, legal, and institutional approaches (Kishor et al. 1990; Ventura 1995).

Critical Social Theory Perspective

Three fundamental issues may be identified from a social theory perspective of GIS. The first issue involves the limits of representation of populations, locational conflict, and natural resources to be found within current GISs and the extent to which these limits are extendible by evolving technologies of data capture and storage, manipulation, visualization, and functionality. Investigation of representations inherent to GISs involves first analyzing the current situation: the mode(s) of reasoning utilized within GIS hardware and software, its functionality, and the influence of data availability and digital representation on system design and output.

The second issue involves 1) the impacts of these storage and representational limits, particularly in the context of other societies (both societies of developing nations and low-income groups and minorities in the United States), and 2) the potential inequalities in access to necessary software, hardware, and technical skills with regard to the outcomes of applying GISs to decision making. This issue becomes vital when the groups affected by such decision making possess opposing interests, unequal access to political or financial resources, or very different ways of perceiving and making sense of the world. It is necessary to examine what types of knowledge and forms of reasoning are not well represented within a GIS as used in decision-making situations, the importance of such knowledge and reasoning to a decision-making process in which all viewpoints and social groups are democratically represented, and the consequences of excluding such knowledge from a GIS.

The third issue involves the need to pay attention to the developing potential of spatial technologies. We must broaden access to GISs and address impediments to their use in decision-making situations involving competing interests and forms of knowledge, and we must make recommendations about the legal and ethical issues posed by GISs.

The Institutional Perspective

The considerable investment, both public and private, in spatial information technologies is accompanied by various levels of uncertainty surrounding the value and impact of this investment. The value of this investment needs to be justified in terms of benefits to society, and ample opportunity exists to more carefully investigate these benefits (Goodchild 1995, p. 41). Our current understanding of benefits and impacts is primarily in the realm of measures of efficiency—financial benefits to implementors arising from improved means to produce information. We must develop measures of benefits that incorporate an understanding of the role of the technology and the information it provides in decision-making about land and resources. Assessment of technological impacts must include issues of equity, including the distribution of costs and benefits among individuals and between components of society.

Previous research in this general area has been directed toward implementation processes and benefit measures in terms of efficiency. For example, we have measured the status of implementation on a statewide basis and assessed the impact of GIS and land information systems (GIS/LIS) in terms of efficiencies that the technologies bring to traditional activities. However, societal implications cannot be fully understood without studying the impact of systems' products on expectations arising from the broader economic, legal, political, and cultural context. We need to develop theories—as well as measurement tools and techniques—for determining how spatial information influences land and policy decisions. They should incorporate concepts of the effectiveness and equity of decisions.

The products of spatial information technologies are changing (and will continue to change) the economic, legal, political, and cultural status of adopting agencies, decision makers using the products, and the people and organizations affected by the decisions. While early impacts of GIS/LIS are becoming evident, little is known or understood about the long-term effects that the products of these technologies will have on the communities and organizations that implement them. We should observe and ultimately be able to predict how spatial information technology and products alter decision-making processes within organizations, interactions between agencies, citizens’ relationships with government agencies, and people's beliefs and actions in regard to the use and management of land and resources. One can also point to the importance of GISs’ current and potential application in epidemiological studies and in the increasing use of GISs in restructuring political districts, each with tremendous potential impact on issues of societal concern.

The UCGIS Approach

Research on the topic of GISs and society requires the involvement of those disciplines that understand human cognition and perception; those that understand the means by which cultural and natural spaces can be or should be represented; and those who use this information for social, political, legal and economic purposes. The University Consortium for Geographic Information Science (UCGIS) needs to facilitate interest and involvement in the topic of GIS and society research by many disciplines. Without a firm understanding of the consequences of GIS use, much effort may be wasted or lost on more technology and good intentions with little benefit and possible misunderstanding.

Through a research agenda the UCGIS will seek answers to the following questions about GIS and society:

• In what ways will GISs actually affect and/or alter the society they are intended to represent and analyze?

• How can various conceptions and representations of space, not based on traditional map (Euclidean) views, be embedded within a GIS? Are GISs more or less appropriate for some cultures versus others? Can GISs be developed to reflect complex and ambiguous perceptions of social and physical space?

• How will GISs affect the relationships among and within government agencies, government agencies and individuals, and nongovernmental groups?

• What are the interpersonal implications of GIS? Interaction at the individual level underpins all other relationships.

• Can GISs provide citizens with an increased ability to monitor and hold government accountable for proposals and actions?

• Will GISs provide citizens with a better understanding of their rights and interests in land?

• How accessible will spatial data and related GIS analysis tools be to all aspects of society?

• Can GISs be used to increase participation in public decision making?

• Can GISs be developed to reflect complex and ambiguous perceptions of social and physical space?

Basic research in the effects of GIS on society and the relationship between those effects is of significance to the national research agenda for a multitude of reasons. GIS technology is now found in nearly all Federal and state government agencies and is now rapidly being used by local governments, environmental organizations, and even neighborhood organizations. Increasingly, spatial data are being shared among these organizations. The technology has metamorphosed beyond a simple mapping tool to a methodology that is used for urban planning, environmental monitoring/analysis, and understanding complex spatial problems. Most importantly, it is increasingly being used for human/natural resource policy formulation. It is thus timely to now gain a clearer understanding of the link between society and GIS technology and science. Some specific goals and projects include:

• Using GISs to assist in assessing environmental justice issues, including the relationship between Toxic Release Inventory sites, toxic dumps, Superfund sites, and human populations.

• Determining the cost effectiveness of GIS technology for various local governments in comparison with other nonspatial approaches.

• Promoting data sharing among various government agencies.

• Providing an understanding of both the type and the rate of GIS investment and the forces and factors in the development of Multi-Purpose Land Information Systems (MPLIS).

• Assessing the potential for developing a GIS that combines conventional socioeconomic, environmental, and infrastructure data with non-conventional behavioral and cognitive information. For instance, how can the geography of Los Angeles gangs be represented in a GIS?

• Determining how spatial data might be used by environmental and community groups for empowerment and for conflict resolution?

• Determining what parts of society will have access to spatial information.

Project 1. Community Investment and Benefits of MPLIS in Wisconsin and Ohio Even though the GIS industry is recognized as a $1 billion industry (Goodchild 1995, p. 41), little is known about the type and the rate of investment, forces and factors inhibiting or accelerating investments, or the nature and extent of benefits perceived or derived by the various investments in GISs by local U.S. governments. An example of research to better understand these dynamics is now under way for MPLIS in Wisconsin and Ohio. Research indicates that major investments in MPLIS development are now underway in all 72 of Wisconsin's counties. Although various impediments exist, such as limited GIS expertise and associated complexities of database development and representation, about $60 million has been invested by local governments since the Wisconsin legislature enacted the Wisconsin Land Information Program in 1989 (Tulloch and Niemann, 1996). Research further indicates that Ohio has major interest in MPLIS development and has the beginnings of significant investments (Epstein et al. 1996).

Initial conclusions suggest that the type and rate of investment in MPLIS will continue, if not accelerate, as GIS technology becomes more mature. Anecdotal evidence also suggests that various benefits are beginning to accrue in the view of the people responsible for MPLIS development. The benefits include saving money or avoiding new costs (efficiency benefits), providing new governmental services (effectiveness benefits), and broad social access to participation in these efficiency and effectiveness gains (equity benefits).

Project 2. Community Use of GIS for Assessing Environmental Risk A GIS developed for an analysis of Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) sites in the Twin Cities, Minnesota, is being used by a group of researchers is examining the different ways that grassroots organizations utilize (or don't utilize) available information in dealing with technological hazards. An examination of neighborhoods in Minneapolis, based on the reactions of community and environmental groups to TRI/geodemographic data in GIS format, has involved four types of questions. First, how available and appropriate is GIS information for grassroots organizations? Second, what impact does access to GIS-based information have on the participation and effectiveness of grassroots organizations in policy discussion and policy making? Third, does utilization of GIS affect the mission and outlook of grassroots groups? And fourth, what difference does availability and utilization of GIS-based information make for the wide variety of different groups affected by environmental hazards?
 
References

Epstein, E. F., D. L. Tulloch, B. J. Niemann, S. J. Ventura, and F. W. Limp, 1996. Comparative study of land records modernization in multiple states. Proceedings, GIS/LIS '96.

Gingrich, N., 1995. To Renew America. New York: Harper Paperback.

Goodchild, M. F., 1995. Geographic information systems and geographic research. In J. Pickles, editor, Ground Truth: The Social Implications of Geographic Information Systems. New York: The Guilford Press.

Harris, T. M., and D. Weiner, 1996. GIS and Society: The Social Implications of How People, Space, and Environment are Represented in GIS. Technical Report 96-7. Santa Barbara, CA: National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis.

Harris, T. M., D. Weiner, T. A. Warner, and R. Levin, 1995. Pursuing social goals through participatory GIS? Redressing South Africa's historical political ecology. In J. Pickles, editor, Ground Truth: The Social Implications of Geographic Information Systems. New York: Guilford Press.

Kishor, P., B. J. Niemann, Jr., D. D. Moyer, S. J. Ventura, R. W. Martin, and P. G. Thum, 1990. Lessons from CONSOIL: evaluating GIS/LIS. Wisconsin Land Information Newsletter 6:11–13.

Pickles, J., editor, 1995. Ground Truth: The Social Implications of Geographic Information Systems. New York: The Guilford Press.

Sheppard, E., 1995. GIS and society: toward a research agenda. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems 22(1): 5–16.

Tulloch, D., and B.J. Niemann Jr., 1996. Evaluating innovation. Geo Info Systems (September).

Ventura, S. J., 1995. The use of geographic information systems in local government. Public Administrative Review 55(5):461–467.

Weiner, D., T. A. Warner, T. M. Harris, and R. M. Levin, 1995. Apartheid representations in a digital Landscape: GIS, remote sensing and local knowledge in Kiepersol, South Africa. Cartography and GIS 22(1):30–44.