I. Introduction

The GIS and Society literature has raised a number of critical issues concerning the political economy and epistemology of Geographical Information Systems and the politics and power relations associated with their use. Many of these issues are most apparent in the context of what has now come to be known as Public Participatory GIS (PPGIS). We consider that differential access to data and the political economy of information, the geo-demographic and surveillant capabilities of GIS, and the digital representation, epistemology, and the multiple realities of landscape represented in GIS are among the more significant questions to be addressed in PPGIS (Harris and Weiner, 1998). Over the past several years we have sought to implement a ‘progressive’ GIS for land reform in Mpumalanga Province, South Africa. This project has brought us face to face with the numerous critiques leveled at GIS and with questions as to how PPGIS might be designed and implemented. The South African context has proven to be a challenging situation in which we sought to implement a PPGIS within communities in which people struggle daily for even the basic necessities of life, let alone the high technology represented by GIS. Questions regarding community access to technology, data, and expertise as well as how post-apartheid communities were represented within a state-mandated GIS was made starkly apparent. Based upon these experiences we propose a variant of PPGIS in the form of Community-Integrated GIS (CIGIS).

II. GIS, Society, and Community

The social theoretic critique of GIS is now well established and can be summarized as focusing on a number of issues including:

• the perceived positivism and hegemonic power relations embedded within GIS (Abler, 1993; Aitken and Michel, 1995; Lake, 1993; Openshaw, 1991, 1992; Pickles, 1995; Smith, 1992; Taylor, 1990, 1991; Taylor and Overton, 1991, 1992; Taylor and Johnston, 1995)
• the claimed value-neutral and objective nature of GIS (Openshaw, 1991, 1992)
• the apparent pre-eminence given to data and facts and the retreat from knowledge with resultant regional and data inequities (Goodchild, 1991; Taylor, 1990; Openshaw, 1991, 1992; Pickles, 1995).
• the (anti) democratic nature of GIS brought about by the existence of differential access to data and technology (McHaffie, 1995; Obermeyer, 1993; Pickles, 1991; Edney, 1991)
• the surveillant capabilities of GIS and the trend toward normalization, knowledge engineering, and the control of populations (Pickles, 1991; Goss, 1995a; 1995b).
• differential access to GIS data, hardware, software, and humanware (Pickles, 1991, 1995; Edney, 1991).
• data availability, the commodification of data, the movement toward a bureaucratic-informational complex, and the role of spatial data institutions and GIS agencies (Onsrud and Rushton, 1995;
• privacy, confidentiality, and the intrusive role of geodemographics (Crampton, 1995; Curry, 1994, 1995; Goss, 1995a, 1995b)
• expert ‘top down’ vs. local knowledge ‘bottom up’ (Harris et.al., 1995; Weiner et.al., 1995).
• structural knowledge distortion (Taylor, 1991)
• ethical and responsible uses of GIS (Crampton, 1995; Curry, 1995; Wright, et al, 1997)
• digital representations of the world and the map as metaphor (Mark, 1993)
• GIS epistemologies and multiple realities of space (Aitken and Michel, 1995; Sheppard, 1993a, 1993b)
• the cultural bias of the technology (Mark, 1993; Rundstrum, 1995)
• alternative forms of knowledge representation and qualitative data (Harris et. al, 1995)
• the pre-eminence of boolean logic in GIS applications (Sheppard, 1993a; 1995).

III. Public Participation GIS

There has been limited discussion to date as to what is actually implied by demands for a ‘democratic GIS’ or, GIS for community empowerment. Chrisman (1987) placed equity as the most important goal in the use of GIS by contending that GIS ‘be developed on the primary principle that they will ensure fairer treatment of all those affected by use of the information’ (Chrisman, 1987, 1369-1370). Edney argued that most applications of GIS are democratic but:

The rapid development of GIS for community use raises a host of critical questions about the contradictory nature of GIS and its dependence on technology, data, and expertise. Hutchinson and Toledano (1993, 457) suggest that GIS for community empowerment requires that the technology be taken out of a conventional top-down development context. This, they contend, necessitates ‘demand-driven’ and not ‘technology-driven’ applications. GIS, in other words, must become an appropriate technology. Rundstrom (1995) takes an alternative perspective: ‘My interests in the geographical ideas of indigenous peoples of North America and the impact of Western technology in non-western settings have led me to consider GIS as potentially toxic to human diversity, notably the diversity of systems for knowing about the world’ (1995, 45). This conclusion is based on his contention that non-empirical and relational epistemologies of nature cannot be captured in digital, computerized form because indigenous knowledge is itself transformed by the logic of the technology. As a result, ‘Geographical ‘re-presentations’ -- topographic maps, GIS, and other exotica -- are just part of a much larger world of inscriptions used in Western techno-science to disenfranchise indigenous peoples’ (ibid. 51).

We believe there is a middle ground that can be charted between these two very different GIS and Society positions. Recent case studies represent an important shift in scale and purpose from a critique of GIS to endeavors that operationalizes GIS for community empowerment. The advocacy of popular causes, a more complete understanding of local issues, and greater community access to advanced technologies and digital information, are successes that have already been demonstrated. Recent case studies, and Rundstrom’s critique, also suggest that the integration of local knowledge and the representation of non-hegemonic epistemologies of space, environment, and territory are complex and potentially contradictory aspects of alternative GIS production and use.

Digital representations of socially differentiated epistemologies and the enforcement of a Cartesian interpretation of space raise critical questions about the technical and social constraints of PPGIS operationalization for grassroots empowerment. Existing case studies demonstrate that communities remain dependent on technical support for the implementation and maintenance of specific projects and the filtering of geographic information into GIS by technical experts. How this impacts the social relations between and within participating communities and the agencies/NGOs that promote such projects is important but not very well understood. To date, there is a very poor understanding of how PPGIS projects transform the power relations and associated politics within participating communities. Recognizing social differentiation and how GIS might change social dynamics within communities after specific projects have commenced, is a critical issue that needs to be addressed and must be a critical concern when developing an alternative GIS.

There has been little research concerning how GIS actually marginalizes communities and who, in those communities, are being marginalized. There are more case studies regarding the empowerment of people through the use of GIS though the implicit assumption of community homogeneity is an underlying problem. To date, there is little evidence of genuinely ‘community-based’ GIS, despite such stated intentions. Communities are becoming involved in GIS projects, but they are not in control of those projects and remain dependent on state agencies, NGOs, external funding, and technically oriented advocates. Thus, in our opinion, Community-Integrated GIS is a more realistic objective for alternative systems and applications.

IV. Toward ‘Community-Integrated’ GIS

Community-Integrated GIS seeks to broaden the use of digital spatial data handling technologies with the objective of increasing the number and diversity of people who are capable of participating in spatial decision-making. This assumes that the production of GIS is also made more inclusive. As a result, Community-Integrated GIS:

• is likely to be agency-driven, but it is not top down nor privileged toward conventional expert knowledge
• assumes that local knowledge is valuable and expert
• broadens the access base to digital spatial information technology and data
• incorporates socially differentiated multiple realities of landscape
• integrates GIS and multi-media
• explores the potential for more democratic spatial decision making through greater community participation
• assumes that spatial decision-making is conflict-ridden and embedded in local politics

Community-Integrated GIS assumes the existence of socially differentiated understandings of landscape. In this context, a conflictual GIS would be an expectation rather than the surgically clean ‘objective’ and homogenous spatial representation that it currently is. The implications of implementing such a GIS clearly mean that the issues regarding surveillance, privacy, confidentiality, and individual rights are not overcome but intensified. Such issues are not then the sole preserve or prerogative of business or government but of communities themselves.

In similar fashion, a Community-Integrated GIS should be capable of incorporating information and knowledge in alternative forms that are not dependent on the map as the sole mode of representation. Much has been written about the privileged position of the cartographic map and the dominance of spatial primitives in the representation of geographic information. To this, however, we now have the technical ability to combine other forms of representation as well as other media. Linking narratives, oral histories, photographs, moving images, and animation, to GIS now provides enormous capability to increase not only the richness and diversity of the information available but to come closer to the ways in which communities know or conceive their space. The linkages between GIS and multi-media systems is an obvious connection in this context and holds considerable potential for extending the knowledge base of GIS (see for example Couclelis and Monmonier, 1995; Shiffer, 1998). Current GIS are predominantly spatially deterministic in the sense that information that is fuzzy or without a location or which cannot be represented by a spatial primitive is essentially excluded from the knowledge base. Extending the ability to incorporate alternative forms and ways of knowing would begin to overcome these deficiencies and sensitize the GIS to the communities that are actually represented in it.

There are obvious questions regarding not only the construction of a Community-Integrated GIS but also its sustainability. We do not assume that all communities would want, nor indeed warrant, a GIS. Such systems would not be applied universally but selectively, contingent upon a mix of social, historical, and political factors. Although GIS software is becoming more user-friendly and less expensive, and the price-performance capabilities of PCs are providing incredible computing power at increasingly lower cost, we do not assume that Community-Integrated systems would necessarily be maintained by the citizens of a community, although this could obviously be the case. The Internet and the availability of interoperable GIS and media systems, along with initiatives such as the NSDI spatial data clearinghouse, will increasingly rely on the Internet as a means of accessing and enabling distributed GIS and will provide empowering conditions for community access discussed above. However, we assume there will continue to be resource and humanware issues to overcome. What we are proposing therefore, is not a complete replacement of existing agency responsibility for local GIS but a redefining of what such systems might ‘look’ like and how they might be extended into communities for greater public participation and ownership.

V. A Case Study from Mpumalanga, South Africa

The South African case study area has significant social and ecological variation. To the west are intensive and exotic industrial forest plantations. Some of these are located on land of high arable potential. Forestry companies also control large tracts of state land, although there are signs that the new government may sell some of this land. In the valleys of the Sabie and Nordsand rivers, intensive irrigation allows for profitable fruit and vegetable production. Agricultural production in these areas is supported by an extensive system of dams and a large supply of cheap labor. Toward the east of the study area, the former homelands of KaNgwane, Gazankulu and Lebowa remain as overcrowded and poorly serviced relics of Grand Apartheid. Land demand in these area is high, and the history of forced removals remains fresh in peoples’ memories and imaginaries (Levin and Weiner, 1997). The bantustans are located in an environmental transition zone in which the heavier rainfall of the escarpment (over 1200mm) rapidly reduces to 300-500 mm in the eastern and northern parts of the area. The Kruger National Park and private game parks occupy the extreme easternmost parts of the case study area.

Building on a previous pilot study (Harris et. al. 1995; Weiner et. al. 1995), the project sought to test the potential of an ‘alternative’ GIS for participatory rural land reform. In South Africa, GIS diffusion is mostly top-down, technicist and elitist. GIS is also primarily used for map production and in many instances stands accused of merely transforming bad data into impressive maps. Nevertheless, GIS is emerging rapidly in the ‘new’ South Africa. Consulting firms, often linked to segments of the former Apartheid State that were privatized, are thriving. Meanwhile, a diversity of state agencies are developing GIS as a means of maintaining or increasing their power within a government bureaucracy that is in transition. As a result, the GIS business is booming, but the forms of GIS that are emerging are reinforcing the traditional forms of developmentalism and supporting a top-down and non-participatory planning environment.

The responsibility for implementing post-apartheid land reform in South Africa rests in part with the Department of Land Affairs (DLA). The Mpumalanga project is a collaborative effort with the DLA and contributes toward participatory land reform. The project workshops sought to identify issues that communities viewed as critical for land reform. Appreciating the importance of socially differentiated knowledge, workshops were held with a diversity of community participants. Conventional GIS coverages of the district are combined with local knowledge comprising mental mapping exercises and intensive interviewing. Thus, socially differentiated local knowledge is integrated into a GIS for specific localities. Additional qualitative information was also collected for use in a multi-media framework. At the present time, land reform consists primarily of specific projects that emerge as farmland becomes available on the open market. It is anticipated that through this effort projects can also be conceived as part of a broader Provincial/District landscape politics and history which has many voices that extend beyond the restricted sounds of willing-buyers and willing-sellers (Levin and Weiner, 1997). It is not assumed that one ‘objective’ spatial solution will be found.

The project seeks to maximize the participation of a diversity of communities in GIS production by drawing on relevant experiences, perspectives and skills. Specifically, participants include: land reform beneficiaries; non-beneficiaries from the former homelands; white farmers; black farm workers; chiefs and their patrons.

As part of this study several critical research issues are being pursued as they impact upon the land reform process:

1. The historical geography of forced removals: The key issue here is to broadly identify sub-regional histories of forced removal and to better understand overlapping claims.
2. Differential perspectives on land potential: Land users have differing perspectives on the criteria and location of ‘high’, ‘medium’, and ‘low’ potential land. This is dependent on the local community’s own perception of what land potential means and how land should be used.
3. Socially appropriate and inappropriate land use: We are concerned here with understanding land use from the perspective of peoples’ needs and to go beyond the very narrow focus on need from a ‘market-led’ perspective. This includes identifying and questioning the use of state land, underutilized land, the inappropriate location of forestry, or other land uses on high potential land, as well as perspectives on land for game tourism.
4. Politics of access to natural resources: The objective here is to view access to land, water and biomass as social and political processes.
5. Identification of areas where land reform should take place: The purpose here is to better use local knowledge in the identification of potential projects. At present, willing sellers (at often inflated prices) are dictating where land reform can take place.
6. Participatory land use planning: Land reform beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries produce land use plans.

Production of Traditional GIS Coverages

These include: hydrology and dams; transportation; contour and elevation; land cover; nucleated settlement; land types and land quality; political and recreation boundaries; cadastral; state and public lands; forestry plantations and species.

Participatory Mental Mapping

Participatory mental mapping involves the use of tracing paper overlaid on topographic map sheets and/or GIS map products. Each social group is interviewed, and their views about the key questions are recorded on the tracing paper. Pencils and colored markers are used so that each question has a particular color code (for example, answers about forced removals are drawn in black, while answers about land potential are drawn in green.) In this way a diversity of community perspectives about that particular landscape are recorded and analyzed. Corresponding register marks are established on each of the four corners of the tracing paper and the base map, and both the tracing paper and the base map are given identical labels to aid future identification and/or (re)orientation, if need be. This participatory mental mapping exercise with tracing paper was done for questions 1-5. The information is now being digitized and integrated with the conventional GIS database. The mental mapping workshops usually include 5-8 people, where possible. The selection of group members was undertaken by the local people themselves after the mapping procedures were explained. Groups of men and women were interviewed separately.

The mental mapping exercises were taped and are now being transcribed. There were also video recordings and photographs taken. This multiple information is now being integrated into a GIS multi-media format as mutually supportive and complementary data. This multi-media GIS has the potential to become a powerful tool for decision-making around land reform.

Participatory Land Use Planning

After completion of the mental mapping exercises, participatory land use planning (question 6) was done. This involved another mapping exercise, with groups of 5-8 people. The exercise was purely imaginative and iterative, except where the mapping involved cases of land reform beneficiaries (i.e., those who have already acquired land in the land reform program). The groups were asked to draw a map of how they would like to see their land used if they had access to land in a land reform program. This exercise primarily involved three types of residents of the former homelands:

(a) people who have already benefited from the land reform program.

(b) people who have submitted their claims and are yet to benefit.

(c) non-beneficiaries.

Community-integrated GIS assumes that specific GIS applications are driven with active community consultation. It compares and contrasts ‘expert’ and ‘local’ understandings of immediate (local) and sub-regional landscapes. Furthermore, it is assumed that one important objective of community-integrated GIS is to facilitate "socially appropriate land use" (Weiner and Levin, 1991; Weiner et. al., 1995). There are, of course, many potential applications for community-integrated GIS in Mpumalanga. The following list of applications has emerged through a participatory GIS production process that began in 1992:

• patterns of forced removals and overlapping land claims;
• official and ‘local’ definitions of land potential;
• land and water claims from (re-energized) tribal authorities;
• definition and location of underutilized land;
• location and use of "public lands;"
• the rapid growth of peri-urban areas;
• identifying exotic forest plantations on high potential arable land and critical water catchment areas;
• re-engineering of water catchment and (re)distribution as an integrated management approach;
• appropriate locations for land reform projects;
• monitoring and evaluation of land reform (including monitoring the price of land sold for land reform to see profit rates);
• involving ordinary people in land use planning for specific projects;
• understand how different types of people perceive the landscape and feel that land should be used;
• better understanding of why certain land use changes are taking place (for example, de-stocking on white farms);

We view PPGIS as an important objective but remain cautious about claims that GIS fosters ‘grassroots’ participation and the ‘empowerment’ of communities. Participation and empowerment are ‘buzzwords’ that often serve to legitimize policies and projects that ironically sometimes have the opposite effect. We are thus aware that PPGIS can still obfuscate and generate the negative impacts alluded to in the GIS and Society critique. CIGIS, therefore, assumes that GIS production and use is inherently contradictory and that the GIS-empowerment-marginalization nexus can only be understood within the political context of spatial decision-making in a particular place.

Acknowledgements

Our South Africa research is supported by NSF grant # SBR-951511: "Integrating Regional Political Ecology and GIS for Rural Reconstruction in the South African Lowveld." NCGIA Initiative # 19 and the WVU Regional Research Institute have also supported this project. In South Africa, Indran Naidoo, Richard Levin and the Department of Land Affairs have provided critical institutional and logistical support. Wendy Geary, an MA student at WVU, helped us compile parts of this paper. Ishmail Mahiri, a PH.D student at the University of Durham, helped in the development of the methodology in South Africa. Many of these ideas were published previously in Harris and Weiner (1998).

Bibliography
Abler, R.F. 1993. Everything in its place: GPS, GIS, and geography in the 1990’s. Professional Geographer 45(2): 131-139.

Aitkin, S.C. and S. Michel. 1995. Who Contrives the "Real" in GIS? Geographic Information, Planning, and Critical Theory. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems 22(1): 17-29.

Bird, B. 1995. The EAGLE Project: re-mapping Canada from an indigenous perspective. Cultural Survival Quarterly 18(4): 23-24.

Chorley Committee. 1987. Handling Geographic Information, HMSO, London.

Chrisman, N. R. 1987. Design of geographic information systems based on social and cultural goals. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 53(10): 1367-1370.

Couclelis, H. and Monmonier, M. 1995 Using SUSS to resolve NIMBY: How spatial understanding support systems can help with the "Not in my backyard" syndrome, Geographical Systems, 2: 83-101

Cowan, D. J. 1995. The importance of GIS for the average person: GIS in Government: The Federal Perspective 1994. Proceedings form the First Federal Geographic Technology Conference. Washington, D.C., Sept. 26-28, 1994.

Crampton, J. 1995. The Ethics of GIS. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems 22(1): 84-89.

Curry M.R. 1994. Image, practice and the hidden impacts of geographic information systems. Progress in Human Geography 18(4): 441-459.

Curry, M. R. 1995. GIS and the Inevitability of ethical inconsistency. In Pickles, J., ed. Ground Truth: The social implications of geographic information systems. New York: Guilford, 68-87.

Dobson, J.E. 1993a. Consider both sides of GIS ethics. GIS World, Sept 1993. 20-21.

Dobson, J. 1993b. The geographic revolution: a retrospective on the age of automated geography. Professional Geographer (45)4: 431-439.

Edney, M. H. 1991. Strategies for maintaining the democratic nature of geographic information systems. Papers and Proceedings of the Applied Geography Conferences 14: 100-108.

Goodchild, M.F. 1991. Just the facts. Political Geography Quarterly 10(4): 335-337.

Goodchild, M.F. 1992. Geographical information science. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 6(1): 31-45.

Goodchild, M.F. 1993. Ten years ahead: Dobson’s automated geography in 1993. The Professional Geographer 45: 444-445.

Goodchild, M.F. 1995. GIS and Geographic Research. In Pickles, J., ed. Ground Truth: The social implications of geographic information systems. New York: Guilford, 31-50.

Goss, J. 1995a. "We know who you are and we know where you live:" the instrumental rationality of Geodemographic Information Systems. Economic Geography 71: 171-198.

Goss, J. 1995b. Marketing the New Marketing : the Strategic Discourse of Geodemographic Information Systems. In Pickles, J., ed. Ground Truth: The social implications of geographic information systems. New York: Guilford, 130-170.

Harley, J. B. 1990. Cartography, ethics and social theory. Cartographica 27(2): 1-23.

Harris, T.M. and D. Weiner. 1996. GIS and Society: The Social Implications of How People, Space and Environment are Represented in GIS. NCGIA Technical Report 96-97, Scientific Report for Initiative 19 Specialist Meeting. South Haven, MN, March 2-5, 1996.

Harris, T.M. and G.A. Elmes. 1993. The application of GIS in urban and regional planning: a review of the North American experience. Applied Geography 13: 9-27.

Harris, T.M., D. Weiner, T. Warner, and R. Levin. 1995. Pursuing Social Goals Through Participatory GIS: Redressing South Africa’s Historical Political Ecology. In Pickles, J., ed. Ground Truth: The social implications of geographic information systems. New York: Guilford, 196-222.

Hutchinson, C. F. and J. Toledano. 1993. Guidelines for demonstrating geographical information systems based on participatory development. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 7(5): 453-461.

Krygier, J. 1996. Geographic Visualization and the Making of a Marginal Landscape. In T. Harris and D. Weiner. 1996. GIS and Society: The Social Implications of How People, Space and Environment are Represented in GIS. NCGIA Technical Report 96-97, Scientific Report for Initiative 19 Specialist Meeting. South Haven, MN, March 2-5, 1996.

Lake, R.W. 1993. Planning and applied geography: positivism, ethics, and geographic information systems. Progress in Human Geography 17(3): 404-413.

Levin, R. and D. Weiner, eds., 1997. No More Tears…Struggles for Land in Mpumalanga, South Africa. Trenton: Africa World Press.

Mark, D. 1993. On the ethics of representation or whose world is it anyway? Proceedings of NCGIA Geographic Information and Society Workshop. Friday Harbor, Washington, Nov. 11-14, 1993.

Marozas, B. A. 1993. A culturally relevant solution for the implementation of Geographic Information Systems in Indian Country. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual ESRI User Conference 1: 365-381.

McHaffie, P.H. 1995. Manufacturing Metaphors: Public Cartography, the Market, and Democracy. In Pickles, J., ed. Ground Truth: The social implications of geographic information systems. New York: Guilford, 113-129.
Mitchell, A. 1997. Zeroing In: Geographic Information Systems at Work in the Community. Redlands, CA: ESRI.
National Academy Press. 1997. The Future of Spatial Data and Society. National

Research Council, Washington DC: National Research Council Commission on

Geosciences, Environment, and Resources.

Nietschmann, B. 1995. Defending the Miskito reefs with maps and GPS: mapping with sail, scuba, and satellite. Cultural Survival Quarterly 18(4): 34-37.

Obermeyer, N. 1993. GIS in a democratic society: opportunities and problems. Proceedings of NCGIA Geographic Information and Society Workshop. Friday Harbor, Washington, Nov. 11-14, 1993.

Obermeyer, N. and J. Pinto. 1994. Managing Geographic Information Systems. New York: Guilford.

Onsrud, H.J. and G. Rushton, ed. 1995. Sharing Geographic Information Systems. New Brunswick, N. J.: Center for Urban Policy Research.

Openshaw, S. 1991. A view on the GIS crisis in geography, or, using GIS to put Humpty-Dumpty back together again. Environment and Planning A 23: 621-628.

Openshaw, S. 1992. Further thoughts on geography and GIS: a reply. Environment and Planning A 24: 463-466.

Pickles, J. 1991. Geography, GIS, and the surveillant society. Papers and Proceedings of Applied Geography Conferences 14: 80-91.

Pickles, J. ed. 1995. Ground Truth: The social implications of geographic information systems. New York: Guilford.

Pickles, J. forthcoming. Arguments, debates, and dialogues: The GIS-social theory debate and concerns for alternatives, forthcoming. In P. Longley, M. Goodchild, D. Maguire and D. Rhind. Geographical Information Systems: Principles, Techniques, Management, and Applications.

Rundstrum, R. 1995. GIS, indigenous peoples, and epistemological diversity. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems 22(1): 45-57.

Sheppard, E. 1993a. GIS and society: ideal and reality. Proceedings of NCGIA Geographic Information and Society Workshop. Friday Harbor, Washington, Nov. 11-14, 1993.

Sheppard, E. 1993b. Automated Geography: What kind of geography for what kind of society? The Professional Geographer 45(4): 457-460.

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

Schroeder, P. 1996. Report on Public Participation GIS Workshop, in Harris, T. and D. Weiner eds. GIS and Society: The Social Implications of How People, Space and Environment are Represented in GIS. NCGIA Technical Report 96-97, Scientific Report for Initiative 19 Specialist Meeting. South Haven, MN, March 2-5, 1996.

Smith, N. 1992. History and philosophy of geography: real wars, theory wars. Progress in Human Geography 16(2): 257-271.

Smith, R. C. 1993. GIS and economic planning for Indian Territories in the Amazon Basin. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual ESRI User Conference 1: 353-363.

Smith, R. C. 1995. GIS and long range economic planning for indigenous territories. Cultural Survival Quarterly, 18(4): 43-48

Taylor, P.J. 1990. GKS. Political Geography Quarterly 3: 211-212.

Taylor, P. J. 1991. A distorted world of knowledge. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 15: 85-90.

Taylor, P.J. and R.J. Johnston. 1995. GIS and Geography. In Pickles, J., ed. Ground Truth: The social implications of geographic information systems. New York: Guilford, 51-67.

Taylor, P. J. and M. Overton. 1991. Further thoughts on geography and GIS. Environment and Planning A 23: 1087-1090.

Taylor, P.J. and M. Overton. 1992. Further thoughts on geography and GIS: A reply. Environment and Planning A 24: 463-466.

Weiner, D., and R. Levin, 1991. Land and Agrarian Transition in South Africa. Antipode, 23(1): 92-120.

Weiner, D., T. 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 Geographic Information Systems 22(1): 30-44.

Wright, D. J., M.R. Goodchild and J. D. Proctor. 1997. Demystifying the persistent ambiguity of GIS as ‘Tool’ versus ‘Science’. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, forthcoming.

Yapa, L.S. 1991. Is GIS appropriate technology? International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 5: 41-58.