IntC

erna
entre
tional
for PJournal
romoting
of IAppl
deas,iedUSA
Science and Technology
.com

Vol. 2 No. 2;
wwFwe.brua
ijastnryet2012

Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) For Spatial Planning and

Environmental Management in India: Critical Considerations
Martin J. Bunch
Faculty of Environmental Studies
York University
4700 Keele Street, Toronto, Ontario
Canada M3J 1P3
T. Vasantha Kumaran
Department of Geography
University of Madras
Chepauk, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India 600 005
Tamil Nadu, India
R. Joseph
Directorate of Census Operations Tamil Nadu, Government of
India
Besant Nagar, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India 600 070
Tamil Nadu, India
Abstract
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are computer-based tools used to collect, store, manipulate and display
spatially-referenced information. They are used to support decision-making in a wide variety of contexts,
including spatial planning and environmental management. Because the process of GIS production, from
software development to visualization of GIS output, is characterized by political, economic and social
motivations, it is important that GIS practitioners are aware of issues such as access to data and the political
economy of information, and the nature of GIS epistemologies vis--vis multiple coexisting perceptions of reality.
Lack of such appreciation can lead to social and spatial marginalization of communities. Use of GIS in a
research program for environmental management of the Cooum River in Chennai, and in support of participatory
processes for managing environment and health in slums are used to demonstrate appropriate applications of GIS
in India. Internet-distributed GIS as a potential avenue to address issues of public access to data is also
considered.

Keywords: geographic information systems; GIS; participatory GIS; PGIS; Critical GIS; GIS and
public participation;
development

Chennai,

India;

GIS

society;
and

1. Introduction
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are a powerful set of computer-based tools used to collect, store,
manipulate, analyze and display spatially referenced information (Burrough and McDonnell 1998). They
transform data into knowledge and present this knowledge in various formats for the purpose of supporting
decisions. GIS are usually portrayed as knowledge-based and free from bias, but in fact GIS is a socially
constructed technology (Warren 1995). The process of GIS production, from data creation to analysis
to visualization and use of GIS output, is characterized by political, economic and social motivations that bias
their use.
It is thus important that GIS practitioners are aware of issues such as: access to data and the political economy
of information, and multiple coexisting perceptions of reality and epistemologies that dominate or,
40

40

IntC

erna
entre
tional
for PJournal
romoting
of IAppl
deas,iedUSA
Science and Technology
.com

Vol. 2 No. 2;
wwFwe.brua
ijastnryet2012

alternatively, might usefully inform applications of GIS. As Harris and Weiner (1998) pointed out, lack of
appreciation of these issues can lead to social and spatial marginalization of communities. Informed by
discussion of such issues in the GIS and Society or Critical GIS literature, subfields of Public
Participation GIS (PPGIS) and Participatory GIS (PGIS) have arisen.

41

41

IntC

erna
entre
tional
for PJournal
romoting
of IAppl
deas,iedUSA
Science and Technology
.com

Vol. 2 No. 2;
wwFwe.brua
ijastnryet2012

While this will be a familiar tune to experts in these subfields (who are often based in Universities) many
practitioners will have been trained (and practice) without attention to these themes in GIS. We contend that a
sensitivity to such matters is important both for GIS experts and technicians and for those non-users who
many want to draw upon this exceptionally useful set of tools in multi- and interdisciplinary projects.
This is particularly important when projects involve potentially marginalized peoples, as is often found in
development contexts in the Global South. Schuurman (2006) pointed out that there is a gap between the
abstract conceptual presentation of Critical GIS and the formalization of these concepts to inform the application
of the technology. For this reason we present an overview of critical considerations for the use of GIS,
representing this using a simple model of GIS communication as a heuristic device intended to illustrate the
relevance of these concepts to GIS practitioners. We illustrate this with examples from our own experience
working with GIS in India since the early 1990s.
Indians have been enthusiastically and rapidly adopting GIS and remote sensing technology over the past
15 years. In this adoption, technical expertise in the geomatics fields has tended to be concentrated in
scientific research centers, and the related initiatives and programs have been top-town and datacentric
(Walsham and Sahay 1999; Geogiadou et al. 2005; Singh 2005). Also, because the development and
application of GIS technology is largely rooted in a logical positivist (scientific) epistemology that is widely
accepted as legitimate, the technology tends to be embraced uncritically.
With specific reference to India, we argue in this paper that the use of GIS that is informed by interpretive and
participatory approaches (which we present as complementary to scientific expertise) can help to avoid some
of the pitfalls identified in the Critical GIS literature, and can lead to empowering applications of GIS that are
appropriate to socially responsible and sustainable development. The ultimate aim is to improve the efficacy of
environmental management and spatial planning efforts in development projects and programs that might
employ GIS tools, leading to improved outcomes for stakeholders and actors. There is a growing literature to
support such a stance (see for example bibliographies at http://ppgis.iapad.org/) but case studies in India are
sparse. We first present issues associated with GIS and Society or Critical GIS. We then review two projects
in Chennai, India in which we used GIS in a PPGIS or PGIS role: for decision-support in an environmental
management research program focused on the Cooum River, and in support of participatory processes to
manage environment and health in slum areas. In addition, the use of internet-distributed GIS (web-GIS) is
presented as a potential avenue to address issues of public access to data.

2. GIS and the potential for marginalization in spatial planning and environmental
management
In the early- to mid-1990s, the literature on GIS began to demonstrate concerns about the use of GIS in regard to
its social and political impacts (Sheppard 2005; Schuurman 2006). Part of this concern had to do with t he
fact that GIS advances an instrumental rationalist approach to decision-making (Elwood 2002). Instrumental
rationalism is a western scientific worldview that is characterized by positivism and empiricism. This is not
to say that such a perspective is not valid, nor its associated methods useful. However, because GIS is employed
in situations where this paradigm is already dominant, it tends to reinforce instrumental rationalist decisionmaking to the potential exclusion of other valid and important perspectives. Such perspectives may contribute
understanding that is complementary to scientific knowledge, and thus, can improve decision-making. For
example, Sahay (1998) notes that in India ``assumptions of time and space vary significantly from those
inscribed in GIS technology.'' For instance, because of the scientific mathematical and cartographic
underpinnings of GIS, the technology tends to present spatial relationships objectively as a spatial reality out
there that can be controlled and manipulated. Sahay contends that this poses a conceptual problem to the Indian
tradition in which notions of time and space are more subjective, and in which constructions of space are
more strongly associated with notions of place, and to be in-here, as an integral element of social reality.
How then can GIS representations be trusted to accurately reflect the local reality?
While this has not been the experience of the Indian authors of this paper (Names removed for review purposes)
who were reared in Western thinking in the Indian educational system, this could be the case for less advantaged
sections of the population. If legitimacy of input to decision-making is restricted to those who share the expert42

42

IntC

erna
entre
tional
for PJournal
romoting
of IAppl
deas,iedUSA
Science and Technology
.com

Vol. 2 No. 2;
wwFwe.brua
ijastnryet2012

oriented western scientific approach, then the result of the GIS-supported decision-making process is likely to
be based on incomplete understanding of the situation. Local knowledge and traditional knowledge, for
example, could easily be excluded.

43

43

IntC

erna
entre
tional
for PJournal
romoting
of IAppl
deas,iedUSA
Science and Technology
.com

Vol. 2 No. 2;
wwFwe.brua
ijastnryet2012

One implication of this is that decisions and interventions that do not incorporate the worldview and
understandings of relevant stakeholders are not likely to be supported by those stakeholders. This
could undermine the success of spatial planning and environmental management efforts. Harris and Weiner
noted that lack of appreciation of issues of GIS epistemologies, and the multiple realities of landscape is one
way that the use of GIS can lead to social and spatial marginalization (Harris and Weiner 1998). A related
issue that may contribute to marginalization through the use of GIS is that of data access and the
political economy of information (Harris and Weiner 1998). For example, access to both GIS data and GIS
technology is not equal for all groups: less powerful groups may be excluded from access to data; poor
communities or organizations may not have the resources to purchase computers or GIS software, and not all
groups will have the skills or education to make use of GIS technology even if GIS tools and appropriate data
are available. Furthermore, it has been known for some time that the institutional location of many GIS also
creates barriers that lead to the bureaucratization of GIS technology and the distortion of knowledge (Taylor
1991).
The situation in India today demonstrates many of these concerns. Many initiatives arose in the last decade
in India to develop and disseminate digital spatial data for use in GIS. For example, Singh (2005) reported on
the National (Natural) Resources Information System (NRIS) (Department of Space), the Natural Resources
Data Management System (NRDMS) program (Department of Science and Technology), the Geographical
Information System initiative of the National Informatics Centre (GISNIC), and other initiatives such as the
large-scale mapping project of the National Natural Resource Management System (NNRMS), the space-enabled
Village Resources Centre (VRC) initiative, and the emerging National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI).
Other large- scale mapping initiatives also exist, such as the Utility Mapping Project of the National Informatics
Centre (GOI
2007), as well as many more-focused projects such as inundation mapping spurred by the 2004 tsunami (Kumar
et al. 2008).
In India expertise and access to geomatics technology and data tend to reside in departments and
institutions among which coordination and communication for spatial data development and project
implementation is poor (Walsham and Sahay 1999). Furthermore, in top-down development and management of
such programs there is a tendency to foster a (scientific) expert-oriented, data-driven, technological remote
sensing and GIS bias. This is an approach to spatial planning and environmental management that depends on
scientists and technologists to parameterize problems, make appropriate measurements to generate data, and
apply the technology for the scientific analysis of spatial data. Singh (2005) for example, in his discussion of
the National Informatics Centres (NIC) GIS initiative, notes that the program is intended to support
development planning at the district level, but that district offices are still at an early stage of computerization,
and applications of GISNIC, housed primarily in scientific research centers reflected the remote-sensing and
GIS bias, and often resulted in other socio-economic considerations not being given adequate emphasis (Singh
2005:234). Similarly, Georgiadou et al. (2005) noted that in the case of the NSDI, development has been
top-down and datacentric showing little evidence of systematic interaction between its developers (the
scientific institutions) and potential end users (for example, district administration) to understand their
information needs.
Figure 1 presents a simple model of communication for GIS that aims to illuminate some key locations in the
GIS production process (from software development to interpretation and use of GIS output) at which bias may
be introduced (Bunch 2001a). This model is informed by the Critical GIS literature and earlier work by
Robinson and Petchenik (1976) and Chrisman (1987). Its purpose is to embody some of the understanding in
the Critical GIS literature, acting as a heuristic device to help bridge the gap between conceptualization and
formalization in Critical GIS identified by Schuurman (2006), so that GIS practice avoids marginalization, and
so that its use may instead lead to empowerment of stakeholder groups and communities. We use this model to
inform discussion of the case studies presented later in this paper.

44

44

IntC

erna
entre
tional
for PJournal
romoting
of IAppl
deas,iedUSA
Science and Technology
.com

Vol. 2 No. 2;
wwFwe.brua
ijastnryet2012

Figure 1: A model of communication for GIS (Bunch, 2001a).

The model describes a process in which the real world is first interpreted by the developers of GIS software
(1 in Figure 1). Developers embed their own understanding of how to encode, manipulate, analyze and
represent spatial entities in the technology, for example, the use of Cartesian spatial systems, Pythagorean
geometry and Boolean logic (Sheppard 1995). GIS developers also select and create GIS tools and
capabilities for data collection, representation, storage, analysis and visualization. Because GIS developers
encode their own understandings into GIS software, and also restrict the capabilities of GIS to those they deem
useful and relevant to GIS analysts, they dictate how the world is represented in GIS. They are who Nancy
Obermeyer refers to as the hidden GIS technocracy (Obermeyer 1995).
A second point at which bias enters the GIS production process is at the database design stage (2 in Figure 1).
At this point decisions are made on what aspects of the real world are important to represent in a GIS
database, how these aspects should be represented as spatial entities, and the determination of such things as
measurement scales, categorization schemes, and frequencies of data collection. This process is informed by
database developers worldview, training, and intentions in developing the database, as well as institutional
mandates, procedures and rules (Chrisman 1987). Within the bounds of what can be represented in the GIS,
database developers determine what sets of phenomena are represented as real, and how these are represented.
Bias may also be introduced at the point where GIS analysts enter into this stream of cultural communication
(3 in Figure 1). Such individuals are highly trained in the use of the technology to undertake, for example,
spatial analysis, cartography and modeling. This will affect their approach to using GIS to manipulate the data
that is available to them, such as the selection of GIS tools and their conception of what is acceptable or
good data. This has led to concern by some that the use of GIS is often elitist, oriented toward scientific and
technological expertise and can even be anti-democratic (Lake 1993; Aitken and Michel 1995; Obermeyer 1995;
Ghose 2001).
Finally, end users in the GIS production process (4 in Figure 1), presented with the results of a process
embedded in a scientific, expert-oriented and data driven approach, apply their interpretation (influenced by
their own experiences of the world, motivations, values, education, training and worldviews) to such results. The
end user may not be aware of the nature of the approach or dominant epistemology, nor of the sets of decisions
that have led to the particular representation of the real world that they interpret. However they are likely to
view the results of the GIS production process as valid, because the scientific worldview in which GIS
technology is embedded is widely viewed as legitimate. The output is evaluated on how scientifically rigorous
its production has been that is, how well positivism and empiricism have been enforced.
The reality of the situation is, of course, more complicated than this simple model. GIS analysts, for
example, may be the same individuals as the database developers and/or end users in this model, and the
capability for GIS technicians and analysts to extend and customize GIS applications may alleviate some of the
concerns about embedded bias (albeit at the cost of very high levels of required skills and education).
Nevertheless, the model can usefully serve as a heuristic device to understand some of the issues that may lead
to social and spatial marginalization in the use of the technology.
45

45

IntC

erna
entre
tional
for PJournal
romoting
of IAppl
deas,iedUSA
Science and Technology
.com

Vol. 2 No. 2;
wwFwe.brua
ijastnryet2012

Our intention in presenting this model is not to argue against logical positivism or the scientific perspective in
general, but to argue for a plurality of perspectives in the process of constructing and communicating
knowledge in support of spatial planning and environmental management.
This will not lead to the
elimination, or even reduction, of bias in the process. However, by incorporating the perspectives (and biases) of
relevant actors it will lead to more appropriate representations of reality and to ownership of the process,
and its resultant representations, by stakeholders.

3.
GIS
Empowerment

for

From about the mid-1990s the discussion in the GIS literature about the potential for social and political pitfalls
in the applications of geographic information systems began to inform the use of GIS (e.g., Elwood 1998; Harris
and Weiner 1998; Ghose 2001; Elwood 2002; Laituri 2002; Tulloch and Epstein 2002; Warren 2004). This is
particularly evident in the area of Public Participation GIS (PPGIS) and Participatory GIS (PGIS). The
literature is still unsettled about the use of these terms, but PPGIS usually refers the use of GIS technologies
(primarily in North America) to support public participation in spatial planning and environmental management
(particularly at the community level). It is characterized by a grounding in value and ethical frameworks
that promote social justice, ecological sustainability, improvement of quality of life, redistributive justice,
nurturing of civil society and capacity building. It is best applied in the context of partnerships among
stakeholders (for example, government, NGOs, communities, researchers) (Aberley and Sieber 2002). Specific
techniques associated with PPGIS can range widely, from implementation of GIS over the internet, to maps
drawn with local communities.
PGIS is often used to apply to PPGIS types of applications in situations characterized by disadvantaged and
marginalized communities, particularly in community development and resource management contexts in
developing countries. Rambaldi et al. (2005) indicate that,
PGIS practice is geared towards community empowerment through measured, demand-driven,
user-friendly and integrated applications of geo-spatial technologies. GIS-based maps and spatial
analysis become major conduits in the process. A good PGIS practice is embedded into longlasting spatial decision-making processes, is flexible, adapts to different socio-cultural and biophysical environments, depends on multidisciplinary facilitation and skills and builds essentially
on visual language. The practice integrates several tools and methods whilst often relying on
the combination of expert skills with socially differentiated local knowledge. It promotes
interactive participation of stakeholders in generating and managing spatial information and it
uses information about specific landscapes to facilitate broadly-based decision making processes
that support effective communication and community advocacy.
Table 1 summarizes characteristics of PPGIS and PGIS in comparison to traditional applications of GIS
technology. The remainder of this paper will briefly present some applications of GIS in southern India
which may be considered to fall within the PPGIS and PGIS realm.
Table 1: A comparison between GIS and PPGIS (derived from Kyem 2000 as presented in Sieber
2003).
The characteristics of PPGIS shown in this table also apply to PGIS.
GIS

46

Dimension

PPGIS

46

IntC

erna
entre
tional
for PJournal
romoting
of IAppl
deas,iedUSA
Science and Technology
.com
Technology
Facilitate official policy-making
Supply-driven; technological push
Rigid, hierarchical and bureaucratic
Because it is possible
Specified by technologists
Led by independent specialists
General/multipurpose
applications Top-down
Capital-intensive

47

Focus
Goal
Adoption
Organizational structure
Why use it?
Details
Application
Function
Approach
Cost

Vol. 2 No. 2;
wwFwe.brua
ijastnryet2012
People and technology
Empower communities
Demand- and need-driven
Flexible and open
Because it is needed
Specified by users/focus groups
Led by facilitators/group leaders
Specific, project-level activities
Bottom-up
Low-cost

47

IntC

erna
entre
tional
for PJournal
romoting
of IAppl
deas,iedUSA
Science and Technology
.com

Vol. 2 No. 2;
wwFwe.brua
ijastnryet2012

4. The Cooum River Environmental Management Research

Program
The Cooum River is an extremely stressed urban stream that flows through the centre of Chennai to the Bay of
Bengal. The Cooum is a long standing problem. Its waters consist primarily of household sewage, it has low
flow and stagnation related to flat terrain and blockage of the mouth by a sandbar, and it looks and smells foul.
It is a threat to public health. Decades of well-intentioned management efforts by agencies having partial
jurisdiction over the Cooum and its vicinity (for example, the Corporation of Chennai, the Tamil Nadu
Public Works Department (PWD), Madras (now Chennai) Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board
(a.k.a. Metrowater), and the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board (TNSCB)) have failed to improve the situation.
The Cooum River Environmental Management Research Program was an independent research program in
the late 1990s that investigated the Cooum River situation. The program drew on Soft Systems Methodology
(SSM) and Adaptive Management approaches to operate a multi-stakeholder collaborative process to
generate insight into the problem that would lead to innovative ideas for its management (see Bunch 2001b;
Bunch 2003; Bunch and Dudycha 2004). Both SSM and Adaptive Management attempt to overcome
uncertainty and complexity by mobilizing and representing stakeholder knowledge and perspectives. The
development of SSM in particular was an explicit shift away from functionalist systems thinking toward an
interpretive systems approach that explicitly represents the worldviews and interests of stakeholders (Checkland
1999; Jackson 2000).
A major component of the program was the operation of a three-day workshop in 1998 and a five-day
workshop in 1999 that brought together stakeholders from government agencies (for example, the Madras
Metropolitan Development Authority (MMDA), Corporation of Chennai, PWD, TNSCB, Metrowater, the
Department of Environment and Forests, and the Directorate of Public Health and Preventative Medicine),
NGOs with social and environmental mandates, and academics. These groups were represented (in roughly
equal numbers) in a core group of about 30 persons.
The first workshop in March of 1998 was oriented to problem identification and system conceptualization. Over
three days, workshop participants worked through a series of exercises that,

Identified perceived problems associated with the Cooum river situation;

Identified key actors and components associated with the Cooum problem, and described the
relationships among them;
Drew from this expression of the situation important subsystems (themes), and modeled
them conceptually;
Developed objectives for management of the Cooum situation that were tied to the identified subsystems;
Developed indicators that could be used to monitor and evaluate progress toward the objectives; and
Expressed a basic structure of components of the Cooum system.

This last point was the culmination of the first workshop, and served as the framework (Figure 2) for a GIS
-based decision support system that was employed in the second workshop. Also of note was the
development throughout this workshop of a shared conception of the Cooum system that was rather different
from that on which previous management interventions had been based. This understanding of the Cooum
environmental system moved beyond the simple bio-physical model of a river system to one that, for example,
encompassed the activities of the population of Chennai in consuming water and producing sewage, and of the
multiple and various agencies in managing (or not) aspects of the situation.
Workshop participants
described it not so much as a natural river system, but as an urban system and a waste disposal system.

48

48

IntC

erna
entre
tional
for PJournal
romoting
of IAppl
deas,iedUSA
Science and Technology
.com

Vol. 2 No. 2;
wwFwe.brua
ijastnryet2012

Figure 2: Basic structure of the Cooum River environmental system (Bunch 2001b).

Between the first and second workshops we developed the Cooum River Environmental Management Decision
Support System (DSS) that coupled open source (free) versions of a GIS and a water quality simulation
model. The DSS system simulated hydrology and water quality (a key indicator of the overall state of the Cooum
49

49

IntC

erna
entre
tional
for PJournal
romoting
of IAppl
deas,iedUSA
Science and Technology
.com

Vol. 2 No. 2;
wwFwe.brua
ijastnryet2012

system) and was parameterized by spatially referenced data about stormwater drainage, sewerage catchments,
the city population, and slum areas, that were stored and managed by the GIS.

50

50

IntC

erna
entre
tional
for PJournal
romoting
of IAppl
deas,iedUSA
Science and Technology
.com

Vol. 2 No. 2;
wwFwe.brua
ijastnryet2012

Users were able to alter the parameters of the system though an interface developed using a scripting language
packaged with the GIS.
At the second workshop (in 1999), participants once again explored a variety of aspects of the Cooum River
problem. A significant amount of time at this workshop was spent on use of the GIS-based DSS to undertake
scenario analysis of basic management inter ventions in the Cooum system. Participants constructed scenarios
by using the custom DSS interface to change parameters in the system. For example, they could indicate that
some or all slums in the city be cleared and relocated outside of the system, speculate on technology or
capacity changes at the sewerage treatment plant, or forecast the effect of increased water supply.
Figure 3: Participants working with the GIS-based DSS to construct management scenarios at the
second
Cooum river workshop in 1999.

Workshop participants worked in groups of 3 to 5 people that were a mix of representatives of government
agencies, NGOs and academics. Beyond baseline scenarios that described dry and monsoon seasons,
participants developed simple management scenarios to explore:

the effect on the system of slum improvement,

population growth,
increased capacity at the sewage treatment plant,
improvement of sewage treatment technology,
artificial increase in flow from the Upper Cooum system, and
the effect of the storm flush from the first heavy rains of the northeast monsoon

Results of the simulations produced flow rates and values of water quality indicators (5-day Biochemical
Oxygen
Demand, Dissolved Oxygen and Ammonia-Nitrogen) at 25 metre intervals along the Cooum
River.
Understanding of the Cooum River situation was significantly improved, both by the process of developing the
GIS-based DSS framework, and by operating it to produce management scenarios. We observed, for
example, that participants broadened their perspectives, re-conceiving the situation to incorporate problematic
institutional, organizational and even cultural (behavioral) factors. Much debate was also generated about
issues of data quality, scarcity of data, and data access.
Actual simulation using the Cooum DSS also produced some interesting and unexpected results, revealing, for
example, a severe under-capacity of sewage treatment plants, and evidence that improving slums (providing
them with sewerage service) may actually worsen the condition of the Cooum River in certain situations. The
scenario analysis highlighted interactions between system components and generated new knowledge about the
system that will assist in prioritizing management actions. Informed in part by this work, a World Bank
51

51

IntC

erna
entre
tional
for PJournal
romoting
of IAppl
deas,iedUSA
Science and Technology
.com

Vol. 2 No. 2;
wwFwe.brua
ijastnryet2012

Initiative to restore and manage the Cooum under the Cooum Sub-basin Restoration and Management (CSRM)
project is beginning. This initiative is part of the Irrigated Agricultural Modernization and Water Body
Restoration a nd Modernization (IAM WARM) project funded by the World Bank and has the purpose of
packaging and phasing potential technical and institutional options based on prioritization and implementability,
involving multiple stakeholders.

52

52

IntC

erna
entre
tional
for PJournal
romoting
of IAppl
deas,iedUSA
Science and Technology
.com

Vol. 2 No. 2;
wwFwe.brua
ijastnryet2012

The Cooum River work as PPGIS: An improved and shared understanding of the Cooum River environmental
system was generated through a collaborative multi-stakeholder process in which the GIS was embedded. It is
the process that is the key, not the GIS analysis per se (though it does provide a useful representation of the
system, database and tools for later work). The process in which GIS was embedded was designed in part to
avoid some of the pitfalls demonstrated in the discussion above. The basic system itself was based on a
framework that incorporated the understanding of stakeholders in the situation. In this way the model
incorporated stakeholders perceptions of the real world. They determined what components were important
to represent (and how) and thus determined what data (and in what form) was required (refer to 2 in Figure 1).
For example, breaking from past representations, participants identified the spatial extent of the system of
interest to be the urban catchment area (stormwater drainage and sewerage catchments) for the urban reaches of
the Cooum River, treating the upper (rural) reaches as a connected but distinct system characterized by different
processes and actors.
A focus on the behaviour of actors in the system necessitated collection of data on the city population, such as
income classes, and consumption of water by income class. Participants also envisioned changes in the Cooum
River environmental system (evolutionary or human-induced) and so informed what capabilities were required
to build into the DSS (1 in Figure 1). For example, the DSS provided the capability to speculate about
changes in water consumption patterns of the various income classes, or to modify population numbers and
income distribution across the city. Stakeholders themselves undertook the GIS analysis (scenario analysis) (3
in Figure
1) and were involved in the interpretation of the results (4 in Figure 1). In fact, this part of the process was
usurped by the participants, who found it so elucidating with regard to governance issues and uncertainty in the
situation, that they interrupted the workshop to establish a working group to carry on the project and continue
improvement of the model. Thus, this process involved stakeholders at all four key locations in the
GIS production process identified in Figure 1.

5. An Adaptive Ecosystem Approach to Managing Urban Environments in Slum Settings in

Chennai
From the program just described came several recommendations that led to the development of a further
program targeted at managing the urban environment in Chennai. One recommendation of participants in
the Cooum River research had to do with a consistent theme that arose throughout that work: slums and slum
dwellers. Slum dwellers were considered to be important stakeholders in the Cooum River problem (as actors
within the system who both contributed to, and were impacted by, the problem) but it was not possible to
involve them in the program of research. Participants recommended that future research attempt to do so.
Furthermore, participants in the Cooum River program believed that many of the themes relevant to
management of the Cooum River were also pertinent to other aspects of human-environment interactions
throughout the city. They recommended that a research program be designed to broaden the focus of work to the
city as a whole.
In 2001 we initiated a new action-research program involving an international and interdisciplinary team of
researchers from York University, the University of Madras and McMaster University, with the participation of
various Indian NGOs and government agencies. Part of this program, called An Adaptive Ecosystem
Approach to Managing Urban Environments for Human Health, is outlined here. We used the relationship
between human health and the environment as a cross-cutting theme to broaden the attention of the program to
the larger city. Human health can be both an indicator of the overall state of the socio-ecological system, and as
a target for management of the system.
One of the initiating activities of this program in Chennai was a multi-stakeholder workshop hosted by
the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority in 2002.
This workshop was similar in participant
composition and implementation to the first Cooum River workshop. It was oriented toward problem definition
and system conceptualization. However, a main difference was that this workshop was also intended to be a
vehicle for stakeholders to direct the future orientation of the action-research program. Notably, the workshop
participants re-affirmed the concern with slum areas and slum dwellers. They directed a focus on, and
53

53

IntC

erna
entre
tional
for PJournal
romoting
of IAppl
deas,iedUSA
Science and Technology
.com

Vol. 2 No. 2;
wwFwe.brua
ijastnryet2012

collaboration with, slum dwellers. Workshop participants also identified a three-pronged mixed methods
model with which to operate the ecosystem approach framework that guided this work. These methods
were: Participatory Action Research (PAR), GIS, and the use of socio-economic and health surveys (methods
and results of the workshop are described in detail in Bunch et al. (2006)). Parkes and Panelli (2001) note that
PAR involves forms of inquiry where researchers and the researched population form collaborative relations in
order to identify and address mutually conceived issues or problems through cycles of action and research.

54

54

IntC

erna
entre
tional
for PJournal
romoting
of IAppl
deas,iedUSA
Science and Technology
.com

Vol. 2 No. 2;
wwFwe.brua
ijastnryet2012

PAR is typically operated at the community level, often with disadvantaged and marginalized groups.
Techniques associated with PAR are similar to those used with Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) (such as
community mapping and transect walks) but PAR is more consistently oriented to community empowerment
and capacity building. Because of the required skill set, access to data, and hardware and software
requirements, GIS in this work had to remain in a supporting role behind the scenes. Nevertheless, the local
level work of managing community environments is a collaborative spatial planning process and there were
many useful roles for GIS. Some of these roles are briefly reviewed below.
In 2004 two slums were identified as community partners: Anju Kudisai and Pallavan Nagar communities.
Anju Kudisai is an inner city slum of about 256 households, located on the banks of the Cooum River (opposite
the Central Prison) in Chennai. Pallavan Nagar (consisting of 325 huts) was a fishermens slum on the beach
behind the Fishing Harbour in North Chennai. With the assistance of geographers from the Tamil Nadu
Directorate of Census Operations, a basic street layout of these two communities was created using Global
Position System (GPS) equipment and GIS software. Our research team further developed this GIS data and
used them to support the following activities:
Transect walks and Photovoice techniques: In each community several children, men and women
separately led our team members through the communities, describing important attributes and locations
within their communities as they went. At locations that the community participants deemed were important
in their daily lives, or were of concern due to environmental condition or threat to health, they stopped to take
photographs with disposable cameras, and to discuss the site. The route taken for each transect, and each of the
photographs, were recorded and stored in a GIS. The information generated by the transect walks, and the
photographs were later incorporated into GIS-supported community maps (below).
Socio-economic and health surveys: An exploratory sample survey of household socio-economic and health
characteristics was administered to approximately one quarter of households in both communities. These
surveys provided some baseline data for the two communities and also served to place researchers in the
communities for long periods of time, introducing the action-research program to those community members
who had not yet been actively involved. GIS was used to create survey zones so that the survey sample was
spatially representative of the community. The maps of zones were used by survey proctors to guide their work.
Community Mapping: A series of community meetings were held in each community to discuss concerns and
priorities for action. Areas of importance to the communities, such as spaces used for open air defecation, water
tanks, dustbins, loose garbage, and temples, were mapped using GIS. Community maps were produced that
integrated this information, as well as information and photographs generated during transect walks, and other
details gained from small group and individual interviews. The maps were labeled in English and Ta mil
script (see Figure 4 for an example).
Once the maps were developed, they were used at community meetings, serving to focus discussion on areas of
concern within the community. The maps were very well received in both communities, and it was obvious that
community members shared ownership of this representation of their neighborhood. Besides being a vehicle for
transfer of ownership of the process, and as a technique to facilitate discussion at community meetings,
these maps had several other benefits. For example, youth tended to be drawn into discussions with the adult
members of communities because youth were more often literate and could interpret photograph captions and
other labels on the map. Also, smaller versions of the maps, when shown to individuals in government
departments and NGOs, seemed to reify the existence of the communities to officials, and legitimize the
perspective of the slum dwellers. Because the medium was GIS-produced maps, this perspective was presented
in the language of the dominant (scientific) paradigm.

55

55

IntC

erna
entre
tional
for PJournal
romoting
of IAppl
deas,iedUSA
Science and Technology
.com

Vol. 2 No. 2;
wwFwe.brua
ijastnryet2012

Figure 4: A GIS-produced community map of Pallavan Nagar, presented together with photographs
taken by community members.

Community Visioning: The GIS-produced maps (not the photographs) were also used in community visioning
exercises. The maps served as the core of a diagram that also included iconic representations of issues raised
by community members. Relationships among the various components represented on the diagram were labeled
and linked with lines. These relationships became the focus for discussion about change both those that
were undesirable, and potential relationships that community members would like to promote. This was a
56

56

IntC

erna
entre
tional
for PJournal
romoting
of IAppl
deas,iedUSA
Science and Technology
.com

Vol. 2 No. 2;
wwFwe.brua
ijastnryet2012

variation of a relationship diagramming technique from SSM that facilitated expression of what the
community could be (desirable and feasible futures) as opposed to what it was currently like (as represented on
community maps).

57

57

IntC

erna
entre
tional
for PJournal
romoting
of IAppl
deas,iedUSA
Science and Technology
.com

Vol. 2 No. 2;
wwFwe.brua
ijastnryet2012

The action-research program described here is now in its second phase. Formal partnerships have been
developed with a local NGO to sustain the process. Both communities were affected by the Tsunami on 26
December 2004. Pallavan Nagar no longer exists, and its residents have now been relocated / rehabilitated in
V.O.C. Nagar and Thilagar Nagar, two post-Tsunami rehabilitation sites, after having resided for almost two
years in semi- permanent housing in Tsunami Nagar, a relief camp north of Chennai. Anju Kudisai now
has a new childrens toilet and new drainage as a result of community representations to the Corporation of
Chennai and new womens bathing rooms have been constructed. Self-help groups are operating in the
community, a community based organization (CBO) is forming, solid waste management has improved, and the
community has plans for a tuition centre. (See Bunch et al. (2005) for more information about this actionresearch program and the state of the communities as they were shortly after the 2004 Tsunami).
PGIS and slums: The use of GIS in this work was necessarily limited. Members of the research team used
GIS to organize and store information generated in collaboration with community members.
These
community members do not themselves have access to GIS technology because of issues of literacy, skill
and expertise required to use GIS, and cost of access to computer technology (and GIS software and data). In
such a case it would be inappropriate even to attempt to build capacity to use tools and information that
would remain inaccessible to the community after those bringing expertise and access had moved on. Instead,
GIS took a background role, supporting participatory processes. The appropriate use of GIS in such a role
depends on the sensitivity of the so-called GIS experts on the team to the potential for GIS to lead to
social or spatial marginalization, or alternatively (as in the use of GIS to support participatory processes) to
empowerment of marginalized communities.
In this work GIS was used to support the expression of the conception of communities neighborhoods
(contributing to what is represented as real in the GIS) (2 in Figure 1), as well as supporting the
action- research program in a logistical role. Thus, community members through their participation in activities
such as community meetings and transect walks, helped to determine the aspects of their environment that were
important to represent in the GIS (for example, womens and mens defecation areas, areas of drainage
problems, locations of temples). Community members also collaborated in the construction of the data,
delineating relevant areas within their communities, taking photographs, and contributing narrative descriptions
that were all incorporated into the GIS. The maps were employed both as records of community member
representations of their communities, and also to facilitate debate about the issues represented on them. Thus,
community members were also involved in the analysis (3 in Figure 1) and interpretation (4 in Figure 1) of
the results of the GIS product.

6. Internet-distributed GIS
Many development problems in the Indian context are characterized by scarcity and poor quality of
data, approaches to problems constrained by jurisdictional and disciplinary boundaries, actors in government
agencies who are paralyzed by perceived lack of power to share information with other stakeholders, and a
public who consistently complain of closed and exclusive management processes.
Connectivity and
information-sharing based on the internet and the World Wide Web (WWW) are potential vehicles to
alleviate such problems.
In issues of public participation and empowerment in spatial planning and
environmental management situations in developed countries, internet-distributed geographic information
systems are starting to be used (see for example Voinov and Costanza 1999; Miller et al. 2004; Bunch and
MacLennan 2010).
To implement web-based GIS for public engagement, stakeholders must have access to computers and
the internet (this includes physical access as well as computer literacy). Also, web-distributed GIS software and
an adequate database must be developed and maintained (either by a stakeholder group or a management
agency). The benefit of such an application of this technology is that it has the potential to shift stakeholders
from a typical position at the end of the GIS production process (4 in Figure 1) to the position of analyst (at
least in a basic sense) (3 in Figure 1) by allowing users to choose which data layers to represent, and by
providing tools to query, measure and undertake basic spatial analysis (such as buffering) of that data. Some
web applications are now providing capability for users to contribute and share data (e.g., see Goodchild
58

58

IntC

erna
entre
tional
for PJournal
romoting
of IAppl
deas,iedUSA
Science and Technology
.com

Vol. 2 No. 2;
wwFwe.brua
ijastnryet2012

2007; Seiber 2007), and some, notably googlemaps.com, allow users to employ client-side scripts and serverside hooks to expand and customize features of the interface. Thus web-GIS is beginning to provide
technological capabilities to allow users to participate in the process of development and communication of
GIS-produced knowledge even at early stages of the GIS knowledge production stream (for example, 1 and 2
in Figure 1).

59

59

IntC

erna
entre
tional
for PJournal
romoting
of IAppl
deas,iedUSA
Science and Technology
.com

Vol. 2 No. 2;
wwFwe.brua
ijastnryet2012

There are signs that the situation in India is ripening for such applications of the technology. Some data is
becoming easier to access. Primary census data, for example, is available at http://censusindia.net. There is even
a web-GIS implementation at http://www.censusindiamaps.net/ to complement this data. Also, initiatives
mentioned earlier in this paper, despite valid criticisms about a continued top-down datacentric approach (for
example, Georgiadou et al. 2005; Singh 2005) should make inroads into the accessibility of digital spatial data.
In particular, the Government of India (GOI) has developed a Map Policy that is designed to make georeferenced data easily available for civilian use and the GOI is developing a National Spatial Data Infrastructure
that should support district level planning (see http:// nsdiindia.gov.in/). However, current adoption of the
internet is still low in India compared to other Asian countries (100 million internet users or 8.5% of the
population as of 2010, primarily dial up as opposed to broadband connections (IWS 2011)).
It is important to keep in mind that the application of web-distributed GIS is subject to issues associated with
uneven access to technology and data. Even if costs come down, the economically weaker sections of society,
those most in need of capacity building and empowerment, would be the very last to have the economic
and human capacity to access the technology.
If such groups are important stakeholders in the
planning or management issue at hand, then the use of web-based GIS for public engagement would be
inappropriate. This application of GIS technology for public participation has potential to reach that segment
of the population that has literacy, computer literacy, and access to computers and the internet only. If webGIS is employed, careful thought should be given to what stakeholders may not be included in the process, and
other means used to ensure their participation.

7. Conclusions
The model of communication presented in Figure 1 provides a useful heuristic to apply to the cases presented
above. The model distills considerations in the Critical GIS literature related to multiple co-existing realities of
landscape, unequal access to data and technology, and the necessity for plurality and participation, so as
to identify points in the process of GIS-supported production of information and decision-making where
stakeholders can be engaged in the production and representation of knowledge. If embedded within
participatory and collaborative processes, this engagement can be empowering for communities and might avoid
social and spatial marginalization for which traditional applications of GIS technology have sometimes been
criticized.
An important point to draw out of this discussion, particularly from the PPGIS and PGIS applications to
the Cooum River and Chennai slum community projects, is that necessary scientific and technological expertise
needs to be complemented by expertise in collaborative methodology and participatory development. There is a
popular saying that when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The point is not to throw
away the hammer, but to use it in conjunction with a more full conceptual and methodological toolbag.
Methods and tools (such as GIS) should be chosen and applied in a manner responsive to characteristics and
contexts of problems, not according to disciplinary or epistemological stances. In most cases this will entail the
work of an interdisciplinary team and requires openness to defining problems and discovering an appropriate
methodology in collaboration with stakeholders.
In both the Cooum River and Chennai slums projects the use of GIS was infor med by an understanding of
social and political implications of the use of the technology. GIS was more prominent in the Cooum research,
and was kept in the background in work with slum dwellers. However, in both programs it was
subsumed in a collaborative process that allowed stakeholders to express their versions of reality, and their
visions for a desirable and feasible future. The efficacy of the process was important, more so than the
scientific rigour of the application of GIS to the problem. We argue that this is an appropriate and useful role
for GIS that avoids spatial and social marginalization in spatial planning and environmental management. On
the other hand, while the potential in India for application for web-based GIS to support public participation is
improving, this would only be appropriate in contexts where all groups have the capabilities and resources to
access and use the technology, or when multiple means (beyond GIS) are employed to ensure participation of all
relevant stakeholders.

60

60

IntC

erna
entre
tional
for PJournal
romoting
of IAppl
deas,iedUSA
Science and Technology
.com

Vol. 2 No. 2;
wwFwe.brua
ijastnryet2012

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the participants in the projects discussed in this paper, especially members of the
Pallavan Nagar and Anju Kudisai communities. We would also like to acknowledge Dr. David Morley, Dr. Beth
Franklin, Dr. V. Suresh and Dr. S. Subbiah who played significant roles in these projects, as well as a large
number of interns and post-graduate research assistants from the University of Madras (Chennai) and York
University (Toronto). In particular, we would like to acknowledge the work of research assistants Jeremy
Pasma and Sanagita Manandhar, and Mr. Lazar from Directorate of Census Operations Tamil Nadu,
Government of India, for their GIS and mapping work in Pallavan Nagar and Anju Kudisai.

References
Aberley, D. and R. Sieber (2002) Definition: public participation GIS. Developed at the First
International
URISA PPGIS Conference, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Aitken, S. 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.
Bunch, M. J. (2001a) GIS for Marginalization or Empowerment in Environmental Management: A South
Indian
Example. The Indian Geographical Journal, 77(2): 1-17.
Bunch, M. J. (2001b) An Adaptive Ecosystem Approach to Rehabilitation and Management of the Cooum River
Environmental System in Chennai, India. Geography Publication Series, No. 54. Waterloo, ON:
Department of Geography, University Waterloo: 461.
Bunch, M. J. (2003) Soft systems Methodology and the Ecosystem Approach: A System Study of the
Cooum
River and Environs in Chennai, India. Environmental Management, 31(2): 182-197.
Bunch, M. J. and D. J. Dudycha (2004) Linking Conceptual and Simulation Models of the Cooum River:
Collaborative Development of a GIS-Based DSS for Environmental Management. Computers,
Environment and Urban Systems, 28(3): 247-264.
Bunch, M. J., B. Franklin, D. Morley, T. V. Kumaran and V. M. Suresh (2005) Research in Turbulent
Environments: Slums in Chennai, India and the Impact of the December 2004 Tsunami on an Ecohealth
Project. EcoHealth, 2(2): 150-154.
Bunch, M. J., V. M. Suresh, B. Finnis, D. Wilson, T. V. Kumaran, R. Murthy, M. J. Jerrett and J. Eyles (2006)
Operating an Ecosystem Approach to Urban Environmental Management in Chennai, India: Techniques
and Results of a Stakeholder Workshop. The Indian Geographical Journal, 80(1): 5-22.
Bunch, M.J. and M. MacLennan (2010) Usability Trumps Features: User needs and the redesign of a webbased
GIS to support community environmental monitoring. OSGeo Journal 6:40-52.
Burrough, P. A., and Rachael A. McDonnell (1998) Principles of Geographical Information Systems. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Checkland, P. B. (1999) Soft Systems Methodology: A 30-Year Retrospective. Soft Systems Methodology
in
Action. P. B. Checkland and J. Scholes. Toronto: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Chrisman, N. R. (1987) Design of Geographic Information Systems Based on Social and Cultural
Goals.
Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 53(10): 1367-1370.
Elwood, S. A. (2002) GIS use in community planning: a multidimensional analysis of
empowerment.
Environmental and Planning A, 34(5): 905-922.

61

61

IntC

erna
entre
tional
for PJournal
romoting
of IAppl
deas,iedUSA
Science and Technology
.com

Vol. 2 No. 2;
wwFwe.brua
ijastnryet2012

Elwood, S. and H. Lietner (1998) GIS and Community-based Planning: Exploring the Diversity of
Neighborhood
Perspectives and Needs. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems, 25(2): 77-88.
Georgiadou Y., S. K. Puri and S. Sahay (2005) Towards a Potential Research Agenda to Guide the
Implementation of Spatial Data Infrastructures: A Case Study from India. International Journal
of Geographical Information Science, 19(10): 1113-1130.
Ghose, R. (2001) Use of Information Technology for Community Empowerment Transforming
Geographic
Information Systems into Community Information Systems. Transactions in GIS, 5(2): 141163.
GOI (Government of India) (2007) CHAPTER III: Scheme-Wise Physical Performance. Department
of
Information Technology, Ministry of Communications & Information, Government of India. Retrived on
30 November 2008. Available at http://mit.gov.in/default.aspx?id=350.
Goodchild, M.F. (2007) Citizens as Sensors: The World of Volunteered Geography. GeoJournal, 69(4): 211221.

62

62

IntC

erna
entre
tional
for PJournal
romoting
of IAppl
deas,iedUSA
Science and Technology
.com

Vol. 2 No. 2;
wwFwe.brua
ijastnryet2012

Harris, T. and D. Weiner (1998) Empowerment, Marginalization and Community-Integrated GIS.

Cartography and Geographic Information Systems, 25(2): 67-76.
IWS (Internet World Stats) (2011) India, Internet Usage Stats and Telecommunications Market Report.
Retrieved 12 January 2012. Available online at http://www.inter networldstats.com/asia/in.ht m.
Jackson, M. C. (2000) Systems Approaches to Management. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Kyem, P. A. K. (2000) Embedding GIS Applications into Resource Management and Planning Activities of
Local
and Indiginous Communities: A Desirable Innovation or a Destabilizing Enterprise? Journal of Planning
Education and Research, 20(2): 176-186.
Kumar, C.S., P.A. Murugan, R.R. Krishnamurthy, B.P.D. Batvari, M.V. Ramanamurthy, T. Usha and Y. Pari
(2008) Inundation Mapping A Study Based on December 2004 Tsunami Hazard along Chennai Coast,
Southeast India. Natural Hazards and Earth Systems, 8: 617-626.
Laituri, M. (2002) Ensuring Access to GIS for Marginal Societies. In W. J. Craig, T. M. Harris and D. Weiner
(Eds.) Community Participation and Geographic Information Systems. New York: Taylor and Francis, Inc.
Lake, R. W. (1993) Planning and Applied Geography - Positivism, Ethics, and Geographic Information-Systems.
Progress in Human Geography, 17(3): 404-413.
Miller, R. C., D. P. Guertin and P. Heilman (2004) Information Technology in Watershed Management Decision
Making. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 40(2): 347-358.
Obermeyer, N. (1995) The Hidden GIS Technocracy. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems, 22(1):
78-83.
Parkes, M. and R. Panelli (2001) Integrating Catchment, Ecosystems and Community Health: The Value of
Participatory Action Research. Ecosystem Health, 7(2): 85-106.
Rambaldi, G., P. A. K. Kyem, P. Mbile, M. McCall and D. Weiner (2005) Participatory Spatial Information
Management and Communication in Developing Countries. Mapping for Social Change International
Conference, Nairobi, Kenya.
Robinson, A. and B. Petchenik (1976) The Nature of Maps: Essays Towards Understanding Maps and Mapping.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sahay, S. (1998) Implementing GIS Technology in India: Some Issues of Time and Space. Accounting,
Management, and Information Technologies, 8: 147-188.
Sheppard, E. (1995) GIS and Society: Towards a Research Agenda. Cartography and Geographic Information
Systems, 22(1): 5-16.
Sheppard, E. (2005) Knowledge Production through Critical GIS: Genealogy and Prospects. Cartographica,
40(4): 5-21.
Schuurman, N. (2006) Formalization Matters: Critical GIS and Ontology Research. Annals of the Association of
American Geographers, 96(4): 726-739.
Sieber, R. E. (2003) Public Participation Geographic Information Systems Across Borders. Canadian
Geographer-Geographe Canadien, 47(1): 50-61.
Sieber, R.E. (2007) Spatial Data Access by the Grassroots. Cartography and Geographic Information Science,
34(1): 47-62.
Singh, P.K. (2005) Governance Issues in GIS Infrastructure in India. International Journal of Rural
Management, 1(2): 223-244.
Taylor, P. J. (1991) A Distorted World of Knowledge. Journal of Geography and Higher Education, 15: 85-90.
Tulloch, D. L., and E. Epstein (2002) Benefits of Community MPLIS: Efficiency, Effectiveness, and
Equity.
Transactions in GIS, 6(2): 195-211.
Voinov, A. and R. Costanza (1999) Watershed Management and the Web. Journal of Environmental
Management, 56: 231-245.
Walsham, G. and S. Sahay (1999) GIS for District-level Administration in India: Problems and Opportunities.
63

63

IntC

erna
entre
tional
for PJournal
romoting
of IAppl
deas,iedUSA
Science and Technology
.com

Vol. 2 No. 2;
wwFwe.brua
ijastnryet2012

MIS Quarterly, 23 (1): 3966.

Warren, S. (1995) Teaching GIS as a Socially Constructed Technology. Cartography and Geographic
Information Systems, 22(1): 70-77.
Warren, S. (2004) The Utopian Potential of GIS. Cartographica, 39(1): 5-16.

64

64