Introduction

This paper addresses two specific aspects of the use of geographic information systems (GIS): equity and access. In addressing these two areas, I will discuss three case studies: two of these case studies are concerned with the development of culturally relevant GIS for communities. The case studies are located in New Zealand (the Maori communities of Panguru, Pawarenga and Whangape in Northland, New Zealand) and the United States (Arapaho-Shoshone Indian Nations of the Wind Rivers Reservation, Wyoming). The third case study discusses training K-12 teachers for using GIS in the classroom (Poudre School District, Ft. Collins, Colorado).

Local knowledge is increasingly recognized as critical to resource management issues but has not been adequately integrated into management strategies (Laituri and Harvey, 1995). The two case studies involving indigenous peoples contribute to current work being conducted internationally to include indigenous biological knowledge within the Western framework of computerized knowledge systems for resource management. Additionally, these projects explore the different types of geographic information that is derived from explicit cultural groups. An important thrust in recent geographic literature is environmental equity for disadvantaged and marginal populations (Ekins, 1992). Increasingly, technology is a critical factor in allowing access to decision-making through the use of GIS and information systems for resource management and development issues. Such databases must be constructed with equity in mind for all societal groups; therefore, methods need to be developed that allow access and empower such groups through appropriate training and education. The case study involving K-12 GIS education provides a model for developing appropriate methods for particular users.

Politics of Position: Protocols of using alternative knowledge systems

Information is increasingly becoming a medium of exchange in technological society. Academics, scientific researchers and others have "discovered" that the knowledge which indigenous people hold of the earth, its ecosystems, the wildlife, fisheries, forests and integrated living systems is extensive and informed. Efforts to access such information are numerous (Duerden and Kuhn 1993, Denniston 1994) However, research efforts to understand and utilize indigenous knowledge remain problematic due to cultural differences, lack of trust and who exactly should conduct and collate such knowledge. As Katz (1992) has noted, representation of the ‘other’ is a serious play of power. Concern over the phenomenon of social colonialism has developed as a debate over the ‘crisis of representation’, a debate over who should speak for whom. This crisis is synonymous with the struggle over indigenous land rights and ethnic identity, and its implications are far reaching in academic research (Jackson, 1991).

The issue of representation is critical in devising research strategies that share indigenous knowledge. It is important to acknowledge and consider the implications of representing another group in "technological-ethnographic" research. All research is conducted from a ‘position’ of observation. Defining the research position removes some of the power from the researcher, positioning them within the research, as a visible part of the cultural representation which they construct. As an integral research component, partiality must be explicitly acknowledged in order to cross cultural boundaries and validate alternative perspectives. Indigenous perspectives often consider knowledge as sacred, while Western perspectives treat knowledge with skepticism, evaluating and validating information (Patterson, 1992). Given this difference in epistemology it is important to respect the different approaches of the transmission of knowledge. The challenge will be to combine indigenous knowledge with Western technology to devise alternative natural resource management and conservation strategies that may be more efficient, and environmentally- and culturally-sensitive.

However, strategies blending indigenous and scientific approaches need to be developed without privileging one culture over the other. The legitimisation of local traditional knowledge is a promising avenue of empowerment in conservation decision-making. Supporting alternative knowledge systems of indigenous people may allow them to access foreign techniques as they choose. This is an essential caveat in the use of GIS by indigenous people: that the GIS is utilised by them for their needs. The need to assert self-determination in the research process itself is essential to the success of such efforts.

Several reviewers have identified specific problems with adopting indigenous knowledge in "Western" systems (Thrupp 1989; Watson and Chambers 1993). First, must indigenous knowledge be "scientised" by Euro-American researchers to be legitimate? Euro-American scientific theories are commonly considered the dominant epistemology, and superior to alternative knowledge systems. Examining traditional knowledge through Euro-American methodologies may abstract such knowledge so that the complex subtleties (e.g., spiritual and mystical values and perceptions) are neither acknowledged or recognised. Traditional knowledge could be marginalised further if it is considered "unscientific." However, romanticising indigenous knowledge is equally problematic. A balance needs to be achieved to recognise both the limitations and contributions of indigenous knowledge. Further confounding the relationship between Euro-American theories and traditional knowledge systems is language. Can cultural concepts transcend not only the barrier of cultural perspectives but of language differences AND be used within a computerized environment?

Second, is it appropriate for traditional knowledge to be extracted and used? A contradiction in the recording of traditional knowledge is that it can be exploited for development purposes and it can be used to protect culturally sensitive sites. There is a risk that institutions that sponsor conservation efforts may "mine" or exploit indigenous knowledge and develop projects inappropriate for local needs (e.g., Green Revolution, or biotechnology to create genetically different strains of crops). Inappropriate use of sensitive traditional information (e.g., sacred sites, traditional areas and hunting and gathering sites) may also pose problems. However, restricted access to information may be critical not only to protect specific sites, but also to reinforce the integrity of knowledge systems dependent on ritualised processes of knowledge acquisition (Turnbull 1989).

Finally, what safeguards and assurances are built into the research or development process to ensure that the introduction of new technology does not represent another "system of knowledge as a system of domination" or scientific colonialism (Cashman 1991, p.49)? In addition, will safeguards ensure that new or existing local elites will not monopolize new technologies? Assurances are built on trust and goodwill which obliges a researcher to a long term commitment of time to earn both trust and goodwill. Safeguards can be achieved through such activities as: restricted access to products and outputs, creation of monitoring committees made up of local representatives that oversee the introduction and use of the new technology, and identifiable returns that the community will receive from adopting such technology.

One purpose for blending indigenous and Western-based knowledge systems is to encourage participatory development and communication through "knowledge-sharing" (Brendlinger 1992). This establishes an ongoing relationship with long-term goals rather than a single project goal. As information is "jointly constructed" through use of such tools as GIS, all participants gain a vested interest and knowledge is recognised as evolving.

Case Studies

1. Maori communities of Panguru, Pawarenga and Whangape in Northland, New Zealand

The construction of a community-based GIS has been an important component of the project. Critical to the development of the GIS was the identification of applications that are meaningful to iwi (tribes) of the particular areas and not based only upon Euro-American models of resource management and land use. This required close consultation with local Maori and especially the kaumatua (elders). The initial step toward creating such a GIS demanded working through problems of methodology, accessibility, identification of the types of information to be included, and how to protect sensitive cultural information. Tribal people were not only the GIS users but the GIS designers as well. The database was designed to include two levels of access: 1) baseline data that includes all publicly accessible data (socio-economic, demographic data, land resource inventory, valuation, cadaster and topographic data) and 2) community information (traditional lands, hunting, fishing, subsistence land use, historic and current agriculture fields, sensitive cultural information) with limited accessibility dependent upon permission from community elders. The database design was agreed upon in principle. However the actual implementation of the second level of the database proved problematic for culturally sensitive information.

The community recognized that sensitive cultural information was being lost and that the potential to save, store and protect such information may reside in a GIS. Plans were initiated to serve both short-term and long-term needs for organizing and capturing such data. Short-term solutions focused on creating silent files buffered point locations. These point locations represented sensitive cultural sites but did not identify exact locations. Attribute information included the appropriate komatua who held the "special" knowledge of this site. Therefore, if a particular development project was to take place in a location assigned to an elder, the developer would know who to contact to determine if the intended use was appropriate. Long-term solutions focused on transferring technological skills of GIS to local groups.

During the course of this research it became evident that the local communities needed to make their own decisions regarding the use, capture and storage of culturally-sensitive information. Mechanisms to ensure such transfers need to be developed through licensing arrangements with hardware and software vendors and data holders, and through grants to provide technical training. Future developments need to occur in the realm of technology transfer of GIS skills to ensure access and training to assure implementation. More importantly, iwi recognized the link between GIS technology and self-determination. Iwi are mandated by the Resource Management Act to develop iwi management plans for both development and conservation purposes. In New Zealand, GIS is a ubiquitous tool amongst resource managers and governmental agencies; Maori identified GIS as an enabling technology to "speak the same language" through culturally-relevant data layers and mapped output.

2. Wind Rivers Indian Reservation

The sectoral focus of this research is water resources in general and riparian corridors, specifically. Collection of indigenous information has been accomplished through participatory mapping, interviews and field visits. In addition, establishing community connections in the Wind Rivers Indian Reservation has been of critical importance to earn trust and ensure long-term commitment for all participants. Specifically, numerous meetings and interviews between elders and tribal councils have taken place to discuss water resource issues and methods to incorporate GIS.

This case study differs from the New Zealand project in that GIS technology is available and training has been conducted. The Wind Rivers Water Quality Council maintains a state-of-the-art GIS with technically trained personnel. However, GIS education has been limited largely to seminars offered by consultants, software vendors or the federal government. The applications demonstrated tend to be based upon an Euro-American perspective of land use; they do not incorporate information unique to Native American legal conditions, traditional tribal perceptions of land use, or unique resource management goals such as the protection of sacred sites. In addition, such training is not analytical in nature, rather the focus is on the capabilities of the software or the particular model developed by the consultant or governmental agency. Appropriate training for the specific needs, applications and analyses of tribal entities are needed.

Bringing Native American perspectives to GIS development and use should expand the range of GIS conceptions and research. Similar to the New Zealand case study is the reluctance to share sensitive cultural information. However, the demand to assert and practice self-determination is explicit and expected within the research environment. Both the Northern Arapaho and Eastern Shoshone expressed concern that "outside" researchers would come to the reservation and "take" their knowledge, giving nothing in return. The outcome is a negotiated research process that results in shared benefits such as data collection techniques, participatory mapping protocols, and identification of non-sensitive cultural information. The research project has evolved to not only incorporate local people, but to determine identifiable outputs for local people - an assessment of existing baseline data with regard to water resources, with specific regard to in-stream flows and riparian corridors.

3. Poudre School District GIS training

This project reveals fundamental issues with regard to the use of GIS and its impact upon society in general and marginalized members of society in particular. This can be broken down into three general areas. The first area is the use, perspective and limitations of GIS emphasizes visual approaches and spatial reasoning - why are things where they are? Such systems use information that is explicit, can be reduced to binary code and used in a relational database. In addition, GIS is taught within the confines of a specific platform and within the limitations of a particular software package. The second area to consider is the ability to enable access to GIS education for students with backgrounds that create barriers, such as race, age, gender, physical and learning impairments, and socio-economic status. What is the potential for understanding and incorporating different learning styles, cognitive abilities and promoting those who have not excelled in other ways? And finally, if we agree that the world is increasingly driven by the flow of information, the interfaces and the underlying code that make information visible and are becoming powerful societal forces - then it is imperative to educate an informed citizenry that understand the strengths, weaknesses of technology, computers and GIS. How is this accomplished?

These three general areas are manifested in the other case studies as well. How will GIS, with its visual emphasis and technological limitations influence culture? Evidence from the case studies indicate that indigenous peoples are keen to utilize GIS, however there has been little discussion regarding long-term repercussions. In addition, access to GIS may provide a venue to legitimize alternative knowledge systems within the dominant social paradigm. Will it increase the potential to provide an avenue for empowerment?

The PSD case study indicates that exposure to the technology and appropriate training allows teachers to gain ownership of this particular tool - provided there is on-going support, hands-on training and user-specific applications. These findings are not so different from the indications elicited from both the Maori and Native American participants in the other two case studies. Community support for the PSD project has been another important component. Local community experts from private business and governmental agencies provide guidance, expertise, data and "real world" examples for GIS. However, such community support for projects such as Maori economic development and Native American water resources are not as evident. The politicized environment in which marginalized groups such as indigenous people operate will make access and equity with regard to technology problematic.

Issues

Each case study raises serious questions with regard to the use of GIS. These issues transcend GIS application and address issues related to equity, access and appropriate technology. The case studies with indigenous peoples revealed specific topics with regard to the research agenda in general and the application of GIS technology specifically:

1. How is research redefined within the context of "technological-ethnographic" efforts that avoids scientific colonialism and creates "knowledge-sharing" cooperatives?
2. How will self-determination be operationalized in the research arena? What safeguards and assurances are built into the research or development process to ensure that the introduction of new technology does not represent another system of knowledge as a system of domination?
3. How will GIS projects be created that are of, by and for the people?

1) How are context-materials developed? By whom?

2) What biases are embedded in such materials?

Initial results from these case studies reveal that that there is an intense interest in the use of GIS peppered with a healthy skepticism. Both the indigenous groups and K-12 teachers desire hands on training and education for their specific needs. They recognize computer and spatial literacy as critical components of today’s society and are determined to gain the necessary skills. However, there is also recognition of the stumbling blocks that are of a practical (access to hardware and software), pedagogical (effects of GIS on instruction and culture), and philosophical nature (how will GIS restructure indigenous knowledge systems?).

References

Brendlinger, N., 1992. ‘Ethics, communication models, and power in the agricultural community: thoughts about development communication’, Agriculture and Human Values Spring: pp. 86-94.

Denniston, D., 1994. Defending the land with maps. Worldwatch January/February: 27-31.

Duerden, F. and Kuhn, R., 1993. Introduction to the indigenous land-use information project. School of Applied Geography, Ryerson Polytechnical Institute: Toronto.

Ekins, P., 1992 A New World Order: Grassroots Movements for Global Change. London: Routledge.

Katz, C., 1992. All the world is staged: intellectuals and the projects of ethnography. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 10:495-510.

Jackson, P. 1991. The crisis of representation and the politics of position. In (R.L. Johnston, ed.) The Challenge for Geography, A Changing World: A Changing Discipline. Oxford, Blackwell: pp 198-214.

Laituri, M. and Harvey L., 1995 ‘Bridging the space between indigenous ecological knowledge and New Zealand conservation management using geographical information systems’ in (D. Saunders, J. Craig, and E. Mattiske eds.) Nature Conservation 4: The Role of Networks, New Zealand, Surrey Beattie and Sons: pp 122-131.

Michaels, S. and Laituri, M. In Press: Indigenous and exogenous forces in sustainable development: A New Zealand example. Journal of International Sustainable Development.

Schoenhoff, D. M., 1993 The Barefoot Expert: The Interface of Computerized Knowledge Systems and Indigenous Knowledge Systems. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press.

Thrupp, L., 1989. Legitimizing local knowledge: from displacement to empowerment for third world people, Agriculture and Human Values Summer:13-24.

Turnbull, D., 1989. Maps are Territories: Science is an Atlas. Deakin University Press: Geelong, Victoria.

Watson, H. and Chambers, D., 1993. Singing the Land, Signing the Land. Deakin University Press: Geelong, Victoria.